Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8965 total)
48 online now:
Faith, PaulK, Tangle (3 members, 45 visitors)
Newest Member: javier martinez
Post Volume: Total: 873,346 Year: 5,094/23,288 Month: 215/1,784 Week: 102/211 Day: 10/59 Hour: 1/2

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Delusions of Grandeur?
Spiritual Anarchist
Member (Idle past 2007 days)
Posts: 70
From: Raleigh NC
Joined: 01-27-2013

Message 36 of 82 (698986)
05-12-2013 2:39 PM

Wishful Thinking?
I am beginning to wonder if anyone is actually reading my post in their entirety. Although I have not proven the Soul exist I have proven my motives are not wishful thinking or theologically motivated. That is I do not belong in the corner with other Theist .

If I could prove with all the necessary evidence that the soul in fact does exist I would win the Noble Prize.

I never claimed to have this proof. If you look at my OP my argument was not that I had proof of the soul or God but that Atheist and Theist had delusions of grandeur believing that the case has already been decided in favor of one side or the other.

My point was that confirmation bias was operating so that Atheist and Theist believe that all the issues related to materialism have already been fully resolved. According to this idea the Theist are just waiting for science to catch up with Irreducible Complexity and the Atheist are just waiting for the Theist to throw in the towel and admit that that the research has already tipped well beyond sufficient evidence for natural selection to be the only theory necessary to explain life.

Who ever is right will win the debate. No other views are allowed in. This will sell a lot of books on Darwin's Black Box or Consciousness being explained away. The debates will go on between science and religion and the books will keep coming out definitively defeating the opponents of one side or the other.

But Atheist do not want to pursue the inconvenient truth of the Metaphysics implication of QM or that the Hard Problem of Consciousness still stands. And the Intelligent Design Advocates do not want to Teach the Controversy surrounding their political agenda to push conservatism.And they ignore the Controversy of Mythological Constructs being passed off as a Theological justification for Christian Ethics shrouded in Pseudo Science.

Because this whole debate between Materialism and Theology is an exercise in political agendas of The Union of Concerned Scientist and The Discovery Institute and wishful thinking of Moral Nihilist and Religious Absolutist .

So far this whole debate on my original post has been an exercise in wishful thinking on the part of Atheist and the Theist in this debate have been conveniently absent. You would think if I was so obviously a Theist according to the most recent post on here I would have a Theist crowd cheering me on and supporting me. But this is not the case because it is obvious that I am not on their side and do not hold any views in common.

So could we please drop the wishful thinking arguments and arguments of super naturalism ? There are no Christians here or even Monotheist. So if you do not want to debate imaginary beings I suggest you drop the argument that I bear any resemblance to a Theist.

Edited by Spiritual Anarchist, : No reason given.

My Karma Ran Over My Dogma

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Tangle, posted 05-12-2013 3:05 PM Spiritual Anarchist has not yet responded
 Message 38 by AZPaul3, posted 05-12-2013 4:16 PM Spiritual Anarchist has not yet responded

Spiritual Anarchist
Member (Idle past 2007 days)
Posts: 70
From: Raleigh NC
Joined: 01-27-2013

Message 40 of 82 (699088)
05-14-2013 12:05 PM

Atheism of The Gaps?
I give you Noetic Science and The Center for Concsciousness and your response is that the research hasn't definitely settled the questtions relating to the hard problems of consciousness then that some how invalidates all their research? That's your argument? Sounds familiar Sounds like the God of the gaps argument. Since you are arguing that gaps in conscious research into qm correlations proves there is no correlation maybe atheist here should go sit in the corner with the theist. Both of you seem to like refuting theories with the gaps argument.

Edited by Spiritual Anarchist, : Typo

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by AZPaul3, posted 05-14-2013 1:28 PM Spiritual Anarchist has responded

Spiritual Anarchist
Member (Idle past 2007 days)
Posts: 70
From: Raleigh NC
Joined: 01-27-2013

Message 48 of 82 (699137)
05-14-2013 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by AZPaul3
05-14-2013 1:28 PM

Re: Atheism of The Gaps?
Ok then you can not say that natural selection is the main process of Evolution because although there is research supporting natural selection it is too god damn early .

