A challenge to Religious People [Archive] - Page 2

Grave_n_idle

10-01-2006, 19:47

All "groups", societies, "cults", like all lifeforms, create "cell walls".

They MUST know what is them, and what is not them.

That is the function of life. To apportion a piece of space (cell boundaries),
to establish resource inflow and outflow, and replicate themselves.

There is no group (or "cell") that doesn't segregate all things according to
their own definitions. It is NOT evil to do so, as no natural force is inherently
evil.

You are neither "saved" nor "damned" if YOU choose not to define yourself
that way, regardless of how some other "cell" defines you.

No "church" would WANT a member that is neither "saved" nor "damned" self
professedly, and such a person would not want to be a member of such
a "church". Unless some coersion or erstwhile "mental illness" is in play.

I don't consider you (Grave) an atheist, in that you KNOW that God is real
but ineffable, and therefore is unrepresentable by anything (which is precisely
the foolish thing that society tries to do). Otherwise, you wouldn't have
known what to compare the "silly" god(s) with to come to the conclusion that
they were unbelievably silly.

I also DO consider you to be an atheist, in that you don't believe in silly God(s).

-Iakeo

I agree. As a species we segregate... we can't help it. In many ways, of course, we may try... but there will always be boundaries we find that are un-jumpable.

So - my friends may be men, women, young, old, of a variety of different races, religions, sexual orientations.

However, there will always be some people who are 'other' to me... people I will find it hard to reconcile myself with. I have met persons who take part in those 'sports' that involve pitting animals against each other.... I cannot comprehend how that 'works'. I have met those who will not even acknowledge the humanity of those of a different (often specific) skintone... I, again, cannot even start to understand how that fits inside their heads.

Where I'm heading...? I guess... that being 'segregated' in our heads need not be a bad thing... and it is something we all do. It is a convenience.

I am 'an atheist'. When I meet an other 'atheist', I have (some) idea of where their belief structure may lie.

I will not, conventionally, expect them to have beliefs in (what are the common concepts of) 'god'.

Thus - to my thinking... if you lack the common concepts of god, you have a very good chance of being an 'atheist'. Or Iakeonui.

So - I consider the "child-yet-to-learn-of-God" to be an Atheist. But, I do not do this for my own advantage. I do not gain from it. I'm not worried about how many 'souls' I 'save' by doing so.

I just consider that child to be an 'atheist'... because he/she shares my lack of belief in the gods peddled on the soapboxes. Indeed, that child and I share something else... neither of us can quite 'conceive' of that 'god'.

Heaven Gate

10-01-2006, 19:52

Been there. I'm a Norse-Buddhist now, I kill stuff for Odin while meditating on the right of humanity to live.

You shall all be converted:rolleyes:

Iakeonui

10-01-2006, 20:17

I agree. As a species we segregate... we can't help it. In many ways, of course, we may try... but there will always be boundaries we find that are un-jumpable.

So - my friends may be men, women, young, old, of a variety of different races, religions, sexual orientations.

However, there will always be some people who are 'other' to me... people I will find it hard to reconcile myself with. I have met persons who take part in those 'sports' that involve pitting animals against each other.... I cannot comprehend how that 'works'. I have met those who will not even acknowledge the humanity of those of a different (often specific) skintone... I, again, cannot even start to understand how that fits inside their heads.

Where I'm heading...? I guess... that being 'segregated' in our heads need not be a bad thing... and it is something we all do. It is a convenience.

I am 'an atheist'. When I meet an other 'atheist', I have (some) idea of where their belief structure may lie.

I have never found that ANY person shares much conguence (edit: found the
right geometric term: CONGRUENCE) with ANY other person as
regards "spiritual" matters, regardless of whether they use the same "label" or
not.

I will not, conventionally, expect them to have beliefs in (what are the common concepts of) 'god'.

Thus - to my thinking... if you lack the common concepts of god, you have a very good chance of being an 'atheist'. Or Iakeonui.

So - I consider the "child-yet-to-learn-of-God" to be an Atheist. But, I do not do this for my own advantage. I do not gain from it. I'm not worried about how many 'souls' I 'save' by doing so.

It's just your belief. A useful generalization borne out by your obesrving the
behavior of children which allows you to act appropriately.

You don't see them as "tainted" by silly God(s), and therefore feel no need
to "save" them from some other silly servant of said silly "God(s)", as it were.

But,.. you do gain from it (your belief). You KNOW you act appropriately with
them because of your belief, and that is to your advantage because you
KNOW and have faith that your treatment of them (actions based on your
beliefs) will make them better people, which satisfies your "creature" want to
make children be as great as they can be.

I just consider that child to be an 'atheist'... because he/she shares my lack of belief in the gods peddled on the soapboxes. Indeed, that child and I share something else... neither of us can quite 'conceive' of that 'god'.

Your connection is real. You DO know that the God(s) of the Soapbox are
silly, and not worthy of substitution with the real God.

You're just not at the point of acknowledging that the real God has a useful
function for the living to use, and are continuing to search for "basic
principles", "sets of moral rules", "just doing good", etc, without calling the
source of such things "God".

I've just been goofy enough, societally speaking, to simply say, out loud, that
my God is the real God who is utterly ineffable (indescribable and un-
attributable) and has no intentions whatsoever in this universe but to have
created it by setting the ground rules (of physics), which are (apparently)
supportive of MY survival and happiness, and allowing the free will of all
things to play out the grand play.

..and this view of the world makes me profoundly awestruck in the presence
of those who know it instinctively, and WILL lose most of it in growing up.

The impulse is to not allow the corruption of the world to change children
from their awesome state. But you know you can't stop time. And it makes
you angry. But that's tempered by the fact that that cure would be far worse
than the illness.

The journey is there for a reason. To "return" to God is the goal.

-Iakeo

Grave_n_idle

10-01-2006, 20:20

Atheism does NOT MEAN LACK OF BELIEF..!!!

It means lack of belief in GOD..!!!

There is no such thing as "lack of belief" (naked), just as there is no "lack of
<insert something absolutely inherent and necessary here>...!

(Thanks for infuriating me and causing several extra calories to be burned via
increased metabolism due to annoyance.)

Have a SUPER day..!! And USE YOUR DAMNED WORDS..!! :)

-Iakeo

Ha ha! I made you use capital letters. :)

Iakeonui

10-01-2006, 20:21

Ha ha! I made you use capital letters. :)

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.....

-Iakeo

Mariehamn

10-01-2006, 20:25

Agnostism is like choosing immobility as a form of transportation.
- Dude that wrote "Life of Pi"

Atheists, however, believe in nothing.
Which is, interestingly enough, something.

Iakeonui

10-01-2006, 20:33

Agnostism is like choosing immobility as a form of transportation.
- Dude that wrote "Life of Pi"

Atheists, however, believe in nothing.
Which is, interestingly enough, something.

Ooooo.. I like it..! :)

Agnostics simply don't have the intestinal fortitude to look at the problem and
work through it.

It's not a hard problem. Either you believe in a god, or not.

If you're uncertain (can't find proof of God's existence or the obverse), then
there's no basis for belief,.. therefore, no belief,.. therefore you don't believe
in God,.. therefore (too many "therefores"?) you're an atheist.

Agnostics have better things to do, apparently.

But really,.. how much energy did that take me?

Lazy wankers..... hae ae ae... :D

-Iakeo

Bodinia

10-01-2006, 20:47

If you're uncertain (can't find proof of God's existence or the obverse), then there's no basis for belief,.. therefore, no belief,..

I think that agnostics believe that both possibilities are true.
Do I waste my time on a religion I don't like or will I burn in hell for eternity?
I think that's a very hard problem to solve, I gave it a lot of tought myself.

Kamsaki

10-01-2006, 21:02

Agnostism is like choosing immobility as a form of transportation.
More like, when confronted with various means of transportation, all of which look a little unsteady and whose drivers may be leading you to some very dubious places, choosing to walk.

Slightly less comfortable, certainly a longer path, and you'll have to give way to people in similarly dodgy transport media pretty frequently, but once you get to your destination, you've had the exercise, you've gone at your own pace, you've got the pride in your own ability and you know and have enjoyed the route you've taken.

Jocabia

10-01-2006, 21:32

I do not think you unintelligent, my friend... as you know, I have the highest respect for you.

Thus, you see the question for what it is....

Will you answer it?

"Do you believe in Mewkinder, the Bloody"?

And the answer is I have no concept of Mewkinder, the Bloody. I can't tell you if I believe or don't. If you call your left shoe "Mewkinder, the Bloody" then yes, I believe. If "Mewkinder, the Bloody" is a being that makes only women capable of being correct, then no, I don't.

Jocabia

10-01-2006, 21:39

No - that isn't a comparison I'm making at all.

The point is - groups define themselves... that's kind of what they do - they define their identities... and what they INCLUDE determines what is EXCLUDED, and vice versa.

Well, if a buddhist came up and told me I believed in Buddhism, I would disagree with them.

The common parlance acceptence of the word 'anarchist' describes a destructive person... a negative influence... but the etymology, and the meaning used by anarchists themselves... is just someone who believes in 'freedom from leadership'.

The Christian defines the world as "Lost" and "Saved"... and the "Lost" are not asked what they feel about that definition... they are simply what is left over, once you find the "Saved".

The Atheist starts from the premise of Theism, being a belief in a god. Thus - if you are not 'with' the Theist (if you do not 'believe' in a 'god'), then you are an Atheist.

By your definition. I don't hold that to be true. I hold they are both beliefs, one that requires belief in God, gods or deities and the other that requires disbelief in such things.

You believe Atheism and Theism BOTH to be flawed?

I believe my quoted definition of theism and your quoted definition of atheism to both be flawed.

Or am I confusing myself?

Etymologically - don't we arrive at the root of Atheism as meaning 'no god'? Surely, those who HAVE 'no god' are 'without god'?

Yes, but add -ism means structures it so that it's the belief there is no god(s) or the belief we are without god(s).

And, if nothing else - since the Atheists themselves say that Atheism means "lack of belief"... what authority can deny that definition?
Someone who is not an atheist and does not agree with being lumped in with them.

You can claim that groups may define themselves but they do not have the power to unilaterally shape our language. I can define Christianity as anyone who cannot prove no one named Christ ever existed and call everyone a Christian, but that does mean anyone has to accept my definition, particularly those who do not and would not consider themselves Christian.

Grave_n_idle

10-01-2006, 21:43

And the answer is I have no concept of Mewkinder, the Bloody. I can't tell you if I believe or don't. If you call your left shoe "Mewkinder, the Bloody" then yes, I believe. If "Mewkinder, the Bloody" is a being that makes only women capable of being correct, then no, I don't.

Well, I could ask my wife... and I'm pretty sure that she would tell me that "a being that makes only women capable of being correct" is called 'god'.

Thank you for answering the question... although you have rather skillfully hedged your bets. But, I believe, the point I was trying to make is still visible, even through that.

As you say, you have 'no concept' of Mewkinder, the Bloody.

You point out that you believe in Mewkinder IF Mewkinder is something regular and ordinary, that is within your realm of understanding... and that you don't believe if some mystical significance is added to th name, that makes the concept OTHER THAN what you are familiar with.

