 sj |
||
|
||
BS: The Delusion delusion.
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion. From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 24 Nov 10 - 07:22 PM "A good start may be not to call it "gibbering nonsense" to the person, or to resist the temptation, and not get on the topic at all:)" Good in theory, but not necessarily easy in the execution, especially if the obsessively opinionated one has compulsive verbal diarrhea... or they just keep knocking on your front door ... :-P |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion. From: GUEST,Jon Date: 24 Nov 10 - 09:27 PM LH, I think one can have personal foundation for beliefs. And have very strong beliefs with reason. But to know (while you can feel certain but that is subtly different IMO) on some things is something that will only happen for most of us who believe in some deity or other power is probably only going happen after death in this world. Or to know on some things if atheists are right are things we will never know. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion. From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 24 Nov 10 - 10:13 PM Little Hawk: "You can disagree with an opinion, but why attack it on the basis of it supposedly being a "belief" when it's just an opinion? Just recognize that it is an opinion, and if you want to disagree with it, that's fine, but if you cannot disprove it, don't act like you absolutely KNOW whether or not it is so. Cos you don't. You just have another opinion." What blows me away, is when someone with a 'differing opinion', instead of addressing the issue, starts parroting blather...and when they run out of stored false bullshit explanations, start attacking the person! Now if you want to get into a 'battle of wits' using insults, don't get your tights in a bundle when that blows back in your face, too. Enjoy the trip!...and appreciate that you were out witted, because you might be the last to know, that you're just an idiot....with an opinion!! Wink, GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion. From: Ebbie Date: 25 Nov 10 - 12:59 AM I expect this has been picked up by someone but I didn't find it just now. Steve Shaw, In the space of less than an hour you say two wildly different things. Do you concur with the Carrollian dictum that a word means whatever you want it to mean? Quote: What I want is evidence. I ask for this and never get any. Not witness or hearsay or tradition or myth. Evidence. Show me someone who can prove they existed in a former life. You just can't, because there isn't anybody (except for people making ludicrous claims that we're all supposed to respect and believe). I promise you, I'll believe anything that's supported by evidence. 7:05 For about the eleventeenth time, I am not interested in proof. Nothing we are talking about will ever be susceptible to proof one way or the other. I really wish we could get that out of the way once and for all. If you think there's a power beyond all understanding (which means a power that sidesteps all the laws of nature, etc.), then I'm very interested but I require proof. 7:40 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion. From: GUEST,Jon Date: 25 Nov 10 - 01:04 AM A lot is strange... I might feel certain that Steve Shaw and myself could get into vicious battles over belief. OTOH, it is clear from his posts he could teach be some things I'd love to know about cricket. It would also seem reasonable to suggest that (assuming I was on a good day) could happily join him playing say the Kesh Jig. Not sure life is ever as simple as we may want it to be... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion. From: Little Hawk Date: 25 Nov 10 - 01:05 AM Yup. The human race in general is just a not very well informed idiot with an opinion. We all know a little...very little...of what is out there to know. To admit that one only knows a little is a good start toward becoming genuinely human, and developing some degree of respect and understanding for other people, and not being threatened by the many differences of opinion that one encounters, but finding them instead quite interesting to think about and consider. Jon - I understand that one can have "personal foundation for beliefs". For sure. That foundation arises out of one's culture, one's background, one's family, and one's own personal experiences and inner feelings. It's part of what we call "a sense of identity". Everyone has such a foundation of beliefs, opinions, habits, etc. All these threads are usually really about is that everyone is out there defending his own personal foundation of belief, habit, and opinion. Yet most people are so pretentious as to think that their foundation is so superior that they must persuade everyone else in teh world to adopt it. That's a grievour error in human relations. It's an error made by those who proselytize religion aggressively...and it's an error made by those who attack religion aggressively. They are both out to change others, having the bizarre view that they can save those others from themselves by destroying the other person's present sense of identity and replacing it with their own. That's tantamount to invading and conquering another person. It's like trying to exercise mind control by nental force. People don't like being invaded and conquered, and they will fight every inch of the way to defend their existing identity. And that's perfectly understandable. A wise person doesn't invade someone else's sense of identity...their