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.
Says the man who repeatedly and consistently refuses to parse my views into the science-based ones and the belief-based ones because he wants only to lump them together and argue about the faith-based ones!
The whole thing is Faith -based. You just glue science onto it to make it look convincing. (what i call the 'caddis -fly' method. You do the same with history, fiddling various religions (out of sequence) into your 'learning curve' theory and just wave away the problem that it does not for the unified progression of learning as any competent god would have arranged. And even worse, you dismiss a better religion than Christianity as 'later' even though it's actually earlier, and ignore the latest one that any god worth its salt would end up with "Learn to do without religion".
Why? Because it all has to fit your Faith. That is why I say it is entirely Faith -based and 'science' is just how your disguise it.
They fail to distinguish between Faith and belief, in which belief is a valid expectation on the basis of evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Says the man who repeatedly and consistently refuses to parse my views into the science-based ones and the belief-based ones because he wants only to lump them together and argue about the faith-based ones!
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
The whole thing is Faith -based. You just glue science onto it to make it look convincing.
The whole thing is Faith -based. You just glue science onto it to make it look convincing. (what i call the 'caddis -fly' method. You do the same with history, fiddling various religions (out of sequence) into your 'learning curve' theory and just wave away the problem that it does not for the unified progression of learning as any competent god would have arranged. And even worse, you dismiss a better religion than Christianity as 'later' even though it's actually earlier, and ignore the latest one that any god worth its salt would end up with "Learn to do without religion".
Why? Because it all has to fit your Faith. That is why I say it is entirely Faith -based and 'science' is just how your disguise it.
I hate it when people try to twist science to fit their religion. It's simply dishonest.
I hate it when people try to twist science to fit their religion. It's simply dishonest.
I love it when I can show how they are doing it is and everybody sees through the trick, and just laugh when 'you are biased' is the response.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
And he doubles down! Your God-o-phobia is severe!
You just blew your head off big time. I have rarely seen such a blatant bit of blind lashing out with accusations of bias. Talk to troutdude. Ask his whether he thinks I am afraid of a god -concept? Ask whether we even find anything to squabble about? It's because he explains his beliefs at times, but understand why others don't accept them. It's something you can't deal with. In fact...I believe it's atheist -phobia. It's not uncommon. I suspect that Beiievers KNOW they have nothing to protect their impalpable beliefs but eggshell -thin apologetics of fiddled science and reversed logic glued around the Faith like a caddis - fly shell. I suspect that our mere existence frightens the crap out of them. Your God -belief doesn't frighten me at all.
You just blew your head off big time. I have rarely seen such a blatant bit of blind lashing out with accusations of bias. Talk to troutdude. Ask his whether he thinks I am afraid of a god -concept? Ask whether we even find anything to squabble about? It's because he explains his beliefs at times, but understand why others don't accept them. It's something you can't deal with. In fact...I believe it's atheist -phobia. It's not uncommon. I suspect that Beiievers KNOW they have nothing to protect their impalpable beliefs but eggshell -thin apologetics of fiddled science and reversed logic glued around the Faith like a caddis - fly shell. I suspect that our mere existence frightens the crap out of them. Your God -belief doesn't frighten me at all.
I pointed out your hypocrisy and you double down on it because it is more important to you to defend against and dismiss ANY belief in God whatsoever. Arach nailed it. Your entire response set is wired to anticipate how you THINK theists might use any and all information to support their view and defensively argue against it. It is palpable and very, very sad. You either refuse to open your mind to any possible support for God or you are incapable of it.
I pointed out your hypocrisy and you double down on it because it is more important to you to defend against and dismiss ANY belief in God whatsoever. Arach nailed it. Your entire response set is wired to anticipate how you THINK theists might use any and all information to support their view and defensively argue against it. It is palpable and very, very sad. You either refuse to open your mind to any possible support for God or you are incapable of it.
You did not such such thing. You pointed out what you thought was my bias as a reason to dismiss my arguments because you really have nothing else. And you strawman my actual logical position on the god claim and top -off your dishonesty with your trademark superiority, and as if you needed to bake yourself look worse, you refer to a notes forum asshat even worse than yourself as an authority, someone who started off his posting career by lying about atheists from a monumentally biased position, refused ever to listen to anything and is still carrying of n implacable hate -campaign.
I pointed out your hypocrisy and you double down on it because it is more important to you to defend against and dismiss ANY belief in God whatsoever. Arach nailed it. Your entire response set is wired to anticipate how you THINK theists might use any and all information to support their view and defensively argue against it. It is palpable and very, very sad. You either refuse to open your mind to any possible support for God or you are incapable of it.
What is the use of opening and opening yet more ones mind when you have for years failed to offer anything to put in it other than your pet own interpretations of personal experience?
