Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It would be clear to anyone with even the slightest modicum of clear thinking that I am not beefing about Mysticism, but about God -claims deriving from mysticism
Like the claim that reality and God are one and the same?
Quote:
Well, because the love is the emotion connected with a particular brain chemistry. What it comes down is this - as soon as you say plainly that 'God' is quite feasibly a chemical reaction in our brains, then I have no more quarrel with that than I do with the use of the term 'Love' to mean something more than a chemical reaction. Which is actually quite a bit, because people tend to place an almost independent entity quality on 'love' and can even get quite upset if I say its just an illusion caused by a brain chemistry emotion.
So you will NEVER claim to be in love with someone again or claim to love a thing? After all, it is simply a chemical reaction and nothing more. Why not call it such?
Quote:
Now I am not sure where you stand on this (1) but there is an element in Mysticism that not infrequently seems to claim that the mystical experience which you are pleased to call "God" (as misleadingly as the chemical reaction is called 'love') is actually something more than that. A cosmic entity endowed with intelligence, and which possibly wants some kind of emotional relationship with us. Possibly not.
No, I never said it is "something more." It may be or may not be, but who cares? I use the word "more" in quotes because reality itself is enough.
Quote:
As long as 'God' (whether in religion or Mysticism or both) has that kind of connotation being peddled, it is wide open to misuse as a trick to bamboozle the unwary into Theism if not into a religious Faith. Do you now comprehend why we have a problem with the term "God"?
And as long as the term "Love" is being peddled it can be easily misuses to justify murder, domestic violence, suicide etc. Now do you comprehend the problem we have with the term "love?"
Quote:
(1) looking at you analogy from Scarlett Johannsson, I'm not sure that you do, either. If the analogy has any meaning at all you are arguing that because Scarlett Johannson exists, "God" (as an entity outside the chemical reaction) could also exist. But we have evidence of Scarlett Johannsson apart from the chemical reaction, but none, really for "God" apart from the reaction, no more than for "Love". If you are not arguing for the existence of such an entity, why are here arguing at all? If you are, then all your arguments are frankly ill -thought out attempts at deception.
Again, simple words fail to convey meaning to those whose brains simply cannot understand even the simplest philosophical language.
If someone claims that a chemical reaction alone is proof that God does not exist, one could say that about anything. We don't know if the outside stimuli has caused the chemical reaction, or if the chemical reaction causes the perception of outside stimuli when no such stimuli exist.
And I am very agnostic about an actual "supernatural" entity. But I still know a very lame argument when I see one.
For someone who claims their ideas are only presented for entertainment, you sure do seem to get bent out of shape when people decide to change the channel.
If someone where to watch Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (the 90s version! Not that awful remake!) and said "yeah, they are five alien turtles who fight samurai" And I would probably argue with them that "no, I have no idea how in the name of Hasbro you got that out of it. There are four of them and they fight the Foot Clan of ninjas." Does that mean I think TMNT are anything more than entertainment? Whether someone enjoys TMNT or not is beside the point, at least get the damn plot right.
Go to Comic con sometime and see the debates that go on, then come back to me about what people do and don't argue about when it comes to entertainment.
And I notice you enjoy whipping this one out a lot:
Yes, I've said this very thing. You're confusing normal feelings that everyone has with some sort of magical divine something or other.
And in response to my statement that "mysticism need not be about anything but reality" you say "You're confusing normal feelings that everyone has with some sort of magical divine something or other"
WTF fails to express the exasperation.
Yes, those feelings can be described as being mystic in a sense. That is the entire point.
Honesty, do you go to national parks and complain to the rangers that there is no forest, but just a bunch of trees and shrubs for miles with animals running around them?
Quote:
Pretty much. Not to introduce actual evidence into a philosophical discussion, but you are aware that not everyone likes the same foods?
Anyone who has taken even a high school class in philosophy would know that evidence is brought up all the time. Second, when oh when did I say people LIKE the taste of truffle? Plenty of people hate truffles. But truffles are something that have to be tasted to understand what they taste like and the taste of truffles cannot be put into words that those who have never tasted truffles can understand.
Quote:
I guess if you were a foodie rather than a mystic you'd now launch into a rant about people who are good at science and math can't understand eating as well as you do.
Quick true story: I actually met Thich Nhat Hanh at a monastery in upstate New York. He gave a very similar speech about achieving samadhi, only he used "mango" for his point of reference and not "truffles". A boy in the audience walked over and talked to him and I overheard him saying it was like that feeling when he is about to have a seizure (the boy was apparently epileptic) and got in one quick explanation what you have yet to get in over a dozen posts. He was about ten years old...
Quote:
Neat. I once read a story about a talking horse. So now we've both shared some fiction made up by someone else. Yay for us!
In other words, these concepts are simply over your head. He made it clear to anyone who can think deeply for half a second what he was talking about which is a bit of an extrapolation on the first lines of Tao Te Ching. Which brings me to...
