Are Non Believers Out of Line? (Buddhists, Egyptian, myths, atheism)
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.
You have a vivid imagination in relation to you claims as to what and why etc I created this chart.
You are misleading yourself.
It is not something I believe. it was create through hearing what others had to say about their beliefs and experiences over many years and compiling the chart was simple enough to do once that data became enough to make a simple diagram.
You are correct that the diagram has whatever meaning (within its obvious structure) it will to whomever wants to place such meaning on it. For you it is meaningless and for obvious reasons. Someone who understands spirituality will understand the diagram.
It is not about any particular religion or belief. So 'how far along' anyone or any belief system is, is not relevant. It is not about that.
But I explained that already. A good rule of thumb is to cease circular argument as soon as it is seen to be so.
You have a vivid imagination in relation to you claims as to what and why etc I created this chart.
You are misleading yourself.
It is not something I believe. it was create through hearing what others had to say about their beliefs and experiences over many years and compiling the chart was simple enough to do once that data became enough to make a simple diagram.
You are correct that the diagram has whatever meaning (within its obvious structure) it will to whomever wants to place such meaning on it. For you it is meaningless and for obvious reasons. Someone who understands spirituality will understand the diagram.
It is not about any particular religion or belief. So 'how far along' anyone or any belief system is, is not relevant. It is not about that.
But I explained that already. A good rule of thumb is to cease circular argument as soon as it is seen to be so.
As you acknowledge, your diagram has whatever meaning anyone chooses to apply to it. And as a result I certainly must agree that your presentation of the diagram was never anything more than a pointless circular argument to begin with.
"This is what I believe is true, and I believe that this is true, because this is what I believe is true."
As you acknowledge, your diagram has whatever meaning anyone chooses to apply to it. And as a result I certainly must agree that your presentation of the diagram was never anything more than a pointless circular argument to begin with.
"This is what I believe is true, and I believe that this is true, because this is what I believe is true."
Yet even you admit that you just made it up.
I don't necessarily have an issue with him thinking anything he wants with any sort of illustrative chart he chooses to use, provided he admits ... as he has done ... that it simply reflects his own speculations. And if his purpose is to attract others who speculate similarly, to discuss them AS speculation.
My problem, and I suspect yours, comes in if he were to either openly trumpet the chart as something that others should regard as actual proof or substantiation of anything, OR if he sort of sneaks such an implication in through the back door, consciously or otherwise.
That last is how an awful lot of theist ideation presents itself. Here is some meaning I've found in some stories, and I make no claim they are anything but stories or narratives or empty claims ... and yet suddenly we're having this ardent and detailed conversation about it AS IF it were something one could actually be right or wrong about. After all, the very purpose of discussion is to ascertain facts. And as soon as we dignify some random chart and some random assertions about the meaning of that chart with debate, then suddenly we aren't just idly speculating about what might be nice if it could actually be established to be true ... we are debating it as if it's actually something about which truth can be ascertained with any certainty whatsoever.
Even the simple insistence that such ideas deserve deference and respect in the general marketplace of ideas simply because they aren't falsifiable is like saying that some random thought or idea is worth thinking simply because it's not demonstrably impossible. If so, then let us talk about my theory of sentient armchairs that live on the fourth planet of Proxima Centauri and are trying to communicate with us telepathically. Let's not just imagine the implications if this fanciful thing were true ... say write a fiction novel about it or just kick it around for a few minutes of absurdist pleasure ... no, let's concoct diagrams of how it would work and debate which one is "right". Or at least let's shut down any and all discussion by anyone who doesn't mindlessly "respect" our beliefs about what is "right".
hey if you have a problem with the chart point it out. Speculating on what my personal motivations might or might not be is 'out of line'.
If you don't like spiritual speculation, why are you even involved with boards such as these?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rotagivan
The chart is not portraying a belief about anything. It portrays my personal observation of what is occurring overall in relation to human consciousness and spirituality.
You say that the chart represents your personal observation. I notice that you have placed "Tribalism," "Culturalism," "Paganism," and "Sectism," in ascending order below "Religion," on the upward path of spiritual evolution of the human consciousness. Presumably therefore religion, in your view, represents a higher order along the path of human spiritual evolution. Is it your opinion therefore that tribalistic beliefs and paganistic beliefs do not qualify as religious in nature?
I don't mind spiritual speculation at all. I'm used to it. What I would like is that from time to time, you "spiritual speculators" would acknowledge more often that you are simply making this stuff up as you go along.
Last edited by Tired of the Nonsense; 08-02-2015 at 10:06 PM..
You say that the chart represents your personal observation. I notice that you have placed "Tribalism," "Culturalism," "Paganism," and "Sectism," in ascending order below "Religion," on the upward path of spiritual evolution of the human consciousness. Presumably therefore religion, in your view, represents a higher order along the path of human spiritual evolution.
I already explained that!
Quote:
Is it your opinion therefore that tribalistic beliefs and paganistic beliefs do not qualify as religious in nature?
Nope.
Neither is it my opinion that they don't qualify as being spiritual. It is only my observation that they came before religion was organised. The chart follows the progress in terms of what came first and what developed from that.
Quote:
I don't mind spiritual speculation at all. I'm used to it. What I would like is that from time to time, you "spiritual speculators" would acknowledge more often that you are simply making this stuff up as you go along.
