Home | Community | Message Board

MRCA Tyroler Gluckspilze
Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Next >  [ show all ]
InvisibleShroomismM
Space Travellin
Male User Gallery
Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/14/00
Posts: 66,006
Loc: 9th Dimension
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Swami]
    #1028258 - 11/06/02 10:40 PM (20 years, 28 days ago)


I meditated for 12 years and never once discovered or felt a chakra, never saw a blue light entering my head, never left my body nor touched the cosmic. Either I am incredibly dense or I refuse to delude myself into experiencing something that I read about in an Eastern mysticism book.


That's funny... last night I meditated for 5 minutes and touched the cosmic.. Draw your own conclusion.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAdamist
ℚṲℰϟ✞ЇѺℵ ℛ∃Åʟḯ†У
Male User Gallery

Registered: 11/24/01
Posts: 10,211
Loc: Bloomington, IN
Last seen: 7 years, 8 months
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Swami]
    #1028681 - 11/07/02 12:13 AM (20 years, 28 days ago)

If chakras are a part of the "placebo pill effect" that allows me to base my actions in love rather than fear/uncertainty, then I'm going to eat that fucking pill.

Now, did that belief hurt you?

No?

So what's your problem?
ANY belief can turn out to be false, be it scientific "fact" or a belief in chakras.


--------------------
:heartpump: { { { ṧ◎ηḯ¢ αʟ¢ℌ℮мƴ } } } :heartpump:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNomad
Mad Robot

Registered: 04/30/02
Posts: 422
Last seen: 14 years, 11 months
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Seuss]
    #1028767 - 11/07/02 12:42 AM (20 years, 28 days ago)

Yeah. Many people think that an A-or-B-decision forces them to choose. But a neither/nor always works, too.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSwami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/19/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Shroomism]
    #1028806 - 11/07/02 01:00 AM (20 years, 28 days ago)

We all know how special that you are and how the Universe has singled you out for favored treatment; or could it be that you are susceptable to everything that you read?

I only studied under the lineage of Paramahansa Yogananda and spent the better part of a year under direct tutelage of Kriyananda and approached it with tremendous youthful enthusiasm and sincerity. I was open enough for the experience to quit my job and sell everything that I owned.

If chakras were a reality that could be confirmed then there would be agreement about them, but there isn't and they can't.


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAdamist
ℚṲℰϟ✞ЇѺℵ ℛ∃Åʟḯ†У
Male User Gallery

Registered: 11/24/01
Posts: 10,211
Loc: Bloomington, IN
Last seen: 7 years, 8 months
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Swami]
    #1028828 - 11/07/02 01:07 AM (20 years, 28 days ago)

Agreement does not determine what is true.


--------------------
:heartpump: { { { ṧ◎ηḯ¢ αʟ¢ℌ℮мƴ } } } :heartpump:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Adamist]
    #1028904 - 11/07/02 01:25 AM (20 years, 28 days ago)

I agree.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinevaporbrains
Cub Scout

Registered: 09/09/02
Posts: 539
Loc: ghetto# 03479
Last seen: 17 years, 4 months
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Swami]
    #1028968 - 11/07/02 01:43 AM (20 years, 28 days ago)

posing your question in the vaguest manner possilbe is a great way to get an answer.


--------------------
All refrences to and statements concerning mushrooms, mushroom cultivation, and mushroom related paraphrenalia refer specifically to the cultivation of legal species.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSwami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/19/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Adamist]
    #1028971 - 11/07/02 01:44 AM (20 years, 28 days ago)

Of course it doesn't, but is a better pointer than disagreement. Disagreement means one or both parties are wrong (open v.s. closed universe). Agreement by all parties at least allows the possibility that all parties are correct albeit, it is not a foregone conclusion as you point out.


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSwami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/19/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: vaporbrains]
    #1028979 - 11/07/02 01:46 AM (20 years, 28 days ago)

Here is the question yet again: Why should I believe in anything for which there is no empirical evidence (such as life-after-death) other than to trick myself merely in order to feel good?


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAdamist
ℚṲℰϟ✞ЇѺℵ ℛ∃Åʟḯ†У
Male User Gallery

Registered: 11/24/01
Posts: 10,211
Loc: Bloomington, IN
Last seen: 7 years, 8 months
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Swami]
    #1029062 - 11/07/02 02:14 AM (20 years, 28 days ago)

You shouldn't, if you don't want to.


--------------------
:heartpump: { { { ṧ◎ηḯ¢ αʟ¢ℌ℮мƴ } } } :heartpump:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibledeep_umbra
Stranger
Registered: 05/12/02
Posts: 109
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Swami]
    #1029746 - 11/07/02 04:31 AM (20 years, 28 days ago)

if something physically showed you life-after-death, would you put all of your 'faith' into it? if so, why?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 years, 6 days
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Swami]
    #1031149 - 11/07/02 11:06 AM (20 years, 28 days ago)

Chakras are a metaphor for the body energy system. Next you'll be telling me there is no such thing as chi! ; :smirk: 


--------------------
Always Smi2le


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 years, 6 days
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Swami]
    #1031159 - 11/07/02 11:08 AM (20 years, 28 days ago)

I supposae its ok if you feel good anyway....but if you dont, why wallow in misery to protect this rationalism you treasure so much? At the end of the day, alot of what you believe will probably be shown to be false in the next 100 years or so anyway, so where does that leave you??


--------------------
Always Smi2le


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSwami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/19/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: GazzBut]
    #1031370 - 11/07/02 12:46 PM (20 years, 28 days ago)

So basically what you are saying is that you CANNOT give me a straight answer. No one has in 3 years yet.


