Home | Community | Message Board

Myyco.com Liquid Cultures
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: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Kratom Powder for Sale, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   North Spore Cultivation Supplies, North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract, Kratom Powder For Sale   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale, Red Vein Kratom   Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Concentrates   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4  [ show all ]
Offlinealuminum_can
addict
Registered: 05/19/01
Posts: 695
Loc: california, orange
Last seen: 20 years, 3 months
philosiphy of religion
    #352949 - 07/02/01 09:01 PM (21 years, 3 months ago)

i dont believe in religion. it is synthetic! something made to make people feel good about themselves and keep themselves from breaking rules "sinning". its a pretty fucked up think to do to innocent people. in detail this is what religion is: supposedly it was found in some cave or somewhere (it doesnt matter who made it or whatever) and people started believing in it. the person who made it couldve been some whacko or something (that doesnt really matter though either) i believe that the person (it was a person not some imaginary spirit) who made used this imaginary world to make himself a better person and feel good about himself/herself. just think, the bible is a perfect excuse. if someone has a problem they "pray" buy talking to there hand with there eyes closed and saying amen at the end. what the hell is that? and once you pray some imaginary being is supposed to help you with youre problem. its like if you had a lucky blanket and you lost it and then youre mom replaces it with a new one and you dont even notice. its still youre lucky blanket in youre opinion. its the same with that except the blanket is youre wish and the new blanket is it coming true. if the wish comes true (cus you were motivated buy "gods help") then god answered youre prayer and is the nicest thing on earth, but what if it doesnt come true? then you make up a reason that god was busy or something. heres another reason its just a big excuse: its just a less governed replica of our craapy society. if you break any one of these 10 rules (commandments) then youll be going to some evil underwold and suffer for all of eternity. stop stressing and stop giving in!! stop being scared that if you do something wrong youll be punished for eternity. stop teeling yourself "you know what were all going to hell" and start telling yourself "were all going to die. my theory of death is that itll be as if we were never there except for the memories. before you are born youre nothing, your brain hasent devoloped and theres nothing. you dont exist yet. thats how it is when you die. theres nothing. you dont exist anymore. religion is the problem to everything and thats it. were all trying to be the same perfect being but theres no perfect being to begin with to try to become!! and all of us are created different so why are we trying to be the same thing!! why are we all revolving around this religion? cus its an excuse!! an excuse for everything. if something bad happens then thats what god intended and will serve a purpose in the future. people should think more before they start revolving theyre lives around something before they know what it is. most people think they have to go to church and have to believe that there is a god, otherwise they are comitting a "crime" its that punishable! i believe that theres a little vioce inside of everyone that is saying "what if it isnt real? what if there isnt a god?" stop blocking out that vioce!! just cus some 50 year old minister that was born in a differnet generation as you brainwashes you to think that god exists doesnt me that he really does. why is there a rule that you should think the same as everyone else. right now youre probably thinking "well mister smarty pants aluminum can, how were we created?" well i have perfect explination for that. the sun. it was what created everything. its what mae the first moss that started producing oxygen for organisms to breath. its what made plants grow for animals to eat so they can make offspring and eventually lead to evolution. and gues what! you can actually see the sun!! we do know that there is a sun out there!! its not a figment of imagination!! all this took about 6 12 hour long acid trips so obviously i couldnt go into much detail. if you have any questions still saying that god is real then please post it, i guarantee that i will have an answer. dont give me any of that youre going to hell bullshit because as you know i do not believe in it. if you have anything trying to disprove my post then please post it. i want to know what my generation is thinking about this type of stuff!

hey, you got to be genuine thats the name of this game. if you're real, then you aint got nothing to worry about, but if youre synthetic then starting tomorrow you're balls come off!


--------------------
the little kridders of nature; they dont know that thyre ugly!



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKid
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 07/22/00
Posts: 2,365
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: aluminum_can]
    #352964 - 07/02/01 09:44 PM (21 years, 3 months ago)

Well, I don't believe in Christianity either, but I'll pick apart your post anyway.

> in detail this is what religion is: supposedly it was found in some cave or somewhere (it doesnt matter who made it or whatever) and people started believing in it.

Early mysticism and philosophy was probably something that arose in pre-historic (cave) time. People had to explain to themselves and each other what happens to the dead and where life came from. It's early cave peoples that began burrying their dead.

> the person who made it couldve been some whacko or something

I really doubt you could pin down the beginnings of philosophical, mystical and/or religious thought to one person.

In the case of Christianity, the Bible was written by more than one person. It's the tale of a culture, written by some people within that culture.

> if someone has a problem they "pray" buy talking to there hand with there eyes closed and saying amen at the end. what the hell is that?

If you don't understand how the Universe or the forces of natures work, wouldn't you at least try to do something to stop a bad thing from happening?

It's a belief. Empirical science is something that people believe in and *must have faith in*. Even the philosophy of science itself admits that science cannot absolutely proove anything.

> its just a less governed replica of our craapy society

It was probably a lot easier to get people to govern themselves in pre-Newtonian times when people believed that God was watching. Now we have our mythical big brother. So what, we've shifted from sacred to secular?

> stop being scared that if you do something wrong youll be punished for eternity.

Why? Do you know what happens when we die?

My mind entertains the possibility that **PERHAPS** following the law is a universal sin and can get me sent to hell. The thing I figure is, if there is a universal moral code, I doubt that I'd ever be able to know what it is. Why should someone believe in one and not the other? Beats the hell out of me, but you can't tell people that one set of their beliefs is wrong. If you want to do that, I challenge you to proove it wrong.

> my theory of death is that itll be as if we were never there except for the memories.

I'm sure that every person has their own theory of death (if you've thought about death there must be the slightest bit of expectation formed about death), but as to how right/wrong that theory is, no living being will ever know.

> why are we all revolving around this religion?

People form groups. Groups use languages to communicate. A common language has a common lexicon and grammatical system. These form natural cultural ties about the operations of the natural world (eg// the three basic tenses of verbs, past, present and future, teach a child very basic things about how the world operates). Cultures have ideas in common due to language, but we're still human. We still have to face the fact (individually and as a society) that one day, we're going to die; that life's not always pleasant; that people get sick; people suffer; people murder; etc. etc. Religion is one way of explaining those things.

> if something bad happens then thats what god intended and will serve a purpose in the future.

No. In Christianity, if a human chooses to commit evil, it is that human beings decision. God has no part in that.

> people should think more before they start revolving theyre lives around something before they know what it is

Revolving your life around nihilism or extreme skepticism, like I do, can be a very dizzying task for some. Most people prefer stability.

> just cus some 50 year old minister that was born in a differnet generation as you brainwashes you to think that god exists doesnt me that he really does.

It also doesn't mean that God doesn't exist. Just because some scientist says that the universe is made up of subatomic particles doesn't mean it really is. Just because every human on earth says the universe exists does mean it really does.

> well i have perfect explination for that. the sun. it was what created everything.

Where did the sun come from?

Does anything really exist anyway?

> you can actually see the sun!!

I can see a lot of stuff when I dream or hallucinate on drugs. Does that mean it exists? does that proove anything?



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinedavidgergen
journeyman

Registered: 06/23/01
Posts: 42
Loc: Philadelphia, PA
Last seen: 19 years, 6 months
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: Kid]
    #353020 - 07/03/01 12:32 AM (21 years, 3 months ago)

good post, kid.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesir_shroom_alot
enthusiast
Registered: 03/27/01
Posts: 223
Last seen: 20 years, 10 months
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: davidgergen]
    #354257 - 07/13/01 10:46 PM (21 years, 2 months ago)

don't critize other peoples religion, the bible doesn't make u feel bad about urself, and christians don't have to worry about sin, they know that jesus died for them, even if it isn't true, without religion there would be no law, because if people knew there was no after life there would be complete chaos. Just think, murder without punishment, the cops wouldn't want to work because if they die, it's over, just think about it, no one would want to risk it,

first u get the money, then u get the Weemen!
Wee men? what the hell are u talking about!
i said woman; no u didn't man!

~Ur PAYING ME IN HAIR CLIPPINGS! WHAT ARE U cRAZY?


--------------------
first u get the money, then u get the Weemen!
Wee men? what the hell are u talking about!
i said woman; no u didn't man!

~Ur PAYING ME IN HAIR CLIPPINGS! WHAT ARE U cRAZY?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePynchon
Slow Learner

Registered: 04/28/01
Posts: 578
Loc: New Zealand
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: sir_shroom_alot]
    #354513 - 07/14/01 10:30 AM (21 years, 2 months ago)

..."without religion there would be no law"...maybe you meant to say "war"? Don't get lulled into this "man can't rule himself" fundamentalist neurosis, we were doing OK at it before this God kid showed up...if people "knew" there was no after-life they might be less likely to kill...and they'd sure as hell have less motivation for doing it.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCACA
veteran
Registered: 07/13/01
Posts: 1,122
Last seen: 20 years, 5 months
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: aluminum_can]
    #354519 - 07/14/01 10:49 AM (21 years, 2 months ago)

it sounds like you JUST started thinking. if you have any brains, it shouldnt be too long until you find out that religion is as real as it was before you didn't want to accept it and so tried to tear it apart to justify yourself.

My head is hurting..
DO CACA!


--------------------
"I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing." John 15:5


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCACA
veteran
Registered: 07/13/01
Posts: 1,122
Last seen: 20 years, 5 months
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: Kid]
    #354520 - 07/14/01 10:50 AM (21 years, 2 months ago)

sounds like kid is stuck in the mud

My head is hurting..
DO CACA!


--------------------
"I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing." John 15:5


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCACA
veteran
Registered: 07/13/01
Posts: 1,122
Last seen: 20 years, 5 months
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: Kid]
    #354523 - 07/14/01 10:52 AM (21 years, 2 months ago)

if you would actually pay attention to what you sound like you know so much about, you would pay attention to what jesus warns against. he says that you should see what is happening around you. all you have to do to know that there is no falsehood in the bible is turn to revalations, read some prophecies (unless you have those memorized) and then look around the world. OPEN YOUR EYES what is said is unfolding right before you in PLAIN CLEAR SIGHT!

My head is hurting..
DO CACA!


--------------------
"I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing." John 15:5


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCACA
veteran
Registered: 07/13/01
Posts: 1,122
Last seen: 20 years, 5 months
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: CACA]
    #354524 - 07/14/01 10:55 AM (21 years, 2 months ago)

i don't want to come off as what i seem to come off as, because im really not into talking about that, because there is no point to it and it gets people pissed off. besides that, i only speak about it when i see someone who would be better off with some little truth in them that can maybe over time ebb away the lies in you. maybe it wont. you take mushrooms? just goes to prove my point that mushrooms have not much importance as far as "enlightenment" goes.

My head is hurting..
DO CACA!


--------------------
"I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing." John 15:5


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCACA
veteran
Registered: 07/13/01
Posts: 1,122
Last seen: 20 years, 5 months
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: CACA]
    #354525 - 07/14/01 11:00 AM (21 years, 2 months ago)

on the note of enlightenment, whether you will believe it or not, i reached satori enlightenment before i did ANY drugs. i didnt even know what it was until a couple of days ago when i saw a description for it here on this website. i dont know if saying that it is a complete state of calm is really enough or that words would ever bring to light what it is trying to describe in this case, but i said that it was like an extreme state of nothingness.. the feeling of it was... unspeakable.. i am just sad that i had outside stimuli (i was in class) that is probably what made me somewhat ego-ized again and made me afraid that i was going too far away, saying "i can't do this now i can't". its unspeakable. the way it feels... like... its okay.. the games are all over... everything was just a show and now you can go home...its true go" thats one of the feelings... it is the biggest regret in my life ever leaving there...

My head is hurting..
DO CACA!


--------------------
"I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing." John 15:5


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCACA
veteran
Registered: 07/13/01
Posts: 1,122
Last seen: 20 years, 5 months
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: CACA]
    #354526 - 07/14/01 11:03 AM (21 years, 2 months ago)

ah a better way to describe it would be saying that nothing mattered.. that ABSOLUTELY nothing mattered and not even the realization that you realized that nothing mattered, mattered. there were no thoughts or interactions only of not being so individual as part of ... never-endingness.. its not easy at all to describe but i can tell you that it was the best feeling EVER the BEST EVER

My head is hurting..
DO CACA!


--------------------
"I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing." John 15:5


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKid
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 07/22/00
Posts: 2,365
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: CACA]
    #354563 - 07/14/01 02:52 PM (21 years, 2 months ago)

> sounds like kid is stuck in the mud

Please explain.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKid
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 07/22/00
Posts: 2,365
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: CACA]
    #354564 - 07/14/01 02:55 PM (21 years, 2 months ago)

> all you have to do to know that there is no falsehood in the bible is turn to revalations

No, I don't think so. Interpreting Revelations as Truth is just that: INTERPRETING. You're the one who's saying 'The Bible says X, which is equivalent to Y, which happens now." You're even taking a further step by adding, "And therefor the entirety of the Bible is True."



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKid
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 07/22/00
Posts: 2,365
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: CACA]
    #354565 - 07/14/01 03:01 PM (21 years, 2 months ago)

I'm going to assume you're addressing me here, unless you're addressing yourself...(?)

> i only speak about it when i see someone who would be better off with some little truth in them that can maybe over time ebb away the lies in you.


Don't even get me started on the notions of Truth. Many philosophers come up with their own notions of Truth; or scepticism. You're Truth is not the Truth. If you think that you "Know" more than me, as in that you think you're some highly enlightened being compared to me, then I'd suggest that you are the ignorant one.

> you take mushrooms?

No. I have taken mushrooms. I haven't used them in about nine months.

> just goes to prove my point that mushrooms have not much importance as far as "enlightenment" goes.

By assuming that I am a mushroom user, then making a conclusion based on that assumption, I'd say though you're jumping to conclusions. Though as far as mushrooms being important for "enlightenment", I'd probably agree with you.

