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.
And your evidence for this hypothesis is..what? I am eager to be convinced that the soul is real and not just a human instinctive delusion that life cannot end just because we die.
the validation is in my own life experience, my own learning and study and exploration and trial and error, and from teachers and resources who i am able to recognize as smarter, wiser, and more trustworthy than those whose scope is so limited and superficial that they can not see beyond the physical.
we can learn from others, but we can only validate it in our own life. it requires participation and putting it into action. it's something a person does for themself, nobody can do it for you. it's not about someone convincing you of anything. it's about expansion, growth, and self-improvement. if a person is fine stuck where they are, then don't bother. i have no desire to convince you of anything, it's not my job. it's up to you if you want to explore what is beyond the physical. to say to someone "convince me" is (in my view) inherently lazy.
again it appears to me you are making the leap from "this makes no sense to me" to "therefore it is a delusion"
along with "if you can't convince me, then it is a delusion"
people can share their views and experiences; but thrown gauntlets of "if you can't prove it then i don't believe you" are, well, empty.
my observation on these boards is that when someone says "convince me" their motivation and intention is not so much a desire for understanding, as it is wanting to argue, debate, prove a point, engage in one-upmanship [=the technique or practice of gaining a feeling of superiority over another person] because the ego is invested in being right. i have no interest in that, as it is not an avenue of growth.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 05-29-2016 at 02:57 AM..
And your evidence for this hypothesis is..what? I am eager to be convinced that the soul is real and not just a human instinctive delusion that life cannot end just because we die.
a helpful tool in spiritual growth is an awareness and honesty about our motivation, intention, and beliefs.
what is your motivation in asking someone to convince you that the soul is real?
It might be worth following that study up in order to see how much the Mail selected quotes in the interests of a good read, not to mention suggesting that Scientists have Proved an afterlife. I haven't time now.I have to tacks stretchers on the home -made shelves to stop ten feet of shelving falling over.
the validation is in my own life experience, my own learning and study and exploration and trial and error, and from teachers and resources who i am able to recognize as smarter, wiser, and more trustworthy than those whose scope is so limited and superficial that they can not see beyond the physical.
we can learn from others, but we can only validate it in our own life. it requires participation and putting it into action. it's something a person does for themseves, nobody can do it for you. it's not about someone convincing you of anything. it's about expansion, growth, and self-improvement. if a person is fine stuck where they are, then don't bother. i have no desire to convince you of anything, it's not my job. it's up to you if you want to explore what is beyond the physical. to say to someone "convince me" is (in my view) inherently lazy.
again it appears to me you are making the leap from "this makes no sense to me" to "therefore it is a delusion"
along with "if you can't convince me, then it is a delusion"
people can share their views and experiences; but thrown gauntlets of "if you can't prove it then i don't believe you" are, well, empty.
my observation on these boards is that when someone says "convince me" their motivation and intention is not so much a desire for understanding, as it is wanting to argue, debate, prove a point, engage in one-upmanship [=the technique or practice of gaining a feeling of superiority over another person] because the ego is invested in being right. i have no interest in that, as it is not an avenue of growth.
Sorry. I can do just the same in my own life, and I know very well that it is far too easy to select the hits and ignore the misses (I have done the experiment) to convince yourself that there is some Pattern that can't be expained in Materialist terms.
In fact, it can. This is evidence, not a personal preference that you can dismiss as you did as some kind of bias. I won't dwell on the string of unworthy accusations about my motives. I'll only wonder why, if you are content to believe whatever you do and never mind anyone else, you are spending time here. And I don't mind what you think about my motives. If you had some decent evidence, you'd use it, not try to smear my request for it, rather than accepting whatever you say, as some kind of closed -minded bias.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
a helpful tool in spiritual growth is an awareness and honesty about our motivation, intention, and beliefs.
what is your motivation in asking someone to convince you that the soul is real?
Because, if it is, I want to know (1). it is an interesting and important question and I want to get to the bottom of this NDE and OoB thing. And what is your motivation in asking what is my motivation?
I think I know, but do you?
(1) at this point we get some mind -reading and knowing what I think better than I do.
OP, let's employ very simple logic. As in basic one.
You sit at the screen and read what I typed.
You comprehend what i typed.
You know that you are you.
