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.
The questions was about Mystic's beliefs: how do they threaten you or society?
He has said*, as I recall, that he believes certain things to be true based on his experiences, his knowledge of various fields of science, his study of history, etc. Some of those things, he believes, may have the potential to be investigated more thoroughly at some point as science advances. How is that threatening to you?
He has also said that he believes the only thing God is concerned with is, essentially, how we treat each other, not our beliefs about God (and not about anyone agreeing with Mystic's beliefs about God). How is that a threat?
He has said that any religion which encourages it's followers to foist "God's will" onto other people, is problematic. How is that a threat?
*Feel free to correct me, Mystic.
Nobody said it was a "threat" (like a wildfire, tornado, or terrorist attack).
Did you actually read my post? I outlined in detail my concerns with people who claim religious or spiritual authority in order to gain followers.
I don't see his beliefs as harmful. I don't give credence to them, and to the extent Mystic doesn't insist that I SHOULD give them credence or that I should be able and/or willing to but cannot because I am deficient and/or defective and/or obstinate, all is right with the world. He has been known to stomp his feet and insist his ideas must be given credence, and he has been known to pull the "I'm more educated / erudite than you" card at times. I assume on bad days.
But other than such impertinence and disrespect, are his ideas harmful? I would argue, not that consequential at all, much less harmfully so. And when you compare them to theistic / religious notions that are more prevalent in the world -- they are comparatively benign and decidedly non-fascistic. In fact Mystic and I actually see eye to eye on a number of things. In fact for practical intents and purposes I would say that both Mystic and I are harmless cuddly (if occasionally somewhat crusty) teddy bears, just for different reasons and with different rationalizations.
Good thing I am mentally blind, or that might be a disturbing visual.
I don't follow all the threads, certainly, and I don't know all the history of posting here. When I have seen Mystic getting frustrated with people, it seems to be with their inability or unwillingness to think outside the present scientific box. That's my perspective, but not being particularly science-literate, I don't know. Regardless, unlike some, you aren't trying to take some imaginary high road of supposedly protecting society by arguing with him, and I appreciate that you can't answer for those who do. Thanks for your response.
Nobody said it was a "threat" (like a wildfire, tornado, or terrorist attack).
Did you actually read my post? I outlined in detail my concerns with people who claim religious or spiritual authority in order to gain followers.
Of course I read your post. Do you think that Mystic is claiming authority in order to gain followers? If not (and you don't seem to be claiming such), it doesn't apply to what I asked.
And it's untrue that "nobody" has implied that Mystic is a threat. Some people claim that the reason they argue against the ideas of some posters (including Mystic) is because they are a threat to society.
Of course I read your post. Do you think that Mystic is claiming authority in order to gain followers? If not (and you don't seem to be claiming such), it doesn't apply to what I asked.
And it's untrue that "nobody" has implied that Mystic is a threat. Some people claim that the reason they argue against the ideas of some posters (including Mystic) is because they are a threat to society.
MysticPhd frequently makes extraordinary claims of a religious nature. Whether it's claiming that "god" is X, Y, or Z, or that dark matter is something supernatural, etc. And it's all based on an appeal to his authority, which supposedly comes from experiences he has had.
MysticPhd frequently makes extraordinary claims of a religious nature. Whether it's claiming that "god" is X, Y, or Z, or that dark matter is something supernatural, etc. And it's all based on an appeal to his authority, which supposedly comes from experiences he has had.
Now I wonder if YOU have read Mystic's posts. He has never claimed anything is "supernatural".
And ARE you saying that you believe Mystic is attempting to recruit followers in order to gain political power or financial gain? Because that's what you said you were concerned with. So, unless you think that's what Mystic is doing, how are his beliefs or the ideas he presents here a threat?
Of course I read your post. Do you think that Mystic is claiming authority in order to gain followers? If not (and you don't seem to be claiming such), it doesn't apply to what I asked.
And it's untrue that "nobody" has implied that Mystic is a threat. Some people claim that the reason they argue against the ideas of some posters (including Mystic) is because they are a threat to society.