The parallel, I feel... is fairly obvious. If it is in your understanding, you will call yourself 'believer'.

If it is not within your understanding, you call yourself 'unbeliever'.

And, there, precisely is my point, vis-a-vis the Atheist Child.

Hat's off to you, sir. You knew what was coming, and you still stood forward.

I respect you for that.

Oh. Mewkinder is a cat. It was a poem I wrote for my daughter, about our kitten, 'Haku'... wherein Haku retells the story of his former life. Obviously, as every 'cat person' knows, cats are subject to constant reincarnation, and suffer through this life as 'pets' because they clearly remember the days when human flesh was their plaything. "Mewkinder, the Bloody" is the 'primal force' at the heart of the story.

Jocabia

10-01-2006, 21:52

Well, I could ask my wife... and I'm pretty sure that she would tell me that "a being that makes only women capable of being correct" is called 'god'.

Thank you for answering the question... although you have rather skillfully hedged your bets. But, I believe, the point I was trying to make is still visible, even through that.

As you say, you have 'no concept' of Mewkinder, the Bloody.

You point out that you believe in Mewkinder IF Mewkinder is something regular and ordinary, that is within your realm of understanding... and that you don't believe if some mystical significance is added to th name, that makes the concept OTHER THAN what you are familiar with.

Actually, I listed one belief I hold to be true and one belief I hold to be false. Both are far different than something of which I am not capable of conceiving. I kind of led you down a path of admitting that belief and disbelief are molded by my understanding, but you were careful about your wording as well. And the dance continues.

The parallel, I feel... is fairly obvious. If it is in your understanding, you will call yourself 'believer'.

If it is not within your understanding, you call yourself 'unbeliever'.

And, there, precisely is my point, vis-a-vis the Atheist Child.

Nope. I called myself an unbeliever of something I consider not to exist (and I liked your extension of my joke, I was hoping if I lobbed you the ball you'd knock it out of the part. gj). It says nothing about something I have no concept of. In fact, I refused to assign belief or non-belief for something of which I have no concept.

Hat's off to you, sir. You knew what was coming, and you still stood forward.

I respect you for that.

;-) Come on, we've been doing this too long to not be able to see some of this coming. It's chess. What kind of opponent would I be if I'm not a couple moves ahead? I noticed you did the same thing.

Oh. Mewkinder is a cat. It was a poem I wrote for my daughter, about our kitten, 'Haku'... wherein Haku retells the story of his former life. Obviously, as every 'cat person' knows, cats are subject to constant reincarnation, and suffer through this life as 'pets' because they clearly remember the days when human flesh was their plaything. "Mewkinder, the Bloody" is the 'primal force' at the heart of the story.

Sounds like a good story.

Grave_n_idle

10-01-2006, 21:56

Well, if a buddhist came up and told me I believed in Buddhism, I would disagree with them.

However, depending on what Buddhist 'means'... and one what that person 'means'... they may well be right.

If one looked into it, and found out that Buddhism means (for example): folowing ANY path to enlightenment... would you not be a 'Buddhist'?

By your definition. I don't hold that to be true. I hold they are both beliefs, one that requires belief in God, gods or deities and the other that requires disbelief in such things.

But, the word 'disbelieve' almost implies conscious action. I don't actively 'disbelieve' that there are any gods... although I MAY actively disbelieve some SPECIFIC ideas.... instead, I have a more passive skepticism... I merely 'lack belief' in 'gods'.

Thus, my conception of my 'unbeliever' status, is required to accomodate those who HAVE no strong 'anti-god' beliefs.

I believe my quoted definition of theism and your quoted definition of atheism to both be flawed.

All too likely. I've admitted as much.

Yes, but add -ism means structures it so that it's the belief there is no god(s) or the belief we are without god(s).

In a way, perhaps.... but words are not that cut and dried... especially when you marinade them in history for a few thousand years.

"Despotism" doesn't mean acceptance of a political ideal...

Someone who is not an atheist and does not agree with being lumped in with them.

Who still wouldn't be able to make the choice for the child, of course...

You can claim that groups may define themselves but they do not have the power to unilaterally shape our language. I can define Christianity as anyone who cannot prove no one named Christ ever existed and call everyone a Christian, but that does mean anyone has to accept my definition, particularly those who do not and would not consider themselves Christian.

And yet, most Christians DO define Christianity. I have come across (and I'm sure you have, too) several interpretations of what it means to be a Christian.

Willamena

10-01-2006, 21:56

There is a label attached already... it is called "child".

The only reason we are attacing the word 'Atheist' is because WE have chosen to talk about a qualitative value WE call 'god'.

The child is equally blissful in his/her ignorance of MANY things, and lacks equal belief in all of them... but, if WE are debating god, or godlessness, the 'value' of the child's belief corresponds to 'Atheist'.
"Child" is not an ideology. "Atheism" is.

As far as I know, there is no word for "the default", as well there shouldn't be; so you (apparently arbitrarily) lump them in with the atheists. There is also no word for the default of the ideologies of the political "left/centre/right". Should we lump the children in the centre?

Iakeonui

10-01-2006, 21:57

Originally Posted by Iakeonui
If you're uncertain (can't find proof of God's existence or the obverse), then there's no basis for belief,.. therefore, no belief,..

I think that agnostics believe that both possibilities are true.
Do I waste my time on a religion I don't like or will I burn in hell for eternity?
I think that's a very hard problem to solve, I gave it a lot of tought myself.

It's not a question of whether they believe both COULD be true.

It's a question of whether they believe only ONE is ABSOLUTELY true..!!

It's an utterly binary choice.

Do you believe God exists (however you define God)..? Yes or no.

What is YOUR answer to that simple question? :)

-Iakeo

Atheist Heathens

10-01-2006, 22:00

I'm an atheist. I've got so bored of hearing the same religious arguments i don't bother talking about it any more.

Willamena

10-01-2006, 22:00

I made no choice to be an Atheist.

I was satisfied being a Christian, until I discovered I no longer believed in their 'god'.

It was the simple 'lack of god' that defines my 'belief' as Atheistic.

A child's 'disbelief' is multifaceted, but we only have names for some parts of it.
It is a decision. If you went from a state of belief to a state of disbelief, then somewhere in there, there was a change of belief made in you, by you, a decision that you no longer believed.

To 'not believe' was the choice, equivalent to the realisation that you never really believed.

For me, it was the opposite movement; the realisation that I always believed.

Bodinia

10-01-2006, 22:04

You can claim that groups may define themselves but they do not have the power to unilaterally shape our language.

edit: if I profess myself as the only knower of the truth of Bodinia, couldn't I call everybody else abodiniaists?

Grave_n_idle

10-01-2006, 22:04

"Child" is not an ideology. "Atheism" is.

As far as I know, there is no word for "the default", as well there shouldn't be; so you (apparently arbitrarily) lump them in with the atheists. There is also no word for the default of the ideologies of the political "left/centre/right". Should we lump the children in the centre?

Ah... here you play with Iakeo's fruit, I'm afraid...

The political ideology 'space' is either 'political' (left, right, liberal, conservative... whatever... these are the SHAPES of the 'fruit') or apolitical.

The infant is unaware of the game... so, he/she is, by extension, apolitical.

As, since he/she is unaware of religion, he/she is areligious.

Iakeonui

10-01-2006, 22:07

"Child" is not an ideology. "Atheism" is.

As far as I know, there is no word for "the default", as well there shouldn't be; so you (apparently arbitrarily) lump them in with the atheists. There is also no word for the default of the ideologies of the political "left/centre/right". Should we lump the children in the centre?

All children are born:

*) Child-like
*) Smallish
*) Rather soft
*) Politically way over the top
*) Religiously utterly commited to whatever it is they're commited to
*) Comedically dedicated to visual "puns" and "irony"
*) Ecomically commited to the proposition of "ME!"
*) Artistically bent toward "squishy-ness" and "Maaa-Maaa-ism"
*) Musically inept but (depending on mood) quite interested
*) Ideologically confused but very clear about all the particulars

..there's more, but I have to go do something about my old dog's backside
that I'd rather not do, but needs doing nonetheless... <cough>

-Iakeo

Bodinia

10-01-2006, 22:09

It's an utterly binary choice.
Do you believe God exists (however you define God)..? Yes or no.
What is YOUR answer to that simple question? :)

I tried to think in binary terms but I've got a syntax error and the system crashed :( No, really!

Grave_n_idle

10-01-2006, 22:10

It is a decision. If you went from a state of belief to a state of disbelief, then somewhere in there, there was a change of belief made in you, by you, a decision that you no longer believed.

To 'not believe' was the choice, equivalent to the realisation that you never really believed.

For me, it was the opposite movement; the realisation that I always believed.

No - it was not a decision. If you are sleeping peacefully, and you are awakened by the sun streaming through your window.... did you CHOOSE to awaken? Was it your decision?

Did you CHOOSE to be a mammal? An airbreather? Was leanring to walk upright a decision?

I didn't decide I no longer believed... I realised it... just as you may 'realise' as you read this, that you are taking a shallow breath in or out.

Did I 'realise I never believed'? No - for years I DID believe. I had no doubts, for a time. I had doubts, but still believed, for a time.

Iakeonui

10-01-2006, 22:13

Originally Posted by Iakeonui
It's an utterly binary choice.
Do you believe God exists (however you define God)..? Yes or no.
What is YOUR answer to that simple question?

I tried to think in binary terms but I've got a syntax error and the system crashed No, really!

So your answer is NO,.. you DON'T absolutely believe in God.

Therefore, you're an atheist. End of story. :)

Thanks for playing...

-Iakeo

Jocabia

10-01-2006, 22:15

So you have actively chosen not to believe in god and you don't want others (unwhorty of "real" atheism) in your elitist group?
Or you passively find impossible to believe in god, but since it's not your choice it shouldn't be held against you with a(n offensive) name calling procedure?
Knowing that islamists would call you infidel is any different?
People can call me a black woman, but that doesn't make them right. I can call myself a black woman and that doesn't make me right. That's the point. Atheism is disbelief in god, gods or deities, not simply a lack of belief.

Jocabia

10-01-2006, 22:16

So your answer is NO,.. you DON'T absolutely believe in God.

Therefore, you're an atheist. End of story. :)

Thanks for playing...

-Iakeo

False. You can call someone anything you want, it doesn't make you correct. Lack of belief != disbelief no matter how hard you try to make it so.

Grave_n_idle

10-01-2006, 22:17

Actually, I listed one belief I hold to be true and one belief I hold to be false. Both are far different than something of which I am not capable of conceiving. I kind of led you down a path of admitting that belief and disbelief are molded by my understanding, but you were careful about your wording as well. And the dance continues.

As I said... you hedged your bets admirably.

Nope. I called myself an unbeliever of something I consider not to exist (and I liked your extension of my joke, I was hoping if I lobbed you the ball you'd knock it out of the part. gj). It says nothing about something I have no concept of. In fact, I refused to assign belief or non-belief for something of which I have no concept.

(We might as well have some fun, no?)

Yes, you were very careful... which still works, because it was open 'enough' to allow me to lay-out my set-piece, without sacrificing any of your own pieces... well, no valuable ones... there might have been a titled pawn, somewhere.