> My head is hurting..

You seem to be making a lot of errors. Maybe there's something wrong up there.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKid
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 07/22/00
Posts: 2,365
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: CACA]
    #354567 - 07/14/01 03:05 PM (21 years, 2 months ago)

> i reached satori enlightenment before i did ANY drugs.

Epilleptics, often claim to reach satori enlightenment and/or have visions of God (Hildegard) before grand mal seizures. Whether or not you're on drugs when you reach that state of mind doesn't really matter.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCACA
veteran
Registered: 07/13/01
Posts: 1,122
Last seen: 20 years, 5 months
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: Kid]
    #354734 - 07/14/01 11:34 PM (21 years, 2 months ago)

okay, im not going to take a part in the mudslinging here (and trust me, there is alot of mud to be slung on both sides) i didnt pick apart what you said (which anyone could have done) but i didnt. about saying that i have my OWN truth, its just something people say nowadays so because of the influx of different religions...but SAYING that someone has their own truth and someone else has their own truth is a cheap way of getting out of knowing how they are connected and trying to convince yourself that perhaps.. just maybe.. it isnt true!.. about epilleptics.. if you were talking about me, im not. i was just saying that i feel that i reached that before i did any drugs BECAUSE of the way it happened if i were to explain it to anyone, they would think that i was tripping or on some drug. i feel that there is really no argument to be had about the bible being absolute truth. now, since i don't run my life according to the bible, you can pick at those parts of my life, but that you shouldnt even talk about. its so obvious that its true. if you would open your eyes, you would see it.

My head is hurting..
DO CACA!


--------------------
"I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing." John 15:5


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinehubertd8
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 07/14/00
Posts: 821
Loc: springfield
Last seen: 11 years, 8 months
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: Pynchon]
    #354748 - 07/15/01 12:46 AM (21 years, 2 months ago)

>."without religion there would be no law"...maybe you meant to say "war"?<

religion never created any wars, the people who tried to interpret the religion and its "bible" did, you just made a fairly stupid statement. I agree that most laws are based(slightly) on religion.

>Don't get lulled into this "man can't rule himself" fundamentalist neurosis, we were doing OK at it before this God kid showed up<

i think your picking on christianity abit too much, rel. exsisted before "this God kid showed up"


>"knew" there was no after-life they might be less likely to kill...and they'd sure as hell have less motivation for doing it.<

why? if people don't believe that theres any after life, why wouldn't they try any means of improving this one? this obviously dosen't apply to every criminal, but why not kill someone who is after the same girl as you, why not rob a store/banki and kill a few people.








--------------------
"There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge."

Bertrand Russell


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleJared
Stranger
Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/23/01
Posts: 8,783
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: hubertd8]
    #354932 - 07/15/01 10:09 AM (21 years, 2 months ago)

> all you have to do to know that there is no falsehood in the bible is turn to revalations

Then you'd say that everything else in the bible has occured as it depicted, revelations being the only chapter you can focus errors within? (tell me if im wrong here, I hate assuming...) Revelations is the final chapter in the bible; who's to say it won't happen? Who's to say it will.. (if someone is to say it will or won't please speak up) I consider myself a rather stupid and ignorant chunk of mortal flesh with billions of synapses occuring just to allow me to exist here, hitting these keys; typing this post. A rather meager process which still requires so much. But Instead of looking at the creationism view most people tote today lets look at chance. Lets say physcially when these chemcial meet these chemicals under this kind of light under this ammount of presure under this much heat with this much electricity a cell is born. Then from there more complex multicelular organisms; then autotrophs, heterotrophs and so on till you get senttinant beings who've evolved only part of themselves; their consious thought thus unbalnacing them and so resulting in all the chaos today. hmm that got off topic fast didn't it. Anyways in this infinitly spaning universe if every planet and everythign on it is a roll of a dice, for it to exist how it is... A die cannot have infinite sides; thefore somewhere out there is another planet which is exactly the same as ours. where each atom, each photon molecule are in teh same palce. Where Jared is typing a post about nothing. What if i were to try and prove this by going to this plaent where I would see myself? I wouldn't because if it were 100% the same as our planet then Jared from there would come to my planet and we would both think w'd never left. (This is why I beleive the universe is infinatly looping everywhere at once... think 4th dimensional spheres.. heh) Wow, I don't even remember what got me started on thsi post.. Anyways if this is true which logically it is.. Then how could god be the creator of us? think aobut how many worlds like ours there are, how many unlike ours there are... this means that nothign can ever end because somewhere in our infinate universe its happening the same but slightly differrntly. Ahhh im too stupid to talk about this and the fucking poping bubbles noise in my ear is driving me nuts.. months now and all i hear is crackling like bubbles popping after a shower in my ear always always awlayssss

I'm only 3/4 crazy for those of you wondering

Go here : http://jsr.hobbiton.org


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesir_shroom_alot
enthusiast
Registered: 03/27/01
Posts: 223
Last seen: 20 years, 10 months
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: Jared]
    #354935 - 07/15/01 10:23 AM (21 years, 2 months ago)

bare-with-me-my-spce-bar-is-broken!
If-everyone-knew-that-there-was-no-afterlife-then-there-really-wouln't-be-hope.If-people-knew-for-a-fact-that-there-wasn't-a-God-they-really-couldn't-justify-living-our-brains-are-too-complex-to-just-agree-to-the,fact,that,we,just,rot,in,the,ground.There,would,be,nothing,stopping,vandals,or,robbers,or,even,murder!If,everyone,knew,that,they,wouldn't,burn,in,eternal,hell,fire,for,murder,i,think,we,would,see,it,alot,more.I,do,belive,in,GOd,because,i,feel,that,our,brains,are,far,to,complex.for,"evolution".I'm,tired,of,typing,comma's,soo,adu'


first u get the money, then u get the Weemen!
Wee men? what the hell are u talking about!
i said woman; no u didn't man!

~Ur PAYING ME IN HAIR CLIPPINGS! WHAT ARE U cRAZY?


--------------------
first u get the money, then u get the Weemen!
Wee men? what the hell are u talking about!
i said woman; no u didn't man!

~Ur PAYING ME IN HAIR CLIPPINGS! WHAT ARE U cRAZY?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCACA
veteran
Registered: 07/13/01
Posts: 1,122
Last seen: 20 years, 5 months
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: Jared]
    #354937 - 07/15/01 10:32 AM (21 years, 2 months ago)

yeah, keep thinking about other possibilities to keep yourself busy instead of accepting the truth and seeing how both can be true. anyways, its been proven every human being came from just two people. thats just one thing. the nanobots = the 1,000 years without death. lightning bolt around the world = globalization of electricity. babylon has already been rebuilt. day is night night is day. physically and doubled up on itself as well. bad is good. evil is good. the times are like noah where everyone is being told that God is going to do something, but not alot of people are listening. men are women. women are men- physically and emotionally and sexual preference-wise. gays, lesbians and individualism. "freedom" the children after jesus brought his people to heaven are supposed to be ineligible for heaven. this is because to go to heaven, you have to be as a child. child = innocence. freedom from what people with a conscience used to tell you means you do what you will and this is why children are soon no longer going to be children or aren't..... the old religions being revived (days of noah) wicca isnt a cult and hasnt been for a while its a religion- enough subscribers to make it so. i am sick of writing about this. just see the truth already. if you want to see truth, you will see it. if you want to see something that is false, you will see it is false. everything is everything in life and this is why your actions speak louder than words. this is yet another choice - see it for what it is or SAY that IT IS something that YOU want it to be. i already went through letting the whole idea of God go just to figure things out. you actually believe the big bang theory? thats fucking absurd. there was nothing and then just.. bang.. PLEASE thats so stupid. if you have ever been in awe of something, you must know that this is all too complex for it to be left up to what scientists believe is pure chance. chance is chance in that we don't know what is going to happen. and if its ancient wisdom from other civilizations, no prophet has ever seen past the year 2010 without something BIG happening and its believed to be the coming of Christ. ask the Mayans, they know about it. NO prophet in history who has earned a reputation for themselves (and those prophets don't hold a CANDLE to the ones in the Bible) has seen past the year 2010 without this happening. and on top of that, the gregorian calendar is off by three years from the birth of christ. (i forget which way, but this gives more to the critical fact that "no man knows the hour")
My head is hurting..
DO CACA!


--------------------
"I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing." John 15:5


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCACA
veteran
Registered: 07/13/01
Posts: 1,122
Last seen: 20 years, 5 months
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: Jared]
    #354949 - 07/15/01 11:02 AM (21 years, 2 months ago)

and about the "no falsehood", jared: if you understood why it was true, you wouldn't be asking it and there isn't a single truthful way other than that to look at this situation. if you understood why this was true, you would know why. bah i have to go..

My head is hurting..
DO CACA!


--------------------
"I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing." John 15:5


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePynchon
Slow Learner

Registered: 04/28/01
Posts: 578
Loc: New Zealand
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: hubertd8]
    #355044 - 07/15/01 06:04 PM (21 years, 2 months ago)

hubertd8,
I agree that religion never directly started a war, however it hardly discourages it...sure, the words in any religious document can be twisted, no matter how noble its intentions are...but religion usually attracts the sort of people who make a hobby of twisting words. People follow the preacher, and if we can't judge a religion by the people who preach it, what can we judge it by?

"I think you're picking on christianity a bit much, rel. existed before this god kid showed up"...well, yeah. I didn't mention christianity I don't think, and I wasn't intending to limit "this god kid" to yaweh/jehovah...

As far as to why people might be less-inclined to violence if we no longer believed in an after-life, I dunno, maybe we'd value life a bit more..? Or maybe it would make no difference at all...faith hasn't historically been much of a shield against violence, you have to admit.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinehubertd8
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 07/14/00
Posts: 821
Loc: springfield
Last seen: 11 years, 8 months
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: Pynchon]
    #355217 - 07/15/01 11:35 PM (21 years, 2 months ago)

"People follow the preacher, and if we can't judge a religion by the people who preach it, what can we judge it by? "

not everyone, i am a christian, but i really don't believe in priests/preachers, my view is that they are people just like everyone else, so how can they enlighten me? I have a mind of my own and will interpret the bible and what not in my own way. Every time someone passes down knowledge in there own interpretation there tends to be some loss of meaning and/or key aspects(perhaps the previous person didn't see them as anything relavent). So my take on it is everyone should interpret it in there own way and not really pay attention to preachers.


""I think you're picking on christianity a bit much, rel. existed before this god kid showed up"...well, yeah. I didn't mention christianity I don't think, and I wasn't intending to limit "this god kid" to yaweh/jehovah... "

well maybe not but its a common tendancy here and most places to pick on christianity, mainly because these individuals have never been exposed to any other rel.

"faith hasn't historically been much of a shield against violence, you have to admit."

maybe you meant to say Religion instead of faith and in that case i'll agree.

Usually i don't jump into arguements concerning rel. because i don't mind people having there own takes on it. But when a person like aluminum_can tries to bitch at something he knows nothing about i get kinda pissed off. He basically tries to get att. since many stopped paying att to him in the other forums he tries his hand here.






--------------------
"There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge."

Bertrand Russell


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCACA
veteran
Registered: 07/13/01
Posts: 1,122
Last seen: 20 years, 5 months
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: Pynchon]
    #355232 - 07/15/01 11:50 PM (21 years, 2 months ago)

actually, pynchon, religion HAS directly started wars. there is a "holy war" going on right now for Jerusalem and the Muslims believe that the only way to show that they are true Muslims is to fight, conquer and destroy until they get all the land "back" from the Israelites.

My head is hurting..
DO CACA!


--------------------
"I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing." John 15:5


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineArCh_TemPlaR
enthusiast
Registered: 07/16/01
Posts: 200
Last seen: 20 years, 5 months
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: aluminum_can]
    #355429 - 07/16/01 05:50 AM (21 years, 2 months ago)

In reply to:

i dont believe in religion. it is synthetic! something made to make people feel good about themselves and keep themselves from breaking rules "sinning". its a pretty fucked up think to do to innocent people. in detail this is what religion is: supposedly it was found in some cave or somewhere (it doesnt matter who made it or whatever) and people started believing in it. the person who made it




It would be crucial you specify which religion you are ranting about. It shows how weak your argument is from the beginning of your statement.

In reply to:

couldve been some whacko or something (that doesnt really matter though either) i believe that the person (it was a person not some imaginary spirit) who made used this imaginary world to make himself a better person and feel good about himself/herself. just think, the bible is a perfect excuse. if




You're wacked.

I don't entirely trust the Bible's infallible (as most Christians say) testament of Truth. The day I do is when it removes the concept God.

In reply to:

someone has a problem they "pray" buy talking to there hand with there eyes closed and saying amen at the end. what the hell is that? and once you pray some imaginary being is supposed to help you with youre problem. its like if you had a lucky blanket and you lost it and then youre mom replaces it with




It's not imaginary. There is a difference between illusions and beliefs. One, what you think is real is not a reality outside the realm of your mind, without any pursuit of evidence. ^hint ^ hint The other is the common ground of one's thinking that's on the same line as others in the world: same school of thought.

In reply to:

a new one and you dont even notice. its still youre lucky blanket in youre opinion. its the same with that except the blanket is youre wish and the new blanket is it coming true. if the wish comes true (cus you were motivated buy "gods help") then god answered youre prayer and is the nicest thing on earth, but what if it doesnt come true? then you make up a reason that god was busy or something. heres




A crutch.

In reply to:

another reason its just a big excuse: its just a less governed replica of our craapy society. if you break any one of these 10 rules (commandments) then youll be going to some evil underwold and suffer or all of eternity. stop stressing and stop giving in!! stop being scared that if you do something
wrong youll be punished for eternity. stop teeling yourself "you know what were all going to hell" and




Ah, the devil speaks.