foundation of belief...and try to supplant it with his own. He listens to their explanation of their sense onf identity, learns whatever he can from it, and leaves them alone to be who they are. He neither surrenders his own identity nor attacks the identity of others, because he doesn't need to, and he knows it. He feels safe in a world of differences. And that's how you would have a peaceful world....if people were wise enough to do that...but in a great many cases they are not. They'd rather be at war with what's different than live happily in a world with many different identities and forms of belief. The little murdering fascist lives inside every human being and says, "Attack, conquer, and convert or destroy all those who think differently. Make them see that there is only ONE right way to do everything...my way! They'll be grateful when they finally see the light." That little fascist can be either religious or anti-religious, and it makes little difference, because whichever one he is, he still spills blood all over this world every day. He will not leave other people alone to just be who they are. He must change them. Well, he has no right to change anyone but himself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion. From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 25 Nov 10 - 01:09 AM Ebbie, for that tidbit of accuracy in observation, you get a star named after you, in the heavens above 'Galactic Central'!....not only that, you are absolutely RIGHT! I've noted in another post, and others pointed it out, too, that he makes no sense,...but yours is priceless! Steve, on the other hand, gets the 'idiot with an opinion award' with the 'special commendation' of being 'as good as the last person he talked with! ...and Ebbie, may all your Thanksgiving biscuits, have halos over them, and be a 'heavenly delight'! Happy Thanksgiving! Guest from Sanity |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion. From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 25 Nov 10 - 01:12 AM Hey, Little Hawk..You're up?..Is it too late to ring you up? I left you some 'notes' last time. Did you get them? GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion. From: GUEST,Jon Date: 25 Nov 10 - 01:19 AM That's tantamount to invading and conquering another person. But is a trap we can all fall into. It just can't be done thought if tied by people with power, atrocities can arise... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion. From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 25 Nov 10 - 01:24 AM Jon: "But is a trap we can all fall into. It just can't be done thought if tied by people with power, atrocities can arise..." I just love it when he talks dirty.... GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion. From: GUEST,Jon Date: 25 Nov 10 - 01:46 AM Im just not sure whch HE ia talking dirty GFS. I'd feel pretty certain it is not the God I try to find,,, But Satan, human greeds, stupidities and desires, listening to others with desire for power. I'll just again go ???? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion. From: GUEST,Jon Date: 25 Nov 10 - 02:35 AM Oh and on know, one thing I;d feel certain of is that if I post here, by my wording and thoughts, Joe, Jeri and Kat to name 3 MC mods would "know" it was from Jon Freeman who once lived in Wales and now lives in Norfolk even if I called myself Fred Smith from Tokyo and faked an IP address in some way, they all know me, my attempts at thought and wording too well for that to be... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion. From: Steve Shaw Date: 25 Nov 10 - 05:40 AM I expect this has been picked up by someone but I didn't find it just now. Steve Shaw, In the space of less than an hour you say two wildly different things. Do you concur with the Carrollian dictum that a word means whatever you want it to mean? Quote: What I want is evidence. I ask for this and never get any. Not witness or hearsay or tradition or myth. Evidence. Show me someone who can prove they existed in a former life. You just can't, because there isn't anybody (except for people making ludicrous claims that we're all supposed to respect and believe). I promise you, I'll believe anything that's supported by evidence. 7:05 For about the eleventeenth time, I am not interested in proof. Nothing we are talking about will ever be susceptible to proof one way or the other. I really wish we could get that out of the way once and for all. If you think there's a power beyond all understanding (which means a power that sidesteps all the laws of nature, etc.), then I'm very interested but I require proof. 7:40 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion. From: Steve Shaw Date: 25 Nov 10 - 05:54 AM Oops, sorry about that last one. I expect this has been picked up by someone but I didn't find it just now. Steve Shaw, In the space of less than an hour you say two wildly different things. Do you concur with the Carrollian dictum that a word means whatever you want it to mean? Quote: What I want is evidence. I ask for this and never get any. Not witness or hearsay or tradition or myth. Evidence. Show me someone who can prove they existed in a former life. You just can't, because there isn't anybody (except for people making ludicrous claims that we're all supposed to respect and believe). I promise you, I'll believe anything that's supported by evidence. 