Woo is a nice word meaning nothing . I never said I had evidence the soul existed and this has nothing to do with my original post. And if it is too early in the research that does not prove this absurd notion of woo.

I was ahead of my time on Multiverse theory as well. I was told by skeptics that the Multiverse would never be accepted as a credible theory. And now it is . Of course it is too early too tell if this theory will take over the others but it is accepted as viable . Not woo or voodoo etc .

My original post was about whether Atheist and Theist are in general too close minded to alternate points of view. Do they have delusions of grandeur where they think that they have the only valid point of view.

I think I have my answer.

While both those organizations have deserved and received much less than a modicum of respect from the rest of the scientific world it is not their present state of research that is today's problem in this here thread!

Now you say they have a modicum of respect. Earlier there were post here saying that they do not represent real science.

Make up your mind

Are you paying attention now? Got your ears on?



READ ALL MY POST ON BOTH THREADS and clean out your ears

Again you are proving my point about my OP .

My original post was a question on why Atheist and Theist think that all the evidence is in. Both sides seem to think they have everything solved. Jeeez its like arguing with an Autistic on PCP!

Read my original post . I don't know if you are going to accept my apology at this point for calling you stupid. I usually do not stoop that low. But you have been bullying me claiming I am a fool or stupid myself by demanding I provide proof for woo. I never said I had proof and if the science is being done then it isn't woo . If it is too early to tell then that applies to you as well. But on and on you go about how I am trying to sell magic seeds or invisible men . It is both insulting and frustrating.

Not once have you addressed how neuroscience solves the hard problem of consciousness. Or explained how materialism is sufficient to explain both Cosmology and Consciousness. or even why you see QM as irrelevant.

You just go on and on insulting me and demanding proof. It is absurd and a waste of my time.

I do not think you know but maybe the general gist of the hard problem or the metaphysical implications of QM and you do not address either. I think woo is your middle name.
You think that you are your thoughts? Or maybe the language part of your brain is firing synapses in response to your reasoning brain and all this organic material is generating thoughts through neuro -chemicals to produce thoughts that belong to no one?

You don't exist according to materialism! Talk about woo. Science doesn't invalidate philosophy. The stupid Theist argue that science comes from Theology but they are liars . Science is built on Metaphysics.

Science that does not address Metaphysics is woo . Talking about processes and patterns without acknowledging anything is actually going on . Creating philosophical zombies . Living organisms called humans which are nothing but bags of flesh that think they are conscious.

A mechanical Universe designed by a blind watch maker which randomly generates organisms to evolve by natural selection which means that which survives ..survives. Where sex and killing and eating and simply staying alive to pursue pleasure and avoid pain with no more purpose then a coin landing on heads or tails.

Talk about Bullshit! I think materialistic atheism has religion beat or at least gives them a run for their money. This is why I think many theist and atheist have delusions of grandeur.

The theist argument that they think is the only argument isn't even worth stating but roughly goes since the above description fails to explain the richness of conscious experience we should accept an there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!

But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, you talk about a good bullshit story. Holy Shit!

But science also gets billions of dollars in government grants and offers nothing better but determinism and behaviorism and simply manipulating peoples behavior.

It is called social engineering. And you are but a cog in the machine whether the watch maker is blind or not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by AZPaul3, posted 05-14-2013 1:28 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by AZPaul3, posted 05-15-2013 12:18 AM Spiritual Anarchist has not yet responded

Spiritual Anarchist
Member (Idle past 2007 days)
Posts: 70
From: Raleigh NC
Joined: 01-27-2013

Message 49 of 82 (699140)
05-14-2013 7:07 PM

The Hard Problem
Ok although I seem antagonistic to theist I do not wish to send them to the back of the bus. The problem with theism is simply that it is based on religion . Also because Theism is based on religion they must necessarily be Monotheist and therefore defend a Personal God. That is if God is not a person like me and you then the Theist doesn't know where to begin.

So if theist are willing to come into this debate without assuming that God describes a person but are in fact open to other interpretations then I for one welcome them. At least I wouldn't be arguing for 3 days about woo.

