The Religion of Theism, Atheism and Agnosticism.

page: 13
17
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by bb23108
 



In any case, I am talking about the actual experiencing we live day to day in terms of our conceptual and perceptual processes, consciousness, and being. These are self-evident to us and yet scientific-materialism, because these internal dimensions cannot be quantified, dismisses such processes as being unreal.

Thus materialism renders the external world as the only reality, and people actually are buying this scientific methodology of materialism as a superior view of the world and ourselves. It is not superior and the self-evident nature of being, consciousness, conception, and perception should also be fully engaged in one's consideration of truth. To negate these processes or call them irrelevant is ludicrous to me - as they are self-evident.


If I may interject, I have already addressed the unstable and inconsistent nature of "the internal", as you call it.

"Self-evident" is not a suitable partner for "logical and critical". You insist that it has indubitable importance in the place of our lives, and that's because it influences our every thought and action. It's even influencing you right now. This does not guarantee any sort of rationality or stability to it - in fact, quite the opposite. If you decide to invest in such an unwieldy and fickle philosophy, then that is your choice.




posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Buehler
 


Originally posted by Buehler
. youre following the path that mainstream science wants you to! .

Okay, this definitely needs some elaboration because I have NO idea how you can make this statement based on what I have said, even repeatedly, in my posts here! You statement above did give me a good laugh though.
edit on 26-4-2013 by bb23108 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


Originally posted by AfterInfinity
How do you participate in existence as the whole "body-mind"? A lot of these terms that you use are representations of concepts only you are familiar with in the sense of understanding that you use them. If we are to have an effective exchange, I think it's about time you started explaining in detail the precise parameters and context of both these terms and the philosophy in which they are used. Not excerpts, such as you have been relaying from your personal understanding, but the entirety. This way, I can see where we stand in relation to one another and how our comprehension differs.
Sounds like a good idea. The term "body-mind' simply means the whole body and all of its functions, including mental, emotional, vital, and spiritual. Regardless of whether you accept the spiritual aspect, the term body-mind is simply the whole "human organism" - as LesMis likes to call it.

One of the considerations with LesMis that I appreciated on his "The Materialist Insult" thread was his and my agreement that the body-mind is best looked at as a single functional unit. I then asked the question if he (or anyone for that matter) felt obliged to live as the whole body-mind, functioning without the usual conflicts between mind and the lower body, mind and emotion, emotions and body, etc.

This question is based on the observation that people do not simply recognize, feel, and act as the whole body-mind, but tend to feel separated or abstracted from it - in the mind of thinking, and/or emotionally separative states, or vital physical desiring - rather than simply allowing the whole body-mind to participate in life as a single integrated whole.

To function in such a manner one has to allow oneself to feel altogether as the whole body-mind - from head to toe, and to relax the head from all the constant, unnecessary, obsessive, thinking; nor just identifying with the next emotional state or the next desire to have, etc., etc.

The human organism is in an internal conflict by tendency - with its head, heart, and physical aspects not recognizing, feeling, and acting as the single whole body-mind that it actually is in reality. It is constantly seeking and hardly ever feeling its inherent wholeness or unity by tendency.

This is why I asked you if you participated in life fully as the whole body-mind, with the mind (conception/perception), heart (emotion/feeling), and physical body (desire/action) all integrated as a single whole human - not in conflict nor separated or abstracted out mentally, emotionally, etc.

edit on 26-4-2013 by bb23108 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
"Self-evident" is not a suitable partner for "logical and critical".

So when Thomas Jefferson said: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." - he was on faulty ground?

Being and consciousness are also self-evident and can never truly be extricated out of one's consideration - even though this is what scientific-materialism attempts.

How could the consideration of what is absolute truth (not just factual evidence about various objects) even go on without consciousness? Again, no conditional apparatus is going to measure it, so we must discover it directly.


edit on 26-4-2013 by bb23108 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2013 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by bb23108
 



So when Thomas Jefferson said: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." - he was on faulty ground?


