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.
Everything Mystic is saying makes perfect sense to those of us who have studied Comparative Religion or any other topics in mysticism, non-Abrahamic religions etc. What he is saying is the same thing Joseph Campbell said, and he was for the study of religion and Mythology what Darwin was for the study of biology and Einstein was for physics.
If you can't understand his arguments that speaks less about the validity of said arguments and more about the philosophical capacity of the person reading the arguments...
No, Mysti isn't at all saying the same thing that Joseph Campbell said, but then again, neither are you. You just don't realize it yet.
Because the terms are applicable. I agree that they carry a whole baggage train of other meanings, just as the term 'God' does. This would not be an issue in the normal way. One may love a particular California red. Why then shouldn't you announce in church that Cabernet Sauvignon from Red Mountain Washington will you only drink until the day of your death? If you say that your love of that wine doesn't mean that you can't enjoy the others, isn't that devaluing the whole concept of love of spouse, family and nation? Of course not, because the term 'Love' is used broadly and in a variety of ways. The love opf Wine or food, is only loosely (if at all) connected with the other usages.
In the same way 'God' is used in many ways, metaphorically as a deprecating metaphor for anything that one loves and gives a lot of attention to, or a supposed divine being of one type or another, or a term applies to the workings of nature, metaphorically, or in the belief that it exhibits evidence of being the product of one or more of those divine beings.
That, too, wouldn't be an issue in the normal, or I should say, rational, way, (the irrational is rather the Norm, still ) were it not that the loosely applicable term apparently has a whole train of baggage waiting out of sight, just ready to be trundled on stage apparently validated from drooling muzzle to dangling rear -hook bucket by the rhetorical trick of calling 'nature' 'God', metaphorically.
I have had extensive discussion on it with Galenwoof and others in which you did not participate . . . presumably because it was over your head. At least Arq made some effort to engage the material intelligently.
Hey look, here are personal attacks to try and divert from the fact that there's nothing backing up the claims that materialistic views of consciousness are fatally flawed. We all know why that is.
PS - your memory is failing you : "Atheism is more 'logical' than theism" - Defend this statement. The ironic part is you used the same "youz is two stoopid to understandzers" approach to discussion there as you're trying here. The more things change...
PPS - I remember it more now. That's the thread where you went on and on about how superior the dualist approach was compared to the naive materialist one, only to end up needing to have a bunch of those ignorant materialists fix your algebra for you. Particularly ironic that you would point us to it as an example of your massively superior intelligence. Ha.
Ad hominem. Attack the argument, not the person making it.
The person cited was not making a statement, he was defending what he thought a statement said as being 100% true without explaining why. In the face of obvious and provable factual errors.
Perhaps you should follow the discussion rather than attacking any who differ from your preconceived wishes/beliefs.
BS? So saying that GOD can be seen as a metaphor for reality and our own higher thoughts, the super-ego, is BS?
Ohh...so Alan Watts Joseph Campbell, Carl Jung, etc are all "full of it" and don't know anything about religion (despite being some of the authorities on the subject)
Good to know.
They are all stating opinions as there are no provable facts to make their cases with. Something that you have in common with them.
The person cited was not making a statement, he was defending what he thought a statement said as being 100% true without explaining why. In the face of obvious and provable factual errors.
Perhaps you should follow the discussion rather than attacking any who differ from your preconceived wishes/beliefs.
And another ad hominem. That's the first time I've seen two from one person. Again, attack the issue, not the person raising it.
To whit:
State what needs explaining. One can't expect us all to be mind readers, after all.
Hey look, here are personal attacks to try and divert from the fact that there's nothing backing up the claims that materialistic views of consciousness are fatally flawed. We all know why that is.
PS - your memory is failing you : "Atheism is more 'logical' than theism" - Defend this statement.
Sadly it is true at my age, KC . . . don't gloat too much. You are headed to the same place if you live long enough. I have never claimed perfection and most of the superiority accusations have been made by my adversaries . . . like you.
Quote:
PPS - I remember it more now. That's the thread where you went on and on about how superior the dualist approach was compared to the naive materialist one, only to end up needing to have a bunch of those ignorant materialists fix your algebra for you. Particularly ironic that you would point us to it as an example of your massively superior intelligence. Ha.
You never did know the difference between a focus on the mechanics of mathematics and the philosophical implications of its constructs as models of reality. Apparently any error of memory or math typo is sufficient distraction to hide your lack of comprehension behind and take your focus away from the philosophical implications to ad hominem accusations of mathematical incompetency. If it eases your mind to think me incompetent be my guest.
Sadly it is true at my age, KC . . . don't gloat too much. You are headed to the same place if you live long enough. I have never claimed perfection and most of the superiority accusations have been made by my adversaries . . . like you.
Really? I'd be interested to see if you can back that up.
Quote:
You never did know the difference between a focus on the mechanics of mathematics and the philosophical implications of its constructs as models of reality.
Sure I do. But if you get the first wrong, the second is irrelevant. Garbage in, garbage out as they say.
And I repeat myself : hey look, here are personal attacks to try and divert from the fact that there's nothing backing up your claim that materialistic views of consciousness are fatally flawed. We all know why that is.
And another ad hominem. That's the first time I've seen two from one person.
Again, attack the issue, not the person raising it.
After you. You have not made any definitive statement on the subject of the thread, nor has the person you are so intent on defending. Now why would that be, I wonder?
Quote:
To whit:
State what needs explaining. One can't expect us all to be mind readers, after all.
Once again, after you.
And you are correct, not all of us are mind readers. You just seem to think that you are and know the thoughts of all the other posters.
Another example of hypocrisy on the theist side of things. With a dash of Obama thrown in (always blame someone else when you have no facts)
BTW, to alleviate you lack of reading comprehension, read my post 196. Sorta, to those with the whit to read and understand, explains what needs explaining. Of course in your little world none of those thoughts that you embrace ever needs to be explained or proven.
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.
) were it not that the loosely applicable term apparently has a whole train of baggage waiting out of sight, just ready to be trundled on stage apparently validated from drooling muzzle to dangling rear -hook bucket by the rhetorical trick of calling 'nature' 'God', metaphorically.