I welcome any Atheist or Theist that accept philosophy as a valid way of pursuing truth along with science. Religious Theology and Science may not mix but Science and Philosophy must mix or what you describing is not reality but simply measurements and observations in order to make predictions.

Now on to the topic. Nothing to do with woo by the way. I will use a description of the hard problem from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy both to avoid confusing people with my own verbosity and to avoid relying too heavily on Wikipedia .

Now if I can get people on here to acknowledge that there IS a Hard Problem then I can go forward. If not I give up. If you do not acknowledge that you are an aware being that is self conscious in time, and this does not make you pause and wonder if you are more than a "process"... then this whole exercise is pointless. And I do not know who if anyone I am actually having a conversation with.

What was the process that began the Universe is a much more reasonable question then "Who" created the Universe.

But the question what are you can be just as reasonably asked as "who" are you? And this is almost at the crux of the problem .

The Hard Problem of Consciousness

The hard problem of consciousness is the problem of explaining why any physical state is conscious rather than nonconscious. It is the problem of explaining why there is “something it is like” for a subject in conscious experience, why conscious mental states “light up” and directly appear to the subject. The usual methods of science involve explanation of functional, dynamical, and structural properties—explanation of what a thing does, how it changes over time, and how it is put together. But even after we have explained the functional, dynamical, and structural properties of the conscious mind, we can still meaningfully ask the question, Why is it conscious? This suggests that an explanation of consciousness will have to go beyond the usual methods of science. Consciousness therefore presents a hard problem for science, or perhaps it marks the limits of what science can explain. Explaining why consciousness occurs at all can be contrasted with so-called “easy problems” of consciousness: the problems of explaining the function, dynamics, and structure of consciousness. These features can be explained using the usual methods of science. But that leaves the question of why there is something it is like for the subject when these functions, dynamics, and structures are present. This is the hard problem.

In more detail, the challenge arises because it does not seem that the qualitative and subjective aspects of conscious experience—how consciousness “feels” and the fact that it is directly “for me”—fit into a physicalist ontology, one consisting of just the basic elements of physics plus structural, dynamical, and functional combinations of those basic elements. It appears that even a complete specification of a creature in physical terms leaves unanswered the question of whether or not the creature is conscious. And it seems that we can easily conceive of creatures just like us physically and functionally that nonetheless lack consciousness. This indicates that a physical explanation of consciousness is fundamentally incomplete: it leaves out what it is like to be the subject, for the subject. There seems to be an unbridgeable explanatory gap between the physical world and consciousness. All these factors make the hard problem hard.

The hard problem was so-named by David Chalmers in 1995. The problem is a major focus of research in contemporary philosophy of mind, and there is a considerable body of empirical research in psychology, neuroscience, and even quantum physics. The problem touches on issues in ontology, on the nature and limits of scientific explanation, and on the accuracy and scope of introspection and first-person knowledge, to name but a few. Reactions to the hard problem range from an outright denial of the issue to naturalistic reduction to panpsychism (the claim that everything is conscious to some degree) to full-blown mind-body dualism.

Edited by Spiritual Anarchist, : Clarity

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Straggler, posted 05-15-2013 9:33 AM Spiritual Anarchist has not yet responded

Spiritual Anarchist
Member (Idle past 2007 days)
Posts: 70
From: Raleigh NC
Joined: 01-27-2013

Message 54 of 82 (699194)
05-15-2013 5:53 PM

Appearance and Reality
Ok before I begin to address the issues concerned I need to address the elephant in the room. That is the one issue we seem to be dancing around. That is I am treating this message board as normal Atheist message board.

The reality is this message board is about the relevancy or lack of considering Intelligent Design.

There are two problems right away.

1. I think the intelligent design debate is a red herring. There is nothing to debate because ID is not a science.
2.The reason for this is that ID debate is a socio-political issue not one of science or philosophy.

Hence when I sarcastically pointed out that Natural Selection was too God Damn early my sarcasm went over peoples heads. I know that Natural Selection is fact. My point was that there are gaps in Natural Selection Theory just as there are gaps in Cognitive QM theories. So if you can not argue that the gaps in Natural Selection lead one to deny it as a valid theory then you can not use gaps in the theory of Cognitive QM to deny that it has any validity.