7:05 For about the eleventeenth time, I am not interested in proof. Nothing we are talking about will ever be susceptible to proof one way or the other. I really wish we could get that out of the way once and for all. If you think there's a power beyond all understanding (which means a power that sidesteps all the laws of nature, etc.), then I'm very interested but I require proof. 7:40 Well, the very last word in all that lot was a mistake - I meant "evidence." I'd already typed "proof" twice and it must have suggested itself to me again. It got past the proofreader of course (Sorry, Jon, you picked me up for it before but I didn't connect). As for the rest, I'm not going to admit to any inconsistency there at all. If you want to persuade me that there is a God I require evidence. If someone wants to persuade me that they existed in a previous life I require proof. There is a difference. If you want to persuade me that George Washington had existed in a former life I'll have to settle for evidence, but it had better be good. If you make an unusual personal claim to something or other I think I'm entitled to ask you to prove it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion. From: Ed T Date: 25 Nov 10 - 06:08 AM A list of logical fallacies found in this and other related threads. Bifurcation Circulus in demonstrando Affirmation of the consequent Argumentum ad ignorantiam Plurium interrogationum Reification / Hypostatization Argumentum ad novitatem Argumentum ad nauseam Argumentum ad lazarum Argumentum ad hominem |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion. From: Steve Shaw Date: 25 Nov 10 - 06:24 AM loco in transit illegitimes non carborundum de minimis non curat lex post hoc ergo propter hoc Ite missa est Deo mucho gratias |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion. From: Ed T Date: 25 Nov 10 - 06:50 AM Thanks Steve for that. I see you do pay attention. Must be from the class room experience. :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion. From: Steve Shaw Date: 25 Nov 10 - 07:15 AM I do pay attention most of the time, though not sufficiently to my own posts on occasion, it seems. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion. From: Little Hawk Date: 25 Nov 10 - 10:22 AM Why should anyone wish to persuade you that there is a God or that there is reincarnation, Steve? ;-) What for? I mean, look, I personally think reincarnation is quite probable...but that's just my own thought on the matter...I have no need to persuade YOU of it. It doesn't bother me that you are sceptical of the concept of reincarnation and that you don't believe in God. I simply don't care. What does bother me, though, is that YOU appear to be trying to persuade the rest of the world (or at least the membership of Mudcat Cafe) that there is NO God and that there is NO reincarnation, when you have absolutely no way of being sure about either one of those things. Accordingly, you annoy me much as I would be annoyed by a Jehovah's Witness who stands at my door trying to persuade me about his version of Jehovah or a salesman at my door who's trying to sell me an overpriced vacuum cleaner. ;-D "Do you get me, sweetheart?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion. From: Steve Shaw Date: 25 Nov 10 - 10:35 AM Exactly. I was being hypothetical. I had to be to respond to Ebbie's challenge. It doesn't bother me that you are sceptical of the concept of reincarnation and that you don't believe in God. I simply don't care. Nah, me neither. It's such a silly idea. I don't not believe in God, by the way. You come on here bollocking people who disagree with you and you haven't even read the thread. What does bother me, though, is that YOU appear to be trying to persuade the rest of the world (or at least the membership of Mudcat Cafe) that there is NO God and that there is NO reincarnation, when you have absolutely no way of being sure about either one of those things. Nope. For the thirteenteenth time, I have no proof one way or the other and never will have. "Sure" simply don't enter into it. It's a discussion forum and I'm saying on it what I think, as are you with your tosh about reincarnation. I didn't start the bloody thing. "Do you get me, sweetheart?" In your dreams, you condescending pillock. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion. From: GUEST,Jon Date: 25 Nov 10 - 11:12 AM Yup Steve but I would be equality entitled to to ask you to provide evidence no God exists... And so we could go round in circles... I'd much rather learn from you about say Everton Weeks or share a tune with you, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion. From: GUEST,Jon Date: 25 Nov 10 - 11:32 AM Actually just looked up on wikipedia, To have a test batting average of 58 and in first class cricket to have a 304 not out is not at all bad!!!! Parents tell me of the 3 Ws |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion. From: Steve Shaw Date: 25 Nov 10 - 11:34 AM Yup Steve but I would be equality entitled to to ask you to provide evidence no God exists Well you could but it doesn't make sense that way round. It's like my telling you that I saw a rare bird flying over my garden and I challenge you to produce evidence that I didn't. You'd think I was a bit of a crackpot, I suspect. You'd have to just shrug in my general direction. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion. From: GUEST,Jon Date: 25 Nov 10 - 11:43 AM Had the weird bird one once, Steve. Father saw some parrot around, In that case he wasn;t a crackpot but I knew straight off what he had seen and it was not a figment of his imagination... It was a green woodpecker. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion. From: Little Hawk Date: 25 Nov 10 - 11:45 AM I haven't "read the thread" (in its entirety), Steve, because I have a real life also...in addition to the pathetic daily blather that occurs on this forum full of misfits. Were I to read the entirety of all these divisive, soreheaded bla-bla threads with people fighting with each other over religion and politics, I would lose most, if not all, of that real life. So, as one condescending pillock to another, may I say...."TTFN!" ;-) I must attend to a few things that actually need to be done in my real life. I may drop in later for a brief chat and condescend a little more, so hang on to that possibility, old sport. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion. From: Ed T Date: 25 Nov 10 - 12:34 PM Did a "con" actualy "descend" among the misfits? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion. From: GUEST,Grishka Date: 25 Nov 10 - 01:24 PM I think a belief in reincarnation necessarily must assume a managing force behind it, call it God or not. The usual idea is that this force aims at perfection and therefore has to recycle our souls until they are perfect. This does not convince me at all, for the following reasons:
Metaphysical ideas cannot be proved, but metaphysical concepts can be checked for intrinsic consistency. An abstract concept of God is not subject to logical critizism, and I personally find it a suitable way of thinking about mankind and the universe. (Dave MacKenzie on 21 Nov 10 - 11:06 AM seems to recognize his own concept of God in Dawkins' statements!) But the more attributes are attatched to such a notion, the more feeble the building may become. As I wrote before, conflicts are immanent when it comes to practical consequences of faith. These may be classified as delusions, if they severely inhibit the believer and are not supported by general agreements on morals and logic. Often persons try to legitimate their power or wealth by declaring it God's will, e.g. as a result of accumulated Karma from former lives, thus hindering other believers from claiming their rights. Such delusions we must try to cure, to help the deluded and to diminish unjust power. If Louis YVI had been Dei Gratia king by the very fact, then Robespierre would have been Dei Gratia revolutionary. On the other hand, valid moral motivations cannot be called delusions, even if they come as results of questionable beliefs. Maximilian Kolbe's self-sacrifice is a good example. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion. From: Ed T Date: 25 Nov 10 - 01:30 PM "I think a belief in reincarnation necessarily must assume a managing force behind it, call it God or not". Why so? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion. From: GUEST,Jon Date: 25 Nov 10 - 02:28 PM From a personal POV which does not believe in reincarnation, I;d find it very difficult to imagine without a creator./ being who could reincarnate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion. From: Steve Shaw Date: 25 Nov 10 - 02:47 PM Reintarnation: Jed Clampett coming back from the dead. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion. From: Ed T Date: 25 Nov 10 - 03:01 PM "A reincarnated Steve Smith!!!". Egad! Considering this impact alone, I must vote in on Steve's side in reincarnation dilema. So, before you cast your ballots, please consider the burden that this could have on future generations. Hopefully, this possibility will bitch-slap you folks into reality. The time to act is now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion. From: Ed T Date: 25 Nov 10 - 03:04 PM Gosh, I got so scared, I forgot the blokes name...It's Shaw, not Smith. Sorry, Mr Shaw. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion. From: Ed T Date: 25 Nov 10 - 03:07 PM "From a personal POV which does not believe in reincarnation, I;d find it very difficult to imagine without a creator./ being who could reincarnate". Maybe the old expression "empty places get filled"? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion. From: Steve Shaw Date: 25 Nov 10 - 03:08 PM Don't worry. I won't be back. Especially if God says I have to be a slug next time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion. From: Ed T Date: 25 Nov 10 - 03:09 PM "Especially if God says I have to be a slug next time" You left yourself open for a response "what next time" :). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion. From: GUEST,Grishka Date: 25 Nov 10 - 03:14 PM Why so? Without a managing force it would make even less sense. But indeed, in modern societies some people desparately believe in myths/delusions of non-religious kinds (i.e. not related to "The Meaning of Life"): the dream of a longer life as an individuum. Reincarnation here lines up with cloning and cryonics. Quite a different topic, even more bizarre than the strangest religion. Some people choose to cling to the faintest hope of a second chance rather than using the rest of their first one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion. From: GUEST,Jon Date: 25 Nov 10 - 03:29 PM Steve I',m being nasty but atm, I'm seeing (not that I believe in this...) your next incarnation as being an earwig! Attempted humour aside, why not just shake hands and agree you can not convince me there is no God and I can not convince you there is one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion. From: Ed T Date: 25 Nov 10 - 03:54 PM "Without a managing force it would make even less sense" Wow, that's what the Theists say about a God belief, and look where that circular argument took the discussion, in a circle. Hopefully you are not limiting the managing force to a God? If you are suggesting something else, what would that managing force be? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion. From: Steve Shaw Date: 25 Nov 10 - 04:15 PM why not just shake hands and agree you can not convince me there is no God and I can not convince you there is one I've said that God knows how many times already. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion. From: GUEST,Jon Date: 25 Nov 10 - 04:23 PM No idea,,, But I do find "no God" stance and a "God knows" statement somewhat contradictory.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion. From: GUEST,Jon Date: 25 Nov 10 - 04:25 PM Anyway, out of here. It;s not worth the effort, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion. From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 25 Nov 10 - 04:47 PM Isn't re-incarnation ...isn't that like a cow chewing her cud? GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion. From: Ed T Date: 25 Nov 10 - 04:51 PM Isn't re-incarnation ...isn't that like a cow chewing her cud? You must be thinking of Carnation Instant Breakfast and milk. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion. From: Little Hawk Date: 25 Nov 10 - 05:10 PM The "managing force" behind something like reincarnation doesn't have to be a God at all, Grishka. It could just be the same set of very consistent natural laws that govern everything else that occurs around us. The laws of Nature, in other words. The Buddhist teachings, for instance, are strong on the idea of reincarnation as a form of natural spiritual evolution toward greater perfection, but I find absolutely nothing in the Buddhist teachings that proposes the existence of a ruling deity. The Buddhists are interested in the process of the evolution of the mind, the body, and the spirit....they are not interested in proposing the existence of a managing ruler being of some kind to explain it all somehow. It strikes me that those who want to link reincarnation to a God want to do so for this reason: they've already decided that having a God is a stupid idea, so they'd very much like to connect any other spiritual notion they come across WITH that God, so as to be able to criticize it more thoroughly. ;-) "Guilt by association" in other words... It ain't that simple! The world of spiritual investigation does not necessarily fall into the little box of prejudice you have built to contain it, but your prejudices fit into that little box perfectly, and inside that little box is the little ugly graven image of the "God" you imagine in your mind when you scoff at the idea of there being a "God". If there is a God...and I'm not saying there is....then he, she or it probably barely even resembles the image of whatever the heck you are imagining in your head when you mouth the word "God"....and it probably doesn't resemble what the religious people are imagining in their heads either. It's the words themselves that mislead people. People first decide that the word has a specific meaning. They then force reality around them inside the boxes OF those specific meanings. They develop tiny limited notions of things based solely on the definitions they have given to the words they commonly use and stand like an ant in front of a great work of art, not even knowing what it is...and then talk about it as if they knew what it was! Hilarious. There are no words sufficient in human language to describe the things people are talking about here, and there never will be. Words simply won't get you there. But they're all you can do across your little keyboard here, aren't they? Well, fine...but they still won't get you there, and you'll still be an ant standing in front of a magnificent painting going "bla, bla, bla" and saying to all the other ants: "That is just a flat surface with a bunch of colors and marks on it. I have measured it, and its dimensions are exactly ---------. Its weight is ----------. The colors on it are -----------. The materials in it are ---------. It has no intrinsic meaning, no purpose, and it happened by some sort of accidental natural process which we are investigating." And the other ants will mostly nod sagely, write down all the technical details, and marvel at the brilliance of science. And they will remain wordbound, self-satisfied, and ignorant in the face of something they have not even a glimmer of understanding of. And they'll give it a name! ;-) And then they will imagine that they know what it is, because they can mouth the name...and they will all feel quite secure, and they'll all still be just a bunch ants. As for the religious ants, most of them will do something equally silly and fairly similar...although they will at least recognize that whatever that painting is, it's not devoid of meaning. In recognizing that, they will, I think, have at least a glimmer of dawning awareness. And that's better than nothing at all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion. From: GUEST,Grishka Date: 25 Nov 10 - 06:07 PM Ed T, if you want an answer to your post of 25 Nov 10 - 03:54 PM, please explain what you are aiming at, and which of my assertions you are criticizing. My notion of "managing force" was meant to include the Buddhist idea. Remember that I am sceptical about reincarnation and therefore do not imply any affirmation of a deity. In my post of 25 Nov 10 - 03:14 PM, I admitted that some persons manage to believe in reincarnation without a managing force, and commented on that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion. From: Dave MacKenzie Date: 25 Nov 10 - 06:21 PM A few months ago, there was a scientist discussing the Turing Test on BBC4. He stated that the resulting conversation was proof that artificial intelligence was still some way off. I thought that it sounded like a transcript of a Mucat thread! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion. From: Steve Shaw Date: 25 Nov 10 - 07:55 PM Well, Little Hawk, that was a fine and lengthy ranting, sneery post there. As ever with such things, you lose focus. 'Tis this: it doesn't matter one jot what your concept of "God" is, whatever the spiritual veneer is you want to put on it, or however inadequate you regard the words we use for it or have available for it. There is no refuge in the inchoateness of the concept, I fear. That's just saying to me that I can't get it because even you don't get it. There is a bottom line that just refuses to go away. Unless evidence is presented for whatever notion of God you hold, and there are many such notions around as we all know, you will appear to be living in the realms of imagination and whimsy. No-one in history has ever managed to demonstrate that God has ever appeared to them, answered a prayer for them, worked a miracle for them, has given them extra insight, has broadened their mind, has got their kid into university, has made bad people good. Not once, ever. Get this: I'm not saying for one second that God hasn't done any or all these things. I am saying that no-one has ever managed to show that he has, not once. Now I really am very interested in the various descriptions of God, believe me. I'm a believer in the value of human imagination and creativity in its highest flights. I don't not believe in any of the God concepts. But I am waiting for evidence. That's all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion. From: Little Hawk Date: 25 Nov 10 - 09:10 PM Fair enough. I'm simply saying, Steve, that spoken language and the written word are not capable of fully expressing all that we deal with in our lives. They are capable of alluding to what we deal with, yes, but not fully expressing it. Spiritual disciplines are mostly aimed at dealing with the non-material experiences and feelings that we cannot fully express in words or grasp with our hands, and those are aspects of life we still need to deal with, even if they aren't physical in nature. They affect our physicality profoundly, because they affect our stress levels, our moods, and our health. Most people are unconscious prisoners of their habitual word definitions. For instance, in the USA the word "socialism" or "socialist" conjures up such negative responses in most listeners that it is quite clear that they have a very different definition of those words than people in most of the rest of the world do. "Socialism" is virtually a dirty word in the USA! And that's really strange, wouldn't you say? It's not a dirty word in most other places. Now, "God" is a sort of dirty word to some people, because it immediately summons up a host of negative thoughts and associations in their mind about organized religion, and they start thinking about all kinds of stuff they object to. I don't think of stuff I object to when I hear the word "God", mainly, I suppose, because I had absolutely no religious instruction inflicted on me by anyone during childhood or adolescence, apart from one single Sunday school class. ;-) So I never felt oppressed by other people's ideas about what they might call "God". But you have to fully grasp what another human being means when he says the word "God" before you even know what he's talking about. What IS he talking about? And that's where the problem arises. If you don't know what he's talking about, and he doesn't know what you're talking about, then useful communication becomes virtually impossible. Agreed? So just talking about "God" and thinking that you're talking about the same thing another person is talking about is making a huge assumption....a leap of faith about the other person! ;-) Quite possibly, the two of you are talking about different things. **** I'd try to find out what the other person means by "God" first. (And in many cases you will find out that they're really not that sure what they mean by "God", because they haven't actually given it much thought.) But if you tried to find out what they meant, then it might help both you and them understand each other a little better. We all want to make the best of life that we can, correct? Thus we all have a great deal in common. I don't see why we should ignore all the good stuff we have in common and get hung up on different ideas about God, which is just a fragment of what we think about and devote our time to. Most of us are trying to earn a living, have good relationships, find happiness and a sense of purpose, stay healthy, eat, sleep, have some fun...those are the things our lives are really about......NOT our fragmentary and usually very vague definitions of whatever we think "God" is. I have no certainty at all about what "God" is or isn't, and I'll tell you why: I've never had a direct encounter with something I could call "God"...not consciously or in a way that was clear to me. I have had direct encounters with some other quite mysterious spiritual phenomena or experiences, but not with "God". I have seen prayers answered...on just a couple of very dramatic occasions...but that doesn't necessarily make me think there's a God...and I'll tell you why: Prayer, when it's delivered in a very powerful way, is a very intensely directed thought, an intention and/or a visualization. If it gets "answered"...meaning that the eventuality you focused the prayer on is amended as you wished...then there is more than one possibility of how that happened. 