In reply to:

start telling yourself "were all going to die. my theory of death is that itll be as if we were never there except for the memories. before you are born youre nothing, your brain hasent devoloped and theres nothing. you dont exist yet. thats how it is when you die. theres nothing. you dont exist




Bwahaha. :o) Why don't you try applying your theory? You will see how quickly it'll crumble before the complexity of Past Life Regression Theory and Therapy. The concept of nothingness is baseless in academic science AND esoteric science.

In reply to:

anymore. religion is the problem to everything and thats it. were all trying to be the same perfect being but theres no perfect being to begin with to try to become!! and all of us are created different so why are we trying to be the same thing!! why are we all revolving around this religion? cus its an excuse!! an excuse for everything. if something bad happens then thats what god intended and will serve




The quintessential teachings [if I can call it that] of the Jesus' words is cultivation of love, compassion, kindness, and transformation of spirit. That is it. No more and no less. The path in reaching Perfection is more important than Perfection itself. Those are the words I see across all mystical systems: from Tao, Christainity, to Buddhist teachings.

In reply to:


a purpose in the future. people should think more before they start revolving theyre lives around something before they know what it is. most people think they have to go to church and have to believe that there is a god, otherwise they are comitting a "crime" its that punishable! i believe that theres a little vioce inside of everyone that is saying "what if it isnt real? what if there isnt a god?" stop blocking out that vioce!! just cus some 50 year old minister that was born in a differnet generation as you brainwashes you to think that god exists doesnt me that he really does. why is there a rule that you should think the same as everyone else. right now youre probably thinking "well mister smarty pants aluminum can, how were we created?" well i have perfect explination for that. the sun. it was what created everything. its what mae the first moss that started producing oxygen for organisms to breath. its what made plants grow for animals to eat so they can make offspring and eventually lead to evolution. and gues what! you can actually see the sun!! we do know that there is a sun out there!! its not a figment of imagination!! all this took about 6 12 hour long acid trips so obviously i couldnt go into much detail. if you have any questions still saying that god is real then please post it, i guarantee that i will have an answer. dont give me any of that youre going to hell bullshit because as you know i do not believe in it. if you have anything trying to disprove my post then please post it. i want to know what my generation is thinking about this type of stuff!




It has already been proven across Tibetan buddhist teachings of afterlife: it does not end like you think it does. I even met people who knew their past lives existed and how it reflected in their current lives.

As for your cynical arguments, I say this:

Some of us are born spiritually poverished and need a manual to cultivate it. Unfortunately, some manuals are questionable by opinions, by evidence, and by facts. But there will be the few ones out there worth DYING for.

Sun. The scientific community says that the chances of creation of life on Earth had to be perfect. Basically, what they are alluding is: the evolution of humans did not come by mere fluke.

hey, you got to be genuine thats the name of this game. if you're real, then you aint got nothing to worry about, but if youre synthetic then starting tomorrow you're balls come off!

I was once like you, bashing the Christian religion for it's failings and discrepancies, when I failed to see the obvious problem of all: Me.











Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineArCh_TemPlaR
enthusiast
Registered: 07/16/01
Posts: 200
Last seen: 20 years, 5 months
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: CACA]
    #355436 - 07/16/01 06:06 AM (21 years, 2 months ago)

In reply to:

and about the "no falsehood", jared: if you understood why it was true, you wouldn't be asking it and there isn't a single truthful way other than that to look at this situation. if you understood why this was true, you would know why. bah i have to go..




About Revelations?

When you experience Revelations, that will be the truth.






Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleJared
Stranger
Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/23/01
Posts: 8,783
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: ArCh_TemPlaR]
    #355482 - 07/16/01 07:55 AM (21 years, 2 months ago)

Wicked post man... Wicked; I've never seen someone pick apart someone's post so intricatly. Bravo.

"When you experience Revelations, that will be the truth. "

Word.

Go here : http://jsr.hobbiton.org


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhyl
old hand
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 597
Loc: United Kingdom
Last seen: 13 years, 12 days
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: aluminum_can]
    #355611 - 07/16/01 12:05 PM (21 years, 2 months ago)

i dont believe in religion
That's nice, but what do you actually mean by that? Religion is a building block to base your beliefs on. Whether you choose Christianity, Bhuddism, Paganism, Science, or anything else then this is your religion. You seem very stuck on the fact that religion = Christianity, but this simply isn't true. Just as a christian bases their beliefs on the bible, a scientist can base their beliefs on scientific fact, and IMHO both are valid religions.

something made to make people feel good about themselves and keep themselves from breaking rules
This is something organised religion has become through corruption and greed. This is not why religions were created, but a product of our political system. Religions were created to help provide answers to the unanswerable questions of life and existance.

before you are born youre nothing, your brain hasent devoloped and theres nothing. you dont exist yet. thats how it is when you die. theres nothing. you dont exist anymore
If this is your view, then fine, but please do not present this as being the ultimate truth, as you do not know this. What happens after death is an area that current science simply cannot venture into, and your beliefs have to be based either on your own faith, or your own experiences. You could very well be correct on this issue, but so could the christans, or the buddhists. We simply have no way of knowing.


right now youre probably thinking "well mister smarty pants aluminum can, how were we created?" well i have perfect explination for that. the sun
The sun created life? What is that supposed to mean? The sun shone on a rock, and all of a sudden there was moss on it? Where did the moss come from? It didn't come out of the sun...
Also what created the sun? Scientists tend to use the big bang theory to explain creation, but this theory is full of huge holes. I mean how can nothing explode? If there is no space and no time, where and when can the explosion take place?

IMHO science is great for explaining the world that we can perceive, and as such has allowed great advances in human evolution, but no scientific theories. Even the most basic theories such as Einsteins theory of relativity fall apart under certain situations. Many new scientific discoveries are even more bizarre. Some of the theories of quantum physics and string theory now throw questions into every single area of science.
This is where religion or faith comes into the equation. If science was able to answer all the questions, then there would be no need for religion, but whilst it cannot then religion is needed to fill in the gaps.

Take care

Phil



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKid
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 07/22/00
Posts: 2,365
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: ArCh_TemPlaR]
    #355648 - 07/16/01 03:13 PM (21 years, 2 months ago)

> Bwahaha. :o) Why don't you try applying your theory? You will see how quickly it'll crumble before the complexity of Past Life Regression Theory and Therapy. The concept of nothingness is baseless in academic science AND esoteric science.

The concept of nothingness in NOT entirely baseless in science or philosophy. Scientists and philosophers are probably always asking themselves 'what was there before something?' 'why is there even something?' I guess you can say nothingness is baseless because that's exactly what it is: nothing. You can't simply state that it's invalid.

Past life regression? You really believe in that shit? Let's play the 'just suppose' game:

Suppose at some point in the future humans can be taken apart and put back together (like lego). So, for instance, I can take person X apart and take person Y apart and mix them together to make person Z, and discard the rest. Who is person Z?
Or suppose I can take X and Y apart and mix them and create persons A and B. Who are A and B? are they X and Y?

Now, think of a tree. You know what a tree is and you consider it a tree when it is alive. When it is dead, it is not longer a tree. Correct? Consider now that the tree has died, the next day a dandelion has grown. Can the tree now possibly be the dandelion?

Now at this point you'll probably want to rebutt by saying that "souls" are made up inmaterial substances. This brings up all of the problems of Cartesian dualism (seperating mind from body), especially in the areas of sensation and free will. If you want to insist that mind and body are seperate and that souls are eternal and for whatever reason progress from human to human, for whatever absurd reason, I suggest we start a new thread.

Or to put my point simply, past life regression is a crock of shit!

> The scientific community says that the chances of creation of life on Earth had to be perfect.

Yes, by definition, effect must have a cause. Thus, the effect is perfect for the cause, by your word use.

> Basically, what they are alluding is: the evolution of humans did not come by mere fluke.

That's how you take it.

Based on various cosmological variables, the chances for life occuring in the universe are estimated at 1 in 10 to 10^25 (ten with 25 zeros following), against. It's probability. Really, nobody knows.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKid
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 07/22/00
Posts: 2,365
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: Phyl]
    #355651 - 07/16/01 03:19 PM (21 years, 2 months ago)

> something made to make people feel good about themselves and keep themselves from breaking rules
This is something organised religion has become through corruption and greed.

Philosophy is created to answer the questions of existence. Religion seems to fulfil a human need for ceremony.

> Scientists tend to use the big bang theory to explain creation, but this theory is full of huge holes. I mean how can nothing explode? If there is no space and no time, where and when can the explosion take place?

Scientists will admit that the theory of the big bang does not explain the *creation* of the universe. It explains the very earlies stages of the universe. Most scientists will admit that even science's most grand theories can't explain WHY anything exists!

> This is where religion or faith comes into the equation. If science was able to answer all the questions, then there would be no need for religion, but whilst it cannot then religion is needed to fill in the gaps.

People continue to hold religious beliefs that contradict scientific evidence.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhyl
old hand
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 597
Loc: United Kingdom
Last seen: 13 years, 12 days
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: Kid]
    #355657 - 07/16/01 03:36 PM (21 years, 2 months ago)

Philosophy is created to answer the questions of existence. Religion seems to fulfil a human need for ceremony.

Philosophy in it's self does not answer the questions of existance. When based upon religion, philosophy can expand and evolve the religion, but it ultimately is peoples religions that answer the questions of existance.

Religion doesn't have to be about ceremony. Worship is about ceremony, but if your religion doesn't involve worship then ceremony would be useless.

Scientists will admit that the theory of the big bang does not explain the *creation* of the universe. It explains the very earlies stages of the universe. Most scientists will admit that even science's most grand theories can't explain WHY anything exists!
Which is exactly my point. Many people have a need to answer these fundamental questions, and if science is unable to provide these, but religion can, then obviously they will turn to religion.

People continue to hold religious beliefs that contradict scientific evidence.

Such as?

In many cases science contradicts science.




Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhyl
old hand
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 597
Loc: United Kingdom
Last seen: 13 years, 12 days
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: Kid]
    #355661 - 07/16/01 03:46 PM (21 years, 2 months ago)

I guess you can say nothingness is baseless because that's exactly what it is: nothing. You can't simply state that it's invalid.

Absoloute nothing is an abstract concept just as infinity. Neither can really exist and are just used for convenience.

Past life regression? You really believe in that shit?
What evidence do you have that reincarnation doesn't exist? There is quite a large ammount of evidence that supports peoples claims of previous lives, however mainstream science will never accept reincarnation as valid, as it is impossible to collect material evidence of it.

Based on various cosmological variables, the chances for life occuring in the universe are estimated at 1 in 10 to 10^25 (ten with 25 zeros following), against. It's probability. Really, nobody knows.
What idiot made up the equation to work this out. As we have not found evidence of life on any other planet, we simply cannot make such a calculation without making most of it up as we go along.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKid
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 07/22/00
Posts: 2,365
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: Phyl]
    #355663 - 07/16/01 03:55 PM (21 years, 2 months ago)

> Philosophy in it's self does not answer the questions of existance.

Philosophy attempts to answer the mysteries of existence. Religion is a system of beliefs; to believe is to take something as true; to take something as true always requires some amount of faith. Philosophy is concerned with knowledge; yes, it requires faith, but philosophy itself is not systematized belief.

> Many people have a need to answer these fundamental questions, and if science is unable to provide these, but religion can, then obviously they will turn to religion.

Or why not accept that there still are mysteries? I do. Or why not come up with your own answers? The "so many people can't be wrong" argument is silly: either way you slice it a lot of people are wrong (as different religions do contradict each other).

> Such as?

That miracles occur. Science simply denies that a human could turn water in to wine; could walk on water, etc. Science denies that people can reliably predict the future (Revelations).

> In many cases science contradicts science.

Such as?



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBeatnik
addict
Registered: 12/19/00
Posts: 241
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 20 years, 5 months
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: Kid]
    #355667 - 07/16/01 04:00 PM (21 years, 2 months ago)

Im coming in a bit late but still.... im not a christian, but i believe that the bible was meant to make people think about their lives, what it all means, as well as a guide book to live by. But all the people then were basicly un-educated peasants who lived very superstitious and hard lives, so the bible was written the way it was in such a way to make it easier for them to grasp, this is where all that shit about mary being a virgin, and the storys etc, but if studied hard could be broken down into "chunks" the core of christian belief. I believe the core is essentially good, and usefull to everyone, i dont believe that it is unique to christianity but basicly human truths. Unfortunately some people took it way to far, hense all the attrocities commited in by the followers.

You said:
"something made to make people feel good about themselves and keep themselves from breaking rules " What is wrong with that? i like to feel good. Those peasants lived extremly harsh lives. Your life is heaven compared to theres, somone could do ANYTHING to you and get away with it. Life expectancy was so low, you had to watch everyone you loved die because of disease, beatings, starvation, rape, etc Making them feel good is one of the only gifts that could be given them that was worth anything. As far as following rules, if everyone followed the same belief to the letter, and it was the "only" belief then nothing would be wrong. the same for any other belief. while many people died because of christianity, imagine how many would have been saved if all those christians followed the ten commandments? The problems didnt stem from the bible, they stemmed from the humans reading it. Im not a religious person, but i have studied religeon and am trying to find the "core" of each of them, so far they are not that different from each other, but studying even one religeon is a huge undertaking, so this will take a while. My suggestion is forget the humans, looking past the padding, find the core, then take bruce lees advice, find whats good for you and adopt it, sofar you seem to be getting stuck at the first bit.

Support the FSR! or the smilie gets it! :crazy:



--------------------
Support the FSR

I toss, there for i am.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKid
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 07/22/00
Posts: 2,365
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: Phyl]
    #355675 - 07/16/01 04:11 PM (21 years, 2 months ago)

> Absoloute nothing is an abstract concept just as infinity. Neither can really exist and are just used for convenience.

Just as God is an abstract concept, yet funny that Anselm used this abstract concept in the Ontological argument to "prove" God's existence.