Again I think I know why this is all ignored and misinterpreted.

This message board was created to the best of my knowledge to keep The Discovery Institute from pushing its Wedge Agenda.

Part of that agenda is to create doubt about Evolution and Natural Selection . If the Discovery Institute were to ever become successful Disguised Theology would be taught as a science and religious right agendas would be forwarded.

Yes I read The Wedge Document

So I know the whole story .

So either it is assumed that I am an ID supporter pushing for any God concept I can get through or that I am simply a fool clouding the issue.

So here is the deal .

If I only requested that my post be put here because under creation miscellany implied that I supported creationism . But my request has seemed to backfired because now I am seen as Trojan Horse for ID .

Here is the thing I have no agenda besides researching the sides of this debate. And my interest is not in promoting one side over the other.
Far from it. I feel the Atheist throw out the baby with the bath water and the Theist worship the baby as the son of God. I definitely do not support either view.

But if I had to choose sides in the ID debate I would choose the side of the Evolutionist. Because I do agree that is real science . And real science is what we should promote.

That being said the Center for Consciousness Studies and The Noetic Institute is in now way affiliated or supportive of the ID movement. And neither am I.

I do not come here to you as an ID sympathizer trying to convert you to their cause or even to ask you to open your mind to their view. That I have no interest in .

I think they are on to something about pure materialism as unsatisfying as an explanation. But to me materialism is unsatisfying as the ultimate nature of reality because atheist ignore Metaphysics not because Theological Comfort Food can fill in a few gaps with psuedo science.

By taking a stand with Science on evolution and natural selection I feel that I am not just closing the door to psuedo science of IDist but or real science being done by Noetic and Center for Conscious Study.

It may be true that there is no place in Science for ID or Theology but that doesn't conclusively prove Pure Materialism or Metaphysical Nihilism. Pure Atheism isn't simply that religion is wrong or that the supernatural is unnecessary and unreal. It takes it one step further and denies all levels of reality that are hard to explain or is inconvenient to materialism. This is why there is a movement in QM to hide it as a statistical science.

I do not have interested in experiencing or proving what Atheist call the supernatural or in promoting religious or magical thinking. But the Atheist talks about objective reality the way the theist talks about moral absolutes. I do not think an obsessive attachment to either furthers our pursuit in understanding reality .

The reason this all sounds like woo to you is because many of you can only see in one spectrum. Science is half the battle and certainly helps in establishing an objective reality. But there are other levels. If you are simply an organism seeking pleasure and avoiding pain and your consciousness is no different then any other organism then again we are machines with an illusion of intelligence. And if there is no actual consciousness then pursuing objective reality is simply another way of survival and has nothing to do with reality itself.

But this has already been undermined by our history. During the times of religious fervor in our history where the church ruled science was considered heretical. Those who thought there were any other views besides biblical would considered a danger to themselves or others. This is not the nature specific to Christianity or Monotheism but the nature of religion itself. And if Atheism continues to become a reactive movement and develops it's own dogma then Atheism risk becoming a religion itself . Religion is not about the supernatural but about dogmatism and power seeking.

So that is where I want to begin this discussion. Where is the natural inquiry? Where is the curiosity? Is it suppressed by fears and desires ?
The fear of having a soul and not know what a soul is or what purpose it serves if any? Or the desire to pursue all legal pleasures and illegal ones if you can get away with it? The need to get rid of conscience as long as know one is killed ? The desire to pursue as any other animal to dominate subjugate our inferiors?

In other words I have made it clear about my motives. What motivates the Atheist? To create a society of objective individuals? Many theist are objectivist and even materialist except on Sundays. For the most part regardless of belief most people accept that a rock is just a rock , there's no such things as ghost UFOs etc . But even though objective reality is all there is and lust is all that matters just pure desire and the hell with anyone besides those we can use God created the world in 7 days John 3:16 etc. Or for Atheist objective reality exist so there is nothing worth doing but creating better weapons bigger bombs and accumulating wealth. He who dies with the most toys wins.

I reject pure Atheist Materialism and Metaphysical Nihilism as well as Theological Magical Thinking as the only 2 options.