You have some mental capacities to comprehend what I typed and to comprehend that you exist as you.
Hence, you are an intelligent being, or being alloted some sort of intelligence and self awareness.
This is really impossible to argue as oitherwise you would argue that you do not exist or are not an intelligent being.
New paragraph.
Same time, you have all kinds of material things everywhere around you. Or, a world outside the window.
it is a FACT.
Hence, a physical world exists.
This is an axiom.
Now, we have two axioms - you exist as intelligent being AND physical world exists.
New postulate.
Difference between intelligent being and an object in material world is that you are intelligent and self aware and object is not intelligent and self aware.
I think, so far, it is impossible to argue against, unless for the sake of argument.
New paragraph.
Both subjects discussed came to existence somehow and at some point.
Another axiom as anything that exists has its origin.
That leads us to next discussion. Everything either came from say Big Bang or was created by God.
Either way, something existed before everything came into being to give it its origin.
As only nothing can come from nothing something comes from something.
Hence, either there was an origin to a universe before or in the Big Bang or a God existed to create everything.
Logically, another something was there to give origin to Big Bang, then another something to give origin to that something and so on.
Now, look at chain of those somethings. Logically, such consecutive chain of events will expand into - yes, eternity.
Hence, there is only one logical conclusion.
From stand point of eternity, there is a CONTINUOUS chain of everything (universes) with irrelevantly miniscule gaps between them. Or, there is eternal God that gives birth to everything.
Final logical conclusion is simple - nothing does not exist as there ALWAYS is something.
Also, you rightfully noticed that concept of zero and nothing was introduced to human thinking.
Ancient mathematics dealt with real life objects. Count was done in eg 3 cows. 12 people. 25 trees. Count was never done in 3 or 12 or 25. As it is 3 of WHAT?
Concept of zero did not exist either as it was not represented in reality. As ancient math was based in reality, not twisted minds of say Einstein, where 1+1=2, 1+1+1=3 but then 1+1+1+1=3 again. 2+5=3 again. And so on.
The real life based math was taken away from humanity and replaced with this "hypothetical" "concepts" of numbers not bearing any real meaning to them.
Read on Arian calculus. The only reference I have is in Russian, won't do you much help.
But let me expand logic into total philosophy and present this concept. Simply by using term "nothing" you making it exist as something as it then exists as "term" or a "concept" of "nothing". As the result, "nothing" is illogical concept as something that exists even as a concept can not be nothing, or non-existent.
If you had some decent evidence, you'd use it, not try to smear my request for it,... it is an interesting and important question and I want to get to the bottom of this
if you insist others convince you, then be stuck and stay stuck.
if a person's view is anybody could say anything so why should i believe you, that is also being stuck.
enjoy!
why am i on here? it's a topic of interest to me, and there is value to me in reading the views and experiences that people contribute and share. i learn from others, it enhances understanding, and it is a catalyst for insight.
why did i ask what is your motive? because the capacity for paying close attention to and identifying our motive, intention, thoughts, feelings, views, and beliefs is one of the central tools used in validating and exploring soul and spirit, and enhancing our own growth, expansion, and self-improvement. you don't have to share those publicly with anyone else, especially on here, but it does require honesty with self.
if a person is unwilling to put into practice what an endeavor requires, then no progress is made. spiritual growth is not about one-upmanship or arguing or demanding to be convinced. it is purely individual and really only matters to you, not to anyone else. it is taking full responsibility for our own thought, speech, action, feelings, and beliefs. not blaming others or making demands of others. we may learn from others but they can't do it for us.
my observation is you seem very interested in "talking about it" (arguing, debate, demanding that others convince you) but not so interested in "putting it into practice." a person is not going to ever validate it for themself if they don't put it into practice. it's like someone saying "i want to know what the class teaches, but don't want to actually go to class myself, or attend the labs, or do the problem sets, or do the homework, or listen to the teacher, or participate in study groups, or demonstrate proficiency or take competency exams."
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 05-29-2016 at 09:54 AM..