Was he attending a science seminar when he spoke those words? No, he was setting thr ground rules for making sure everyone would have the same rights. There's a huge difference. One is a case of scientific investigation, the other is a case of politics and spirituality.


Being and consciousness are also self-evident and can never truly be extricated out of one's consideration - even though this is what scientific-materialism attempts.


Can never be truly extricated...hence science's primary weakness: the minds that operate it.


How could the consideration of what is absolute truth (not just factual evidence about various objects) even go on without consciousness? Again, no conditional apparatus is going to measure it, so we must discover it directly.


Twelve people can discover an event directly and all twelve describe it a different way. Twelve different descriptions from twelve different vantage points and twelve different minds with various ability to discern what is presented to them. Twelve hearts that all hold conflicting beliefs and emotional bias. Twelve souls that are not invulnerable to manipulation and doubt. What, then, is the absolute truth among these? And how can you guarantee the truth from any of them?



posted on Apr, 27 2013 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
Was he attending a science seminar when he spoke those words? No, he was setting thr ground rules for making sure everyone would have the same rights. There's a huge difference. One is a case of scientific investigation, the other is a case of politics and spirituality.
And yet we do not doubt the self-evident truth of his words. In this same manner, no one doubts that they actually exist - it is self-evident! So to try and eliminate oneself from any consideration of absolute truth is impossible and futile.


Originally posted by AfterInfinity
Can never be truly extricated...hence science's primary weakness: the minds that operate it.
And so science is therefore limited by definition. It speaks to only a partial picture of conditional reality and so is not the proper method for discovering absolute unconditional truth.


Originally posted by AfterInfinity
Twelve people can discover an event directly and all twelve describe it a different way. Twelve different descriptions from twelve different vantage points and twelve different minds with various ability to discern what is presented to them. Twelve hearts that all hold conflicting beliefs and emotional bias. Twelve souls that are not invulnerable to manipulation and doubt. What, then, is the absolute truth among these? And how can you guarantee the truth from any of them?
Yes, I understand this, but you are still assuming that we are talking about truth being found as some objective matter that can be studied like science studies an object, or the mind considers any process or concept. This is all conditional musing as a subject over against an object, not direct recognition of Reality beyond the subject-object model. Unconditional Reality is self-evident when recognized.

However, of course, you argue against assuming anything as self-evident in this consideration, and yet everyone blithely assumes that we are actually the body-mind. But are we, in reality, actually the body-mind? This is what there is to discover, and it requires first a willingness to release the presumed beliefs that we are only the body-mind - because we assume it is self-evidently so.

But is this actually the case? Are we actually simply these physical body-minds in reality? Prove you are the body-mind! Has science done this to your satisfaction? Have you actually discovered that you are the body-mind through a profound process of inspection or are you just assuming it as self-evident?

And yet all of our presumptions hinge on this basic assumption, that we are the body-mind, a separate subject over against a world of objects and others. Even the myth of the Creator-God arises out of this separative presumption that we are the body-mind, separate from what is arising. But are we actually?

This is why we should stay utterly open to, and deeply involved with, what our real condition is here altogether, and to not just settle for partial discoveries that science has made, combined with some vague hopefulness that science will someday discover absolute truth - and is therefore the best approach to such discovery.

Any methodology that leaves out the very being, or consciousness itself, is inherently limited to discovering only facts, partial truths about how physical things work - but not even what those things actually ARE, and certainly not absolute truth.
edit on 27-4-2013 by bb23108 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2013 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by bb23108
 


I'm done talking about this with you. You're obviously not getting what I'm saying and there's only so many ways I can say it. There's objective reality, and subjective reality. Objective truth and subjective truth. The ground is resistant. Objective truth. Dogs are ugly. Subjective truth.