;-) Come on, we've been doing this too long to not be able to see some of this coming. It's chess. What kind of opponent would I be if I'm not a couple moves ahead? I noticed you did the same thing.

As you say, but of course.

I wouldn't want to leave an open line on my King, now, would I.

Sounds like a good story.

I thought it was rather good, and my little girl liked it. It's on a disk around here, some place, and it's only... maybe 20 lines... so, maybe I'll TG it to you at some point. :)

Iakeonui

10-01-2006, 22:19

No - it was not a decision. If you are sleeping peacefully, and you are awakened by the sun streaming through your window.... did you CHOOSE to awaken? Was it your decision?

Did you CHOOSE to be a mammal? An airbreather? Was leanring to walk upright a decision?

I didn't decide I no longer believed... I realised it... just as you may 'realise' as you read this, that you are taking a shallow breath in or out.

Did I 'realise I never believed'? No - for years I DID believe. I had no doubts, for a time. I had doubts, but still believed, for a time.

What's remarkable about this is that we (Grave/Wills/Iakeo) can still be
HAVING this concersation..!

I love it..!! The "fractal" nature of conversation rears it's delightful head once
again..!!

Anyway,.. You can't believe with doubts. That's called "going through the
motions". It's not belief, it's suspended disbelief.

The moment you had doubts,.. BANG!.. gotcha.

..and you can't "decide" to get smacked by the sun.

You CAN decide to go back to sleep somewhere out of the sun, though.

(( I'm not sure of the relevence of that last sentence. I just felt the need to
say it. That's weird. ))

-Iakeo

Kamsaki

10-01-2006, 22:20

Do you believe God exists (however you define God)..? Yes or no.

What is YOUR answer to that simple question? :)
Useful time to tie the two threads of this discussion together;

It's entirely possible to define God in such a way that accepting its existence is built into human nature. But not everyone will assume that this definition is what God is.

The only way to answer the question depends on the Interviewer's, not the interviewee's, interpretation of God. Otherwise, I would say "Yes, I am God, thus I do believe in God" and the response would be "But you're not God", to which I could respond "Ah, but I have defined God in a way similar to the Japanese Kami, of which my own sense of consciousness is a clear example" at which point you might be slightly confused and would go away thinking that I didn't believe in God after all.

Iakeonui

10-01-2006, 22:22

False. You can call someone anything you want, it doesn't make you correct. Lack of belief != disbelief no matter how hard you try to make it so.

Hae ae ae... :)

I'm not worried by "correctness". What I said above applies only to me.

As far as I'm concerned, Bodinia is an atheist simply because he/she doesn't
absolutely believe in God. Period.

That apparently isn't your interpretation. That's fine. :)

And for me, belief != disbelief is perfectly correct.

Have a SUPER day..!! :D

-Iakeo

Iakeonui

10-01-2006, 22:24

Grave_n_idle

10-01-2006, 22:25

What's remarkable about this is that we (Grave/Wills/Iakeo) can still be
HAVING this concersation..!

I love it..!! The "fractal" nature of conversation rears it's delightful head once
again..!!

Well, we have only been hammering this one out for... what, a year?

It is, indeed, a pleasure to still be opening up new avenues in the same territory. :)

Anyway,.. You can't believe with doubts. That's called "going through the
motions". It's not belief, it's suspended disbelief.

The moment you had doubts,.. BANG!.. gotcha.

..and you can't "decide" to get smacked by the sun.

You CAN decide to go back to sleep somewhere out of the sun, though.

No no... I had doubts of many things, but my conviction was still there that the HEART of it was still true.

Until.. one day... it was not.

(( I'm not sure of the relevence of that last sentence. I just felt the need to
say it. That's weird. ))

-Iakeo

Part of your charm, my friend. :D

Jocabia

10-01-2006, 22:26

However, depending on what Buddhist 'means'... and one what that person 'means'... they may well be right.

If one looked into it, and found out that Buddhism means (for example): folowing ANY path to enlightenment... would you not be a 'Buddhist'?

However, I believe language has the purpose of expressing views to one another. For the purpose of making that easier we define words. Those definitions are maleable to a degree, but we don't each get to define however we like. Otherwise, chihuahua snows the donkey testicles at midnight. All of my sentences are as nonsensical as my last one without agreed upon definitions. We as society 'agreed' to allow a dictionary to set those definitions.

But, the word 'disbelieve' almost implies conscious action.

It does? *gasp* One might think I was trying to imply that if you don't consciously believe there are no gods/deiteis then you are not an Athiest. Certainly that can't be what I'm saying ;)

I don't actively 'disbelieve' that there are any gods... although I MAY actively disbelieve some SPECIFIC ideas.... instead, I have a more passive skepticism... I merely 'lack belief' in 'gods'.

Good. It's agreed since you lack belief and disbelief equally, you are neither a theist or an atheist.

Thus, my conception of my 'unbeliever' status, is required to accomodate those who HAVE no strong 'anti-god' beliefs.

Only if you feel the need to include them in the same group as those who have strong 'anti-god' beliefs. I don't.

All too likely. I've admitted as much.

Yes, we both know we disagree on a fundamental point in this discussion which is why we never get anywhere. Doesn't make it less fun though.

In a way, perhaps.... but words are not that cut and dried... especially when you marinade them in history for a few thousand years.

"Despotism" doesn't mean acceptance of a political ideal...

Agreed on the cut and dried part. Again, I believe we should allow a little wiggle room, but I don't consider lacking belief and disbelief to be "a little wiggle room".

Who still wouldn't be able to make the choice for the child, of course...

Agreed.

And yet, most Christians DO define Christianity. I have come across (and I'm sure you have, too) several interpretations of what it means to be a Christian.
Yes, and I reject them as well. So do you. You're not helping your argument.

By the way, don't take my sarcasm as anything other than trying to keep the conversation amusing.

Bodinia

10-01-2006, 22:26

People can call me a black woman, but that doesn't make them right. I can call myself a black woman and that doesn't make me right. That's the point. Atheism is disbelief in god, gods or deities, not simply a lack of belief.

2+2=5!!!!!11oneone!1

Grave_n_idle

10-01-2006, 22:30

Jocabia

10-01-2006, 22:32

As I said... you hedged your bets admirably.

You too.

(We might as well have some fun, no?)

Yes, you were very careful... which still works, because it was open 'enough' to allow me to lay-out my set-piece, without sacrificing any of your own pieces... well, no valuable ones... there might have been a titled pawn, somewhere.

Oh, I took a couple of pieces on that last one, methinks.

As you say, but of course.

I wouldn't want to leave an open line on my King, now, would I.

You forgot a question mark on that last sentence. I take queen's pawn.

I thought it was rather good, and my little girl liked it. It's on a disk around here, some place, and it's only... maybe 20 lines... so, maybe I'll TG it to you at some point. :)

I'll TG you my email. I also write for children and I wouldn't mind discussing an idea I'm working with someone.

Willamena

10-01-2006, 22:32

Do you believe in "Mewkinder, the Bloody"?
The answer of "No," to that question by the person who has no knowledge of Mewkinder, the Bloody, is exactly what I'm referring to: it means, "No, I am not a one who believes in Mewkinder, the Bloody," in this case because there is no knowledge of Mewkinder, the Bloody, and that is a valid answer for anyone. That would, by your definition, make them Mewkinder-atheist (to coin a word). The Mewkinder-atheist to me is the one who has some knowledge of what Mewkinder, the Bloody is still answers, "No." He has asked himself, "Why should I believe in Mewkinder, the Bloody?" ("should" indicates an ideology)

Jocabia

10-01-2006, 22:36

Willamena

10-01-2006, 22:38

A child is born atheist.
When you introduce him to the concept of god, you have just started corrupting (or spoiling, or enriching) him.

edit: It's not much different than telling him a tale about atoms and molecules and how they are everywhere... and he believes it. That doesn't mean he was born a scientist.
The thing is, we don't have a word for the person who is a non-scientist (for lack of a better word). As well we shouldn't; it is not needed. We have a word for a person who has not bought into the ideology of 'theism', though, and who has developed their own ideology around the first.

Jocabia

10-01-2006, 22:41

Useful time to tie the two threads of this discussion together;

It's entirely possible to define God in such a way that accepting its existence is built into human nature. But not everyone will assume that this definition is what God is.

The only way to answer the question depends on the Interviewer's, not the interviewee's, interpretation of God. Otherwise, I would say "Yes, I am God, thus I do believe in God" and the response would be "But you're not God", to which I could respond "Ah, but I have defined God in a way similar to the Japanese Kami, of which my own sense of consciousness is a clear example" at which point you might be slightly confused and would go away thinking that I didn't believe in God after all.

Now the definition of God point is an excellent point. I would hold that if one were debating the definition of god that sets atheism and theism, that it would be open for discussion. God, gods and deities are intentionally loosely defined so as to allow for all possible beliefs as is necessary. I think there is a significant difference between disagreeing on what includes one in an ideology and disagreeing on the specifics of the focus of said ideology. You would find similar issues in the specifics of democracy, in the specifics of anarchy (as pointed to by GnI), in the specifics of human rights (that last one being the only one that is comparably nebulous to the term God(s), in my opinion).

LockandStock

10-01-2006, 22:42

Willamena

10-01-2006, 22:48

And, if nothing else - since the Atheists themselves say that Atheism means "lack of belief"... what authority can deny that definition?
Yeah; you should hear how wrong they can be about astrology.

Jocabia

10-01-2006, 22:51

tried the non beleaver thing, endup an agnostic who endup up an evalgelical christrian, and on that note, try God for a week and see what happens, when i say a week i mean sunday morning church, and bible school, wednessday night service and anything else the church is doing that week in the community and see what happens

The majority of the atheists discussing here have tried God for a bit more than a week. 'Trying God' didn't really work for them. You might have to find another approach.

Grave_n_idle

10-01-2006, 23:08

I'll TG you my email. I also write for children and I wouldn't mind discussing an idea I'm working with someone.

The rest, I can get back to later....

Please do... I have a few pieces I've written for children (my little girl, mainly)... nothing published yet, mainly because I need to get an illustrator.

I title myself a 'poet', so my childrens material is chiefly rhyme...

But, whether that is pro- your style, or against, I'd be only too pleased to discuss the matter. :)

Willamena

10-01-2006, 23:12

The Atheist starts from the premise of Theism, being a belief in a god. Thus - if you are not 'with' the Theist (if you do not 'believe' in a 'god'), then you are an Atheist.
Bingo! The atheist starts with some knowledge of the object of belief.

Jocabia

10-01-2006, 23:12

The rest, I can get back to later....

Please do... I have a few pieces I've written for children (my little girl, mainly)... nothing published yet, mainly because I need to get an illustrator.

I title myself a 'poet', so my childrens material is chiefly rhyme...

But, whether that is pro- your style, or against, I'd be only too pleased to discuss the matter. :)

I need an illustrator as well. I struggle a bit with dialogue on paper, but most children, and more than a few girlfriends, like my stories when I tell them orally. Maybe I was meant to be a bard.

