Why an Atheist in the R&S Forum? (Israel, communion, miracles)
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.
My thought process doesn't help me at all. All the thought process does is help you and me roll that boulder up the hill even though we both know that damn thing will roll downhill again. Are you doing anything that your father, and his father wasn't doing all their lives rolling that boulder uphill? Naturalism got us into this fix. "We are caught in a trap and can't walk out." (Elvis)
Since my father was human like myself, it's unsurprising we both participated in the human condition.
Both my father and I found meaning and purpose in life according to our interests and abilities. Meaning is individual and chosen. It is not externally bestowed. But it is plenty sufficient.
This was just as true ten thousand years ago as it is now. I don't know what you consider "before naturalism" when presumably people weren't "trapped". When was this exactly?
Quote:
Originally Posted by myuen2
Nobody understands anything. All we have are beliefs of naturalism. They reinforce the illusion of an individual self. The Buddha said:"Things are not what they seem. Deeds exist, but no doer can be found” (Majjhima Nikaya, 192).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are saying all our problems are rooted in the physical world, which is inherently bad. That the only escape is to deny physicality and strive for complete detachment from the physical. And you are in part accomplishing this by asserting that scientific knowledge consists entirely of baseless beliefs, ergo, the physical world isn't important or useful.
Look, I'm not particularly impressed with life myself, but I already went the route of trying to transcend that via spirituality and while it was a different emphasis than what you are talking about it is still basically the same principle of denying any importance to what is right in front of us and what we are obliged to deal with, compared to (in my case) the eventual goal of heaven or (in yours) the eventual goal of egoless being. To me that is just avoiding engaging with ilfe or extracting anything useful from it. But ... like millions before you, you probably have to try and fail at it before you can let go of the notion.
The evidence is there is no evidence for an intelligent being behind it all, and no intelligence is required for it. From why stars and galaxies form to why atoms like to make molecules, we understand the why without a need to say an intelligence is responsible.
Walking away? I am cooking pop corn.
What oil do you use for popping the corn, Harry?
Naturalism says that fossil evidence from Peru suggests that corn was popped as early as 4,700 BC. How did the Peruvians know how to do that? According to Wikipedia, the evidence of an intelligent being doing that was the popcorn machine invented in 1885 by a Chicago candy store owner, Charles Cretors. Was there no intelligence guiding the Peruvians in making popcorn?
Since my father was human like myself, it's unsurprising we both participated in the human condition.
Both my father and I found meaning and purpose in life according to our interests and abilities. Meaning is individual and chosen. It is not externally bestowed. But it is plenty sufficient.
This was just as true ten thousand years ago as it is now. I don't know what you consider "before naturalism" when presumably people weren't "trapped". When was this exactly?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are saying all our problems are rooted in the physical world, which is inherently bad. That the only escape is to deny physicality and strive for complete detachment from the physical. And you are in part accomplishing this by asserting that scientific knowledge consists entirely of baseless beliefs, ergo, the physical world isn't important or useful.
Look, I'm not particularly impressed with life myself, but I already went the route of trying to transcend that via spirituality and while it was a different emphasis than what you are talking about it is still basically the same principle of denying any importance to what is right in front of us and what we are obliged to deal with, compared to (in my case) the eventual goal of heaven or (in yours) the eventual goal of egoless being. To me that is just avoiding engaging with ilfe or extracting anything useful from it. But ... like millions before you, you probably have to try and fail at it before you can let go of the notion.
How many egoless people do you know?
You ask great questions, my friend. You would make as wonderful a dinner guest as Andre of the movie "My Dinner with Andre". Look at those highlighted points you raised above. We could reflect on them all evening long from a dry martini before the meal to a fine brandy by the fireplace. A zen master would frown on all that alcohol. Jesus turned water into wine, didn't he? This is one of the reasons why I feel spiritually at home in Christianity as all westerners ought to be.
How many egoless people do I know? Ego is a western concept invented by naturalism. New-age spiritualism, a western thought form derived from Eastern religions, equates the ego with the psyche, that voice in your head, and your image in the mirror. Have I met any egoless people? Many of those new-age types I talked to on the internet insisted that they were egoless. I have never gotten rid of that voice in my head. And I hope I never stop seeing that image in the mirror. It would be weird otherwise. Does that mean I have an ego? No, it does not. I don't accept naturalism and its doctrines.