For years on this forum all I have seen you talk about is some experience you had while at meditation - possibly a dream you had while dozing off while meditating for all we know and perhaps even for all _you_ know as it happens - which you claim somehow turned you from atheist to theist and somehow validates your idea a god exists.
Yet not only have I had _all_ the same experiences you ever have described having - and I have had them many more times than you have claimed having had them too - but I have also had many experiences through mediating you have _not_ claimed having had either. So I think I am in a nice position to parse the descriptions you make - and the nonsense you append to those descriptions too.
And _none_ of those experiences have seemed like evidence for a god to me0. But _many_ of them I can see how someone who wants to pretend there is a god can do so. I can certainly understand your subjective response to them - but I can also fully and deeply understand how and why they simply are in _no way_ evidence for what you want to pretend they are.
Other than that you have offered nothing on this forum I have ever seen that fits the paradigm you are demanding of other users such as taking your views to "parse into the science-based ones and the belief-based ones". Because I simply have not seen any science based ones from you at all. What I _have_ seen is you espousing Deepak Chopora level descriptions of the world - to which you append sciencey sounding terminology. But using sciencey words to describe something does not make it science any more than me using food based words to describe something magically makes it cooking.
Nor am I sure why you have chosen to hijack this thread to hound a user on the subject. The OP has asked a perfectly valid question and rather than answer it at all - you saw the chance to sound off and play a record. Which is highly unfair to the OP.
OP - the problem many will have answering your question is that many of us do no experience the "void" you are talking about. Perhaps therefore if you were a little clearer on what this "void" is for you - we can answer more coherently? What does it feel like? Where does it lie? How does it manifest itself? How does it influence you? And when you suffer from it - what is it you would like to have in it's place to replace it?
As for recommendations - perhaps jumping into deep philosophy from Day 1 is not the right move. Maybe read books by philosophers which are heavily influenced by philosophy without themselves being philosophical Tomes.
Zen and the Art of Motorcycle maintenance is one that jumps instantly to mind. One that heavily influenced my life to the point I actually imported a wolf from the US to my home country is the Mark Rowlands book "The philosopher and the Wolf". And an understated book in my opinion which you might also enjoy is "Sophies World".
From these books you will get a feel for how philosophers think and feel - and how they apply philosophy to affect their own world in their own lives. And from there you will get a feel for whether studying actual philosophical tomes is the way to go for you.
What is the use of opening and opening yet more ones mind when you have for years failed to offer anything to put in it other than your pet own interpretations of personal experience?
For years on this forum all I have seen you talk about is some experience you had while at meditation - possibly a dream you had while dozing off while meditating for all we know and perhaps even for all _you_ know as it happens - which you claim somehow turned you from atheist to theist and somehow validates your idea a god exists.
Yet not only have I had _all_ the same experiences you ever have described having - and I have had them many more times than you have claimed having had them too - but I have also had many experiences through mediating you have _not_ claimed having had either. So I think I am in a nice position to parse the descriptions you make - and the nonsense you append to those descriptions too.
And _none_ of those experiences have seemed like evidence for a god to me0. But _many_ of them I can see how someone who wants to pretend there is a god can do so. I can certainly understand your subjective response to them - but I can also fully and deeply understand how and why they simply are in _no way_ evidence for what you want to pretend they are.
Other than that you have offered nothing on this forum I have ever seen that fits the paradigm you are demanding of other users such as taking your views to "parse into the science-based ones and the belief-based ones". Because I simply have not seen any science based ones from you at all. What I _have_ seen is you espousing Deepak Chopora level descriptions of the world - to which you append sciencey sounding terminology. But using sciencey words to describe something does not make it science any more than me using food based words to describe something magically makes it cooking.
Nor am I sure why you have chosen to hijack this thread to hound a user on the subject. The OP has asked a perfectly valid question and rather than answer it at all - you saw the chance to sound off and play a record. Which is highly unfair to the OP.
...
Now it's my turn.
You nailed it
I'm ok with the experiences but not with the insistence that the interpretation is the only possible one, never mind that they are claimed to be Known to be correct. I put in a lot of time learning what Mystic thought - he was never very open about it (he posted his synthesis but it was a lot of Chophra -stuff and didn't explain the General Theory ) and from an original apparent sortgoddist position I was astounded to see him preaching Christ sacrificed on the cross for us. Mystic told me once that he'd learned and changed a bit from my discussion on the gospels, (he'd be astounded at what I can remember ) but I have never seen a sign of it.
I had to put all this stuff together to get an overview of this belief. And all the time a shower of abuse and insult I had to battle through to get an idea of what was being preached.
Well, you mentioned that this is off topic, but mentioning the Chophraesque feel of the exegesis nails it. That is just what it is.
.......