Kamsaki

10-01-2006, 23:33

Now the definition of God point is an excellent point. I would hold that if one were debating the definition of god that sets atheism and theism, that it would be open for discussion. God, gods and deities are intentionally loosely defined so as to allow for all possible beliefs as is necessary. I think there is a significant difference between disagreeing on what includes one in an ideology and disagreeing on the specifics of the focus of said ideology. You would find similar issues in the specifics of democracy, in the specifics of anarchy (as pointed to by GnI), in the specifics of human rights (that last one being the only one that is comparably nebulous to the term God(s), in my opinion).
Well, it seems in part that what the natural Atheism question boils down to is whether an absence of belief in deity is included within the category of Atheism. That, in turn, requires both a questioning of whether preconsideration of deity is necessary and to what definition of deity we mean.

Either way, it's something applied to the child by an observer rather than an innate property of the child. A unknowing child will tell you if he's an atheist or not based on your own conceptions of what an atheist is, simply because it's how to best answer the question. "Do you think I'm an Atheist?" is perhaps the most honest response to the question; the kid doesn't know anything about it, isn't afraid to say so, and wants to know what the questioner means by it. Or, at least, whether or not it is a label to which he can assign himself and gain from.

I think the best way of looking at this would be to say that if told of Theism as factual knowledge, a child would believe. This gives a suggestion of spiritual vulnerability prior to this stage that falls outside of the jurisdiction of Atheism.

So... how does "unaligned mystics" sound?

Bodinia

10-01-2006, 23:35

Jocabia

10-01-2006, 23:38

So you all agree that a child is apolitical, areligious and ignorant, yet he's not an atheist?
Also you're debating that he may be born (and grown up in the case of Jocadia) without race, skin color and sex?

Huh? Who claimed that? I claimed that they can't just define race, skin color and sex however they choose. I think the point was rather clear to most everyone here.

And again are you actually trying to equate atheist and ignorant? Ignorant of the concept of God, gods, deities, etc. does not an atheist make.

Willamena

10-01-2006, 23:48

Ah... here you play with Iakeo's fruit, I'm afraid...

The political ideology 'space' is either 'political' (left, right, liberal, conservative... whatever... these are the SHAPES of the 'fruit') or apolitical.

The infant is unaware of the game... so, he/she is, by extension, apolitical.

As, since he/she is unaware of religion, he/she is areligious.
Ideologies, such as the political ideologies of "leftism", "rightism" and "centralism", are something that people buy into... and thereafter identify themselves with, as in the person who IS "left", who IS "right" or who is "somewhere in the middle". The term "apolitical" might serve to identify the remainer, but there are people involved in politics who do not buy into any ideologies (people who, instead, recognize themselves as being part of a "leftist" party, part of a "rightist" party, part of a "centralist" party). My point was that we do not have "aleftists" or "arightists" because there is no counter ideology.

On the other hand, I have had, on at least one occasion, the opportunity to be lectured at length about the doctrines of atheism, its writings and teachings, its philosophies that exclude a God/god, and the great atheistic examples of humanity, held up for display and possible enshrinement.

...and I never touched Iakeo's fruit (that's not a euphamism, is it?) ;).

Bodinia

11-01-2006, 00:01

left = atheists
center = agnostics
right = aligned religious people, the whole bunch

makes sense?
Thus all babies are born anarchic.

Willamena

11-01-2006, 00:05

No - it was not a decision. If you are sleeping peacefully, and you are awakened by the sun streaming through your window.... did you CHOOSE to awaken? Was it your decision?
I often do choose to wake, but in the scenario you pose it is impossible for me to determine an answer. (Stupid unreal hypotheticals...)

Did you CHOOSE to be a mammal? An airbreather? Was leanring to walk upright a decision?
No, but those are not ideologies.

I didn't decide I no longer believed... I realised it... just as you may 'realise' as you read this, that you are taking a shallow breath in or out.
I believe that realisation about self accompanies a decision; that is, deciding a new (inner) path to follow. When that lightbulb goes off, a change occurs inside, and you start down a new path. That movement requires a decision. That (decision) is the essence of "will". It's not like the kind of choice I make when I have to decide if I want steak instead of pizza; then I just I "feel" for what I "want" inside. There is no inner change, no realisation, except in that I (outwardly) realise (make real) my "want" by purchasing it.

And that's different than raising awareness from subconsciousness to consciousness.

Did I 'realise I never believed'? No - for years I DID believe. I had no doubts, for a time. I had doubts, but still believed, for a time.
I would say you realised it. One day (one moment in that day) you took the knowledge (that was there all along) and made it real.

Willamena

11-01-2006, 00:09

Anyway,.. You can't believe with doubts. That's called "going through the
motions". It's not belief, it's suspended disbelief.
Haha! I love that term.

Willamena

11-01-2006, 00:10

It's entirely possible to define God in such a way that accepting its existence is built into human nature. But not everyone will assume that this definition is what God is.
Good!!

That's a very Good Thing.

We should each have our own definition, which is what makes God supernatural (above-nature, a part of our spiritual being).

Grave_n_idle

12-01-2006, 00:01

Bingo! The atheist starts with some knowledge of the object of belief.

In terms of definition.

Grave_n_idle

12-01-2006, 00:13

...and I never touched Iakeo's fruit (that's not a euphamism, is it?) ;).

Well, it 'is' a euphemism... but not the one you are thinking, I think. ;)

Iakeonui

12-01-2006, 01:00

Originally Posted by Grave_n_idle
Do you believe in "Mewkinder, the Bloody"?

The answer of "No," to that question by the person who has no knowledge of Mewkinder, the Bloody, is exactly what I'm referring to: it means, "No, I am not a one who believes in Mewkinder, the Bloody," in this case because there is no knowledge of Mewkinder, the Bloody, and that is a valid answer for anyone. That would, by your definition, make them Mewkinder-atheist (to coin a word). The Mewkinder-atheist to me is the one who has some knowledge of what Mewkinder, the Bloody is still answers, "No." He has asked himself, "Why should I believe in Mewkinder, the Bloody?" ("should" indicates an ideology)

OK,.. call me gullable. I "default" to a belief in what I know about Mewkinder
at whatever moment I'm queried.

This means that, If someone asks me (unbidden) out of nowhere, "Do you
believe in Mewkinder?", I must (at that moment) answer:

YES..! I believe in what I know of Mewkinder, which at this moment is simply
the name "Mewkinder".

I believe in Mewkinder "the name". I know nothing of Mewkinder beyond a
name at this point.

This makes me a "Mewkinder" (the name) believer. This would be true of
anyone, at this point. Thus, anyone in this situation instantly becomes
a "Mewkinder" (the name) believer, and has no choice but to be so.

No one presented with the word "Mewkinder" is completely without knowledge
of some aspect of "Mewkinder" (ie Mewkinder's name), and therefore can not
say that they have "no knowledge" of Mewkinder. To answer "No" to a
question about the existence of a thing that's required to have been heard to
answer the question that your answering is called "denial of reality".

The answer "No" to the simple (blindsiding) question "Do you believe in
Mewkinder?", therefore, is not correct.

The only way that answering "No" to this question would be correct is if the
question were unheard.

So,.. the next time you see someone answering "NO!" spontaneously for no
apparent reason, one possible reason is that they are CORRECTLY responding
to the unuttered and unheard question "Do you believe in Mewkinder?"

-Iakeo

Iakeonui

12-01-2006, 01:27

Originally Posted by Grave_n_idle
Ah... here you play with Iakeo's fruit, I'm afraid...

The political ideology 'space' is either 'political' (left, right, liberal, conservative... whatever... these are the SHAPES of the 'fruit') or apolitical.

The infant is unaware of the game... so, he/she is, by extension, apolitical.

As, since he/she is unaware of religion, he/she is areligious.

Ideologies, such as the political ideologies of "leftism", "rightism" and "centralism", are something that people buy into... and thereafter identify themselves with, as in the person who IS "left", who IS "right" or who is "somewhere in the middle". The term "apolitical" might serve to identify the remainer, but there are people involved in politics who do not buy into any ideologies (people who, instead, recognize themselves as being part of a "leftist" party, part of a "rightist" party, part of a "centralist" party). My point was that we do not have "aleftists" or "arightists" because there is no counter ideology.

On the other hand, I have had, on at least one occasion, the opportunity to be lectured at length about the doctrines of atheism, its writings and teachings, its philosophies that exclude a God/god, and the great atheistic examples of humanity, held up for display and possible enshrinement.

...and I never touched Iakeo's fruit (that's not a euphamism, is it?) .

Wait,.. wait,... WHAT..!?

I'll touch on the "fruits" question first. (Sheesh,... you people and your dirty
minds..!!)

LEAVE MY FRUITS OUT OF THIS...!!!

There,... one must defend one's "fruits",.. mustn't one.

<cough> NOW,.. on to more "fruitless" matters...

"Aleftists" are NOT those who deny the existence of the left.

They are those who "BELIEVE" that the left is not for them.

"Atheists" are NOT those who deny the existence of "the" (use your
imagination people!).

They are those who "BELIEVE" that "the" is not for them.

"THE", as the singular determiner, by the way, is a very good definition of
God.

An interesting "sidenote" is that in many languages, the singular determiner is
also a "name" for God. (Sometimes the "of" word is also "related" to God as
well.)

Not really a surprise, though.

-Iakeo

Native Quiggles II

12-01-2006, 01:27

I was an atheist for a while before actually learning about Christianity, now I am Christian...

The more I learn about Christianity, the more that I hate it.

Dinaverg

12-01-2006, 01:33

Wouldn't "aleftist" be like...someone without "left" viewpoints?

Nugorshtock

12-01-2006, 01:36

This thread is in response to the "challenge to Atheists/Agnostics"

To all religious people, I have a challenge for you.

Try atheism for a week, tell me the results.

Been there, done that, I'm a Buddhist. o_O

There's just something wrong with Atheism, in that it isn't even a religion. It's people getting together to whine about God, which isn't very tolerant (Fiasco in Dover notwithstanding). Sure, you don't have to have a God, but there are nontheistic religions. Try Taosim. All people need moral guidance o_O

Iakeonui

12-01-2006, 01:56

Good!!

That's a very Good Thing.

We should each have our own definition, which is what makes God supernatural (above-nature, a part of our spiritual being).

But I don't believe in the super-natural, as "nature" covers everything..!

So I'm an Asupernaturalist.

When presented with the idea of the super-natural, I believe it's silly, and
unbelievable.

When I was first asked (probably by myself) whether I believed in the super-
natural, I had to say "Yes", because I knew nothing more than the name of
the thing.

..then, about 12 seconds later, I realised that to be "super" natural a thing
would have to be outside of nature, which I couldn't believe, and therefore
had to disbelieve (no choice).

I still haven't seen anything to explain how anything could be "super" to
nature, thus I remain an asupernaturalist.

But,.. for a short time I was a "super-naturalist", because I didn't know
anything about it except it's "name".

..at which point the "name" created the doubt that forced me into my belief
that the super-natural was silly.