I am an Buddhist and a Philosopher. Science is but one tool in my studies on the nature of reality and my own being. I am a self aware being and that is not woo. Can my body be killed ? Of course. Am I my body? No. Do I like this existence body and all? Yes. Christians claim that Jesus came back from the dead and that makes him a God . But people come back from death in hospitals all the time. Does that make us Gods? In a way maybe it does. If someone is brain dead and then is somehow brought back to life in a hospital is it the same person? When you sleep and wake up without remembering dreaming where were you? The Atheist would claim that there is not a you that exist at all. So much for objective reality. You do not even have an objective existence let alone objective thinking. When your brain wakes up it accesses memories and processes sensory experience and creates an "I" that remembers being "you" . And if you die of brain death then you cease to exist.

So if your brain is brought back to life any person in that body claiming to be you is obviously a liar. Pure materialism fails on every level.QM shines a bright light on something provable and with evidence and fact supporting a reality that bears little resemblance to the atheist fantasy of a purely material objective reality with there no other levels where it all breaks down.

If you have no interest in Metaphysics then you have no real interest in understanding reality as it actually is.

My Karma Ran Over My Dogma

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Straggler, posted 05-15-2013 6:19 PM Spiritual Anarchist has not yet responded

Spiritual Anarchist
Member (Idle past 2007 days)
Posts: 70
From: Raleigh NC
Joined: 01-27-2013

Message 57 of 82 (699205)
05-15-2013 6:29 PM

Nothing Special
Actually a "we are all connected in all things" philosophy has a resonance even in me. I can agree that we are made of the same "stuff" as the rest of the universe and, thus, there is a connection. Consciousness as an emergent property of this universe cannot be denied because we are here, we are part of this universe and we are conscious. Life is an emergent property of the universe. It is a beautiful and comfortable feeling.

I think you are definitely getting very close to the truth here. I do not know about how comfortable it is but in a way it is beautiful as well as frightening. It is only boundaries and consensus that keeps your mind separate from mine. I do not find this comfortable which is why even when I am arguing with you I want so bad to just accept the brain / materialistic explanation. Now that's comfortable! I may have to die someday but at least I am only me and you are only you. I can pursue my desires and may succeed or may not but it will be fun trying. Simple and comfortable.

As far as emergent properties of the universe, so are stars, asteroids, stellar nucleogenesis, black holes, gravity, newspapers and everything else that exists. Where it falls off the rails is when we emotional humans think our consciousness (and thus us) are somehow special manifestations sought by the universe to achieve awareness. Our ethnocentrism has been a disease in our philosophies for millennia.

Hmm need to clarify things here. I do not think that the Universe needs us to achieve awareness. The Universe at least on the QM level (Or maybe deeper) is awareness. But awareness without anything to be aware of is deadly dull and pointless. I do not believe that humans are the only animals or living beings with awareness. The Universe Awareness permeates all life. But all life is struggle with very little satisfaction. So most animals simply do not have enough awareness in them for the Universe to manifest higher levels of reality. Whoops this is bordering woo isn't it ? So frustrating here. I know animals are aware and even plants have some level no matter how subtle. But much of the Universe is stars and dead matter.

All I can say is if the Universe has no purpose in waking up through us then there really is no acceptable explanation of why we are aware at all. Natural Selection does not need to evolve anything beyond apes to achieve the goals of survival and propagating species. If I were to visit Earth and see no more evolved life than apes I might conclude that everything science has to say about evolution and natural selection is enough to explain life the universe and everything. Of course if that were the case there wouldn't exist anything like science because there would be no humans to create the discipline of science. And of course if there were no life in the Universe evolved past apes then there would be no one to visit Earth or any other planet to make such observations.

Other than to us and our philosophical musings there appears no reason for the property of consciousness to appear special in any way to the rest of the universe. And without some evidence that consciousness holds something special in the grand meaning of things there is no reason to broach the hypothesis in any manner whatsoever.