Human beings make everything up as they go along. It is the nature of our position in the physical universe.
In relation to concepts to do with G()D and afterlife, speculation is necessary. Belief in the speculation is not.
The chart follows the progress in terms of what came first and what developed from that.
As a general historic progression it seems truthy. And is likely to even BE true. Although I'd enjoy having a historian or sociologist with the requisite experience to point out the contexts in which it's not really true, as I'd be surprised if it's as clear cut as it seems. Few things ever are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rotagivan
Human beings make everything up as they go along. It is the nature of our position in the physical universe.
In relation to concepts to do with G()D and afterlife, speculation is necessary. Belief in the speculation is not.
With this I have no issue other than that unlike other areas of life where speculation sometimes leads to testable hypotheses which in turn sometimes develop into validated explanatory frameworks (theories), this sort of speculation appears incapable of actually leading anywhere. And unlike you most people can't resist taking it seriously at some point.
Your point, doubtless, is that science can't engage with it then, so the concern is irrelevant. My rejoinder would be that whatever cannot at least potentially / eventually be scientifically ascertained is irrelevant (strictly in terms of leading towards any sort of reality or truth; it might not be irrelevant for self distraction or entertainment purposes).
But it also depends on what you mean by "seriously". Comparing claims or making stuff up. I think we should take it somewhat seriously for the same reason you and arg what to end anything religious. If we look at claims seriously using what we know and present a non confrontational solution other than "they are nut jobs" we might not be in this fairytale war.
Most times I talk to people and use "nothing doesn't happen, but heaven is very unlikely" the conversation then can moved into data/evidence. Like how near death is not death. Or that when a brain shuts down it probably shuts down the same way, or very similar, to other brains and the only thing different is the memories. Especially since there is data to support what I just said. yes, very little, but way more than "your wrong".
99% of the time the conversion ends with "I never thought of it like that." or "I have to think about that." and they come back for more questions. The same comments by theist and atheist. So it has to be somewhat valid. It may not change them, but the seeds of growth are planted. Science is the key to understanding and the heart carries it out into the world.
Science can/should engage in any claim. period. Science is the method to check all claims. Science also shows where skewed or even warped view views based on past experiences arise. And if the person is will to listen to some facts it really can help them adjust to a more reasonable mental anchor. I call these anchors strings.
Just use what we have and hunch just a little off the curve is meaningful. Being fundamental-ish in ones use of science is not a good thing either. Like Van says, fundy's do not match all observations. what he means is that what we want to be real doesn't make it real.
Last edited by Arach Angle; 08-03-2015 at 09:15 AM..
My problem, and I suspect yours, comes in if he were to either openly trumpet the chart as something that others should regard as actual proof or substantiation of anything, OR if he sort of sneaks such an implication in through the back door, consciously or otherwise.
.
The rest of post is ok.
This pra, although somewhat true. "sneaking in the back" of a possible/reasonable claim being seen as a bad thing because it counters a personal world view as a bad thing is paranoia to me. Like how anything that hints of something being right in Christianity is subjective, meaningless, or wrong.
But you have a valid point if we are truly in the middle. (which I don't believe for a second). For example: As soon as the negative connotation for apologetics and accommodating is brought into a discussion it does prove your point. I just don't know if it is a backdoor brotha approach or it is used to knock people off balance so the debate moves from evidence driven to what I want to believe driven. So listing the rest of the adjectives used can shed a ton of light on it.
As a general historic progression it seems truthy. And is likely to even BE true. Although I'd enjoy having a historian or sociologist with the requisite experience to point out the contexts in which it's not really true, as I'd be surprised if it's as clear cut as it seems. Few things ever are.
A quick sketch of a particular history...as I said, I am fine with tweaking it to better represent that history if someone points outs where it may be wonky.
Quote:
With this I have no issue other than that unlike other areas of life where speculation sometimes leads to testable hypotheses which in turn sometimes develop into validated explanatory frameworks (theories), this sort of speculation appears incapable of actually leading anywhere. And unlike you most people can't resist taking it seriously at some point.
Well the layers represent where people have 'taken it seriously.' I may not have belief but the 'awakening' layer represents the placing aside of beliefs and simply moving with the understanding that (as bright as we think we are) we are actually embers in the face of the sun in relation to what we know and what there is to know.
Quote:
Your point, doubtless, is that science can't engage with it then, so the concern is irrelevant. My rejoinder would be that whatever cannot at least potentially / eventually be scientifically ascertained is irrelevant (strictly in terms of leading towards any sort of reality or truth; it might not be irrelevant for self distraction or entertainment purposes).
Your belief structures are leaking through again. Rigid unbending.
You forget that what you think of as irrelevant and unreal and untruthful devices of distraction and entertainment are in place because you have a mind made up.
Mine isn't and likely will not be in this life.
So I am not like you? What of it? So you see me as being distracted and seeking entertainment? What of it?
I would say this though...If I had a mind for science and focus for only that which is material, i would not waste it on arguing with people about their beliefs in relation to my own. That would seem to be more the distraction and cheap entertainment.
Is that why you do so?
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.
Someone who understands spirituality will understand the diagram. 
So listing the rest of the adjectives used can shed a ton of light on it.
