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.
Or they want to discuss ideas, experiences, and perspectives with others who are on their wavelength in a spirituality forum. Yes, discuss with people on their wavelength or coming from their perspective versus debating with people who believe differently. Some may want to engage like that debating this and that or proving this or that, but I do not.
I'm not going to try and substantiate or prove spiritual experiences that I have had with those who have not had them. I would do so in the spirit of a true, genuine, heartfelt, compassionate, and respectful inquiry. If Harry had said, "Chloe333, I don't share your perspective but tell me how have you personally experienced spirituality or Source/Creator/God/Consciousness or another dimension or realm or energy or healings or whatever to lead you to your conclusions to help me better understand," then I would respond.
But the sense is that it would become an incredibly tiresome and tedious walking on eggshells and weighing every single word said and how it was said to avoid a ridiculing gotcha at every turn. In that spirit or context of debating, gotcha, and win-lose exchange, no thanks. Plus, as an energy sensitive person, the forum can feel too hostile, one upping, and competitive to me to want to do that here anyway even if someone asked me to. In fact, I don't like posting here and am signing off after this.
I remember the Eckhart Tolle thread to discuss his teachings on here awhile back and it was the same thing with some posters jumping onto the thread and insulting Tolle 'followers' comparing us to stupid sheep. One person even went so far as to say she hated people like us.
Hmmmm. I guess you feel then that it is alright that people like me and Harry Diogenes want to discuss ideas and experiences critically, at length and detail, with those of "different wavelengths" in a fair unbiased space. So then you, although not wanting to answer yourself to him (unless he already agrees with you or is for some/any reason open to your ideas), are fine with him commenting on posts that you write. And you will respond to his comments, just not addressing any of his points particularly, because they might be unnecessarily digging in your perspective. Although given that like you, he has ideas, experiences, and perspectives, you will not be compassionate nor respect that they happen to disagree with yours.
As a seeker of truth and facts... I highly disagree with this methodology. But I want to highlight that you have nothing to fear from Harry Diogenes, nothing to fear from criticism, nothing to fear from disagreement in an online forum such as this one. Unless you fear words and comment-types that you think this forum has not banned.
For you see, from my experience, conclusion, and perspective of Harry Diogenes, he is true, genuine, heartfelt, and most often compassionate and highly respectful. I'd have to admit, he has seemed to me as one of those battered anattas whose compassion and respect has to be earned, rather than being freely given. He probably doesn't even think "compassion" per say is necessary in an online dialogue forum. I doubt much that he would prefer to have his word choice ruled over by those who disagree with him, rather than the other way around, or at the very least fairly free. The forum already prevents most impolite and bashing posts according to the forum rules, the fastest way is with the "report" exclamation mark tool.
Harry Diogenes doesn't only not share your perspective, he whole-heartedly disagrees with it. I'm sure to him, others have come before. He likely directly rejects those that have previously come along with similar (but keenly disagreeing) ideas to personal supernatural experiences, origins, consciousnesses, other dimensions/realms, unmeasurable energies, and unquantifiable healings. As such, he probably assumed your first post about it did the best you could already... thus somehow necessitating his pointing out its insufficiency to all others. Perhaps, especially given that most people with spiritual phenotypes give in to the "mystery" of their preferred and chosen ideas.
Haven't you "caught him" not using the "right word choice" for your perspective of trueness, genuineness, heartfeltness, compassion, and respect? I think he'd feel like you are the one asking him to walk on egg-shells first since he never asked any such thing from you. Perhaps you are afraid that he somehow implied it by seeming to ask for more conclusive weight and detail, then? But that is not what walking on egg-shells really means. He is basically leaving his arms/mind/reading open to your counterarguments and explanations.
Perhaps what you mean by "energy sensitive" is "emotionally sensitive." That is fine, both are fine. No one has to view emotionally sensitive people as "less" than energy sensitive ones. If any labeled 'followers' were compared to stupid sheep instead of having a constructive dialogue, that should have been reported and it would have been dealt with. People get infractions and are kicked out for breaking forum rules at moderator discretion. I'm sure they would have equally stood up for any idea agreers.
Sorry to see you go, I wish you the greatest Enlightenment.
Just be aware of not acting like Deputy Harry sauntering around here trying to hand out Atheist tickets and citations. It's a Religion and Spirituality forum, after all.
Huh? Attention thief? I responded to the OP asking for perspectives on 'true religion' or spirituality. Then I responded to Harry's comments about my comment being weak and flimsy and that I failed to (which implies the need to) prove it. How is that being a 'mere attention thief?'
Weak and flimsy? I merely pointed out your assertion had no evidence for it, and that it was improbable (because intelligent beings do not simply exist for no reason).
If you presented this as a belief, I would have had not problem with that. Many people have this belief. I commented because you asserted it as a fact with no evidence. That you think you need to defend this is your problem, not mine.