Thus the word, the idea behind the "name", created a part of my world. The
not-supernatural part. And the "name" was the name of "doubt", and it
contained within itself it's own destruction. Yet it was not destroyed, for it
had a job to do, and it would do that job forever in burning torment while
simultaneously existing in the world. And that job was to fill the world with
doubt to clarify that which IS from that which ISN'T.

The word behind the "name" had, indeed, created my (real) world. And the
world of the word was good.

That story is the genesis of the world. From the "word". All else is elaboration
on this first story.

(( The "word" is God. The "name" is Satan. The "word" has no name.
The "name" is the servant of the word. ))

-Iakeo

Iakeonui

12-01-2006, 01:58

Wouldn't "aleftist" be like...someone without "left" viewpoints?

That's precisely what I said. :)

The left is "not for them".

-Iakeo

Neo-Patriot Nation

12-01-2006, 02:01

To be honest I have noticed an emptiness in my life too when i became an agnostic, but as a quote by Winston Chruchill (i think) "Occasionally people stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and go on like nothing happened" which goes with truth hurts and ignorance is bliss. Also, I can't bring myself to blindly follow anything. Although can christians answer the question that stated me on this path? If the wourld was made in 7 days and we were here from the (almost) beginning, where was the dinosaurs?

sorry for going a bit off topic there

Actually God created the world in 6 days, he took the 7th day off.

DJ Cheph

12-01-2006, 02:31

Been there, done that, I'm a Buddhist. o_O

There's just something wrong with Atheism, in that it isn't even a religion. It's people getting together to whine about God, which isn't very tolerant (Fiasco in Dover notwithstanding). Sure, you don't have to have a God, but there are nontheistic religions. Try Taosim. All people need moral guidance o_O

Im afread i have to dissagree and so would aristotal athorities should be challenged and critisized so when it comes to moral guidence no religian should be followed blindly you should make up your own mind.

Willamena

12-01-2006, 08:15

OK,.. call me gullable. I "default" to a belief in what I know about Mewkinder
at whatever moment I'm queried.

This means that, If someone asks me (unbidden) out of nowhere, "Do you
believe in Mewkinder?", I must (at that moment) answer:

YES..! I believe in what I know of Mewkinder, which at this moment is simply
the name "Mewkinder".

I believe in Mewkinder "the name". I know nothing of Mewkinder beyond a
name at this point.

This makes me a "Mewkinder" (the name) believer. This would be true of
anyone, at this point. Thus, anyone in this situation instantly becomes
a "Mewkinder" (the name) believer, and has no choice but to be so.

No one presented with the word "Mewkinder" is completely without knowledge
of some aspect of "Mewkinder" (ie Mewkinder's name), and therefore can not
say that they have "no knowledge" of Mewkinder. To answer "No" to a
question about the existence of a thing that's required to have been heard to
answer the question that your answering is called "denial of reality".

The answer "No" to the simple (blindsiding) question "Do you believe in
Mewkinder?", therefore, is not correct.

The only way that answering "No" to this question would be correct is if the
question were unheard.

So,.. the next time you see someone answering "NO!" spontaneously for no
apparent reason, one possible reason is that they are CORRECTLY responding
to the unuttered and unheard question "Do you believe in Mewkinder?"

-Iakeo
Ah! ...but "believe in what I know" is not the same thing as what you were asked. You were asked a more broad "do you believe?"

"Belief in what I know of Mewkinder" is all you can have, and if you know nothing more than a name (a 'placeholder' that is not filled with a 'thing'), you really know nothing at all.

Oh, and... You're gullable! j/k
:D

Willamena

12-01-2006, 08:23

"Aleftists" are NOT those who deny the existence of the left.

They are those who "BELIEVE" that the left is not for them.

"Atheists" are NOT those who deny the existence of "the" (use your
imagination people!).

They are those who "BELIEVE" that "the" is not for them.

"THE", as the singular determiner, by the way, is a very good definition of
God.

An interesting "sidenote" is that in many languages, the singular determiner is
also a "name" for God. (Sometimes the "of" word is also "related" to God as
well.)

Not really a surprise, though.

-Iakeo
I agree that an "aleftist" would not be a person who denies "the left" --it would be a person with an ideology that places themself in contrast to the ideology of "leftism. (And no, that's not the same as being "of the right", it's much broader than that.)

Willamena

12-01-2006, 08:32

But I don't believe in the super-natural, as "nature" covers everything..!
And that's a valid philosophy. Another is that "nature" is what exists in reality, i.e. the make-up of the physical world.

So I'm an Asupernaturalist.

When presented with the idea of the super-natural, I believe it's silly, and
unbelievable.

When I was first asked (probably by myself) whether I believed in the super-
natural, I had to say "Yes", because I knew nothing more than the name of
the thing.

..then, about 12 seconds later, I realised that to be "super" natural a thing
would have to be outside of nature, which I couldn't believe, and therefore
had to disbelieve (no choice).

I still haven't seen anything to explain how anything could be "super" to
nature, thus I remain an asupernaturalist...
Deja vu! I've read this before... ;)

I responded in your other thread already.

There is no "outside" of nature. Nature is the physical world, that which we can touch, feel, taste, see and hear. Supernature is the mental/spiritual world, which is "above" and "apart from" nature, which we can only experience inside. It cannot be touched, felt, tasted, seen or heard by anyone other than the individual who experiences it.

Jeruselem

12-01-2006, 14:43

This thread is in response to the "challenge to Atheists/Agnostics"

To all religious people, I have a challenge for you.

Try atheism for a week, tell me the results.

I was athiest, now Agnostic.

Willamena

12-01-2006, 17:13

Im afread i have to dissagree and so would aristotal athorities should be challenged and critisized so when it comes to moral guidence no religian should be followed blindly you should make up your own mind.
It's not often I get to appreciate the English language as a blessing.

Revasser

12-01-2006, 17:43

It's not often I get to appreciate the English language as a blessing.

You obviously don't visit this forum often enough, then! :p

Zolworld

12-01-2006, 17:52

Been there, done that, I'm a Buddhist. o_O

There's just something wrong with Atheism, in that it isn't even a religion. It's people getting together to whine about God, which isn't very tolerant (Fiasco in Dover notwithstanding). Sure, you don't have to have a God, but there are nontheistic religions. Try Taosim. All people need moral guidance o_O

But the point of atheism is that it isnt a religion. Its not just about not believing in gods and the supernatural, its about not following a set of rules set down by someone else. Society itself defines morality, and it constantly evolves. Religion does not evolve so even nontheistic religions become more false over time.

Revasser

12-01-2006, 17:58

Religion does not evolve so even nontheistic religions become more false over time.

Wow. You honestly don't think religions evolve? Which religions have you been exposed to that you can make this assumption?

Willamena

12-01-2006, 18:08

Wow. You honestly don't think religions evolve? Which religions have you been exposed to that you can make this assumption?
I'd agree with him, in that religions do not evolve enough. Having been 'written in stone', they become relatively immutable.

Jocabia

12-01-2006, 18:17

I'd agree with him, in that religions do not evolve enough. Having been 'written in stone', they become relatively immutable.

Really? Do you think the Christians of today would even recognize the Christians of 2000 years ago? What about Jews? Muslims? The religions do evolve because like everything theirs a lot to be said for context. Even literal, fundamental interpretations change over time, because we lose much of the context of these books. The very nature of the culture which just expected to be something you know so that you understand how something is meant to be taken was something you were immersed in, but now it's a different culture that leads to different interpretation, different practices, different beliefs. Religions most definitely evolve.

In fact, evolve is the perfect word. Some religions prosper and slowly adapt to the culture, marked by periodic bursts of change and long periods of slow change. Some religions stagnate and eventually become extinct leaving behind fossils we use to study what those religions were like in practice and form.

Revasser

12-01-2006, 18:26

Jocabia

12-01-2006, 18:30

Indeedy-do, Jocabia. Some of us even sometimes pull a "Jurassic Park" on the old, extinct ones and revive them from what they left behind. Mine's one of those. We just have to hope that they don't start rampaging across the island and devouring people, resulting in Sam Neil having to come put us down.

Nice extension of the analogy. I laughed, I cried, I peed a little. Two thumbs up.

Revasser

12-01-2006, 18:41

Nice extension of the analogy. I laughed, I cried, I peed a little. Two thumbs up.

Well, hey, "Analogy Extension" is my middle name.

Zolworld

12-01-2006, 18:44

Wow. You honestly don't think religions evolve? Which religions have you been exposed to that you can make this assumption?

Mainly Islam and christianity. Religions evolve in the sense that they reflect the society in which they originated, but they do not evolve in the sense of constantly changing and improving.

For example pork is not allowed in islam and judaism, because in the middle east the climate is unsuitable for raising pigs and it would be a costly waste of resources. but nowadays food does not have to be produced locally and many jews and muslims live elsewhere in the world, but the rule still exists, under the false pretence that pigs are dirty animals.

Revasser

12-01-2006, 19:02

Mainly Islam and christianity. Religions evolve in the sense that they reflect the society in which they originated, but they do not evolve in the sense of constantly changing and improving.

For example pork is not allowed in islam and judaism, because in the middle east the climate is unsuitable for raising pigs and it would be a costly waste of resources. but nowadays food does not have to be produced locally and many jews and muslims live elsewhere in the world, but the rule still exists, under the false pretence that pigs are dirty animals.

Of course religions are always changing. Whether or not they are improving is up for debate, of course, but change, they certainly do.

As Jocabia said, often it's short bursts of very significant change, followed by longer periods of more subtle change. Remember the Protestants? Or more recently, the Vatican officially eschewing the idea of a literal interpretation of Genesis in favour of endorsing the Theory of Evolution, though that, certainly is not as significant as the whole Protestant thingy. Religions adapt to people practicing them, in the cultures they are being practiced in all the time.

For the pig thing... well, I don't understand it, personally, but I'm not a Jew or a Muslim. While, from one perspective, there is perhaps no reason to keep that rule, from another, there is no reason to ditch it either.

Jocabia

12-01-2006, 19:04

Mainly Islam and christianity. Religions evolve in the sense that they reflect the society in which they originated, but they do not evolve in the sense of constantly changing and improving.

For example pork is not allowed in islam and judaism, because in the middle east the climate is unsuitable for raising pigs and it would be a costly waste of resources. but nowadays food does not have to be produced locally and many jews and muslims live elsewhere in the world, but the rule still exists, under the false pretence that pigs are dirty animals.

Hmmmm... and by using that example, I'm assuming that you are saying that no Muslims or Jews eat pork? Perhaps you should check again. The fact that some do eat pork shows that they are evolving. Also, one might mention that pork is one of the more concerning meats to cook and it is fairly regulated to prevent disease. That would seem to support their dirty pig belief. It's all a matter of perspective.

Also, we still have a tailbone, does that mean we're not evolving?

The point is proof that evolution of religion is not occurring is not found in providing a single example that links the folks of today to the folks of the past, or even finding an example of what you consider to be a ridiculous practice. Proof requires that you show that the religion is identical. Otherwise, it is evolving, just not in the way YOU think it should. Religions are constantly changing. The improvement part is subjective, and I suspect if it's not completely rational you don't deem it as an improvement.