But the question remains how do we have the capacity for philosophical musings in the first place? I think the evidence is consciousness itself. Without the need for meaning consciousness is superfluous. Consciousness on our level serves no evolutionary purpose unless you believe in spiritual evolution of the soul. Civilization and Technology is simply overkill. The need for art or philosophy or even advanced science beyond Newtons Basic Mechanics is way beyond what is necessary to be a superior animal on Earth. I am not Anthropocentric. I do not think humans are the best the Universe can do or that the Universe has a purpose and we are it.

But something is going on. And religion has no clue so it is up to science to merge with metaphysics one day and bring us closer to understanding what this all means. I think the perfect beginning point is Atheism and Skepticism. We must doubt everything that doesn't fit what we call objective reality and let science in its present form take us as far as it can take us and get rid of all woo. But at some point we must learn to go beyond even that.

And that is why Metaphysics is called META physics. It is not to offer an alternative explanation to reality that contradicts physics but to go beyond. To me that is what QM is for. Not a statistical rationalization of reality but a true pursuit into the beyond. So we will have to learn to use other forms of Observation them simply measurement. We will have to learn to use awareness itself.

And in order to do that we must learn to understand what awareness is.

My Karma Ran Over My Dogma

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by AZPaul3, posted 05-15-2013 6:50 PM Spiritual Anarchist has not yet responded
 Message 64 by Straggler, posted 05-17-2013 11:41 AM Spiritual Anarchist has not yet responded

Spiritual Anarchist
Member (Idle past 2007 days)
Posts: 70
From: Raleigh NC
Joined: 01-27-2013

Message 73 of 82 (699757)
05-24-2013 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by mrnobody42
05-23-2013 1:07 AM

Re: Dawkins God Delusion
If the Nondualists are right that the Supreme Source of Realty is Awareness than God would not be personal, an individual or anything measurable. So, it is possible that there is a God (supreme source) and that this God is not personal. If everybody agrees with this as well, then we can proceed even further.

Ok it seems as if you have worded my own views without bringing QM Consciousness into it. And it seems that the people here are a little bit more open to the idea of a Supreme Source then Souls?


The consensus here seems to be that Pantheism is ok as long as it is impersonal and souls are off the table as a possibility. This explains why Pantheism org seems to be run by mostly Atheist and most Atheist see Einstein as one of their own.

So it is ok for God to exist but not ok for me to exist except as some sort of programed meat puppet?

In other words Atheist are fighting more for the right to die then to say God is dead?

Curiouser and curiouser.

As a Buddhist myself it seems to me that many Buddhist especially the Nondual seem to be very good a compartmentalizing. In one box you have the Supreme Source which is taught as a real point of enlightenment or realization.

In another box you have reincarnation and teachings on the soul which sound more like teachings on genetics then spirituality.

Or to be more precise there is no self to reincarnate.
This brings us to Sartre on choice because it is simply ethics based on humanism.

"Humans as Responsibility: "And when we say that a man is responsible for himself, we do not only mean that he responsible for his own individuality, but that he is responsible for all men."

"When we way that man chooses his own self, we mean that every one of us does likewise; but we also mean by that that in making this choice he also chooses all men. In fact, in creating the man that we want to be, there is not a single of our acts which does not at the same time create an image of man as we think he ought to be. To choose to be this or that is to affirm at the same time the value of what we choose, because we can never choose evil. We always choose the good, and nothing can be good for us without being good for all."

In other words when I die the patterns I create while living continue without me like a ripple in a pond.

"The Buddha taught that what we think of as our "self" -- our ego, self-consciousness and personality -- is a creation of the skandhas. Very simply, our bodies, physical and emotional sensations,conceptualizations, ideas and beliefs, and consciousness work together to create the illusion of a permanent, distinctive "me."

The Buddha said, “Oh, Bhikshu, every moment you are born, decay, and die.” He meant that, every moment, the illusion of "me" renews itself. Not only is nothing carried over from one life to the next; nothing is carried over from one moment to the next."

Sounds like Nihilism.

Yet Buddha did not teach nihilism.

So my question to mrnobody42
is this. How does the Nondual teachings resolve the what appears to be Nihilistic teachings?

So to clarify my question I will word it differently.

How is the Supreme Source different from Pantheism? Also why is the Universe allowed to be aware as a possibility only on the contingency that I am not allowed to be aware... but only "conscious"?