Obviously nothing cannot exist, for once it has existed, is it not something? Nothing is the absence of anything, but then in saying that have I not just stated that nothing is something (that something being an absense)?

You're forgetting a very basic premise: EXISTENCE IS NOT A PREDICATE.

I also ask you, by signifying nothing with the word "nothing" what are you signifying? Why can't something which is signified possibly exist?

As for infinity, in my reading of the Ontological argument, God is infinity (meaning that what I consider to exist as God based on that argument is infinity).

> What evidence do you have that reincarnation doesn't exist?

You read my examples yes, on identity? I simply have basic problems with separating mind and body. What's the point of inserting a mind into a brain? The brain would function fine on its own, and the human would act the same with the brain right? Or does the mind interfere because it has free will? So then the mind interferes with the natural laws of nature?

I don't have any evidence that it doesn't exist, but the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absense. Just as you have no evidence that it does exist.

> There is quite a large ammount of evidence that supports peoples claims of previous lives, however mainstream science will never accept reincarnation as valid, as it is impossible to collect material evidence of it.

You realize you contradicted yourself. Here's what you said, "There's quite a lot of evidence... [but] it is impossible to collect material evidence..." Unless you're saying you have immaterial evidence? Which means what? It means people imagined stuff.

> What idiot made up the equation to work this out. As we have not found evidence of life on any other planet, we simply cannot make such a calculation without making most of it up as we go along.

Actually they've found evidence that life may have existed on Mars.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhyl
old hand
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 597
Loc: United Kingdom
Last seen: 13 years, 12 days
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: Kid]
    #355690 - 07/16/01 04:57 PM (21 years, 2 months ago)

Just as God is an abstract concept, yet funny that Anselm used this abstract concept in the Ontological argument to "prove" God's existence.
God is not an abstract concept in the same way as Infinity or Absoloute nothing, as there is a possibility god may exist. Absoloute nothing and infinity by definition cannot exist.

As for infinity, in my reading of the Ontological argument, God is infinity (meaning that what I consider to exist as God based on that argument is infinity).
I don't believe that god is infinite (I don't actually he exists in the orthodox form). He is omnipotent, but this is very different from infinite. If god were infinite then we would be god.

I don't have any evidence that it doesn't exist, but the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absense. Just as you have no evidence that it does exist.
So you don't have evidence, just opinion. This is what any debate on science vs religion comes down to. People have different opinions, and ultimately neither side can prove themselves right or wrong.

You realize you contradicted yourself. Here's what you said, "There's quite a lot of evidence... [but] it is impossible to collect material evidence..." Unless you're saying you have immaterial evidence? Which means what? It means people imagined stuff.
Circumstancial evidence. People have described events from past lives, only to have these later confirmed by historians. People have described buildings, and archeologists have then excavated the location and found exactly what the person recalled.
None of this evidence will be accepted by science as it's not 'material' evidence, and cannot be repeated at will. Yes it could be imagined, or just lucky, but I think the chances of that are pretty slim...





Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKid
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 07/22/00
Posts: 2,365
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: Phyl]
    #355699 - 07/16/01 05:11 PM (21 years, 2 months ago)

> God is not an abstract concept in the same way as Infinity or Absoloute nothing, as there is a possibility god may exist. Absoloute nothing and infinity by definition cannot exist.

Anselm uses the definition that God is that which no greater can be conceived. Greater makes the concept abstract.

Absolute nothing and infinity have nothing in their definition that says anything about existing. Zero (nothing) exists, as well as infinity does in math. Again, existence is not a predicate. You can't define something with "it exists".

> People have described events from past lives, only to have these later confirmed by historians.

I'd like to see one report on this.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhyl
old hand
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 597
Loc: United Kingdom
Last seen: 13 years, 12 days
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: Kid]
    #355711 - 07/16/01 05:30 PM (21 years, 2 months ago)

Or why not accept that there still are mysteries? I do.
I do too. I do not assume that any religion (Including science) can supply definitive answers to everything. Unless I have proof in the form of my own experiences, I find it difficult to accept anything whether faith or science based.

Or why not come up with your own answers?
I do. I am very religious, but I do not follow any of the orthodox religions.. I doubt there is a single other person on the plant who has the same beliefs that I do.

The "so many people can't be wrong" argument is silly: either way you slice it a lot of people are wrong (as different religions do contradict each other).
This is largely irrelivent as the ultimate truth will become apparent after we die. No-one is claiming that all religions are correct. Religions guide us through life, and each offers their own opinions on death.

That miracles occur. Science simply denies that a human could turn water in to wine; could walk on water, etc. Science denies that people can reliably predict the future (Revelations).
I have my doubts about the miracles. Like I said, I'm not christian. Having said that though, science used to deny that it was possible to travel faster than the speed of sound, That man could walk on the moon and that life could exist without light. All of these have now been proved. I have also seen many of the 'miracles' performed extremely realistically by illusionists.
As for predicting the future, I don't believe science has proved this. Scientific opinion is that it is not possible, but this has not been proved either way.

Such as?
Virtually all scientific theories colapse in extremes. I don't have any specific examples to hand, but I have them at home and will post them later if you are interested.

Quantum physics questions the very nature of reality, in that it says everything jumps continuously between states of existance and non-existance, so nothing truely exists.
Quantum mechanics has also proved that we must inhabit a world consisting of 11 separate dimensions, however we are only aware of 3 of them (Possibly 4 if you include time as a dimension, although this is pretty controversial).
In experiments involving high speed-collisions of sub stomic particles, it has been proven that the act of observing the experiment has a direct influence over the results.

These three things alone go against many of the fundamental ideas of physics.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKid
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 07/22/00
Posts: 2,365
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: Phyl]
    #356024 - 07/17/01 08:29 AM (21 years, 2 months ago)

>Or why not come up with your own answers?
I do. I am very religious, but I do not follow any of the orthodox religions.. I doubt there is a single other person on the plant who has the same beliefs that I do.

That's NOT a religion. That is your own belief system. A religion is a formalized expression of belief.

> irtually all scientific theories colapse in extremes. I don't have any specific examples to hand, but I have them at home and will post them later if you are interested.

And virtually all religous theories collapse at a superficial glance.

> Quantum mechanics has also proved that we must inhabit a world consisting of 11 separate dimensions, however we are only aware of 3 of them (Possibly 4 if you include time as a dimension, although this is pretty controversial).

That is not quantuum mechanics NOR is it prooved at this point. That is *string theory* and there is far from enough evidence to support it, though it seems to fit the bill.

> In experiments involving high speed-collisions of sub stomic particles, it has been proven that the act of observing the experiment has a direct influence over the results.

You don't need a partical accelerator to figure out Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.

> These three things alone go against many of the fundamental ideas of physics.

They go against the *CLASSICAL* ideas of physics (eg/ newtonian physics) and are used to describe extremely small states (Plank scale). At this point quantuum physics is incompatible with special relativity (large scale physics). String theory (the 11/12 dimension theory, 3 extended, 1 time, and 7 or 8 "wrapped up" in a torus shape) promises to bridge that gap. A theory beyond string theory is being glimpsed at even though string theory is far from complete; it is called M-Theory.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineArCh_TemPlaR
enthusiast
Registered: 07/16/01
Posts: 200
Last seen: 20 years, 5 months
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: Kid]
    #356109 - 07/17/01 12:08 PM (21 years, 2 months ago)



In reply to:

The concept of nothingness in NOT entirely baseless in science or philosophy. Scientists and philosophers are probably always asking themselves 'what was there before something?' 'why is there even something?' I guess you can say nothingness is baseless because that's exactly what it is: nothing. You can't simply state that it's invalid.




Have you ever heard of theories based on nothingness? Buddhist traditions have attempted to address it but is acutely too abstract and convoluted. That is basically what nothingness comes down to: circular interpretations of creation when we have not the capability to understand even ourselves, in particular. It's a subject that equates to the quest for God.

The word 'invalid' has greater emphasis than what is lightly meant by baseless, but the meanings are the same: a subject without basis of reason or fact. Or it means a subject is not factually valid. So does Nothingness have any facts? Based on collective reasoning of all philosophers?

In reply to:

Suppose at some point in the future humans can be taken apart and put back together (like lego). So, for instance, I can take person X apart and take person Y apart and mix them together to make person Z, and discard the rest. Who is person Z?
Or suppose I can take X and Y apart and mix them and create persons A and B. Who are A and B? are they X and Y?




This is a slanted algorithmic logic problem. You're entire argument is based on genetic engineering , DNA sequencing and cloning, and cryogenics! At best, your questions could be bridge with Past Life Regression: when a person retrieves his or her past lives, it might not be entirely their past live memories they are collecting. A collection of lives bridged by one soul.

*** I have yet to determine where exactly the soul exists at all on the consciousness hierachy.

*** I have yet to understand fully why people have such different and contrasting past lives and concurrent ones - so I cannot offer much depth to my answers. It is based from what I know and what I heard from talking to actual people with Past Life experiences.

In reply to:

Now, think of a tree. You know what a tree is and you consider it a tree when it is alive. When it is dead, it is not longer a tree. Correct? Consider now that the tree has died, the next day a dandelion has grown. Can the tree now possibly be the dandelion?




It is still a tree. There is no separation of identification. If the tree stops to serve a function for nature, it will continue to serve another function after one of its transition in life: death.

The tree becomes part of the dandelion. Just as an old man dies and is buried, his decomposition will provide nutrients for the earth's soil to furthur nurture growth and life. Thus, the endless cycle of life and death in its complexity as one.

In reply to:

Now at this point you'll probably want to rebutt by saying that "souls" are made up inmaterial substances. This brings up all of the problems of Cartesian dualism (seperating mind from body), especially in the areas of sensation and free will. If you want to insist that mind and body are seperate and that souls are eternal and for whatever reason progress from human to human, for whatever absurd reason, I suggest we start a new thread.




Souls. It is immaterial to the majority of our physical senses. We are not trained and most of us are not gifted enough to see higher vibrating light (souls) that are energy fields.

*** There was time of emotional cyclones that I broke hold of believing one possessing it: our soul is our Guardian, but we do not possess it. It is not ours to control and to own.

Until you have gained the bloody tears of discipline and sacrifce, *it* will stay immaterial and unimportant to you.

Mind. What is it? a vessel of prethoughts and thoughts that cannot discriminate from good, bad, negative, positive, evil, bad, etc el.. One must train and discipline it. The mind is not yours, control of it is an illusion.

Body. A vessel that viscerally shows what suffering, pain, and despair means, so one could savor the happiness, peace, and bliss in the present journey of life.

*** I don't insist on anything but ask to engage in exploration and investigation before spewing out self-manifested, mentally suffocating perceptions. I never hinted any idea about eternal life of souls. What I imply is a pattern of continuation of life in death and in birth. Personally, I haven't gather enough information to form any kind of belief structure. I seek out of curiosity because I have an inquiring mind and as a reflex thinker based on progress and learning

Just as physics explain the machinery and the mechanics of how this world functions, so does esoteric physics. Can physics explain why such laws exist? No. It just is.

In reply to:

Or to put my point simply, past life regression is a crock of shit!




That took alot of intelligence to spew out. :o)

Have you explored the subject in depth enough to voiced such an ego-angst opinion? Why don't you try taking up your argument with the Tibetan tradition, a system well-versed in theory and application on Past Lives Regression. You will be pitted against wisdom, knowledge, and secrets spanning thousands of years. Do you have that experience? No.

FYI, most likely useless tidbit, I've met two people whose past lives were of Tibetan masters/buddhists.

In reply to:

Based on various cosmological variables, the chances for life occuring in the universe are estimated at 1 in 10 to 10^25 (ten with 25 zeros following), against. It's probability. Really, nobody knows.




Quantum Cosmology??

In reply to:

That's how you take it.




It's agreeable. :P


Lastly, I leave this quote:

"The snake that cannot shed its skin perishes. So too with the minds who are prevented from changing their views; they cease to be minds."

What does that mean to you?


Peace



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhyl
old hand
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 597
Loc: United Kingdom
Last seen: 13 years, 12 days
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: Kid]
    #356132 - 07/17/01 01:20 PM (21 years, 2 months ago)

That's NOT a religion. That is your own belief system. A religion is a formalized expression of belief.
Hmm... Thats not what my dictionary says:

re?li?gion (r-ljn)
n.

Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

I see no reason why someone has to follow a formal system be considered religious. Many people within an organised religion will have subtle variations in their beliefs, although they will be based around the same ideas.

And virtually all religous theories collapse at a superficial glance.

So there you go... Science collapses sometimes. Orthodox religious ideas colapse sometimes. You pays your money, you takes your choice...

That is not quantuum mechanics NOR is it prooved at this point. That is *string theory* and there is far from enough evidence to support it, though it seems to fit the bill.
I knew it was something like that. Physics isn't exactly my strongest point :)

Not proven... Need Evidence... But seems to fit the bill... Couldn't the same thing be said about God?

At this point quantuum physics is incompatible with special relativity (large scale physics).
Which was exactly my point... Science contradicts it's self sometimes. Maybe some new theory will be developed that will overcome this contradiction, but at the moment it just becomes confusing. Much like many religions really.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKid
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 07/22/00
Posts: 2,365
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: ArCh_TemPlaR]
    #356165 - 07/17/01 03:53 PM (21 years, 2 months ago)

The concept of nothingness is used in mathematics. You can't ignore it; you can't say it has no applications in reality. It's just the same as imaginary numbers which are irrational and conceived not to exist, however, they have very important applications in computer engineering.

> So does Nothingness have any facts?

any number divided by nothing is undefined.

> You're entire argument is based on genetic engineering

NO I am not tallking about genetic engineering. I am talking about picking out people's neurons, skin tissue, etc. etc. and reconstructing them into new people. This has nothing to do with DNA per se, but DNA yes could be involved.

> A collection of lives bridged by one soul.