Grave_n_idle

12-01-2006, 19:20

Really? Do you think the Christians of today would even recognize the Christians of 2000 years ago? What about Jews? Muslims? The religions do evolve because like everything theirs a lot to be said for context. Even literal, fundamental interpretations change over time, because we lose much of the context of these books. The very nature of the culture which just expected to be something you know so that you understand how something is meant to be taken was something you were immersed in, but now it's a different culture that leads to different interpretation, different practices, different beliefs. Religions most definitely evolve.

In fact, evolve is the perfect word. Some religions prosper and slowly adapt to the culture, marked by periodic bursts of change and long periods of slow change. Some religions stagnate and eventually become extinct leaving behind fossils we use to study what those religions were like in practice and form.

Looks like I am about to do that thing I do... which is a kind of skew of the current topic, with an interesting (or not so interesting) diversion that is close to, if not ON, topic.

What you say here, reminds me of something I was thinking about at work, last night.

We use phrases like "Turn the Other Cheek"... we talk about handing over your shirt with your jacket, or whatever... and half the time... we get the context so jumbled... we use a phrase to mean something wuite opposite to what it actually means -AT THE TIME.

The best exmple - maybe, being that 'turn your other cheek' thing. We READ it as being about being meek, almost to the point of spineless... but the actual context makes it an insult. A "slap in the face", even.

So - how much of the scripture that forms our most common religion, are we just TOTALLY missing? I mean - the text is there... but we have NO idea what it 'says'....?

Willamena

12-01-2006, 19:21

Really? Do you think the Christians of today would even recognize the Christians of 2000 years ago? What about Jews? Muslims? The religions do evolve because like everything theirs a lot to be said for context. Even literal, fundamental interpretations change over time, because we lose much of the context of these books. The very nature of the culture which just expected to be something you know so that you understand how something is meant to be taken was something you were immersed in, but now it's a different culture that leads to different interpretation, different practices, different beliefs. Religions most definitely evolve.

In fact, evolve is the perfect word. Some religions prosper and slowly adapt to the culture, marked by periodic bursts of change and long periods of slow change. Some religions stagnate and eventually become extinct leaving behind fossils we use to study what those religions were like in practice and form.
Yes, they have evolved, but my contention was not nearly enough.

I think the Christian of 2,000 years ago would have no trouble recognizing in the religion of today significant aspects of his religion, despite all the canon and 'window dressing' that has been applied over the interim.

In fact, I think the Goddess worshipper of 8,000 years ago (Greek culture) would be surprised and pleased to find aspects of his religion represented in the veneration of the Virgin Mary (http://www.humanevolution.net/a/indo-european.html).

But we do not have any (overtly obvious) new archetypes to reflect the psyche of 'modern man', from which a new religion has evolved from the old. That is a sad thing.

Revasser

12-01-2006, 19:43

Yes, they have evolved, but my contention was not nearly enough.

I think the Christian of 2,000 years ago would have no trouble recognizing in the religion of today significant aspects of his religion, despite all the canon and 'window dressing' that has been applied over the interim.

In fact, I think the Goddess worshipper of 8,000 years ago (Greek culture) would be surprised and pleased to find aspects of his religion represented in the veneration of the Virgin Mary (http://www.humanevolution.net/a/indo-european.html).

But we do not have any (overtly obvious) new archetypes to reflect the psyche of 'modern man', from which a new religion has evolved from the old. That is a sad thing.

I suspect that when we say "It hasn't evolved enough!", what we are really saying is that the particular religion in question hasn't evolved to our personal preferred specifications. What would be "evolved enough", in your opinion, Willamena?

I am also a little unsure what kind new archetypes you would like to see to reflect the psyche of 'modern man'. What kind of 'new religion' do you mean? Does LaVeyan Satanism count? What about all the New Age-y stuff?

Jocabia

12-01-2006, 20:47

Looks like I am about to do that thing I do... which is a kind of skew of the current topic, with an interesting (or not so interesting) diversion that is close to, if not ON, topic.

What you say here, reminds me of something I was thinking about at work, last night.

We use phrases like "Turn the Other Cheek"... we talk about handing over your shirt with your jacket, or whatever... and half the time... we get the context so jumbled... we use a phrase to mean something wuite opposite to what it actually means -AT THE TIME.

The best exmple - maybe, being that 'turn your other cheek' thing. We READ it as being about being meek, almost to the point of spineless... but the actual context makes it an insult. A "slap in the face", even.

So - how much of the scripture that forms our most common religion, are we just TOTALLY missing? I mean - the text is there... but we have NO idea what it 'says'....?

Not to mention scripture that's literally missing, unless of course you're fully confident that the Catholic church was never guilty of corruption or part of attempts to rule its members in the first 1500 years it was around.

Willamena

12-01-2006, 20:52

I suspect that when we say "It hasn't evolved enough!", what we are really saying is that the particular religion in question hasn't evolved to our personal preferred specifications. What would be "evolved enough", in your opinion, Willamena?

I am also a little unsure what kind new archetypes you would like to see to reflect the psyche of 'modern man'. What kind of 'new religion' do you mean? Does LaVeyan Satanism count? What about all the New Age-y stuff?
I don't know what "New Age-y stuff" is, sorry, nor LaVeyan Satanism. "New Age", from what I have seen, seems to be a label for secularists to lump spiritualist together with nut-cases. (My favourite bookstore chain has, thankfully, removed it as a shelf category.)

There is no point of evolution that would ever be "enough"; evolution in this sense is continual change. "Archetype" is a word borrowed from Jung (http://info.wlu.ca/~wwwpress/jrls/sr/issues-full/30_2/gollnick.html) (whom I, unfortunately, have not yet read); I mean it to describe the image of God that society (specifically, a culture) constructs to contain their ideas of what god is. According to Jung and others, the "archetypal God-image" evolves over time, shaping and being shaped by, and reflecting changes in, the collective human psyche (the relevant culture's psyche).

Although Jung applied his ideas in use in his psychology practice, they were developed from a facsination in the study of mythology. The way I heard it, he used psychology to "psychoanalyse" God, and from this came correlations between changes in the image (mood, attitude, philosophical stance, etc.) and changes in the collective culture's psyche.

Anyway, the kind of new religion I would expect to see would have entirely replaced Christianity by now (a 'macroevolutionary' change, as opposed to microevolutionary changes we have seen).

Jocabia

12-01-2006, 20:53

Yes, they have evolved, but my contention was not nearly enough.

I think the Christian of 2,000 years ago would have no trouble recognizing in the religion of today significant aspects of his religion, despite all the canon and 'window dressing' that has been applied over the interim.

In fact, I think the Goddess worshipper of 8,000 years ago (Greek culture) would be surprised and pleased to find aspects of his religion represented in the veneration of the Virgin Mary (http://www.humanevolution.net/a/indo-european.html).

But we do not have any (overtly obvious) new archetypes to reflect the psyche of 'modern man', from which a new religion has evolved from the old. That is a sad thing.

I don't agree with that either. There are aspects of many of the religions that took pieces from old religions, but hey, we took pieces from old homonids. There are also fairly new religions that reflect the new issues we face while incorporating what they found in old religions, take scientology for example.

Hell, I'd say 2000 years is a blink in terms religion evolving and Christianity does have some fairly unique aspects. How many religions have held sex as sinful and childbirth as punishment for understanding morality? Meanwhile, that's nearly a centerpiece of Christianity.

Willamena

12-01-2006, 20:57

I don't agree with that either. There are aspects of many of the religions that took pieces from old religions, but hey, we took pieces from old homonids. There are also fairly new religions that reflect the new issues we face while incorporating what they found in old religions, take scientology for example.

Hell, I'd say 2000 years is a blink in terms religion evolving and Christianity does have some fairly unique aspects. How many religions have held sex as sinful and childbirth as punishment for understanding morality? Meanwhile, that's nearly a centerpiece of Christianity.
I don't get your point.

Jocabia

12-01-2006, 20:58

I don't know what "New Age-y stuff" is, sorry, nor LaVeyan Satanism. "New Age", from what I have seen, seems to be a label for secularists to lump spiritualist together with nut-cases. (My favourite bookstore chain has, thankfully, removed it as a shelf category.)

There is no point of evolution that would ever be "enough"; evolution in this sense is continual change. "Archetype" is a word borrowed from Jung (http://info.wlu.ca/~wwwpress/jrls/sr/issues-full/30_2/gollnick.html) (whom I, unfortunately, have not yet read); I mean it to describe the image of God that society (specifically, a culture) constructs to contain their ideas of what god is. According to Jung and others, the "archetypal God-image" evolves over time, shaping and being shaped by, and reflecting changes in, the collective human psyche (the relevant culture's psyche).

Although Jung applied his ideas in use in his psychology practice, they were developed from a facsination in the study of mythology. The way I heard it, he used psychology to "psychoanalyse" God, and from this came correlations between changes in the image (mood, attitude, philosophical stance, etc.) and changes in the collective culture's psyche.

Anyway, the kind of new religion I would expect to see would have entirely replaced Christianity by now (a 'macroevolutionary' change, as opposed to microevolutionary changes we have seen).

Again a blink of an eye, your asking for a religion to pop up become dominant and then complete disuse in well under 2000 years. Again, it's evolution. It's not based on desire, it's based on need. When a religion is needed to replace Christianity (assuming one believes its just a philosophy), it will. The fact that it remains, isn't evidence of a lack of evolution. It's evidence of a lack of need. Hey, given how screwed up man is, I'd expect man to have been replaced by now, but my expectations or desires have nothing to do with what makes for a dominant species/religion.

Willamena

12-01-2006, 21:03

Again a blink of an eye, your asking for a religion to pop up become dominant and then complete disuse in well under 2000 years. Again, it's evolution. It's not based on desire, it's based on need. When a religion is needed to replace Christianity (assuming one believes its just a philosophy), it will. The fact that it remains, isn't evidence of a lack of evolution. It's evidence of a lack of need. Hey, given how screwed up man is, I'd expect man to have been replaced by now, but my expectations or desires have nothing to do with what makes for a dominant species/religion.
I was simply addressing the question of what I meant by "enough".

I think the point of "need to be replaced" was passed long ago, and that it was artifically held in place by being "written in stone".

Jocabia

12-01-2006, 21:04

I don't get your point.

That it's clearly evolving and has been evolving, just not in the way you'd like or you'd expect. I, for one, think the growth and changes in Christianity generally reflect the changes in society well, and that growth and change is what makes it continue to prosper. Christianity is a dominant religion, yes, but don't be confused about beliefs in Christianity are dominating. Many people identify themselves as Christian that do not believe gays are evil and birth control is a sin. I would argue that most Christians believe the God they worship is the one that gave us reason and science with which to analyze the world and learn about it. I would argue that most Christians believe the God they worship is the one that gave us inalienable rights and that violating the human rights of another is sinful. I would argue that many, many Christians believe in a God that represents and endorses the very best offerings of our society, freedom, justice, equality and kindness.

Jocabia

12-01-2006, 21:05

I was simply addressing the question of what I meant by "enough".

I think the point of "need to be replaced" was passed long ago.

Apparently the forces that drive evolution of societal beliefs don't agree with you.