In other words the Universe can have a soul but it is quite preposterous that I would even speculate on the possibility of having a soul of my own.

My Karma Ran Over My Dogma

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by mrnobody42, posted 05-23-2013 1:07 AM mrnobody42 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Straggler, posted 05-28-2013 7:17 AM Spiritual Anarchist has responded
 Message 76 by mrnobody42, posted 05-29-2013 11:31 PM Spiritual Anarchist has not yet responded

Spiritual Anarchist
Member (Idle past 2007 days)
Posts: 70
From: Raleigh NC
Joined: 01-27-2013

Message 75 of 82 (700074)
05-29-2013 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Straggler
05-28-2013 7:17 AM

Re: Dawkins God Delusion
That is because nobody is posting here. I can not reply if nobody post. I hope it is because it was Memorial Day Weekend. I know it doesn't matter what I say on here. the objections are the same. It is obvious to me that this is a science board that all posters are use to simply debating what and what isn't science.

I never claimed that Pantheism was an established science. What I was claiming was that Science without Metaphysics is nothing more than an accumulation of observations and facts. If our sole purpose here on Earth is to advance technology in order to become more comfortable then I guess science can advance at a snails pace.

"Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal."

But not all scientist agree with the Atheist on here. Even Richard Dawkins understands the need for Science revolutions advanced by Thomas Kuhn . And of course Einstein not only understood that Pantheism but understood how close minded people can be ...

"A human being is a part of a whole, called by us _universe_, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."

"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed."

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds."

Albert Einstein

Edited by Spiritual Anarchist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Straggler, posted 05-28-2013 7:17 AM Straggler has not yet responded

Spiritual Anarchist
Member (Idle past 2007 days)
Posts: 70
From: Raleigh NC
Joined: 01-27-2013

Message 80 of 82 (700196)
05-31-2013 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by bluegenes
05-23-2013 2:54 AM

Re: Dawkins God Delusion
You're unlikely to get any disagreement on that quote, because we can all think of alternatives.

Really? Name one.

The definition of Alternatives


(of one or more things) Available as another possibility.
One of two or more available possibilities

So by alternative I mean something possible.

When you say "We can think of alternatives." Are including things that you do not see as possible?

If you are saying that maybe bugs bunny and his friends are real and we are the cartoons or any other nonsensical ideas with no evidence are included as alternatives then you are not taking my post in the way it was intended.

I do not mean ...do you consider that there are alternatives like Christianity or other religions or even Bugs Bunny then reject these ideas based on lack of evidence.

Bugs Bunny being real or religion being true may be alternatives but they are not alternatives based on any real possibility.

When I ask do you consider alternative views to your own... I am asking do you consider that there are any views besides your own that have an actual possibility of being true?

Atheist seem to think that if atheism is true then anything supernatural is by definition not real. That is fine. And I agree! But the further conclusion that materialism is all there is non sequitar. It does not follow.

If there is no supernatural world that does not prove materialism.

It is assumed that since QM is accessible in our reality that there fore QM is not part of another reality. Just as it assumed that if we live in a Universe that we describe as all there is that therefore there are not other Universes. IF these assumptions are NOT true it would NOT prove the Supernatural is real.

Theist think that if God is real then by definition God must be a person and if I have a soul that this both proves the supernatural world is real and also that everything that religion says about God Reality and the Soul is true.

But even if I could prove that I had a soul and that God was a part of our reality and therefore God exist as a real phenomena that would not prove anything about Theism or any particular religion as true.

Because I think Atheist and Theist assume that their view is not only true but that there are no other views I do not think that either side actually considers any alternatives to their own views. This is why most Christians consider me an Atheist and most Atheist consider me a Theist.

It is not just that they think any other view besides their own is wrong but they further assume that the religious view and atheist view are the only two alternatives.

I can accept that you think my view is wrong.

What I can not accept is when the Atheist calls me a Theist or when the Theist calls me an Atheist.

I am neither.

And if either side could conceive of alternative views they would know that this is not only possible but true and actual. ( It is true and actual that I am not completely Atheist and I am in no way a Theist)

Atheist: Believes that we are process of our brains and have no souls. Any alternative views are supernatural woo.