I don't deny the physical world but I reject its immutability. Naturalism, stripped of pretensions, is scientism. It claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality. I raised the mystery about the phenomenon of falling objects. If you cannot entertain that mystery, no escape from physicality is possible, and you are attached to the physical world. Scientific knowledge is not a body of baseless beliefs. They are, nevertheless, beliefs (concepts) that have use for making the world we live in better or worse. So far, our world has gone progressively worse.
I would say naturalism precedes theism. If the physical world was not a horror to live in, there would be no need for a struggle to escape in theism. Die-hard naturalists, having decided that there is no way out, make the best of an absurd existence.
Naturalism says that fossil evidence from Peru suggests that corn was popped as early as 4,700 BC. How did the Peruvians know how to do that? According to Wikipedia, the evidence of an intelligent being doing that was the popcorn machine invented in 1885 by a Chicago candy store owner, Charles Cretors. Was there no intelligence guiding the Peruvians in making popcorn?
I'm sure, if I was a Civil/Structural engineer by trade capable of handling the technical argument and the math I would have the same questions and would be looking for help finding answers.
This Civil/Structural engineering thing just gotta be taking too much brain resources!
Well, for better or for worse, I'm not.
So I can help. I can get you an answer you are looking for.
Here it is
They were doing popcorn without using a popcorn machine which was not available for them yet since it was not yet invented. They did it by hand. On stove tops. And this process was informed and guided by their own, Peruvian intelligence.
I'm sure, if I was a Civil/Structural engineer by trade capable of handling the technical argument and the math I would have the same questions and would be looking for help finding answers.
This Civil/Structural engineering thing just gotta be taking too much brain resources!
Well, for better or for worse, I'm not.
So I can help. I can get you an answer you are looking for.
Here it is
They were doing popcorn without using a popcorn machine which was not available for them yet since it was not yet invented. They did it by hand. On stove tops. And this process was informed and guided by their own, Peruvian intelligence.
Naturalism narrowed it down to 4700 B.C. when Peruvians popped their corn. What do you think a pop corn look like after lying around your kitchen floor for 6700 years? And they found the fossil. I thought you guys don't swallow tall tales from high priests the way you perceive theists as doing.
And those dinosaurs running around in full color screaming like devils in Jurassic Park are exactly like those 100 million years ago before an asteroid strike wiped them out. You believe that also? And you would reject the parting of the Red Sea merely a 1000 years ago just because it is not a natural phenomenon.
Naturalism says that fossil evidence from Peru suggests that corn was popped as early as 4,700 BC. How did the Peruvians know how to do that? According to Wikipedia, the evidence of an intelligent being doing that was the popcorn machine invented in 1885 by a Chicago candy store owner, Charles Cretors. Was there no intelligence guiding the Peruvians in making popcorn?
I never knew that god taught humans how to make popcorn. He must spend a lot of time at movie theaters running the snack bar.
I don't deny the physical world but I reject its immutability. Naturalism, stripped of pretensions, is scientism. It claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality. I raised the mystery about the phenomenon of falling objects. If you cannot entertain that mystery, no escape from physicality is possible, and you are attached to the physical world. Scientific knowledge is not a body of baseless beliefs. They are, nevertheless, beliefs (concepts) that have use for making the world we live in better or worse. So far, our world has gone progressively worse.
I would say naturalism precedes theism. If the physical world was not a horror to live in, there would be no need for a struggle to escape in theism. Die-hard naturalists, having decided that there is no way out, make the best of an absurd existence.
Reality is what it is, no matter how much I dislike it or think it absurd. I agree that the physical world is a horror. I also think humans are often a horror.
I don't know that the world has gotten progressively worse. In some ways it has, in some ways it hasn't. We are doing our best as a species to seize defeat from the jaws of victory right now. We have the means, but neither the widsom nor the discipline, to make a better world for ourselves. Much of what you ascribe to science is really just human folly.
Reality is what it is, no matter how much I dislike it or think it absurd. I agree that the physical world is a horror. I also think humans are often a horror.
I don't know that the world has gotten progressively worse. In some ways it has, in some ways it hasn't. We are doing our best as a species to seize defeat from the jaws of victory right now. We have the means, but neither the widsom nor the discipline, to make a better world for ourselves. Much of what you ascribe to science is really just human folly.
I am not sure how it will end. Probably badly.
You are smart, my friend. We need to talk more for mutual benefit. From opposing positions, intelligence can bring us to the center. And that intelligence is out of this world, literally speaking.
Fundamentalism is unintelligent wherever it resides, be it in naturalism or theism.
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.