Quote:
And yet nowhere in this list is "correct description the true nature of the divine". I wonder why.
I'm running out of face palm memes, so let me just point out that THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HE SAID IN THE VIDEO I POSTED!
He explains the concept of the limitations of human language when it comes to discussing divinity. That is the whole point.
Quote:
Again we're back to being defensive about not being able to do basic math, as if that were some indication that you are automatically better at having feelings.
First, I NEVER said I was not able to do basic math. I passed three college level math classes. Second, WTF DOES "FEELINGS" HAVE TO DO WITH THIS?
Right, because all getting a degree in Comparative Religion, philosophy or any other humanity involves is "having feelings". Yep, never in history did anyone write an undergraduate thesis the comparison between the Gnostic concept of Pneuma and the Mahayana concept of Buddha nature. And people like Dr. Elaine Pagels, Dr. Huston Smith and Dr. Philip Novak were just SO GOOD at having feelings that they were awarded Phds
The only reason I say I am not a natural science person is to illustrate this: I can't wrap my mind around most natural sciences, so I am humble, not arrogant when I say this about the study of mysticism: THIS IS DEEP S ^^^T THAT SOME PEOPLE JUST CAN'T WRAP THEIR TINY MINDS AROUND!
Playing with beakers in the lab and masturbating to the periodic table of the elements come naturally to some while understanding the nature of meditation, being able to get both the esoteric and exoteric meanings out of a native myth on the first read and being able to write a paper on it etc are things that come naturally to others.
Stephen Jay Gould, a paleontologist and nature science man himself even said there are different fields of study that should not overlap and science CANNOT approach religion and people should refer to the EXPERTS in those fields and not MAKE FOOLS OUT OF THEMSELVES by thinking that just because they know how to find the chemical composition of swamp gas that they can understand Thunder, the Perfect Mind.
That is what this thread is all about: many, but not all, anti-theists are just not the kind of people with minds that can understand this stuff. But unlike humanities people who stick to the humanities, they make fools out of themselves by delving into areas where they are ignorant.
Last edited by victorianpunk; 03-09-2015 at 07:38 PM..
They don't seem to have any mental illness either.
Oh yes, the Piraha people, who have no religion. That would be a good rebuttal if it didn't have the small little problem of being completely untrue:
"But there’s a problem with these arguments, and Everett himself highlights it: in his many articles and interviews about the Pirahã, he reports that the Pirahã world is chock-full of spirits, including sky spirits, forest spirits, and evil spirits."
Water really does consist of one oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms. For real. It's true, even though neither hydrogen nor oxygen look / feel wet. You may not like that idea, but it's still true. Reality doesn't really care what you think.
What oh what does that have to do with anything I said?
Again, simple words fail to convey meaning to those whose brains simply cannot understand even the simplest philosophical language.
Possibly this is because you are using philosophical language to intentionally obfuscate... Fox example, humanity has quite a history of the word and concept "god". Cultures around the world are full of gods as beings that have will and mind, are transcendent, beyond mere man. Even the non-anthropomorphic concepts of god seem to be defined as being beyond reality as we can know it. In light of that, I don't understand why it is so important to redefine the word '"god" in a way that may contain none of the qualities traditionally associated with a god. I get why some do it, it is linguistic slight of hand to go from god=reality to god=conscious entity with a mind, will, and desires who manifested and speaks to me, but I don't believe you are taking this angle.
It help comprehension, at least mine, if we simply refer to reality as reality. We can postulate some sublime, or purely subjective element to it, not a problem for me. I just don't think it helps to confuse generic popular god-concepts with something specific. God as reality, god as a word, god as metaphor (never been very clear on how that one works....), these are all very different from any of the Abrahamic god concepts, or the El who headed a pantheon in Canaan, or the Norse gods, ad infinitum. If you have one in particular you wish to talk about, I'm game, but it help to be specific...
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk
If someone claims that a chemical reaction alone is proof that God does not exist, one could say that about anything. We don't know if the outside stimuli has caused the chemical reaction, or if the chemical reaction causes the perception of outside stimuli when no such stimuli exist.
And I am very agnostic about an actual "supernatural" entity. But I still know a very lame argument when I see one.
Here, I think you have let your vitriol cloud your comprehension. Arq was not claiming that the experience of "god" being linked to and reproduced by a chemical reaction was proof of the nonexistence god. The point was simply that your argument appeared to imply, by a parallel to your example, that the presence of a chemical ( or electrical or whatever) stimulus that replicated the experience of "god" demonstrated the existence of "god". Which doesn't hold together logically. I have seen that argument before, that since we can artificially induce feelings of transcendence and the sublime, it must imply that there is a external reality that is transcendent and sublime, therefore God exists. If that is what you are saying then I would disagree. If on the other hand, you simply misunderstood Arequipa's point, I imagine we are on the same page.
So you will NEVER claim to be in love with someone again or claim to love a thing? After all, it is simply a chemical reaction and nothing more. Why not call it such?