1. "God" (a ruling deity) answered the prayer. 2. You had a "lucky" break. 3. You yourself accomplished the intention of the prayer somehow by your own intense focus...intense focus raises adrenalin levels, increases strength, and increases your accuracy. 4. Natural forces around you were set into motion by your intensity of focus, and that was what accomplished the intention of the prayer. I've considered all of those 4 possibilities regarding prayers I saw answered, and I don't know if it was one of those possibilities that made the prayer work...some of them...or none of them. It might have been something else entirely. All I know was, the prayers got answered. Again, you see, it doesn't prove anything to me about a "God". It just proved to me that something worked in my favor on certain occasions when I prayed with absolute intensity. (there have only been a handful of such occasions...I very seldom pray.) I'm by no means convinced that it works on all occasions. If it did, EVERYONE would win big at the casino! ;-D It may only work when it's "justified". If so...that could raise some very interesting possibilities about the overall purpose and meaning of our lives. I could have all kinds of "beliefs" about stuff I haven't seen or done yet, if I was inclined to do that, but what I would rather do is have actual experiences, and learn directly from those experience, because I can depend on that. I learned from those experiences I had...not that I was planning it that way...it just happened spontaneously because I reacted very intensely to the situation at the time. Most people pray because they've been taught to do that. I was not taught to pray by anyone. I just did it in those few moments, because it came naturally at those moments, due to an intense sense of need or an intense desire to help someone else whom I loved, and I went with it without a moment's thought or hesitation...and it worked. I'm grateful for having had those experiences, but I've no idea if a "God" was any kind of active agent in the process. Until I MEET, SEE and HEAR a God in absolutely undeniable terms, I am not going to assume there is one just on someone else's sayso. Nor am I going to deny that there is one. I simply don't know. I must wait for the actual experience. Same as with everything else. You can't know what an apple tastes like until you bite one. Other people can tell you....in thousands of brilliant words...what an apple tastes like. But you won't know until you bite one. Nothing else matches the direct experience, and no words can fully describe it. Therefore, no one can describe God to me, you or anyone else...though they might try...or they might get a book for me to read...but I won't really know a thing about God until...and unless...I encounter God directly and I know and recognize what I am dealing with when it happens. If there's a God.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion. From: Ed T Date: 25 Nov 10 - 10:31 PM GUEST,Grishka No criticism intended. If I posted it to seem as such, sorry for that. You stated that: "I think a belief in reincarnation necessarily must assume a managing force behind it". My question was (more precisely): Outside of a God (and Buddhism, what "managing force" are you suggesting that one must assume to exist? Or, are you suggesting one at all? (It now seems to me that you were not, as I am gathering you are a skeptic on reincarnation. I am also a skeptic, though I am open minded to the possibility). However, can we rely merely on experience, good old common sense and opinion to guide us on such matters? Or, are there other resources available to help us look into the future, such as cutting edge physics hat tells us that the real world is much stranger than most of us can imagine and some of the effects of quantum physics can seem somewhat mystical. For example, Physicist Brian Josephson suggested that if telepathy exists (not that he said it can), then there's a physical mechanism that could explain it — Quantum entanglement. (Quantum entanglement can be seen as putting teleportation, in some form, within the area of science possibility in the future). My point is, there are physical forces in our universe not yet figured out. They now may seem mystical to us,and, far beyond our experience and understanding. Is it a possibility that reincarnation could fit within the possibilities of evolving science and fall completely outside the belief in a God? Maybe? But, I remain an open minded skeptic. Unfortunately as we see with the history of science and ideas, often we are unable to overcome their conceptual limits. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion. From: Ed T Date: 25 Nov 10 - 10:40 PM "No-one in history has ever managed to demonstrate that God has ever appeared to them, answered a prayer for them, worked a miracle for them, has given them extra insight, has broadened their mind, has got their kid into university, has made bad people good. Not once, ever". Do we know this for a fact? Maybe, someone forgot to record it, for us to see? You know, good old Murphy Law. :) |