But why would a physiologically stored piece of data (a memory) follow the inmaterial soul around?

If you believed in the buddhist tradition and a person came back as a cat, could they have the memories of their past human life? How, without the required brain hardware could they possibly interpret the data.

Cartesian dualism has some very serious problems, take a closer look at it, and you should suspect that it's highly unlikely.

> The tree becomes part of the dandelion.

Yes, just as part of a decomposed human can be part of another, but this doesn't mean that the complex brain structures that make for memories are also carried along. A human being's full identity is lost at death.

> The mind is not yours, control of it is an illusion.

Then why even bother putting a mind in that has no control but then punishing it for committing evil?

> Can physics explain why such laws exist? No.

No, and no physicist will ever claim that physics can do so.

> "The snake that cannot shed its skin perishes. So too with the minds who are prevented from changing their views; they cease to be minds."

>What does that mean to you?

It means that you think I am ignorant and inflexible, which is not much of a concern of mine, for many people on these forums resort to such types of quotes to... I dunno... scare (?) me.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKid
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 07/22/00
Posts: 2,365
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: Phyl]
    #356166 - 07/17/01 03:59 PM (21 years, 2 months ago)

> Couldn't the same thing be said about God?

The idea of God has one fundamental problem with me. The whole "design" aspect. I find it highly unlikely that a God would have a human-like enough brain to decide to design a Universe and creatures after it and then leave it's creatures like some uncaring parent in the middle of it's unforgiving void. If there was some diety that created all this, it looks more like he got bored with his creation, stopped caring, or has some bizzare sense of humour.

Also, the old Christain notion of "The Lord works in mysterious ways" and that God is essentially incomprehensible bothers me. Why worship something which you cannot understand? How do you know if it makes any difference?

> Which was exactly my point... Science contradicts it's self sometimes. Maybe some new theory will be developed that will overcome this contradiction, but at the moment it just becomes confusing. Much like many religions really.

Which is *exactly* science's strength. Science has the ability to modify and correct itself. I don't see many religions changing their beliefs.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhyl
old hand
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 597
Loc: United Kingdom
Last seen: 13 years, 12 days
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: Kid]
    #356192 - 07/17/01 05:22 PM (21 years, 2 months ago)

The idea of God has one fundamental problem with me. The whole "design" aspect. I find it highly unlikely that a God would have a human-like enough brain to decide to design a Universe and creatures after it and then leave it's creatures like some uncaring parent in the middle of it's unforgiving void. If there was some diety that created all this, it looks more like he got bored with his creation, stopped caring, or has some bizzare sense of humour.

God has stopped caring... lol... Sounds about right :) Personally I don't see god as a conscious living being in the way christians do. It just doesn't fit in with my own experiences. On the other hand though, neither does science.

My own personal view of 'God' is that there is an energy force, which is intrinsically woven throughout the fabric our reality (Omnipresent if you like). This force allows existance, but it is not responsible for creation in it's self. If this force did not exist, then reality would cease to exist. This force has a consciousness of sorts, although it is very different from human consciousness. It is neither good nor bad.
I also believe that reality is composed of many dimensions (Physical and non-physical), and this force flows through an connects all dimensions. Death is simply a movement between these dimensions. Past lives can be explained as a memory of the last time you were present in that specific dimension.

Obviously there is a lot more to my beliefs than this, but I doubt anyone wants to sit and read through them :) I'd be interested to hear your opinions on my beliefs.

Which is *exactly* science's strength. Science has the ability to modify and correct itself. I don't see many religions changing their beliefs.

Whilst the basics of an organised religion do not change, the beliefs of the people who follow that religion do change. It wasn't that long ago in history that illnesses were seen as a sign of god's anger, and now I don't think you'd find anyone blaming the plague on god's rage. Science has had a large impact on religions over recent years, and I think if any religions are going to survive any ammount of time then they HAVE to adapt to, and integrate the discoveries of science.
I know many christians, and I would say that as a general rule christians and christianity are very quickly changing their beliefs, although the basic building blocks of the religion are remaining the same. This could be different in the USA though, as I live in the UK, and I believe Christianity is very different between our countries. I have actually sat with a number of christians and watched a program about Southern State christianity and preachers, and I honestly don't think I've ever seen them laugh so hard... Just because someone says they are a christian, do not assume to know the specifics of their religion, because everyone interprets things differently.

Everything I experience has an effect on my religion. Some things make me question my beliefs, and other things affirm them. Just as science, my religion is constantly evolving.

Take care

Phil



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineskippy420
Stranger
Registered: 07/20/01
Posts: 20
Last seen: 20 years, 8 months
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: aluminum_can]
    #358359 - 07/21/01 11:47 PM (21 years, 2 months ago)

Here is what I think.

Religion = Comlete and utter bullshit
Spirituality = Something real and special

Religion is like a kind of false spirituality for people who can't think for themselves. It wraps all sorts of concepts up and presents them in simple ideas, and give "rules" that you follow to get into heaven or whatever. So if you're ignorant and like to accept everything others tell you this is fine.

Spirituality is more about being in touch with yourself and the universe. It has to come from within you to be meaningful, not out of a book or from someone else telling you something.

Buddhism is beyond religion BTW, so I'm not knocking it, I'm sure there are other schools of thought out their that are cool and don't fit the definition of religion as I'm talking about it.

Any religion that tells you you can't do things like whistle on sunday or eat pork or you have to cover your face if your a woman or bullshit like this, obviously these ideas came from a person not a higher power. Religion is mind control. Spirituality is mind liberation.

In conclusion, people who eat drugs and think about shit, or meditate and think about shit, or learn from life experience and trust their intuition are probably very spiritual.

People who accept others beliefs as their own and then think that if they can convince themselves that what they beleive is really true they are spiritual are ignorant and not in touch with spirituality.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineArCh_TemPlaR
enthusiast
Registered: 07/16/01
Posts: 200
Last seen: 20 years, 5 months
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: Kid]
    #358463 - 07/22/01 03:39 AM (21 years, 2 months ago)

Jeepers, am I the only having trouble accessing this board?

Sorry for my late response, but I'll go ahead, anyways.

In reply to:

The concept of nothingness is used in mathematics. You can't ignore it; you can't say it has no applications in reality. It's just the same as imaginary numbers which are irrational and conceived not to exist, however, they have very important applications in computer engineering.




Understood. So, basically Quantum Mechanics fall under premise of imaginary equations too. But aluminum can's concept wouldn't fit most known theories. He's saying humans are born from nothing. Hence, my previous comments are based on that.

In reply to:

NO I am not tallking about genetic engineering. I am talking about picking out people's neurons, skin tissue, etc. etc. and reconstructing them into new people. This has nothing to do with DNA per se, but DNA yes could be involved.




What's the difference? If the technologies *were* available, it would fall under the categories I mentioned. You are saying to use science in the attempt to *control* the process, not the the individual in question. But I basically tried to answer your question already.


But why would a physiologically stored piece of data (a memory) follow the inmaterial soul around?

If you believed in the buddhist tradition and a person came back as a cat, could they have the memories of their past human life? How, without the required brain hardware could they possibly interpret the data.

Cartesian dualism has some very serious problems, take a closer look at it, and you should suspect that it's highly unlikely.




First, I should re-address the concept of Souls. We assume Souls have some kind sentient relative to our ability to think and feel, perceive, and act discriminately. That is not the case. I refer to the term Higher Self as a better description. It serves a purpose in the consciousness hierachy: an observer who watches and records the person's most dominant psionic impressions. By impressions, it could be how that person has lived his or her lives. More importantly, the derivatives and development of dominant thought patterns.

If a person aspiring to be a spiritual adept, he or she will be very tuned to this light-body. This is how esoteric knowledge is passed down to them. The aspirant receives transmissions of information to further develop and cultivate their training.

That's my take.

Physiological. It's more like neurochemical transmissions being converted and transferred to the Higher Self at the time of mortal death: your unique psionic imprint. People, who can see auras, have seen people at the point of imminent death release spectacular discharges of auric energies.

Auras themselves are linked to the person's mental, physical, and emotional states: hence, thought patterns.

You could examine how mush/e/other drugs manipulate the functioning of the brain. The brain, induced with such substances, opens the energy storage circuits in the chakra system. The nerves are sending signals to the chakras to take in massive energy to stimulate the mind-altering experience.

The chakra system is *also* immaterial to most, unless you are heavily under the induction of a substance.

See the relationship?

WHY. Good question, but the answer is quite complex. I have to correlate several subjects to give you an decent answer. I am not about to attempt it. I believe you are smart enough to explore this subject if you really wish to understand the physics of life, death, afterlife, and reincarnation. It is a long-term life study, there no official schools to acquired such knowledge. Even my knowledge is very limited, yet I hope I can expand my limitations. But I can answer the question in simple terms:

A person who's life is dominant in the material world, with no belief structure, but a value structure for wealth and success. When that person passes away from natural causes, his or her sentience is in the etheric body. They have astrally projected out of their body at the time of death. this person is wondering in this non-local reality lost and confused from his/her current existence. The *only* existence he or she knew was in the 3rd dimension. So back that person goes, hurtling into another human body to continue the cycle.

NOTE: this is not applicable on a global scale because I've only explained one case of reincarnation. If it was , we would have a static population. heh

*** I met a person in a reiki open house. He told the group he has the mentality of a well-trained buddhist monk (Tibetan), but he never knew *exactly* why he was like that all his life. He finally discovers why when he participated in past life regression therapy.

History. Look at the history of academic science and technology that has shaped all modern societies of today: the advancement, the applications, and the availability is incredible. Why? While esoteric science walks in the shadows of these two titans, for now. Human history progressed from mysticism to modern globalisation of science. A state of evolution with hidden human designs.

Offtopic but Related to Academics and Esoterics

Theory Vs. Applied Theory. Was it String theory that just started bringing 4th dimension and up? Tibetan masters have known for centuries the existence of dimensional modalities. One is in 3rd dimension modality and theorizing 4th and up, while the other explores 4rd and beyond. Most of us are set in 3rd, while the minority is functioning in 4th+ or training to completion.

The applications of STring theory are very limited while, at least if you can find one, a Tibetan master who can pass on the knowledge AND experience for the right right apprentice.

On topic....

CAT. Nevermind the cat, an untrained individual cannot distinctively retrieve the memories. The questions: are those memories just inaccessable because the current state of one's principle/value/belief structure? Or maybe the brain is not developed enough to a certain point to retrieve it but needs the cultivation or help to do so?

For example, in reference to the above: astral projecters have problems with memory recall of their OBEs. Why? The systems of the brain is not readily capable of retrieving OBE memories properly after the APer returns to their body. One of the problem has to do with the amount of energy reserves to fuel the process of synthesis: chi, prana, kundalini, etc el..

The brain *is* the hardware - But it's all we got right now. LOL Unless, academic science, all of a sudden, took a vested interest in developing technology; to boost brainwave signals; to increase the proficiency of memory recall of non-local experiences.

In fact, CIA has developed a similar system to AP called Remote Viewing and its counterparts: Group RV and Coorindated RV. One of the project was ran under the name: Stargate 1 (I think).

But adepts, with a history of past spiritual lives, can retrieve their own past memories and help other people access those past lives memories.

Cartesian sounds outdated, but I will take a look. It sounds heavily intellectualized and less exper

In reply to:

Yes, just as part of a decomposed human can be part of another, but this doesn't mean that the complex brain structures that make for memories are also carried along. A human being's full identity is lost at death.




*Dead* physical body... Yet consciousness is still *alive* and transferred to another body: etheric... The identity is never lost, just inaccessable.

In reply to:

Then why even bother putting a mind in that has no control but then punishing it for committing evil?




Control and Superego. The mind is the gateway and has no essence of a pulsating living body. It is simply accessable to the ego (bad or good) and superego. Superego must decides what thought is allowed, what thought will just pass by, and what thought is suitable for expression. The superego usually supersedes the ego in thought processing of wants and needs. The ego is insatiable in all kinds of appetites. The superego decides which thought is acceptable and which is not, at that moment in time. Then, there is you, the I-consciousness, another force in the behavior equation.

NOTE: Once there is no superego left, you have the pathological criminals of killers, psychopaths, and sociopaths.


Punishment. Are you referring to negative karmic patterns??

In reply to:

It means that you think I am ignorant and inflexible, which is not much of a concern of mine, for many people on these forums resort to such types of quotes to... I dunno... scare (?) me.




No, definitely not. I meant what I said by that question. If I wanted to intimidate you, I would have been more direct with the question:

"Does this sound like you?"

Correct?

I wanted your ideas..and nothing more..

BTW- that quote was from Frederick Nietzeche egad (sp?).

My Ramblings
Usually, these non-scientific subjects fall under scrutiny from people with the logic-of-belief syndrome: "I need evidence and empirical proof."

I just shake my head because I know academic science has very little interests in financially backing studies on unravelling scientific mysteries. So when you mentioned evidence is needed for such declarations in other posts, you'll won't find it. It's self-defeating logic, but a very safe way to place reliance on a belief that is diametrically opposed to another.

This search for knowledge is journey of self-discovery; reclaim what is lost; and reclaim the innocent of a child we once were. I want to discover the inner space which holds the beautiful underdark and inner light; such places in the heart of dazzling constellations.

Blessed.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineArCh_TemPlaR
enthusiast
Registered: 07/16/01
Posts: 200
Last seen: 20 years, 5 months
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: skippy420]
    #358474 - 07/22/01 04:06 AM (21 years, 2 months ago)

How buddha your words. :O)

No doubt, the West has a misguided idea of thinking the Buddhist traditions are religious of sort. There is a huge difference between religion, esoterics, and spirituality.

I tend to stay away from religious verbosity that offers nothing but useless claptrap.





Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKid
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 07/22/00
Posts: 2,365
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: ArCh_TemPlaR]
    #358686 - 07/22/01 04:23 PM (21 years, 2 months ago)

In reply to:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NO I am not tallking about genetic engineering. I am talking about picking out people's neurons, skin tissue, etc. etc. and reconstructing them into new people. This has nothing to do with DNA per se, but DNA yes could be involved.



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



> What's the difference? If the technologies *were* available, it would fall under the categories I mentioned. You are saying to use science in the attempt to *control* the process, not the the individual in question. But I basically tried to answer your question already.

The whole point was to illustrate that our ideas of identity are illusionary.

There's a classic example of a ship at sea. Every day one peice of wood is taken off, replaced and the old one is tossed overboard. This process continues until everything, one by one, that makes up the ship has been replaced.

Is this still the original ship?

Now imagine another ship following behind it, picking up each old piece as it is discarded, and then rebuilt. Is this the original ship? Surely there cannot be two of the same ship. Which is which? and more importantly, why?

> People, who can see auras, have seen people at the point of imminent death release spectacular discharges of auric energies.

That's not evidence at all. You're trying to use non-empirical data? I could just sit here, make stuff up, and call it "Fact" then.

> The chakra system is *also* immaterial to most, unless you are heavily under the induction of a substance.

In psychology and psychiatry, something that is immaterial to most, but exists for another, is usually a sign of psychosis.

> Was it String theory that just started bringing 4th dimension and up?

No, mathematics, specifically Cartesian graphs, have created/hypothesized 4+ dimensional spaces.

> The applications of STring theory are very limited

Of course they are. The best supercomputers that exist now, would take over a century to complete basic calculations of string theory. Soon enough though, those computers will exist. One of the most fascinating aspects of string theory, is that according to it's mathematics, space can spontaneously tear apart and repair itself.

> For example, in reference to the above: astral projecters have problems with memory recall of their OBEs. Why?

And experiment conducted by Stephen LaBerge at Stanford Sleep Laboratories brought in astral projectors to project themselves to another room nearby. Not one person was able to accurately describe the room or its contents.

> Dead* physical body... Yet consciousness is still *alive* and transferred to another body

Consciousness is a function of the **living** brain.

> Once there is no superego left, you have the pathological criminals of killers, psychopaths, and sociopaths.

Criminal behaviour, even murder, is NOT pathological. I suggest you read Prisoner's of Hate by Aaron Beck and Why They Kill by Richard Rhodes (about criminologist Lonnie Athens and his theories on criminal homicide).

Pathological criminal murder is very very rare. Criminal behaviour is a conscious choice (which is exactly why in courts of law, criminals are held responsible for their behaviour; calling it pathological would be to deem their acts insane)



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCACA
veteran
Registered: 07/13/01
Posts: 1,122
Last seen: 20 years, 5 months
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: ArCh_TemPlaR]
    #360319 - 07/25/01 06:23 AM (21 years, 2 months ago)

if you don't mind, go exercise your abstract muscle on someone else "arch templar"

:frown:


--------------------
"I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing." John 15:5


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineArCh_TemPlaR
enthusiast
Registered: 07/16/01
Posts: 200
Last seen: 20 years, 5 months
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: Kid]
    #362184 - 07/28/01 04:49 AM (21 years, 2 months ago)

In reply to:

The whole point was to illustrate that our ideas of identity are illusionary.

There's a classic example of a ship at sea. Every day one peice of wood is taken off, replaced and the old one is tossed overboard. This process continues until everything, one by one, that makes up the ship has been replaced.

Is this still the original ship?

Now imagine another ship following behind it, picking up each old piece as it is discarded, and then rebuilt. Is this the original ship? Surely there cannot be two of the same ship. Which is which? and more importantly, why?





I see. No, it is not technically, unless the exceptions are: the spiritual adepts of past, present, and future. They are not the commonfolk, much like the brainiacs of science. Such examples of adepts:

Franz Bardon
Quan Yin
Milarepa
Maharishi

*** The one I know personally is an exceptional reiki master in my hometown. It matters not the identity is lost from the previous life for these adepts. It's metaphysically possible for them to retreive it. Even if it was not possible at that moment, the characteristics, attributes, and mentality of previous spiritual lives are evident, or eventually will be, in the current one. These people's timeline is synchronized for their own karmic process of purification and transformation. It is dedication spanning not years but hundreds. A mentality vastly different from dominant societies of today.

*** I have personally always felt a fascination for time and light. I have learned to create chants that essentially speaks of the timelessness and brigthness from the core of my being. I have used these chants to invoke vala [inner power] of other people. I attempt to share my experience [valence] of how timeless we really are.

Have you ever felt that?

Ships -> Convergence of the two: shared pieces of identity.

I know it doesn't exactly answer your question, but it's the best I can come up with from my current understanding.

In reply to:

That's not evidence at all. You're trying to use non-empirical data? I could just sit here, make stuff up, and call it "Fact" then.




Kirilian photography could capture auric discharges of the person, in question. The only difference in non-empirical and empirical is academic science's participated interest. To date, it has none. So if I had the scientific facts, I would most gladly use it.

*** I personally know a lady friend who can see my aura all the time. She notices drastic differences in field sizes and colors when I am on E and not. When I'm normal, it's a tiny aura of blue and yellow. When I was on E, my auric field was large with blue and green merging to create a water flow effect. E has shown me the capabilities as an innate healer that I am.

In reply to:

In psychology and psychiatry, something that is immaterial to most, but exists for another, is usually a sign of psychosis.




Are you so sure about that? Do you know how long the chakra system has existed and been mentioned with *ALL* esoteric systems? Since the dawn of mysticism, it has been integral with all of its sciences. Your comment implies such practices like Tai chi/Qi Gong [derivatives of Taoism] is hokey pokey.

Psych or psychiatry is out of its elements. All it can do is try to give explainations to something it doesn't understand or is totally ignorant of.

In reply to:

Of course they are. The best supercomputers that exist now, would take over a century to complete basic calculations of string theory. Soon enough though, those computers will exist. One of the most fascinating aspects of string theory, is that according to it's mathematics, space can spontaneously tear apart and repair itself.




The quantum computer will do it.

Space. It is truly space? For space could be a sea of light and time we cannot see. I've heard of the theory of warping space to fold and meet from one point to another. So space travel will take seconds from two points with distances spanning millions of light years.

In reply to:

And experiment conducted by Stephen LaBerge at Stanford Sleep Laboratories brought in astral projectors to project themselves to another room nearby. Not one person was able to accurately describe the room or its contents.




Do you have the link I could look at?

AP. It is a known but small problem where recall of objects is incorrect in the physical plane, not astral. The problem becomes more glaring when the projecter is not in a friendly and conducive energy field. Plus, these are not trained people like RV/CRV/GRV? Unfortunately , there are no studies to analyze the maturity of OBE ability, where the preciseness of recall may be better over time.

*** One of my experiences coincidently involved partial exit of OBE while on E. I laid on my bed, with knees tucked in, my face was facing the bed and resting on a pillow. I closed my eyes and concentrated for a few seconds. My visual field went black as night and then I saw the patterns of my bed sheet through my pillow. The patterns were incorrect but rather very connected and symmetrical. The actual patterns were not.

For Twilight



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineArCh_TemPlaR
enthusiast
Registered: 07/16/01
Posts: 200
Last seen: 20 years, 5 months
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: CACA]
    #362187 - 07/28/01 04:52 AM (21 years, 2 months ago)

Hehe. It's good for the brain muscle. :o)

My comments are hardly that impossible to grasp unless it was theoretical physics. o.O



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKid
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 07/22/00
Posts: 2,365
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: ArCh_TemPlaR]
    #362563 - 07/29/01 12:13 AM (21 years, 2 months ago)

All of you other stuff in that post was fucking non-sense.

>

In reply to:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And experiment conducted by Stephen LaBerge at Stanford Sleep Laboratories brought in astral projectors to project themselves to another room nearby. Not one person was able to accurately describe the room or its contents.




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



Do you have the link I could look at?



It's not from a link, it's from his book, "Exploring the World of Lucid Dreaming"



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineArCh_TemPlaR
enthusiast
Registered: 07/16/01
Posts: 200
Last seen: 20 years, 5 months
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: Kid]
    #362585 - 07/29/01 01:10 AM (21 years, 2 months ago)

In reply to:

All of you other stuff in that post was fucking non-sense.




Well, how eloquent you can be when you're self-righteous.

If my post was all non-sense, so Tai Chi/Qi Gong practitioners and masters are experiencing psychosis. I think not.

It appears your response to my snake quote is self-prophecized.

About the book. Whoopi doo, a book that tries to discredit a practice that existed since the development of the Tibetan system. Robert Monroe, a pioneer in AP, was one of those volunteers.

I realized we have a difference of opinions, but I thought I could learn from you. Well, I rather not with this attitude of yours.

For Twilight



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKid
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 07/22/00
Posts: 2,365
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: ArCh_TemPlaR]
    #362870 - 07/29/01 05:09 PM (21 years, 2 months ago)

and you continue the game of "holier than thou" with your little response, so don't start thinking that you've won the argument or that you're somehow better than me.

what do you want? you babble on about fucking god know's what kind of mysticism shit where there's no evidence whatsoever of it's validity. I callously dismiss it and suddenly somehow I'm to be discredited because I used the word "fucking" in one of my sentences. I guess my opinion is not valid simply because of my profanity. And I guess you are the all correct master of whatever the fuck it is you're talking about because I lost by default, apparently.

So what about what the tibetians have been doing for thousands of years? Human beings have believed all sorts of crazy shit. Don't start insisting that something is true when you have no evidence other than "people have known that for thousands of years." That's not evidence. That's nothing. People knew the earth was the centre of the solar system for thousands of years.

Give me something with some substance, then, I'll take you seriously.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleCosmicJokeM
happy mutant
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/06/00
Posts: 10,848
Loc: Portland, OR
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: Kid]
    #364041 - 07/31/01 04:06 PM (21 years, 2 months ago)

tickle tickle tickle




--------------------
Everything is better than it was the last time.  I'm good.

If we could look into each others hearts, and understand the unique challenges each of us faces, I think we would treat each other much more gently, with more love, patience, tolerance, and care.

It takes a lot of courage to go out there and radiate your essence.

I know you scared, you should ask us if we scared too.  If you was there, and we just knew you cared too.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinegnrm23
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 08/30/99
Posts: 6,488
Loc: n. e. OH, USSA
Last seen: 11 months, 20 days
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: CosmicJoke]
    #364087 - 07/31/01 07:27 PM (21 years, 2 months ago)

a three foot length of 2x4 lumber... just to get your attention, mind you...
WHACK!!!!
(i dunno 'bout you, but i feel lot's better...)



--------------------
old enough to know better
not old enough to care


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineArCh_TemPlaR
enthusiast
Registered: 07/16/01
Posts: 200
Last seen: 20 years, 5 months
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: Kid]
    #364715 - 08/01/01 08:39 PM (21 years, 2 months ago)

In reply to:

and you continue the game of "holier than thou" with your little response, so don't start thinking that you've won the argument or that you're somehow better than me.




How easily you can be pricked. How egotistical of you to assume I am better than you. Your assumptions is your own manifestations. There is no game but an exchange of thoughts. My previous response is no more but witty sarcasm and pointing to the obvious. If I wanted to be holier than you, I would seriously cram it down your throat.

In reply to:

what do you want? you babble on about fucking god know's what kind of mysticism shit where there's no evidence whatsoever of it's validity. I callously dismiss it and suddenly somehow I'm to be discredited because I used the word "fucking" in one of my sentences. I guess my opinion is not valid simply because of my profanity. And I guess you are the all correct master of whatever the fuck it is you're talking about because I lost by default, apparently.




Logic. You and I come from two different worlds, I am curious about metaphysics and esoteric science, you are not. This is a path of self-discovery and spiritual growth, not to go look for facts and evidence. Why should I use models of investigation that limit me and conform me to my society's views? I would be contradicting myself, and it would impede me greatly: to use only scientific logic and reasoning. I'm not on a science mission to prove to the world or you about what I understand. I am here on a mission for myself and to share ideas and thoughts among whoever. It's that simple. Realizing that difference, I still endeavor to learn people's difference of opinions and to give them that respect.

Discredit. These are your own words, do not put them in my mouth. And once again, you assume I'm trying to prove to you that I am right and you're wrong by your own logic, not mine.


So what about what the tibetians have been doing for thousands of years? Human beings have believed all sorts of crazy shit. Don't start insisting that something is true when you have no evidence other than "people have known that for thousands of years." That's not evidence. That's nothing. People knew the earth was the centre of the solar system for thousands of years.





Tibetans. That's call *vast* experience. An experiential system verses pure intellectualism of Cartesian Dualism. Both of which are open to disagreements. There is no absolute in the impossibility of Cartesian discourse, nor it is a sure success if people follow the practices and teachings of Tibetans. The distinct difference is in:

I think
I believe
I know, I feel

There are the people who *think* esoteric science is psuedo-phony.There are a variety of people who *believe* in faiths yet are ignorant in the machinery and physics of esoterics. Then here are certain groups of people who *know*, understand, and use the science.



And you keep insisting that I insist.. Like I am on the verge of threatening an ultimatum..


Humans. Those flock of people originated from the British empire. In those days, ignorance and fear was the main staples of Christianity. Do not lump everybody in that chain of thought. There are the crazies and there are the sane just like you. I've met people who had backgrounds in science, yet turned to esoteric science for their spiritual endeavors.

You can use whatever investigative models to suit your logic and reasoning. You can't see how limiting the use of 'evidence' to-show-proof analogy. Academic science does not care, nor its even equipped to carry such tasks. Hence, you will see no scientific proof.


Give me something with some substance, then, I'll take you seriously.




For someone who *discredits* my Tai Chi/Qi Gong comment is laughable already. It's ignorance of the Dark Ages. It would be impossible for me to *even* take you seriously.