Very likely. But I will know better than to think that it is anything more than a chemically -powered evolved instinct. and that may help me to deal with it rationally.
Quote:
No, I never said it is "something more." It may be or may not be, but who cares? I use the word "more" in quotes because reality itself is enough.
Those with a vested interest on proving an invisible entity by attaching the label "God" to reality and then pretending that they have proved an invisible intelligent being. If you don't do that, I don't have a beef with you, and I am bewildered by why you have a beef with me.
Quote:
And as long as the term "Love" is being peddled it can be easily misuses to justify murder, domestic violence, suicide etc. Now do you comprehend the problem we have with the term "love?"
Yes. I agree. It is the same problem I have with "God" but you apparently don't. Philosophy aside, you seem to have a problem with coherent thinking.
Quote:
Again, simple words fail to convey meaning to those whose brains simply cannot understand even the simplest philosophical language.
I think I understand you very well. It is a familiar confused argument of those who are no longer peddling Biblegod (or even Gnosticgod) but are still peddling Sortagod. For which there is no more sound evidence than for the other kind. Look back and you will see that it is you who is failing to understand simple arguments but are trying to use false arguments presented as 'Philosophy'.
Quote:
If someone claims that a chemical reaction alone is proof that God does not exist, one could say that about anything. We don't know if the outside stimuli has caused the chemical reaction, or if the chemical reaction causes the perception of outside stimuli when no such stimuli exist.
And I am very agnostic about an actual "supernatural" entity. But I still know a very lame argument when I see one.
Pity you can't see yours. "If someone claims that a chemical reaction alone is proof that God does not exist," is such a strawman, I wonder you can post it without blushing. Agnosticism is the basis of disbelief until proven. I don't say that there can be no 'outside stimuli' (and that is a typically loose term, but I know what you mean) but with no sound evidence for it, there is no reason to believe it.
Only those with a vested interest in trying to wangle God's existence into credibility using various false arguments like 'God is only a label for reality' would fail to comprehend simple logical basics about the burden of proof.
Looking back over the posts, so much of the exasperated facepalm, the sighing 'You so refer to this or that fallacy such a lot'. Don't do them and we won't call you on them. And the playing of the smug superiority card, we are so entertaining, we are giving you such a laugh.
We are very familiar with such ploys, and we deal 'em just as we deal with all the other rhetorical tricks you pull. We have seen them all before. Often.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 03-10-2015 at 05:17 AM..
Oh yes, the Piraha people, who have no religion. That would be a good rebuttal if it didn't have the small little problem of being completely untrue:
"But there’s a problem with these arguments, and Everett himself highlights it: in his many articles and interviews about the Pirahã, he reports that the Pirahã world is chock-full of spirits, including sky spirits, forest spirits, and evil spirits."
Now that is a good point. While I liked (of course) the deconversion of one who had found a people with no religion and did not need one (and that is the real point) I did find it strange that they had no questions, and with no means of finding answers, hadn't intended some. Never mind an apparent absence of the instinct to invent invisible humans in the shadows. well, of course it seems that they were there all the time and the deconversion was more a people who were quite happy without the religion the missionary was peddling.
That wouldn't have been enough in the normal way. Being quite happy without a minister whipping you into a wooden chapel every Wrongday would faze a regular missionary for a second. Maybe Everrett was doubting all the time, and just needed an excuse.
In any case, Religion -even non -organized religion - is not what is under discussion but, it seems the mis -match between those who think in Mystical terms and those who think in materialist or at least rationalist terms.
What oh what does that have to do with anything I said?
It has everything to do with what you said. You said you can't believe that emotions are caused by chemical reactions in the brain. And yet, they are. Personal incredulity is irrelevant.
If someone where to watch Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (the 90s version! Not that awful remake!) and said "yeah, they are five alien turtles who fight samurai" And I would probably argue with them that "no, I have no idea how in the name of Hasbro you got that out of it. There are four of them and they fight the Foot Clan of ninjas." Does that mean I think TMNT are anything more than entertainment?
Except in this case there's no books, no movies, no cartoons - just claims from people that their feelings are gods and that no one can say anything about them. And at the same time they insist that they have a special understanding of their magical feelings they somehow get to make authoritative statements about this thing which they've defined as indescribable.
Pick one or the other. Either no one can know anything about these ineffable feelings or not. You can't pretend to be an expert in something you simultaneously insist that no one can describe.
Quote:
And I notice you enjoy whipping this one out a lot
Well, you also think your feelings are gods and solipsism "wins". I have to take your claims about reality with a large does of skepticism.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Anyone who has taken even a high school class in philosophy would know that evidence is brought up all the time. Second, when oh when did I say people LIKE the taste of truffle? Plenty of people hate truffles. But truffles are something that have to be tasted to understand what they taste like and the taste of truffles cannot be put into words that those who have never tasted truffles can understand. 