Your subjective truth is irrelevant to my objective truth because your subjective truth is heavily influenced by (perhaps even relies on) a medley of interpretive experiences and translated stimuli crossed with conditioned emotional responses and beliefs - in contrast to my objective truth, which can be substantiated using scientific methods both tried and proven. It doesn't matter how I feel or what I believe, if I perform the exact same study multiple times, the same results will be seen each and every time, leaving only pure unadulterated truth regardless of who is there to observe it. And in the end, that makes my objective truth more reliable, and therefore more valuable, than your subjective truth. And the only reason your subjective truth is important to you is because it is YOUR PERSONAL TRUTH. Which means when you die, it goes with you. Unlike objective truth, which tells us the earth will continue to spin long after we're both dead and gone.

And that is why we are so dependent on scientific materialism. Because our existence is heavily dependent upon materialism, and scientific materialism arms us with the best tools for utilizing this material world, and expanding our understanding of it, to its utmost potential. I'm sorry if that upsets you, but I rather enjoy being aware of myself, and I see no reason to believe that I will be able to indulge in such an experience without this physical vessel that requires material sustenance. Clearly, I'm not the only one.

edit on 27-4-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2013 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 
But you didn't even answer my questions about whether you are assuming that you are the body-mind, and if this is assumed by you as being self-evident. Can you answer this? And if you assume you are the body-mind, can you prove it?

Plus you refuse to see the difference between scientific facts and what is actual truth or reality. When I speak of absolute truth I am not speaking of simply objective facts. But you only equate the two. And then you lash out with your emotional conclusions about everything I say as being only subjective, and therefore false(!), because science, with its inherent limitations, cannot prove these matters. This does not appear very open of you.

And also, after I went to the trouble of explaining what I mean by the body-mind, you never answered anything about that either.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 27-4-2013 by bb23108 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2013 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by bb23108
 


With all due respect, screw your mind-body complex thingy. I don't analyze how I think any more than I analyze how I take a crap. I just do it. My body doesn't think. My body is the vehicle, and I am the computer that operates it. Without my brain, my body is a meat sack. I don't want to play woo-woo terminology games with you. I have given you my argument, and you've overcomplicated it to the point that I got frustrated with your needlessly complex woo-woo games, settled down, formulated by response, and posted it.

I'm done with this, and with you. There's nothing more I have to say on the topic. Unless you can prove that your little philosophy is a worthwhile investment in a material world.



posted on Apr, 27 2013 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
My body is the vehicle, and I am the computer that operates it.
Can you prove this or is this just self-evident to you? What is this "I" you say is operating the body? Isn't this the very "I" that scientific-materialism attempts to eliminate?

And is the so-called external objective reality actually really external and objective - given everything you have ever experienced of the world is simply a perception or conception rather than ACTUALLY being the real objective external thing? Or are you once again just assuming this based on your thinking it is self-evident?

It does seem like a lot of your materialistic presumptions are based in your assuming they are self-evident - and unless you can otherwise prove them, they are just beliefs, part of your idealistic belief system, not unlike religious beliefs in order to feel secure and in control.

So far, you seem to be ignoring this challenge to actually prove you are the body-mind, that the world you experience is truly external and objective, etc. - rather than your just assuming that it is all obviously self-evident, which I know you greatly oppose, even discount, anything that is simply self-evident.

Considering these questions may help to break one out of the materialistic box that most people just self-evidently assume to be the case.

Anyway, I too do not want to continue going around in circles with you. In fact, I usually don't with you any more, but if I recall correctly, you initially engaged me, not the other way around. In checking whether this is a fact, you even implored me, lol:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 27-4-2013 by bb23108 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by bb23108
 



Can you prove this or is this just self-evident to you? What is this "I" you say is operating the body? Isn't this the very "I" that scientific-materialism attempts to eliminate?


You appear to have overlooked psychology, which has gone to great lengths to map the human psyche. Hence, the science of "I". While this isn't technically scientific materialism, it uses the same methods and techniques in order to secure the most reliable system of approaching the mind of the human being.