I don't think Mystic has ambitions to start a movement, he simply has published some of his thinking and hopes to get some validation about it from others. But, alas, folks like me generally can't accommodate that need. His conclusions seem so obvious to him that he feels they should be self evident to anyone capable of following his reasoning. This leads on occasion to the claim that others are NOT capable of following ... overlooking the possibility that the reasoning doesn't follow in its own right.
Mystic is not the founder of a religion or a philosophy, he is just a guy who wants his thinking taken seriously. Which I am empathetic about, but unable to accommodate.
Let us suppose however that Mystic WERE more ambitious, and were seeking adherents to his belief-system. I would suggest that his beliefs would end up being no less toxic than any others out there in the sense that they would be a distraction from what is empirically ascertainable / assertable about reality. The best case scenario for spiritual / religious belief IMO is that it provides some faux comfort / rationalizations for people to superficially cope with their existential angst. The worst case and all too common scenario is that it encourages people to hope and pray rather than assess and act. Deferment of action to an afterlife or higher plane of enlightenment is always at the expense of the here and now which is the only reality we actually demonstrably have. As such it is at the least a waste and at the worst a horrible squandering of the one shot we have at life. In that sense it is harmful.
Now I wonder if YOU have read Mystic's posts. He has never claimed anything is "supernatural".
And ARE you saying that you believe Mystic is attempting to recruit followers in order to gain political power or financial gain? Because that's what you said you were concerned with. So, unless you think that's what Mystic is doing, how are his beliefs or the ideas he presents here a threat?
I have no idea what MysticPhD does in real life. For all I know, he could be an online parodist. But his claims to have special knowledge about the universe are cause for concern. And some people believe him. And reliably rush to his defense.
I don't think Mystic has ambitions to start a movement, he simply has published some of his thinking and hopes to get some validation about it from others. But, alas, folks like me generally can't accommodate that need. His conclusions seem so obvious to him that he feels they should be self evident to anyone capable of following his reasoning. This leads on occasion to the claim that others are NOT capable of following ... overlooking the possibility that the reasoning doesn't follow in its own right.
Mystic is not the founder of a religion or a philosophy, he is just a guy who wants his thinking taken seriously. Which I am empathetic about, but unable to accommodate.
Let us suppose however that Mystic WERE more ambitious, and were seeking adherents to his belief-system. I would suggest that his beliefs would end up being no less toxic than any others out there in the sense that they would be a distraction from what is empirically ascertainable / assertable about reality. The best case scenario for spiritual / religious belief IMO is that it provides some faux comfort / rationalizations for people to superficially cope with their existential angst. The worst case and all too common scenario is that it encourages people to hope and pray rather than assess and act. Deferment of action to an afterlife or higher plane of enlightenment is always at the expense of the here and now which is the only reality we actually demonstrably have. As such it is at the least a waste and at the worst a horrible squandering of the one shot we have at life. In that sense it is harmful.
Since his beliefs are that it doesn't matter to God what you believe about God, that God's only concern is how we treat each other, and that it is not any person's responsibility or right to impose what they believe God's will is onto others, I fail to see how those beliefs would encourage people to hope and pray INSTEAD OF assessing and acting.
As to the distraction from what is empirically ascertainable/assertable ... Unless I'm totally off-base, Mystic isn't looking for people to accept his ideas without due scientific process. He seems to me to be frustrated that, because his ideas don't conform to an atheistic world view, some posters dismiss it out of hand because that is the only world view they will, or can, accept. That's my perspective.
I have no idea what MysticPhD does in real life. For all I know, he could be an online parodist. But his claims to have special knowledge about the universe are cause for concern. And some people believe him. And reliably rush to his defense.
How are his beliefs about the universe a cause for concern? In what way do they threaten you?
. He seems to me to be frustrated that, because his ideas don't conform to an atheistic world view, some posters dismiss it out of hand because that is the only world view they will, or can, accept. That's my perspective.
I would just say, then, that you haven't followed any of the many,usually long and often tedious, threads about his theories (unscientific definition) that have clearly shown his pompous and dismissive as well as downright insulting attitude towards those that won't agree with hm.
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.
Good thing I am mentally blind, or that might be a disturbing visual. 