But I'll give the difference, as substance, between you and me:

You understand Superstrings theory: plenty of theoretical possibilities to tickle the fancies of intellectuals but hardly any applications in sight.

I understand chants as an *application*. I know there have been studies done on stimuli that affects the brainwaves of the brain. The one that I know is: Sounds. There are certain frequencies of sound that alter the brainwave states from Beta [highest], Alpha, Theta, to Delta [lowest]. The lower the freqency the more receptive the person is to learning new thoughts and thinking patterns. So on a neuro-biochemical level, the chants altered the current frequencies to lower ones. On a spiritual level the effects vary for recipients; from samatha lasting minutes to weeks; experiencing Level 5 for brief moments; and having permanent life changes. What I have done is given life [intention] to my words, enchant [power of thought] them with the experiences that I had and share [bridge the chaining] them with others:

Jhanic states of Samatha and Nirvana
Sublime states of rapture, awe, wonderstruck, compassion and love


The Valences are dependent on the recipient. I do my part, the rest is up to the person. I have attempted 21+ chants from last year.

For example: There was an instance where this raver was acutely sketched out on E. I watched for half an hour and saw no improvement to his predicament. I pulled him to a quiet place, asked for permission, and did a chant. The result? His old thought patterns was replaced with a new one, the chant.


For Twilight



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKid
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 07/22/00
Posts: 2,365
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: ArCh_TemPlaR]
    #364770 - 08/01/01 10:12 PM (21 years, 2 months ago)

> How egotistical of you to assume I am better than you.

I don't assume that. If I were to assume that you were better than me, that would NOT be egotistical.

> I am curious about metaphysics and esoteric science, you are not.

No. I am very very very curious about metaphysics and ANY form as science. I just don't take things at face value. You can't just tell me something and expect me to accept it.

> I still endeavor to learn people's difference of opinions and to give them that respect.

Then I apologize for being harsh to you, and respect the fact that you took the time to reply.

> you assume I'm trying to prove to you that I am right and you're wrong by your own logic, not mine.

I am NOT trying to proove myself wrong, and if I were, I wouldn't have to rely on you.

> Academic science does not care, nor its even equipped to carry such tasks. Hence, you will see no scientific proof.

First of all, not all science is academic, nor do I care about science for purely academic reasons. Science can't care either. Science is just a method. A philosophy. Personally I need things that can be tested. I need someone to demonstrate and make an inference based on reason for me to (temporarily) accept it. Lack of evidence fuels my skepticism.

> For someone who *discredits* my Tai Chi/Qi Gong comment is laughable already. It's ignorance of the Dark Ages. It would be impossible for me to *even* take you seriously.


Many things in the history of mankind are uproariously laughable. Even in our day and age, I'm absolutely certain, that a century from now, people will laugh at some of the things we believe. For me, skepticism is a guard against being outright wrong from the very start.

> You understand Superstrings theory: plenty of theoretical possibilities to tickle the fancies of intellectuals but hardly any applications in sight.

No. Theoretical science often leads to practical applications. Nuclear physics could convince you of that, I'm sure. There might not be any applications of string theory in sight right now, but soon enough there will be.

Anyway, part of the beauty of science is doing science for it's own sake. You can say the same thing about meditation. I happen to prefer physics and chemistry over meditation, even when learning about physics and chemistry has no applicable value.

> I understand chants as an *application*.

That's personal difference then. I'm skeptical. Applications that I don't understand don't work in some cases (eg// psychological applications). Even theory sometimes doesn't help. It's complicated, but I guess you can say that it gets down to the very basic fact that for me, humans seem to make sense out of nonsense.

> On a spiritual level the effects vary for recipients;

I don't see the spiritual level. It's far too abstract. Really, I'm not too sure what you're talking about when you talk about spirituality.

This is an aside, not directed right at you: Most people claim to have a spiritual side. Most ideas of spirituality or most applications for spirituality are highly variable (some believe in using drugs, others in chants, etc). All of these inconsistencies, based around on abstract idea don't give me a very good picture of what that idea (spirituality) is supposed to be.
I used to consider myself very spiritual, but now, it's not that I consider myself UN-spiritual, it's just that I'm not sure what spirituality is supposed to be.

Anyway, despite the fact that this is an argument, I'm glad you replied, and am looking foreward to a reply to this (and don't take this condescendingly, because it's not: rarely do I express gratitude of this kind).

Peace. Kid.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinealuminum_can
addict
Registered: 05/19/01
Posts: 695
Loc: california, orange
Last seen: 20 years, 3 months
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: ArCh_TemPlaR]
    #365297 - 08/02/01 11:08 AM (21 years, 2 months ago)

i feel bad for all you zombies. just say it!!!! dont hide what you hve to say! dont get stuck in the fuckhole where you deny everything! just say it!!!!!!! that was the message i was trying to make. what would you do if i told you that i was possesed by the devil and i am trying to make you "un faithful" so you will suffer eternally in hell? you would prolly think about it and then say "of cuorse hes not the devil" and then try and try to forget about it. well i have one thing to say, you dont know if i am not the devil. only i know. that is the truth, and that is the problem. no one knows anything! i dont even know if any of you exist, it is just a possibility. i always think "what if none of this is real? what if i am just floating out somewhere in space or wherever the hell i am imagining things happening? what if this is all in my head? what if this world is nothing but a figment of my genious imagination?" there is no way of proving this isnt true (if you tell me that you exist then i dont know if you are telling the truth) you cant prove anything!!! ha! i really think that i might need seriouse mental help, but how do i know if i exist even? i actually do think i exist, but theres always a possibility that my other theory is true, and everything is in my head. i just think we should all fuck what we know, and make our own decisions! no one should be able to control you, not youre parents, not youre boss, and most of all not youre religion! you can ignore the possibility that i am the devil (i am telling you that i am not, but you still have no clue if i am telling the truth) but DO NOT IGNORE THE OTHER STUFF!!! it is youre future! you decide what it is!

sleeping by yourself at night can make you feel alone,
youre girlfriend said so, but i dont really know
Closet Cultivation


--------------------
the little kridders of nature; they dont know that thyre ugly!



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePynchon
Slow Learner

Registered: 04/28/01
Posts: 578
Loc: New Zealand
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: ArCh_TemPlaR]
    #365311 - 08/02/01 11:37 AM (21 years, 2 months ago)

heh..."understand" Superstring theory...heh...



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKid
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 07/22/00
Posts: 2,365
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: aluminum_can]
    #365447 - 08/02/01 06:24 PM (21 years, 2 months ago)

My thoughts generally lead down the "what if [bizzare idea here]?" path often. Exactly we can't know. The one problem is that you have to assume. If you were to try to evaluate your own behaviour from every "what if" that you can come up with, you would be unable to make any meaningful choices about how you behave. Basically, you have to assume something, and most people will go one to assume that they exist and that this consensus reality is a somewhat accurate representation of what's actually out there.

Religion gives people a sense of purpose. Maybe some people want to be able to assume more instead of assuming less.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhyl
old hand
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 597
Loc: United Kingdom
Last seen: 13 years, 12 days
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: Kid]
    #365455 - 08/02/01 06:41 PM (21 years, 2 months ago)

you have to assume something, and most people will go one to assume that they exist and that this consensus reality is a somewhat accurate representation of what's actually out there.

That's all well and good, and probably a natural thing to do, but in reality (no pun intended) this is also flawed. The reality that we live in every day, that you are assuming is a somewhat accurate representation is also just a manifestation of our minds, created by varius stimuli acting upon our senses.
Outside of our minds all that exists is energy. There are no solid objects, there is no light, there is no sound, etc, and this isn't even remotely similar to our own interpretation of reality.

Take care

Phil



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCACA
veteran
Registered: 07/13/01
Posts: 1,122
Last seen: 20 years, 5 months
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: Phyl]
    #365471 - 08/02/01 07:07 PM (21 years, 2 months ago)

All those things are how we interpret them to be, right? Even if this is part of a much larger hyperreality, everything here can be compared to what is there, including the journey to get there and the times when we can be so unaware of what we are doing. (Neil Diamiond sucks) But, there has to be sunlight, because we see it. If we didn't, we wouldn't have said it was there. There is evidence it is there. Yeah, we have been spawned from (GOD does Neil Diamond suck) light and we see things accordingly, but you cannot say that it doesn't exist. Where does the energy emanate from? Why is it there? If you say that light doesn't exist, then can't you say that the absence of light doesn't exist, either? Where do you draw the line? Are you saying that in other realities, these can be true? Even if we do create new realities (which is entirely possible) with different laws, it will always be based on certain things. Some things never change. Microcosms and all that. The things that never change create new ideas and new traits and characteristics when they meet new scenarios, as will always be, but this is not to say that the new scenario hasn't been met before and that there aren't "things that never change" out there that haven't gathered new traits about it because of this already, its just to say that this is true. Yeah, "new" things, but some things never change. One thing, the brain will always comprehend. You can learn this just by observing growth cycle (which you probably know - and I could be wrong, not about the growth cycle, I think) - you know, microcosms, macrocosms. Perfect analogies and the improbability that any analogy is ever good enough to really be an analogy to some degree. This just proves that it depends on the way you look at it, I think. I think life is whatever you make it to be. So, as to Claude Rifat, whose work is full of holes, reality isn't more complicated than we once thought, he is about to make it all the more complicated. Eh.. what was I saying? Depression ...

:frown:


--------------------
"I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing." John 15:5


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhyl
old hand
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 597
Loc: United Kingdom
Last seen: 13 years, 12 days
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: CACA]
    #365547 - 08/02/01 09:01 PM (21 years, 2 months ago)

All those things are how we interpret them to be, right?
It would initially seem so, but is this true?

Look at the keyboard in front of you. It's solid, right. It's made from atoms, just as everything. Now think about those atoms, they are something like 95% empty space. This means that your keyboard is 95% empty space. You may interpret it as solid, but in reality it is anything but solid.

everything here can be compared to what is there, including the journey to get there and the times
Time as we understand it is a creation of your mind. Time and space very closely linked, and may even be the same thing. As you move faster and faster through space, time slows down.

Do you believe that an insect that only lives for 24 hours will experience time in the same way you do? What about a tree or a stone?

But, there has to be sunlight, because we see it
Light is simply your eyes picking up specific frequencies of radiation. Everything we see is just a form of radiation reflecting off atoms. Light, Radiowaves, X-Rays and gamma radiation are all forms of radiation. The only difference is that out eyes are configured to pick up the frequencies we know as light.

I'm not denying that radiation exists, but I am denying that light exists outside of our minds.

If you say that light doesn't exist, then can't you say that the absence of light doesn't exist, either? Where do you draw the line
I'm saying light is our minds interpreting signals that are generated by our senses. Light as we know it doesn't exist outside our minds. If light doesn't exist, then there cannot be light or absense of light. In some places the radiation is stronger than others, hence light and no light.

Even if we do create new realities (which is entirely possible) with different laws, it will always be based on certain things
Any new reality we create with different laws must by definition exist only in our minds. We cannot change the laws of physics.

This just proves that it depends on the way you look at it
This is exactly my point. It's all in your mind.





Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinealuminum_can
addict
Registered: 05/19/01
Posts: 695
Loc: california, orange
Last seen: 20 years, 3 months
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: Phyl]
    #365620 - 08/02/01 10:43 PM (21 years, 2 months ago)

the thing is that oxygen is a drug!!! it makes you hallucinate! that is all! oxygen is what takes those atoms and turns them into images. they really arent real!

sleeping by yourself at night can make you feel alone,
youre girlfriend said so, but i dont really know
Closet Cultivation


--------------------
the little kridders of nature; they dont know that thyre ugly!



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCACA
veteran
Registered: 07/13/01
Posts: 1,122
Last seen: 20 years, 5 months
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: Phyl]
    #365623 - 08/02/01 10:47 PM (21 years, 2 months ago)

If you are trying to say that you too believe that everything depends on how you look at it, then why are you saying that light doesnt exist? lol You took some stuff out of context, maybe just to convey an extra idea or two, but, seriously Phyl, I'm glad you're not getting nasty like some other people do. =) The indians weren't wrong when they knew there needed to be a certain balance for mother nature to maintain herself and now scientists have empirical evidence of this. I realize this is more of a negative of what we're talking about, but its enough. Which was right? Yeah, both. The difference is that some people could feel it and some people were greedy and blind and numb. I think that last statement might have nothing to do with the point, but its true and it pisses me off that things came to be the way they are. Mad at the impossibility of anything happening differently. If you know how humans are, you can see that there was no other way for things to happen-ever. I forgot what I was saying... I think that light does exist outside of our minds. More than most definitely not every race in the universe sees light as we do, but, there have to be more out there that do. Every solar system out there has a star in the middle of it. You're not too old, are you, Phyl?

:frown:


--------------------
"I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing." John 15:5


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinealuminum_can
addict
Registered: 05/19/01
Posts: 695
Loc: california, orange
Last seen: 20 years, 3 months
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: CACA]
    #365637 - 08/02/01 11:07 PM (21 years, 2 months ago)

the idians also had shamans, which could communiucate with animals and living things. the indians knew of forces we cant even imagine!

sleeping by yourself at night can make you feel alone,
youre girlfriend said so, but i dont really know
Closet Cultivation


--------------------
the little kridders of nature; they dont know that thyre ugly!



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhyl
old hand
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 597
Loc: United Kingdom
Last seen: 13 years, 12 days
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: CACA]
    #365779 - 08/03/01 01:57 AM (21 years, 2 months ago)

If you are trying to say that you too believe that everything depends on how you look at it, then why are you saying that light doesnt exist?

When it comes down to it, everything that we think of as real, is just energy. The subatomic particles that are the building blocks for the structure in our universe are nothing more than points of energy. On a macroscopic level objects appear to be solid, but once you are looking on a microscopic level, and get as close as we can get to the fundamental building blocks of matter it only exists only as energy.
Bouncing around in this energy is a huge ammount of radiation, which is also energy which is moving with a specic frequency of wave. Some of these frequencies we call radio waves, some of them we call microwaves, some of them we call light. It's all essentially the same.

