Home | Community | Message Board

MushroomMan Mycology
This site includes paid links. 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: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflinePhyl
old hand
Registered: 01/17/00
Posts: 597
Loc: United Kingdom
Last seen: 14 years, 6 months
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: Kid]
    #356132 - 07/17/01 04:20 AM (22 years, 8 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: 07/21/00
Posts: 2,365
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: ArCh_TemPlaR]
    #356165 - 07/17/01 06:53 AM (22 years, 8 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: 07/21/00
Posts: 2,365
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: Phyl]
    #356166 - 07/17/01 06:59 AM (22 years, 8 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: 01/17/00
Posts: 597
Loc: United Kingdom
Last seen: 14 years, 6 months
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: Kid]
    #356192 - 07/17/01 08:22 AM (22 years, 8 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: 22 years, 2 months
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: aluminum_can]
    #358359 - 07/21/01 02:47 PM (22 years, 8 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: 07/15/01
Posts: 200
Last seen: 21 years, 11 months
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: Kid]
    #358463 - 07/21/01 06:39 PM (22 years, 8 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: 07/15/01
Posts: 200
Last seen: 21 years, 11 months
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: skippy420]
    #358474 - 07/21/01 07:06 PM (22 years, 8 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: 07/21/00
Posts: 2,365
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: ArCh_TemPlaR]
    #358686 - 07/22/01 07:23 AM (22 years, 8 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: 07/12/01
Posts: 1,122
Last seen: 21 years, 11 months
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: ArCh_TemPlaR]
    #360319 - 07/24/01 09:23 PM (22 years, 8 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: 07/15/01
Posts: 200
Last seen: 21 years, 11 months
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: Kid]
    #362184 - 07/27/01 07:49 PM (22 years, 8 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: 07/15/01
Posts: 200
Last seen: 21 years, 11 months
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: CACA]
    #362187 - 07/27/01 07:52 PM (22 years, 8 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: 07/21/00
Posts: 2,365
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: ArCh_TemPlaR]
    #362563 - 07/28/01 03:13 PM (22 years, 8 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: 07/15/01
Posts: 200
Last seen: 21 years, 11 months
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: Kid]
    #362585 - 07/28/01 04:10 PM (22 years, 8 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: 07/21/00
Posts: 2,365
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: ArCh_TemPlaR]
    #362870 - 07/29/01 08:09 AM (22 years, 8 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: 04/05/00
Posts: 10,848
Loc: Portland, OR
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: Kid]
    #364041 - 07/31/01 07:06 AM (22 years, 7 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: 08/29/99
Posts: 6,488
Loc: n. e. OH, USSA
Last seen: 5 months, 21 days
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: CosmicJoke]
    #364087 - 07/31/01 10:27 AM (22 years, 7 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: 07/15/01
Posts: 200
Last seen: 21 years, 11 months
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: Kid]
    #364715 - 08/01/01 11:39 AM (22 years, 7 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: 07/21/00
Posts: 2,365
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: ArCh_TemPlaR]
    #364770 - 08/01/01 01:12 PM (22 years, 7 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: 05/18/01
Posts: 695
Loc: california, orange
Last seen: 21 years, 8 months
Re: philosiphy of religion [Re: ArCh_TemPlaR]
    #365297 - 08/02/01 02:08 AM (22 years, 7 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 02:37 AM (22 years, 7 months ago)

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


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

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* The relationship between drugs and religion manna_man 2,239 10 04/28/23 04:00 PM
by Cory Duchesne
* What is philosophy? / Have you studied academic philosophy? *DELETED* *DELETED*
( 1 2 all )
Lakefingers 4,977 35 11/15/05 11:01 AM
by CosmicJoke
* Gods and religion are different and seperate.
( 1 2 all )
Visionary Tools 3,455 36 10/28/07 03:02 PM
by Silversoul
* Eastern Religions XI: Warring State Thinkers: Zhuangzi Kremlin 980 4 11/13/03 10:54 PM
by Kremlin
* Science isn't philosiphy?!?!?!
( 1 2 all )
gluke bastid 2,984 36 10/11/02 08:32 AM
by Anonymous
* Is Islam a tolerant religion?
( 1 2 all )
mirrorsaw 5,485 31 08/18/02 12:23 PM
by Anonymous
* Eastern Religions IV: Vedism Kremlin 697 1 11/05/03 05:15 AM
by Spokesman
* More questions about Religion
( 1 2 all )
shroom-girlie 4,044 24 08/07/01 10:50 AM
by CosmicJoke

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
9,889 topic views. 1 members, 15 guests and 40 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.021 seconds spending 0.004 seconds on 14 queries.