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 years, 6 days
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Swami]
    #1031483 - 11/07/02 02:09 PM (20 years, 28 days ago)

In reply to:

For once I would LOVE to get an actual STRAIGHT answer which seems impossible. If there is no direct evidence for your pet belief, i.e. it requires faith, whether it be a particular religion or mystical thoughts; then why would you choose A over B?




I take it you mean direct evidence to be that which can be verified objectively?

If so, I would choose A over B if my subjective evidence led me to "believe" it was true.

But to qualify the above, I would be more than aware it was only a belief, not a fact and would be willing to change / discard it in the light of new direct evidence or a change in my subjective experience.

Is that a straight answer?


--------------------
Always Smi2le


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleFreakQlibrium
Son of Uncle Meat
Male User Gallery

Registered: 06/06/02
Posts: 19,058
Loc: Toronto Canada
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Swami]
    #1031502 - 11/07/02 02:29 PM (20 years, 28 days ago)

Hey there Swami. Hypothetical situation here: Let's say every one here at S & P had no formal(or even informal) scientific "knowledge". And we're all seeing a ruler sitting in a clear glass of water for the first time. Through empiracal evidence, wouldn't we all agree that th ruler was curved(or bent, or warped, or w/e).

Yet upon removing the ruler from the glass our illusions as th the "real nature" of the ruler would be dispelled once and for all......

Empirisicm(imho) would have been demonstarted to be a totally inadequate vehicle through/with which to determine the "true" nature of reality...

And further, the actual "truth" is that no longer is the ruler "bent", but in fact when seen in this new light, it had never actually been bent in the first place......

And yet our senses did not lie.....they reprted accurately what they percieved...it was our own collective judgement/interprtation of what we "thought" we saw that led to our collective illusion of the ruler being bent in the first place....


--------------------
"Being crazier than a shithouse rat is not sufficient grounds for banishment"



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSwami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/19/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: FreakQlibrium]
    #1031595 - 11/07/02 03:24 PM (20 years, 28 days ago)

Interesting point, however I must add:

Yet upon removing the ruler from the glass our illusions as th the "real nature" of the ruler would be dispelled once and for all......
Frequently beliefs are refuted, but because there is so much invested in them, the new evidence is denied. Good examples are Roswell, the Shroud of Turin, Nessie, etc.

Empirisicm(imho) would have been demonstarted to be a totally inadequate vehicle through/with which to determine the "true" nature of reality...
What is a better method in your opinion?





--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.


Edited by Swami (11/07/02 03:26 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: FreakQlibrium]
    #1032160 - 11/07/02 08:04 PM (20 years, 27 days ago)

In reply to:

Yet upon removing the ruler from the glass our illusions as th the "real nature" of the ruler would be dispelled once and for all......

Empirisicm(imho) would have been demonstarted to be a totally inadequate vehicle through/with which to determine the "true" nature of reality...



I wouldn't say that empirisicm is totally inadequate, but it is inadequate. In your example, the empirical evidence continues to accumulate even after the ruler is removed from the glass, so empirisicm has provided you with new evidence that can help you to more correctly understand the nature of what is happening. If we were allowed in your example to apply science and/or logic to this evidence we may arrive at an understanding of the "real nature" of the ruler that is closer to the truth than our previous concept (but that wouldn't be 'empirisicm'). It is important that we learn to apply reason in formulating our concepts, the evidence of the senses is merely the begining of knowledge.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.


Edited by Evolving (11/07/02 08:13 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAdamist
ℚṲℰϟ✞ЇѺℵ ℛ∃Åʟḯ†У
Male User Gallery

Registered: 11/24/01
Posts: 10,211
Loc: Bloomington, IN
Last seen: 7 years, 8 months
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Evolving]
    #1032514 - 11/07/02 10:02 PM (20 years, 27 days ago)

It is important that we learn to apply reason in formulating our concepts, the evidence of the senses is merely the begining of knowledge.

What if evidence of the senses strongly supported the existence of extra-terrestrial beings, even after one's reason worked to prove otherwise?


--------------------
:heartpump: { { { ṧ◎ηḯ¢ αʟ¢ℌ℮мƴ } } } :heartpump:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Adamist]
    #1032820 - 11/07/02 11:09 PM (20 years, 27 days ago)

In reply to:

What if evidence of the senses strongly supported the existence of extra-terrestrial beings, even after one's reason worked to prove otherwise?



You'll have to elaborate. Can you give a hypothetical (or actual) situation?


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Disbelief revisited... Nomad 522 2 11/12/02 10:06 PM
by Adamist
* Faith vs Belief ZenGecko 1,091 8 07/03/04 12:27 AM
by Swami
* can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all )
Anonymous 21,259 157 12/21/04 03:31 PM
by deafpanda
* Firewalking revisited
( 1 2 all )
Swami 1,450 25 08/22/04 04:22 AM
by Mushmonkey
* Sleep paralysis revisited, or How real is real? Anonymous 1,059 7 05/08/04 11:54 PM
by Redo
* Rational vs. Irrational Beliefs
( 1 2 all )
Swami 10,587 39 01/15/05 02:58 AM
by Alan Stone
* The Unprovable Nature of Faith and Belief
( 1 2 all )
DoctorJ 2,851 33 08/11/03 04:13 PM
by fireworks_god
* Unproven Beliefs Silversoul 2,146 15 02/16/05 07:11 PM
by moog

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
9,462 topic views. 0 members, 3 guests and 9 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2022 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.028 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 16 queries.