And is the so-called external objective reality actually really external and objective - given everything you have ever experienced of the world is simply a perception or conception rather than ACTUALLY being the real objective external thing? Or are you once again just assuming this based on your thinking it is self-evident?


It's as close as we have come. In fact, if I really wanted to be that objective about it, there's a number of well-established researchers I can contact for the details necessary to correct any perceptual errors I may be experiencing. Objective observation is not hard to detect when you go the right way about it. But you seem to think that since nothing is perfect, your approach is as good as any. This is, quite simply, not the case.

While nothing is perfect, there are some systems that have been deliberately tested to the point that there is no better system. Yours, I daresay, does not qualify.


It does seem like a lot of your materialistic presumptions are based in your assuming they are self-evident - and unless you can otherwise prove them, they are just beliefs, part of your idealistic belief system, not unlike religious beliefs in order to feel secure and in control.


Oh, like the Eucharist. That belief defies all scientific knowledge, and yet many will insist that it is a valid phenomenon that require belief to substantiate. Belief, and a total absence of scientific investigation. Hence, my preference for objective scientific materialism.


So far, you seem to be ignoring this challenge to actually prove you are the body-mind, that the world you experience is truly external and objective, etc. - rather than your just assuming that it is all obviously self-evident, which I know you greatly oppose, even discount, anything that is simply self-evident.


I'm choosing to ignore this body-mind thing you keep talking about because I don't talk that way and don't particularly care to understand what you mean by it because it's relevant to your methodology and not mine. And by mine, I mean that of every respected scientist in the world. You know, the methodology we teach kids in school.


ax·i·o·mat·ic
/ˌaksēəˈmatik/
Adjective

Self-evident or unquestionable.


Your beliefs are not axiomatic. But the difference between your non-axiomatic beliefs and our non-axiomatic beliefs is that we have the reliable methods to find an axiomatic solution - that is, until we think of more questions to ask. But that's the beauty of science. Whereas your method invites a whole lot of, "Well, we can't really be sure so there's no point in trying, right? Let's just make something up and repeat it until we believe it."

Just because the truth is hard to determine doesn't make lying worthwhile. That just means your entire life and world is built on fabrications when you could have died knowing one single indomitable truth - a truth that can be corroborated by anyone who has the right set of tools and a few brain cells with which to use them.


Considering these questions may help to break one out of the materialistic box that most people just self-evidently assume to be the case.


The materialist box is the most easily determined, verified, and assured. Hence, the best starting place for those interested in axiomatic truths. Not to mention that the search for axiomacy teaches us how to think critically and pin point the truths among the uncertainties. It helps to know where to start looking when you decide you want to know something.



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
You appear to have overlooked psychology, which has gone to great lengths to map the human psyche. Hence, the science of "I". While this isn't technically scientific materialism, it uses the same methods and techniques in order to secure the most reliable system of approaching the mind of the human being.
So what is this "I" to you?


Originally posted by AfterInfinity
It's as close as we have come. In fact, if I really wanted to be that objective about it, there's a number of well-established researchers I can contact for the details necessary to correct any perceptual errors I may be experiencing. Objective observation is not hard to detect when you go the right way about it. But you seem to think that since nothing is perfect, your approach is as good as any. This is, quite simply, not the case.
I am simply pointing out that everything we deem as objective is simply a perception that is not external, and is already in the past because the perception of the whatever, takes time. Of course these functions work for survival purposes, but this is not to say that perception, i.e., the five senses, are necessarily the best basis for determining our actual reality construct. Our perception cannot even know what any thing actually looks like in reality, much less, what any thing actually IS.


Originally posted by AfterInfinity
Oh, like the Eucharist. That belief defies all scientific knowledge, and yet many will insist that it is a valid phenomenon that require belief to substantiate. Belief, and a total absence of scientific investigation. Hence, my preference for objective scientific materialism.
Well, I cannot subscribe to such believing either - I would think you know that by now. I am only questioning why one puts so much faith in scientific-materialism when we can discover directly that our reality transcends the materialistic world-view that scientific-materialism is limited to by definition.