Theist: Believe that God is a person and our soul is something that can be created or destroyed or even trapped . Also that the supernatural is real and one of the world religions is definitely true

Me: I believe that I am not my body I Believe that I have a soul and a soul by definition is aware . Since awareness can not have a beginning or end I am immortal. But my body can die so it follows that I incarnate into other bodies.(This only follows if I am not my body)

I am not the process of my brain even if plunging a screw driver in my eye would hurt like hell. When my brain shuts down for sleep I do not cease to exist. When my brain wakes up from sleep it is not producing another fake conscious being with my memories.

If my brain goes flatline and I am considered to be "dead" ...and minutes or hours later my brain is brought back to life ...it is not rebooting accessing memories and then thereby creating another fake person that thinks it is me.

God is real.

Neither God nor my Soul is "Supernatural" .

It is possible to observe my soul by shutting down my mind or self/ego and see the awareness behind my thoughts.

Awareness permeates the entire Universe.

Awareness when incarnated uses the brain to generate levels of consciousness that the brain could not generate by itself. But this awareness typically creates artificial boundaries and calls these boundaries the "self" . But instead of being my actual self this is just an ego state created by artificial boundaries.

Like an actor exploring these boundaries can create a believable "self" but is still not the real "I". By eliminating these boundaries and not attaching to them I can expand my awareness. This allows me to feel others feeling as I do my own. This is known as being Empathic.

This not supernatural.

Feeling my own feelings is natural and when I am feeling your feelings as my own it is also natural but not always comfortable.

Sometimes I can eliminate all boundaries and experience pure awareness.

This is my understanding of God since I am experiencing the entire Universe's awareness .

Undifferentiated awareness has no sense of time. Love is a real force in reality and is deeper and more powerful then the derivative known as the Oxytocin effect.

Real Love is not a chemical process of the brain.

The Source of all there is ... is not supernatural but is just energy .

This energy is active and aware and generates what is known as Love which goes way deeper then what most people call love.

It has nothing to do with patting you on the back and making you feel special or making promises or deals.

My beliefs may seem absurd to you but I can assure you of two things.

1. They are not supernatural nor they rely on religion on any way
2. They are based on evidence and empirical observation not wishful thinking

There are many things I wish were true about out reality that I have found little or no evidence of ...Including but not limited to

1. I wish that in higher states I knew what death was
2. I wish I was guaranteed to retain all aspects of consciousness including all my memories and a continuous I as I am right now
3. I wish I knew what God was exactly
4. I wish I could remember other lives as more then just dream remnants
5. I wish that I knew when I died that who I am now was guaranteed to exist just as I am now with all memories intact and my self as continuous from life to life just as my self is continuous from each dreaming state to each waking state

I could go on.

But my point is if I simply accepted beliefs based on what I wished I would believe a whole lot more about reality then I actually do.

But instead I am in the same boat as Atheist.

I am a skeptic and even though I have had experiences that prove to me that I am more than my body I devour Atheist literature and love discussing philosophy with Atheist and even consider myself Atheist by most standards.

But being 90% Atheist I can not get to 100 % because I see no way to get there without becoming a Nihilist. I do not avoid Nihilism out of wishful thinking but because to me Nihilism which accepts Philosophical Zombies (Meat Puppets) is just as absurd to me as the Supernatural is to you.

Edited by Spiritual Anarchist, : typo

My Karma Ran Over My Dogma

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by bluegenes, posted 05-23-2013 2:54 AM bluegenes has not yet responded

Spiritual Anarchist
Member (Idle past 2007 days)
Posts: 70
From: Raleigh NC
Joined: 01-27-2013

Message 81 of 82 (700197)
05-31-2013 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by mrnobody42
05-30-2013 9:54 PM

Re: Dawkins God Delusion
Hello Mrnobody42. I never thanked you for joining this thread and providing another perspective besides Christian vs Atheism. It is nice to see another Buddhist on here..

That being said I am still awaiting your answer to my post about the Nondual

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by mrnobody42, posted 05-30-2013 9:54 PM mrnobody42 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by mrnobody42, posted 05-31-2013 12:59 AM Spiritual Anarchist has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020