I was wondering whether to comment on the OP. it's really been done, on this thread. I'm left with the idea that it reflected how the Theists can't understand us. I think I get this 'void' that they talk of, and it's not that it doesn't exist as a feeling and even need, but I think that religion is filing the need for answers and understanding. But it's the wrong answers and the wrong understanding. Science does a better job. It just does. The record speaks for itself. Compare religious discoveries verified as correct with the scientific ones. I can't even think of one. Science has just provided the correct answers, debunking religion, again and again.
The void is already filled. It's like saying 'if you give up junk food, how do you fill that gap?' You make a bit more effort and eat proper food. simple.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 10-26-2018 at 08:59 AM..
What is the use of opening and opening yet more ones mind when you have for years failed to offer anything to put in it other than your pet own interpretations of personal experience?
For years on this forum all I have seen you talk about is some experience you had while at meditation - [.... TRUNCATED FOR LENGTH....]
Thank you! That truly was monumental, so I can see where the screen name comes from. Nuff said.
And all the time a shower of abuse and insult I had to battle through to get an idea of what was being preached.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
I think that religion is filing the need for answers and understanding. But it's the wrong answers and the wrong understanding.
When there is a void in anyone's life - religious people or non - something eventually rushed in to fill it. Sometimes good and real things - like a purpose and goal in life. Sometimes terrible and real things - like alcohol. And sometimes fantasy.
Some of the highest levels of aggression I have seen in life is when you first tell an alcoholic they have a problem. They do not want to admit it - almost want to protect themselves from the truth of it - because for all the harm it does it is still precious to them as it filled that void. And even alcoholism is better to some than that void. And an alcoholic can lash out in awful ways at those who suggest truth and reality.
But fantasy and religious belief is on that level. Like an alcoholic who knows there is nothing behind the curtain - aggression, insult, abuse and even violence is often the last vestige of the weak or weakened to refuse to acknowledge the lie. They know deep down as you say that "They have answers but the wrong answers" just like an alcoholic knows drink is not _really_ bringing them happiness or fulfillment in life. But they will lash out at anyone who dares highlight that truth to their face.
I have however engaged deeply with the pursuit of mediation. Alone and with others and on retreats - sometimes lasting months at a time in my life. I know what it is - how to do it - and what the benefits and effects can be. I also know how it changes people. I know how profoundly transformative it can be emotionally and to ones ethical outlook and treatment of others. There are two things I notice more than anything else:
1) People who are really into it do not just name drop the word "meditation". They want to talk about it. A lot. How they do it. Where and for how long and in what positions. When they do it. What it is. What it is for. They love to talk about it. A lot. Not just using the word "meditation" whenever it might offer credibility to some other nonsense they happen to be talking about at the time where they think being seen as some cross legged yogi might give their word some guru level credence. I myself have written a lot on this very forum in that fashion of someone really into meditation. Some people who _claim_ to meditate however have not. At all. So when that is absent in someone claiming to be a deep and frequent meditater - I doubt whether they have ever done it at all even once let alone frequently.
2) People who have engaged deeply and often with it tend to get a different perspective on ethics and morality and ego and self. They are rarely aggressive or insulting. Rarely quick to anger or attack. Rarely lash out in hubris of rage if the are questioned or their ego is hurt. They become really calm and collected and almost a palpable "presence" in a room like a pulsating ball of quiet charisma. And they almost radiate empathy and understanding. So when I encounter people in my life with a void like the one this thread is about - and they fill with rage and insult and abuse - especially in response to a bruised ego or any perception of a personal slight - then I see someone who has never meditated and likely would benefit from it greatly if they knew what it was or understood the first thing about it. And I try to bring it to such people where I can. In the small town where I live I even run a weekly Wednesday night guided meditation practice for locals. Mostly students - but as I live in a town with a seminary I have a local priest and a trainee priest. A cop. A recovering alcoholic. Two people on aggression management. And a two time little lovely old widower.
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.
I have rarely seen such a blatant bit of blind lashing out with accusations of bias. Talk to troutdude. Ask his whether he thinks I am afraid of a god -concept? Ask whether we even find anything to squabble about? It's because he explains his beliefs at times, but understand why others don't accept them. It's something you can't deal with. In fact...I believe it's atheist -phobia. It's not uncommon. I suspect that Beiievers KNOW they have nothing to protect their impalpable beliefs but eggshell -thin apologetics of fiddled science and reversed logic glued around the Faith like a caddis - fly shell. I suspect that our mere existence frightens the crap out of them. Your God -belief doesn't frighten me at all.
) and from an original apparent sortgoddist position I was astounded to see him preaching Christ sacrificed on the cross for us. Mystic told me once that he'd learned and changed a bit from my discussion on the gospels, (he'd be astounded at what I can remember 