Originally posted by AfterInfinity
I'm choosing to ignore this body-mind thing you keep talking about because I don't talk that way and don't particularly care to understand what you mean by it because it's relevant to your methodology and not mine. And by mine, I mean that of every respected scientist in the world. You know, the methodology we teach kids in school.
Well maybe you could give that post relative to what I mean by the "body-mind", another read. It really is not complicated, and I know you certainly have the intellect to understand it. Why do you not assume the body-mind is best looked at as a singular whole, at least for the sake of living and functioning in the world?


Originally posted by AfterInfinity
Just because the truth is hard to determine doesn't make lying worthwhile. That just means your entire life and world is built on fabrications when you could have died knowing one single indomitable truth - a truth that can be corroborated by anyone who has the right set of tools and a few brain cells with which to use them.
I don't have any problem with scientific method as a means for discovery - it just has an inherent limit when it comes to that which transcends the material. Why limit yourself to just scientific methodology? Use it to the extent that it helps you, but don't cling to it like some religious fanatic.

edit on 8-5-2013 by bb23108 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by bb23108
 



Why limit yourself to just scientific methodology? Use it to the extent that it helps you, but don't cling to it like some religious fanatic.


Because contrary to your apparent beliefs, scientific methodology is by far the most effective and reliable investigative technique we have developed as a species. Your reference to that which transcends the material boasts virtually no reliable investigative techniques at this point in time.

Just as James Cameron waited over a decade before producing Avatar due to technical difficulties at the time he thought of it, so we should wait until we have developed suitable investigative methods before exploring anything beyond our material reality. There's no point to doing anything unless you're going to do it properly.

What "scientific methodology" would you propose for exploring these other realities you're so keen about?
edit on 9-5-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by bb23108
 



Why limit yourself to just scientific methodology? Use it to the extent that it helps you, but don't cling to it like some religious fanatic.


Because contrary to your apparent beliefs, scientific methodology is by far the most effective and reliable investigative technique we have developed as a species. Your reference to that which transcends the material boasts virtually no reliable investigative techniques at this point in time.

Just as James Cameron waited over a decade before producing Avatar due to technical difficulties at the time he thought of it, so we should wait until we have developed suitable investigative methods before exploring anything beyond our material reality. There's no point to doing anything unless you're going to do it properly.

What "scientific methodology" would you propose for exploring these other realities you're so keen about?
edit on 9-5-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

Scientific methods are good but only if you do it yourself and see yourself. Direct experience is more reliable than believing what you have been told. Directly looking and finding out rather than relying on here say is always best, in my opinion.
edit on 9-5-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 




Scientific methods are good but only if you do it yourself and see yourself. Direct experience is more reliable than believing what you have been told. Directly looking and finding out rather than relying on here say is always best, in my opinion.


That's the best part about it though. You can use these scientific methods any number of times and you will still achieve the same results. And if you do not, then the scientific methods can help you find out why.



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 02:57 PM
link   
I agree that all concepts involving theistic belief - including the absence thereof, the existence thereof, and skepticism thereof - are predicated upon having learned about the concept of deity.

That said, while I consider myself agnostic in that - given that I have lived on this planet and been exposed to the concept of deity and cannot change that fact - I do not know whether a deity does or even can exist or not, I do not ever make the assertion that proof of a deity is impossible. I simply restrict myself to saying, "I don't know." (I don't even include "we.")

Peace.



posted on May, 13 2013 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by AceWombat04
 


My opinion is that no deity can exist according to the parameters set in place by the most popular theistic systems of our time. The Judaic god, in particular, is so contradictory and so overwhelmingly written to avoid the possibility of weakness that, by default, it lacks individuality. It has been given qualities designed to forgo the flaws inherent in our own nature, which speaks strongly of our own lack of comprehension regarding the true potential of said flaws.