I won't dwell on the string of unworthy accusations about my motives. .... And I don't mind what you think about my motives. If you had some decent evidence, you'd use it, not try to smear my request for it
the statement i made was general and I stand behind it:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
my observation on these boards is that when someone says "convince me" their motivation and intention is not so much a desire for understanding, as it is wanting to argue, debate, prove a point, engage in one-upmanship [=the technique or practice of gaining a feeling of superiority over another person] because the ego is invested in being right. i have no interest in that, as it is not an avenue of growth.
if it doesn't apply to you, then it's not a problem. if it does apply to you (which it apparently does, since you take issue with it), then let's look at why. a person's motives (in my view) are transparent when they self-identify as a militant atheist; spend a great deal of time in a great many posts discussing how "wrong" others are; and focus almost entirely on argument and debate. Those are not the behavior of someone who seeks to enhance their understanding. Motive and intention are part of what prevents or enhances a person's growth and expansion and learning and understanding. That's why they go hand in hand: what a person posts is a window to their intention and motives.
For the person who sincerely is interested in "truth and honesty" then they welcome insight into motive and intention and seek to examine it more closely at every chance they get, because they recognize what a valuable important even central part it has in personal growth, which is one aspect of what spirituality/religion is all about, growing into our best self. and if a person believes "don't need religion for that" then again, they most surely welcome every opportunity to identify their own motives and intentions, with truth and unflinching self-honesty.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 05-29-2016 at 06:40 PM..
For the person who sincerely is interested in "truth and honesty" then they welcome insight into motive and intention and seek to examine it more closely at every chance they get, because they recognize what a valuable important even central part it has in personal growth, which is one aspect of what spirituality/religion is all about, growing into our best self. and if a person believes "don't need religion for that" then again, they most surely welcome every opportunity to identify their own motives and intentions, with truth and unflinching self-honesty.
I went that route for the first 30 or so years after my conversion as a young child and I found that if one is actually interested in truth, it turns out that religious faith is a failed epistemology that does not lead in that direction other than by total accident (like how a stopped clock is right twice a day). I found myself easily deceived by appearances, my own desires, hopes and dreams, and the needs of others when I did not have a requirement of evidence and substantiation and logical argument to support my beliefs. After I left my faith of origin, I spent several years considering other belief systems as my operant conditioning predisposed me against atheism.
You seem to forget that many of us have given religious / mystical faith methodologies a very serious go -- in my case to the point of a year of full time formal training in my faith. You like to portray us as small-minded and closed off but the truth is that most of us have already been down your road. The rest are simply people who can't will themselves to believe unless they can justify their beliefs. So you are not asking us by and large to consider something we've not thought of already.
So you are not asking us by and large to consider something we've not thought of already.
i'm not asking you to consider anything. i'm answering Trans' questions about how a person if they are so inclined can explore on his own and make his own discoveries. i listen to your experiences with interest and high regard. i would not dream of telling you what is "really" going on in your life.
i am stating that many of us have found our own evidence. no, it is not delusion. no it is not made up. no it is not dishonesty. boatloads of people have a relationship with the Divine and it is a natural part of daily life that permeates and informs every facet of our existence and all of our activities. people have views and experiences that you do not. so afford others the dignity of that and cut the condescension of "it's not that you don't have a brain if you would just pick it up and use it."
you've also shared in another set of threads that you don't consider thoughts and feelings as something to be trusted. If i remember correctly, you said something along the lines of "anything between the ears is suspect" and that includes both thoughts and feelings. And when you said that, a light bulb went on for me and i could see how with that mindset if a person can't trust their own thoughts and feelings, they certainly can't give credence or validity to anyone else's thoughts and feelings. that allowed me greater understanding of where some of the put downs come from. it's not personal....you just don't find thoughts and feelings reliable.
however many of us do. we do use and value our thoughts, feelings, intuition, perceptions, we do trust them, we are aware of how they provide valuable data to navigate both the physical and the spiritual realms, and we seek to develop discernment on an ongoing basis. it's about R-E-S-P-E-C-T, but Aretha says it better:
... many of us have found our own evidence. no, it is not delusion. no it is not made up. no it is not dishonesty.
I would not characterize it as either dishonesty or delusion, or as evidence. The words I would generally prefer are selective perception, illusion and rationalizations. And I would say that the people engaging in these illusions and selective perceptions would see them as revelatory, transformative and transcendent, and tout them as such. It is actually rare for them to not "eat their own dogfood" and actually be cynically roping in others for personal gain. That is reserved for a few sociopaths at the top of their particular food chain. Most people mean well and try their best to do well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
you've also shared in another set of threads that you don't consider thoughts and feelings as something to be trusted. If i remember correctly, you said something along the lines of "anything between the ears is suspect" and that includes both thoughts and feelings.