Iakeonui

14-01-2006, 03:30

Ah! ...but "believe in what I know" is not the same thing as what you were asked. You were asked a more broad "do you believe?"

"Belief in what I know of Mewkinder" is all you can have, and if you know nothing more than a name (a 'placeholder' that is not filled with a 'thing'), you really know nothing at all.

Oh, and... You're gullable! j/k
:D

To disbelieve in Mewkinder, or George Washington, because you know nothing
more than a name is unwise, because it is very much more difficult to believe
something you previously disbelieved than it is to disbelieve something you
previously believed.

Think about that one for a while, and tell me why you think that's correct,..
or not.

-Iakeo

Iakeonui

14-01-2006, 03:51

...
There is no "outside" of nature. Nature is the physical world, that which we can touch, feel, taste, see and hear. Supernature is the mental/spiritual world, which is "above" and "apart from" nature, which we can only experience inside. It cannot be touched, felt, tasted, seen or heard by anyone other than the individual who experiences it.

I choose to count our "internal" (mental/spiritual/etc) within nature, by
definition and as an a priori axiom.

It can be touched (felt as sensation). Tasting is another variety of touch
(exchange of particles). Hearing is yet another form of touch (particle
pressure)

It can be seen, as all artifice (man-made objects) are "concretized thought".

We share our "inner worlds" with each other everytime we talk. The fruits of
the "inner world" are all we have to give each other. That IS nature.

Once caught in the "illusion" that we are not natural beings, with special
capabilities that are not of "normal nature", we lose sight of the fact that our
choices, which will always be acted upon by nature according to nature's
rules, are our responsibility.

When you say, "The devil made me do it!", you're really saying "There
shouldn't be a bad consequence for my basing a choice on something outside
of nature (an "inner world belief"), because things outside of nature aren't
accountable to nature."

-Iakeo

Anubis Sokar

14-01-2006, 04:25

I used to be religious. A roman catholic even.
Now Im Agnostic. I realized there Either is no God Or If there is a God he forgot we exist a long time ago.

Grave_n_idle

14-01-2006, 05:08

To disbelieve in Mewkinder, or George Washington, because you know nothing
more than a name is unwise, because it is very much more difficult to believe
something you previously disbelieved than it is to disbelieve something you
previously believed.

Think about that one for a while, and tell me why you think that's correct,..
or not.

-Iakeo

If only it were as simple as a matter of wisdom... or a matter of choice.

I still hold to the opinion that we automatically 'do not' believe, until we 'know'... but that is not the same as choice... and certainly not the same as making the 'wise' decision.

Willamena

14-01-2006, 08:22

To disbelieve in Mewkinder, or George Washington, because you know nothing
more than a name is unwise, because it is very much more difficult to believe
something you previously disbelieved than it is to disbelieve something you
previously believed.

Think about that one for a while, and tell me why you think that's correct,..
or not.

-Iakeo
I agree entirely; in fact, I would say disbelief would be irrational; as irrational as belief. Without knowledge, there can be no belief or disbelief.

But if even one more piece of information is provided (..."President George Washington"), that gives belief something on latch onto, and then all that remains is to verify (gain more knowledge) "George Washington" to your satisfiaction, whatever that may be.

Willamena

14-01-2006, 09:09

I choose to count our "internal" (mental/spiritual/etc) within nature, by
definition and as an a priori axiom.

It can be touched (felt as sensation). Tasting is another variety of touch
(exchange of particles). Hearing is yet another form of touch (particle
pressure)

It can be seen, as all artifice (man-made objects) are "concretized thought".

We share our "inner worlds" with each other everytime we talk. The fruits of
the "inner world" are all we have to give each other. That IS nature.
Aye; bringing the inner world out to share with others through touch, voice, motion, art, etc. is bringing it into nature, actualizing it. Making it real. I would say rather than can be "touched" that the inner things can be "experienced" as sensation.

Once caught in the "illusion" that we are not natural beings, with special
capabilities that are not of "normal nature", we lose sight of the fact that our
choices, which will always be acted upon by nature according to nature's
rules, are our responsibility.

When you say, "The devil made me do it!", you're really saying "There
shouldn't be a bad consequence for my basing a choice on something outside
of nature (an "inner world belief"), because things outside of nature aren't
accountable to nature."

-Iakeo
The supernatural I propose is not "illusion" but a philosophy... though perhaps there is no appreciable difference. It is the mind; the capabilities it has are extremely special and normal for us, and set us apart from other life-forms in our world. I am talking about the immaterial things that result from consciousness (the faculty of awareness), conscience, reasoning, associative abilities, imagination, feeling, etc., experienced from the subjective perspective. The objective physical nature of these things in the brain is real (electrical patterns on synapses, chemical changes in the body, whatever); the subjective immaterial nature of them is unreal, actualized in nature as the body 'reacting to' thoughts, feelings, etc. (though it happens simultaneous) or bringing them out wilfully for all to behold. Hence the "real" side of thoughts, feelings, concepts, imaginings are dependent upon the natural for their existence, cannot exist apart from or without it, and at the same time the "unreal" supernatural side exists apart from it. The other side of the mirror.

Projection of 'spirits' into the would outside (concretizing them, making them "as if real") is equivalent to creating symbols that represent aspects of the mind or the psyche --images of devil, demon, god, angel, monster --all conjured by and representive of things significant to the mind at the moment they "appear". And yes, the mind can be deluded into thinking they are actual.

When I say, "The devil made me do it!" I am entirely joking, because I don't believe in the devil. Not a real one. Things above nature are not accountable to nature; but they can be you, the inner-self you, being accountable.

Iakeonui

14-01-2006, 17:59

Originally Posted by Iakeonui
To disbelieve in Mewkinder, or George Washington, because you know nothing
more than a name is unwise, because it is very much more difficult to believe
something you previously disbelieved than it is to disbelieve something you
previously believed.

Think about that one for a while, and tell me why you think that's correct,..
or not.

-Iakeo

If only it were as simple as a matter of wisdom... or a matter of choice.

I still hold to the opinion that we automatically 'do not' believe, until we 'know'... but that is not the same as choice... and certainly not the same as making the 'wise' decision.

If a "belief" does no actual "harm", meaning it is not immediately
dangerous/damaging, and there's no reason NOT to believe it, then we
SHOULD believe it. That would be the "wise" choice, in my opinion.

Whether we do depends on our past experience, and whether
we're "optimistic" enough to CHOOSE to believe in "believable but not yet
tested" beliefs.

It's a "half full vs. half empty" question.

Skepticism is good, but needlessly naysaying that which does no harm is not
as useful as allowing yet to be substantiated beliefs run their course.

In other words, imagination is good and fun. Flights of fancy generate the
most wonderful things sometimes.

The hunt for dragons may unearth real dinosaurs, or the wish and eventual
capability of human flight.

-Iakeo

Iakeonui

14-01-2006, 18:07

...
Projection of 'spirits' into the would outside (concretizing them, making them "as if real") is equivalent to creating symbols that represent aspects of the mind or the psyche --images of devil, demon, god, angel, monster --all conjured by and representive of things significant to the mind at the moment they "appear". And yes, the mind can be deluded into thinking they are actual.

"As if real" making is the key, of course. I, personally, do this all the time.

That's the meaning behind words such as "spell" and "conjure". They
are "named" (spelled) and "judged as real (http://www.bartleby.com/61/roots/IE601.html)" (conjured).

When I say, "The devil made me do it!" I am entirely joking, because I don't believe in the devil. Not a real one. Things above nature are not accountable to nature; but they can be you, the inner-self you, being accountable.

Nothing is not accountable to nature. :)

To imagine so is a (THE) prime error and "sin" (miss).

-Iakeo

Bodinia

14-01-2006, 20:21

If a "belief" does no actual "harm", meaning it is not immediately dangerous/damaging, and there's no reason NOT to believe it, then we SHOULD believe it. That would be the "wise" choice, in my opinion.
Whether we do depends on our past experience, and whether
we're "optimistic" enough to CHOOSE to believe in "believable but not yet
tested" beliefs.

Where do you draw the line between "not yet tested" and knowing that it does no harm and there's no other reason not to believe it?
This is a paradox in my book.

Skepticism is good, but needlessly naysaying that which does no harm is not as useful as allowing yet to be substantiated beliefs run their course.
In other words, imagination is good and fun. Flights of fancy generate the
most wonderful things sometimes.
The hunt for dragons may unearth real dinosaurs, or the wish and eventual
capability of human flight.

Also the most dreadful things.
And skepticism is usually a better system for learning than optimistic acceptation.

Willamena

14-01-2006, 20:27

If a "belief" does no actual "harm", meaning it is not immediately
dangerous/damaging, and there's no reason NOT to believe it, then we
SHOULD believe it. That would be the "wise" choice, in my opinion.
And I basically agree with that, as long as what we are being presented with is information that can be verified, and more than just a label (a name or a meaningless word).

Unfortunately, that is what "god" is to a lot of people today.

Whether we do depends on our past experience, and whether
we're "optimistic" enough to CHOOSE to believe in "believable but not yet
tested" beliefs.

It's a "half full vs. half empty" question.

Skepticism is good, but needlessly naysaying that which does no harm is not
as useful as allowing yet to be substantiated beliefs run their course.

In other words, imagination is good and fun. Flights of fancy generate the
most wonderful things sometimes.

The hunt for dragons may unearth real dinosaurs, or the wish and eventual
capability of human flight.

-Iakeo
Power to unreal dragons.

Willamena

14-01-2006, 20:34

"As if real" making is the key, of course. I, personally, do this all the time.

That's the meaning behind words such as "spell" and "conjure". They
are "named" (spelled) and "judged as real (http://www.bartleby.com/61/roots/IE601.html)" (conjured).
"As if real" making can be a Very Good Thing, a handy tool and a constant friend. It is symbolized in astrology in the planet Neptune.

Nothing is not accountable to nature. :)
Perhaps we are thinking of a different meaning for accountability. I think of it as "owing", such as when a person is accountable for the actions they do that hurt others and must own up to them.

It's all a matter of perspective.

Bodinia

15-01-2006, 13:57

because it is very much more difficult to believe
something you previously disbelieved than it is to disbelieve something you
previously believed.
Think about that one for a while, and tell me why you think that's correct,..
or not.

I think it's the exact opposite: to disbelieve you will have to go through "brokenheartedness"(?!) and accept misplaced faith and vain hope; on the other hand, believing usually only implies a surprise or revelation, that depending on the subject could be unpleasant in itself, but not hard to accept as true.
I'd like to hear some examples or anecdotes to support your thesis though.
Once I've read a quote that went like "not believing causes pain", but I can't find it again for the life of me...

Willamena

15-01-2006, 16:02

I used to be religious. A roman catholic even.
Now Im Agnostic. I realized there Either is no God Or If there is a God he forgot we exist a long time ago.
Or...?

Willamena

15-01-2006, 16:08

When you say, "The devil made me do it!", you're really saying "There
shouldn't be a bad consequence for my basing a choice on something outside
of nature (an "inner world belief"), because things outside of nature aren't
accountable to nature."
When a decision is based on something inside (above nature), then the actions that follow, actions of the body, are what is actualized. Those actions are "accountable" to nature in the sense that they will be the cause of natural effects. Is that what you meant by "accountability"?