In short, most of the gods of our world have been written according to how we understand ourselves and what we want from ourselves, simultaneously. There are an astonishing number of parallels between the mass societal self-regard and the character profiles of their respective deities. It can be inferred, and argued, that ever since ancient times, we have worshipped both the best of who we are and the best of who we want to be. But the trick was to externalize these representations of ourselves so as to set those qualities apart from the weaknesses that we despised so much.

And as religion evolved, so did our intentions and methods...until we decided that these dreams of what we could become had to be excised from the reality of who we are if they were ever to become fully realized. And ever since then, we've made a point of forgetting where our gods come from in the hope that we will not hold ourselves back. Which, in my opinion, was our biggest mistake...because now we've forgotten what it really means to be a god, and why we wanted to be such in the first place.



posted on Aug, 26 2013 @ 11:53 PM
link   



posted on Aug, 27 2013 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 


Can you add a little text to that post for people who are unable to access video? I don't think just throwing videos in without context or a note from the poster is proper ATS etiquette.
edit on 27-8-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2013 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 


Can you add a little text to that post for people who are unable to access video? I don't think just throwing videos in without context or a note from the poster is proper ATS etiquette.
edit on 27-8-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

Here is an extract taken from the video for you.


Neil deGrasse Tyson: I'm often asked -- and occasionally in an accusatory way -- "Are you atheist?" And it's like, you know, the only "ist" I am is a scientist, all right? I don't associate with movements. I'm not an "ism." I just - I think for myself. The moment when someone attaches to a philosophy or a movement, then they assign all the baggage and all the rest of the philosophy that goes with it to you, and when you want to have a conversation they will assert that they already know everything important there is to know about you because of that association. And that's not the way to have a conversation. I'm sorry. It's not. I'd rather we explore each other's ideas in real time rather than assign a label to it and assert, you know, what's going to happen in advance.
So what people are really after is, what is my stance on religion or spirituality or God? And I would say, if I find a word that came closest it would be agnostic. Agnostic -- the word dates from the 19th century -- Huxley -- to refer to someone who doesn't know but hasn't yet really seen evidence for it but is prepared to embrace the evidence if it's there but if it's not won't be forced to have to think something that is not otherwise supported.
There are many atheists who say, "Well, all agnostics are atheists." Okay. I'm constantly claimed by atheists. I find this intriguing. In fact, on my Wiki page -- I didn't create the Wiki page, others did, and I'm flattered that people cared enough about my life to assemble it -- and it said, "Neil deGrasse is an atheist." I said, "Well that's not really true." I said, "Neil deGrasse is an agnostic." I went back a week later. It said, "Neil deGrasse is an atheist." -- again within a week -- and I said, "What's up with that?" and I said, "I have to word it a little differently." So I said, okay, "Neil deGrasse, widely claimed by atheists, is actually an agnostic."
And some will say, well, that's -- "You're not being fair to the fact that they're actually the same thing." No, they're not the same thing, and I'll tell you why. Atheists I know who proudly wear the badge are active atheists. They're like in your face atheist and they want to change policies and they're having debates. I don't have the time, the interest, the energy to do any of that. I'm a scientist. I'm an educator. My goal is to get people thinking straight in the first place, just get you to be curious about the natural world. That's what I'm about. I'm not about any of the rest of this.
And it's odd that the word atheist even exists. I don't play golf. Is there a word for non-golf players? Do non-golf players gather and strategize? Do non-skiers have a word and come together and talk about the fact that they don't ski? I don't—I can't do that. I can't gather around and talk about how much everybody in the room doesn't believe in God. I just don't—I don't have the energy for that, and so I . . . Agnostic separates me from the conduct of atheists whether or not there is strong overlap between the two categories, and at the end of the day I'd rather not be any category at all.

edit on 27-8-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
17
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join