That sounds like something I would or did say. But in saying that I wouldn't mean to indicate that one's thoughts and feelings are worthless, only that they should be, as much as possible, compared against other sources of information, not least of which is reality. They should be distrusted as sole or primary sources for any consequential purpose.
For purposes of my morning walk today, which isn't terribly consequential, my subjective experience of the cool morning air, the interplay of light, the birdsong, the relative quiet and solitude, is fine as a source of perception for my walk. And besides, it distracted from the rotten-toothpick pain in my hips and the annoying slow accumulation of steps on my FitBit which I rather need to make my doctors happy (which is more important these days than making me happy).
On the other hand, when thinking about moral decisions, deriving meaning and purpose, and other consequential matters, it seems prudent to me, given all that is well established, proven and known about human perceptual quirks such as confirmation bias, that we do our best to control for those quirks. That's all I'm saying. It is not that I "can't trust my own feelings" it is that I choose not to for perfectly good and sufficient reasons. They have proven inconsistent and unreliable in evaluating many aspects of life. In fact at times, completely random.
Another well established fact about one's emotions is that they are not "you", and it is a common problem for people under maybe 30 years of age to be pretty much at their mercy, at least under stress. It takes some time and perspective (and I suspect the completion of some brain wiring that often takes until one's mid-twenties or a bit beyond) to be able to separate yourself from your emotional responses, to regard them without attachment, and to let them pass by rather than getting all tangled up in them. It is not as if you should distrust your emotions but simply assign them their proper place. If for example I feel anger it is a pretty good indication that I at least perceive that someone is violating some aspect of my being. But if I give that feeling carte blanche rather than question it, I might well not notice that there is no real threat, only a perceived or perhaps exaggerated one, and then I might react in ways that don't serve my best interest or that of others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
... that allowed me greater understanding of where some of the put downs come from. it's not personal....you just don't find thoughts and feelings reliable.
That's a valid insight and one I have been trying to get across: it's NOT personal. It is rather similar to if I had managed to get on top of a problem with, say, alcoholism which to that point had destroyed my life and relationships and you came along suggesting that I need to loosen up and have a drink a couple times a day. Or if I had overcome sex addiction and you tell me I need to have some sense f__ked into me. It amounts to a suggestion that I return to a pattern that is not only dysfunctional for me, but that I have observed is dysfunctional or causes collateral damage to others.
If I overreact on my part then that would be similar to me not recognizing that some people can "hold their liquor" metaphorically speaking -- that they can have all sorts of wild subjective personal experiences and an elaborate web of explanations for it, even hang a whole cosmology on it, and that their life can work in spite of or perhaps to an extent even because of it.
But the fact is that I do realize that while it is definitely not for me, your beliefs can indeed work for you. My real objection is to the slightest whiff of "you'd be better off thinking as I do" or "I condescend to pity you for your limitations" or "I'm a better moral actor because of my beliefs" or "everyone should believe as I do" or even "you haven't even considered by woo of choice". And then projecting that kind of thinking onto me, as if other people's beliefs and club activities are a matter of anything but indifference or perhaps mild curiosity to me in and of themselves.
I am here because I have an interest in philosophy and metaphysics and spirituality and I am simply discussing it in what I hope is an orderly way according to established rules about where burdens of proof lie. I have said it many times and say it again, I have zero problem with a theist who makes no claim of actual gnosis -- knowledge -- who makes only experiential and belief claims that are for themselves alone and do not claim to have proof, substantiation or authority that's incumbent upon others. Or in the alternative, make claims that they can actually substantiate or logically argue for, rather than just claim to.
Sadly I find believers who truly can resist the temptation to sneak in some kind of "proof" for their subjective personal beliefs through the side door in these conversations to be very much in the minority. I don't feel this is always or even often disingenuous on their part, it is just that there are a lot of ways for us to talk past each other because the same words mean very different things to different individuals, and everyone insists on THEIR definitions. It becomes very difficult to discuss things objectively that way.
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.