The world we exist in is created for us by our minds. The only connection we have to the outside world is through our senses. Our brain takes in information from our senses and combines this with our consciousness to create what we call reality. In our reality we see light, we hear sound, we feel, we taste etc, but on a fundamental level, outside of our minds this is simply energy interecting with other energy.

I'm sure many creatures from other worlds would see light as we do, but that is only because there is a convenient source of that frequence of energy available. It's the presence of the source that is important, not the frequency, as evolution will take care of the rest. If there was an abundant source of another energy, then they would use that instead, or possibly in conjunction with light.
There are creatures that live on the bottom of the sea that live without light. To them, Iight doesn't exist as they don't have the senses to register that frequency of energy. They would be unaware of light, just as without equipment we are unaware of radio waves.

Am I making any sense? I know what I'm trying to say, but I'm a bit stoned, so I'm probably just babbling.

You're not too old, are you, Phyl?
:) I suppose that depends on what you think of as old...
I'm 23.... Is that old? I don't really know...

Take care

Phil



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCACA
veteran
Registered: 07/13/01
Posts: 1,122
Last seen: 20 years, 5 months
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: Phyl]
    #365815 - 08/03/01 02:59 AM (21 years, 2 months ago)

Yeah, but they're aware of the absence of light aren't they? There is no light down there (generated by the sun that we can see so far). The creatures down there generate light, so their senses can register light. Anyways, I don't see how you can't see that what you're trying to say isn't really contradictory to what I'm saying at all. The keys are solid enough (for us) to call them solid, so they are. Yeah, the world we exist in is understood by our minds... okay? lol And it isn't OUTSIDE of our minds that its JUST energy interacting, we are energy factories. We deal with energy. We know all about it. Different kinds of "energy" manifested differently is just plain different. Your ongoing chemical reactions are keeping you alive and they are JUST energy reacting. You eat food, which is energy. Your energy extracts energy from that energy and you end up with more energy. You choose to stop at microscopic when there is much more to be seen by looking at it on a smaller level. I stop at saying its solid. I don't see the point at continuing at this lol you just keep saying that something isn't what you think it is for the exact same reason that it is what it is, which is fruitless! lol Thought you weren't that old. I'm a geezer- 19.

:frown:

Edited by CACA on 08/02/01 07:02 PM.



--------------------
"I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing." John 15:5


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKid
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 07/22/00
Posts: 2,365
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: aluminum_can]
    #365967 - 08/03/01 07:25 AM (21 years, 2 months ago)

> the thing is that oxygen is a drug!!! it makes you hallucinate! that is all! oxygen is what takes those atoms and turns them into images. they really arent real!

YOU ARE SO FUCKING STUPID! SHUT THE FUCK UP! You started this thread with a stupid ass message which I responded to. Then this thread turned into a great little debate between a bunch of us. Thanks for your stupid contributions. It's obvious that you can't even follow what the fuck we are talking about.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKid
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 07/22/00
Posts: 2,365
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: CACA]
    #365974 - 08/03/01 07:33 AM (21 years, 2 months ago)

I don't know if you can say that light exists out of our minds. It's like saying that colour exists outside of our minds. Colour is just the way we interpret varying wavelengths or combinations of wavelengths of electromagnetic energy. Light is the presence of the visible spectrum of electromagnetic energy. Light in the human sense, might not fully represent "light" to another creature, and light to other creatures might not be visible to us at all (such as infrared, which snakes see).

How much of our world is perception? Which qualities can we say actually exist? It's the same thing as qualifying an object as solid or liquid. The object itself is just a bunch of atoms and/or molecules. What makes it liquid or solid depends on the consistency and bonding between those particles. That's a pretty abstract quality, but I'm sure that most people wouldn't doubt that solidness and liquidness exist.

Science gets right down to the very building blocks of the physical universe around us. It's what you can see and test.

Still, there's always the possibility of Descartes' Evil Demon being the master of the universe, and if that's the case, well, fuck it...



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhyl
old hand
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 597
Loc: United Kingdom
Last seen: 13 years, 12 days
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: CACA]
    #366071 - 08/03/01 11:27 AM (21 years, 2 months ago)

I don't see the point at continuing at this lol you just keep saying that something isn't what you think it is for the exact same reason that it is what it is, which is fruitless!
Don't worry about it, man. I think you're somewhat missing my point, but at the end of the day it doesn't matter. I think we just have very different perspectives.
The ideas I'm trying to get across (Somewhat unsecesfully) are absoloutly fundamental to my understanding of consciousness and the nature of reality, which is why I'm posting. I'm not trying to disagree with you or get into any kind of argument, I'm just trying to put forward some ideas which challenge what many people accept as truth. Food for thought if you like.

Take care

Phil



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCACA
veteran
Registered: 07/13/01
Posts: 1,122
Last seen: 20 years, 5 months
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: Phyl]
    #366164 - 08/03/01 05:38 PM (21 years, 2 months ago)

Yeah, Phyl, I don't want to argue either and I don't want to convey that, because if there were an argument, I would just leave. I'm saying that I DO understand what you're saying, but that you're just looking at it from a different perspective and that we're both correct in our own respects, except, it sounds like you want to say that one way is the right way and another is not the right way, when I'm saying that to think that one way (yours) is right over another way (mine) is the only wrong thing. To think that one level of understanding makes something untrue is to say that something you once believed in, and, maybe discarded for a while for purposes of learning, now know HOW TRUE it is, and that the knowing of how true something is, invalidates the thing you were learning about. I think thats what I'm trying to say..that it was "fruitless" is only because we were prettymuch sharing the brass ring.

:frown:


--------------------
"I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing." John 15:5


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCACA
veteran
Registered: 07/13/01
Posts: 1,122
Last seen: 20 years, 5 months
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: Kid]
    #366174 - 08/03/01 05:54 PM (21 years, 2 months ago)

Yes, maybe not light as we understand it-okay- but the idea of light-that it gives life and what not- isn't that preserved? The animals that live without sunlight are living there because of the heat and nutrient vents and bacteria that live there. Without the sun, none of that stuff would exist, because the Earth wouldn't be hot to create those vents. But that the organisms create light in a place where light has never shone, does that say anything? Light, atleast on this planet, is certainly of the essence of life. They use light-traps to catch fish and eat them. Maybe this means death, but without death there wouldn't be the life. Death and life working so closely together.. =)  the most advanced form of human being born the first time a person took their life. This is why I am opposed to people trying to defeat death. In South America, people who not so long ago knew nothing of the business of the world, were living in the bliss of ignorance and the land. I know they probably had their own ignorant ones and knowledgable ones, since the human has elasticity when it comes to situations, but the more a person tries to have it his own way, the more problems that person can have. Those people who had nothing to do with us are having hell to pay and are now forced to sell their land. They sell their land so we can put cows that graze on grass, because their forest floor is very nutrient-rich. Before these cows, the plants had a chance to die and rot and enrich the soil. Now, that doesn't happen and the soil loses those characteristics we loved it for. Also, its packed solid so nothing can grow there from cows stepping on it. Death has to happen and I don't want to pay the consequences of defeating it. Yeah, industrial problems call for industrial solutions, but defeating death is something I want nothing to do with. What was I talking about..??

:frown:


--------------------
"I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing." John 15:5


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKid
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 07/22/00
Posts: 2,365
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: CACA]
    #366208 - 08/03/01 07:09 PM (21 years, 2 months ago)

Well, yes, the electromagnetic radiation which makes it through our ozone layer is generally only that at the visible light spectrum, which is what probably caused life in the first place. Still, other parts of the spectrum could have caused it (say on some other planet). Also, when you really get down to it, life is a bunch of complex chemical reactions taking place, so maybe simply heat (a rise in the average kinetic energy of molecules), from any heat source, could've caused life. In that case it looks like it's energy that caused life. Life being the organized, adaptable interaction of a system of matter. Matter being different from energy in that it seems to occupy a volume, and have a mass, but still convertable to energy. Is energy convertable to mass? No I've lost myself...



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCACA
veteran
Registered: 07/13/01
Posts: 1,122
Last seen: 20 years, 5 months
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: Kid]
    #366223 - 08/03/01 07:34 PM (21 years, 2 months ago)

Well, heat doesn't always have to be the source of life, but I get what you're saying. But, as I now say, humans aren't much of an advanced species until we can undo things instead of just doing them- until we can go in reverse as well as forward. As for the spectrum, sure other parts of the spectrum created life. No energy is wasted, right? I see what you're saying about energy causing life, though. I tend not to think of thought that I don't yet have on command. Maybe later on I'll think of something. I don't like thinking scientifically. There are too many details that are eventually only going to at the most modify a truth so that it can be nanoanatomically correct.

:frown:


--------------------
"I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing." John 15:5


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineArCh_TemPlaR
enthusiast
Registered: 07/16/01
Posts: 200
Last seen: 20 years, 5 months
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: Kid]
    #368916 - 08/09/01 02:22 AM (21 years, 1 month ago)

Hi Kid.. Before I make any comments, I like to apologize for antagoning your skepticism.

I have become a reactionary instead of being poised and neutral. I have failed at a lesson I've learnt from the past year: we are brothers and sisters, and should be treated as such.

So once again, I apologized for such behavior, it was very uncharacteristic of me.

I am unable to respond fully to your comments, but I will respond to some...

In reply to:

Many things in the history of mankind are uproariously laughable. Even in our day and age, I'm absolutely certain, that a century from now, people will laugh at some of the things we believe. For me, skepticism is a guard against being outright wrong from the very start.

Yes, no doubt.. there are the bad fruits and the good fruits. Taoist practices are one of the good, a science of health for the mind, heart, and body. If you are skeptical of such practices, then various forms of kung fu would fall in that category too. I'm sure you're not a skeptic of that too?? The evidence is in the people who use and benefit from it. And the only evidence you will ever uncover is when you try it yourself. The fruits of wisdom must be labored by the oneself, even if one is a skeptic. :o)

*** Yahoo Groups has informative forums on Tai Chi/Qi Gong. People of all walks of life are involved in this wonderful practice.

In reply to:

I don't see the spiritual level. It's far too abstract. Really, I'm not too sure what you're talking about when you talk about spirituality.




You lack the experiences?? You have no idea when I mention jhanic or sublime states?

Spirituality is about the basic concept of connection. You can touch a flower and stir the star. The laws of physics understand [gravity] a waterdrop falling into the ocean, while a buddhist sees the ocean falling and merging into the waterdrop. The power of perception is the essence of being who you are. All we have is a spiritual quotient, our spiritual intelligence yet to be tapped into.

*** An example of connection: my favourity color has always been blue. I never knew why until I read about auras' meaning on colors. Blue symbolizes innate spirituality and philosophy. In my writing, the captial L closely resembles the L in the graphologoy alphabet [Vimala Alphabet]. The alphabet states it represents innate spirituality. My fingers on my hand can flex back to around 130 degrees. The first and second phalanges on my fingers can flex back from 20 to 90 degrees. It shows how increbible flexible, agile, and reflexive I can be in areas of metaphysics and esoterics that required a great amount of open-mindedness.
In reply to:

This is an aside, not directed right at you: Most people claim to have a spiritual side. Most ideas of spirituality or most applications for spirituality are highly variable (some believe in using drugs, others in chants, etc). All of these inconsistencies, based around on abstract idea don't give me a very good picture of what that idea (spirituality) is supposed to be.
I used to consider myself very spiritual, but now, it's not that I consider myself UN-spiritual, it's just that I'm not sure what spirituality is supposed to be.




Spirituality is about seeking and finding a path that suits you. A journey in studying oneself thoroughly before you are ready to venture into other unexplored places. It is your personal truth and transformation that reflects that new part of you. It is not an easy path to follow as we expect it to be. I am certainly no different from you, I shared the same feelings of disconnection and confusion at times. It's growing pains, testing our armor at our weak points.

It is really up to you on how much value you place on spiritual path. One of my personal truth:

"The more difficult it is to stay on the spiritual path, the more substantial the value in return."

"To suffer is to know the wisdom of happiness."

For Twilight

BTW - no offense was taken..







Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleZen Peddler
Male User Gallery

Registered: 06/19/01
Posts: 6,379
Loc: orbit
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: ArCh_TemPlaR]
    #369674 - 08/10/01 12:58 PM (21 years, 1 month ago)

pay respect to Ganesha below!



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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4  [ show all ]

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Kratom Powder for Sale, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   North Spore Cultivation Supplies, North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract, Kratom Powder For Sale   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale, Red Vein Kratom   Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Concentrates   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* The relationship between drugs and religion manna_man 2,063 5 04/08/05 12:23 AM
by hobgoblin
* What is philosophy? / Have you studied academic philosophy? *DELETED*
( 1 2 all )
Lakefingers 4,878 38 11/15/05 08:01 PM
by CosmicJoke
* Gods and religion are different and seperate.
( 1 2 all )
Visionary Tools 3,425 36 10/29/07 12:02 AM
by Silversoul
* Eastern Religions XI: Warring State Thinkers: Zhuangzi Kremlin 955 4 11/14/03 07:54 AM
by Kremlin
* Science isn't philosiphy?!?!?!
( 1 2 all )
gluke bastid 2,917 36 10/11/02 05:32 PM
by Anonymous
* Is Islam a tolerant religion?
( 1 2 all )
mirrorsaw 5,414 31 08/18/02 09:23 PM
by Anonymous
* Eastern Religions IV: Vedism Kremlin 690 1 11/05/03 02:15 PM
by Spokesman
* More questions about Religion
( 1 2 all )
shroom-girlie 3,976 24 08/07/01 07:50 PM
by CosmicJoke

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
9,706 topic views. 1 members, 0 guests and 2 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2022 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.06 seconds spending 0.013 seconds on 15 queries.