I have to admit, I don't really get the analogy, but
I don't see a "must" there from Harry Diogenes.
The house built on sand is a reference to a parable of Jesus and the man who built a house on sand. I was referring to an argument with weak or no foundations.
Weak and flimsy? I merely pointed out your assertion had no evidence for it, and that it was improbable (because intelligent beings do not simply exist for no reason).
If you presented this as a belief, I would have had not problem with that. Many people have this belief. I commented because you asserted it as a fact with no evidence. That you think you need to defend this is your problem, not mine.
Yes, of course it is a belief. People don't need me to specify that it is a belief versus truth anyway. They know that and will decipher it however they want to. Of course, it's a truth to me because I am the one saying it but we all agree it's also a belief.
You say you are an agnostic which means not sure and so my recommendation to you if you are ever interested in pursuing it is to just try silencing your mind (ie meditation) for a few months. Just try it. What do you have to lose? See what happens for yourself. See if you make a connection with something beyond what is physical. You could call it the non-physical, energy, or spiritual...whatever.
To me, you are like a fish that doesn't know that water exists. I had to figure out for myself about the water. I trust you will figure it out too and so will everyone else.
Silence 'the Little Harry' mind and keep doing it. Be open to allowing something besides 'the Little Harry person' to come through you. You can check people out on the internet on videos of what happens when some of them meditate....energy movements, involuntary bodily movements. I can't think of a better way to get the experience that there is more going on here than just this physical realm/experience. These are common things that happen during meditation to a lot of people and it is just energy moving through the body. Yes, energy moving through the body and it will have a healing, clearing, and balancing affect on you over time. You are essentially allowing a connection to occur with the larger and broader part of who you are. You already have the connection going because you are alive, heart beating, blood pumping but when you silence and quiet 'the Little Harry,' you will allow more of this broader and larger power and intelligence to come through. It is a practice. No, it is not denying the mind or not using the mind and becoming brainless but it is a reducing of mind activity in order to become more balanced between being in 'little person mode' and just a space of conscious awareness. It is not about denying or denigrating the mind/brain which is an amazing instrument to be used, of course. It goes back to the rock and the sand parable of walking with one foot on the rock and the other on the sand. Not too much rock, not too much sand...balance.
Try it for yourself. What do you have to lose? Where does this endless debating really get anyone except an ego boost of winning +1 point for me, for you.
That's all I am going to say and I might actually be signing off for real this time.
The house built on sand is a reference to a parable of Jesus and the man who built a house on sand. I was referring to an argument with weak or no foundations.
House built on sand means life only lived, perceived, and experienced from the physical human realm. It's temporal, fleeting, impermanent. House built on rock means life built on God/Source/One Intelligence/One Consciousness which is the eternal aspect of who we are. The key is to learn how to walk with one foot on the rock and the other in the sand. That's my belief and therefore my truth.
Harry Diogenes doesn't only not share your perspective, he whole-heartedly disagrees with it. I'm sure to him, others have come before. He likely directly rejects those that have previously come along with similar (but keenly disagreeing) ideas to personal supernatural experiences, origins, consciousnesses, other dimensions/realms, unmeasurable energies, and unquantifiable healings. As such, he probably assumed your first post about it did the best you could already... thus somehow necessitating his pointing out its insufficiency to all others. Perhaps, especially given that most people with spiritual phenotypes give in to the "mystery" of their preferred and chosen ideas.
Harry said that he is agnostic, if I recall. So he is open to possibilities.
People do have trouble with implications. When you demand that there be "proof" or evidence that something exists or is true, you implicitly hold the opposite "belief," and it IS your default "belief" IF you do NOT know. This old saw has seen more use in this forum by cowardly atheists desiring to slam "believers" with their disingenuous "burden of proof" without incurring the otherwise impossible burden on their "beliefs." Show some courage and at least own your "beliefs."
Your need to poison the well is as amusing as the irrational position you have argued. Since when do people go around trying to prove the none existence of things? When was the last time you tried to prove the none existence of intergalactic rubber ducks, or cosmic teapots between Jupiter and Mars?
Atheism is a response to a claim, and even at the basic level, our position means we have met that burden, because the evidence for a god is not good enough for us to believe in one.
And when we look further, the evidence grows stronger, because we know intelligent beings (such as an all knowing old man in the sky) simply do not exist for no reason. The arguments that this being is responsible for us / morality / the universe simply presumes the existence of this god. But where did this god get the knowledge, or how did it learn? It just knew? The idea of an intelligent first cause answers nothing, and ignores everything that we do know about knowledge.
This leaves room for other definitions of gods, but the problem still remains. If you have no evidence for them, I have no reason to believe until the theist provides evidence for them.
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.