The actual decision itself, if not actualized, has no effect, and therefore is not "accountable" to nature.

Letila

15-01-2006, 16:31

Revasser

15-01-2006, 16:37

It certainly is, but it isn't at all healthy if you ask me.

Depends on what you consider "healthy", no?

Willamena

15-01-2006, 17:00

Depends on what you consider "healthy", no?
And onto what you are surrendering.

Revasser

15-01-2006, 17:06

And onto what you are surrendering.

Also true. It must be an informed decision, of course. But there are a lot of misconceptions out there that people carry around about this kind of thing.

Kamsaki

15-01-2006, 18:30

Or...?
... a meaningful yet mythological interpretation of something else?

Iakeonui

15-01-2006, 19:58

Originally Posted by Iakeonui
When you say, "The devil made me do it!", you're really saying "There
shouldn't be a bad consequence for my basing a choice on something outside
of nature (an "inner world belief"), because things outside of nature aren't
accountable to nature."

When a decision is based on something inside (above nature), then the actions that follow, actions of the body, are what is actualized. Those actions are "accountable" to nature in the sense that they will be the cause of natural effects. Is that what you meant by "accountability"?

The actual decision itself, if not actualized, has no effect, and therefore is not "accountable" to nature.

Simply "making" a choice is an act. All actions are behavior. All behavior
is "judged" (accounted for by "counteraction", aka 1st law of
thermodynamics) by nature.

When you make a decision (a choice) your physical nature changes.

There are no actions (behaviors), whether voluntary or involuntary (non-life),
that are not "judged" by nature, by nature DOING something (changing state).

-Iakeo

Iakeonui

15-01-2006, 20:13

Originally Posted by Iakeonui
because it is very much more difficult to believe
something you previously disbelieved than it is to disbelieve something you
previously believed.
Think about that one for a while, and tell me why you think that's correct,..
or not.

I think it's the exact opposite: to disbelieve you will have to go through "brokenheartedness"(?!) and accept misplaced faith and vain hope; on the other hand, believing usually only implies a surprise or revelation, that depending on the subject could be unpleasant in itself, but not hard to accept as true.
I'd like to hear some examples or anecdotes to support your thesis though.
Once I've read a quote that went like "not believing causes pain", but I can't find it again for the life of me...

That's true, if the act of losing a belief is a "punishment", which for me it isn't.

I've accepted that there is more to everything than "meets the eye" about
the universe, and am HAPPY to have it clarified (simplified) for me by the
discovery of my errors in "belief".

The "true scientist" is GRATEFUL to have his beliefs chalenged and clarified
more toward reality by experience.

It's when we base hugely important matters on untested beliefs that we
feel "bad" about having to give them up, because the work we SHOULD have
done when originally faced with a theing to "believe" now HAS to be done,..
and people are generally quite lazy about doing work.

On the "..not believing causes pain.." question: Not believing something that
is believable is a strain (pain) because it's a refusal to "do the work" of
testing the "belief",.. in other words is simply being obstinate, and obstinance
is NEVER satisfying and always creates inner turmoil (fighting with yourself).

-Iakeo

Iakeonui

15-01-2006, 20:19

Well I've studied much in my day when it comes to religion. 30 years of searching will do that to ya. I've seen pics of some of the shrines ya'll set up in your homes. Pretty. I also admire the sheer, unmitigated devotion of the Kemetic. It's that same devotion that drew me to Islam. The idea of giving yourself up, body and soul, completely is appealing.

It certainly is, but it isn't at all healthy if you ask me.

Yes. But what is it you are "giving", and is it "surrender" or "relinguishment"?

Islam's (seeming) idea of "giving up oneself" to God is incorrect.

We do not give up ourselves, we give up the wish to be "in control" of the
world that we can't (by the nature of nature itself) control.

To give up ourselves, to surrender, is an absolute abrigation of our humanity
(and dare I say our life-form-ness), and is judged, by God and man as an
abject sin (boo-boo).

-Iakeo

The Helghan Empire

15-01-2006, 20:47

This thread is in response to the "challenge to Atheists/Agnostics"

To all religious people, I have a challenge for you.

Try atheism for a week, tell me the results.
I did that once - just not for a week only. Although it was a loooooong time ago. I never really seen anything different in my life.

Bodinia

16-01-2006, 02:22

That's true, if the act of losing a belief is a "punishment", which for me it isn't.

Oh, it is, you just don't know yet :p

I've accepted that there is more to everything than "meets the eye" about the universe, and am HAPPY to have it clarified (simplified) for me by the discovery of my errors in "belief".

You are talking about a belief when the joy of new knowledge outweighs by far the already non-existant conviction in the belief.
Were you trying to prove that your assumption that "believing something previously disbelieved is harder" is false?

The "true scientist" is GRATEFUL to have his beliefs chalenged and clarified more toward reality by experience.

Same as above; if the true scientist is also someone who lost his mind ("My lab blown up! I was oh so wrong! Thank You God!").

It's when we base hugely important matters on untested beliefs that we feel "bad" about having to give them up, because the work we SHOULD have done when originally faced with a thing to "believe" now HAS to be done,.. and people are generally quite lazy about doing work.

And I disagree: being the most untested belief a quick random choice, we'll feel bad proportionally with the amount of work invested (when we'll have to reconsider).

On the "..not believing causes pain.." question: Not believing something is a strain (pain) because it's a refusal to "do the work" of testing the "belief",.. in other words is simply being obstinate, and obstinance is NEVER satisfying and always creates inner turmoil (fighting with yourself).

I don't get it... but I'll say something anyway :p
Obstinacy isn't all that bad, think of who'd be Michael Jordan without it...

Iakeonui

16-01-2006, 03:42

Originally Posted by Iakeonui
That's true, if the act of losing a belief is a "punishment", which for me it isn't.

Oh, it is, you just don't know yet

Really?

Originally Posted by Iakeonui
I've accepted that there is more to everything than "meets the eye" about the universe, and am HAPPY to have it clarified (simplified) for me by the discovery of my errors in "belief".

You are talking about a belief when the joy of new knowledge (thus a new belief, and not actual disbelief, that is achieved by believing the perceived opposite) outweighs by far the already non-existant conviction in the belief. Were you trying to prove that your assumption that "believing something
previously disbelieved is harder" is false?

I'm not talking about conviction at all.

"Conviction" is merely a measure of "strength" that one holds to a belief.
One's "conviction" in a belief can be the result of rational or irrational
reasoning.

My conviction in a belief is as minimal as possible at all times. Much like
the "scientific" raltionale that making a theory as "flimsy" as poosible is
a "good thing" because then it can be refined more easily through disproving
it's unsupported parts.

Holding as many beliefs as possible as "flimsily" as possible is my definition of
an inquisitive and "open" mind.

If one does it this way, the "pain" of relinquishing a disproven (unbelievable)
belief is ALWAYS and MASSIVELY overridden by the pleasure of finding yet
another part of the truth of nature (and thus God).

Originally Posted by Iakeonui
The "true scientist" is GRATEFUL to have his beliefs chalenged and clarified more toward reality by experience.

Same as above; if the true scientist is also someone who lost his mind ("My lab blown up! I was oh so wrong! Thank You God!").

What?

Originally Posted by Iakeonui
It's when we base hugely important matters on untested beliefs that we feel "bad" about having to give them up, because the work we SHOULD have done when originally faced with a thing to "believe" now HAS to be done,.. and people are generally quite lazy about doing work.

And I disagree: being the most untested belief a quick random choice, we'll feel bad proportionally with the amount of work invested (when we'll have to reconsider).

I shall reiterate:

When presented with something to "believe", I will default to believing it.
Then I immediately test it. If it's still believable (I can't find anything in my
experience that makes it unbelievable) I will hold that belief, but I will hold it,
just as with all my beliefs, as "flimsily" as possible.

If a slight breeze is capable of blowing it's believablility away, then I happily
watch it waft away.

One does not "randomly" believe anything.

Originally Posted by Iakeonui
On the "..not believing causes pain.." question: Not believing something is a strain (pain) because it's a refusal to "do the work" of testing the "belief",.. in other words is simply being obstinate, and obstinance is NEVER satisfying and always creates inner turmoil (fighting with yourself).

I don't get it... but I'll say something anyway
Obstinacy isn't all that bad, think of who'd be Michael Jordan without it...

Michael Jordan doesn't (much) exhibit "obstinancy". He
exhibits "perserverance". He holds to a belief that he's constantly improvable
because it's a very supported belief by reality testing (which allows him to
continue to believe it), NOT because he's merely stubborn regardless of the
tests of reality.

Look up the word "obstinance (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=obstinance)".

Being "resolute" about a bad idea (implied by the connoted meaning
of "obstinance") is not good practice.

-Iakeo

Bodinia

16-01-2006, 17:46

I'm not talking about conviction at all.
"Conviction" is a measure of "strength" that one holds to a belief.
One's "conviction" in a belief can be the result of rational or irrational
reasoning.
My conviction in a belief is as minimal as possible at all times. Much like
the "scientific" rationale that making a theory as "flimsy" as possible is
a "good thing" because then it can be refined more easily through disproving
it's unsupported parts.
Holding as many beliefs as possible as "flimsily" as possible is my definition of
an inquisitive and "open" mind.
If one does it this way, the "pain" of relinquishing a disproven (unbelievable)
belief is ALWAYS and MASSIVELY overridden by the pleasure of finding yet
another part of the truth.

I don't see how this could possibly prove your point instead of supporting mine.
If believing something previously disbelieved, thanks to new experiences, is a pleasure, and keeping an open mind protects from the pain we usually go through while changing it... then you agree with me?

One does not "randomly" believe anything.

I've flipped a coin to decide wether or not this was true.
Then, an hour later, someone pointed out that my action made it false.
Have I not believed randomly?

Willamena

16-01-2006, 18:01

... a meaningful yet mythological interpretation of something else?
LOL! :)

Am I that obvious?

I'd rather you came up with the "meaningful" alternative, though. It's just that you provided only two alternatives ("Either is no God Or If there is a God he forgot we exist a long time ago.") as if they were all that could be.

Willamena

16-01-2006, 18:09

Simply "making" a choice is an act. All actions are behavior. All behavior
is "judged" (accounted for by "counteraction", aka 1st law of
thermodynamics) by nature.
Yes, it is an action, of the mind/heart/soul. Its physical presence, however miniscule, is not the significant action; the significant action happens in mind/heart/soul.

When you make a decision (a choice) your physical nature changes.
Most likely, but not in ways that significantly impact circumstances. Unless or until you act on the decision, nothing in nature significantly changes.

There are no actions (behaviors), whether voluntary or involuntary (non-life),
that are not "judged" by nature, by nature DOING something (changing state).

-Iakeo
As I said, it's a matter of perspective; you can choose to look at the physical, or you can choose to "look" through the immaterial. If the latter, the physical is still there, still doing it's nature-thing.

Iakeonui

17-01-2006, 01:26

Originally Posted by Iakeonui
I'm not talking about conviction at all.
"Conviction" is a measure of "strength" that one holds to a belief.
One's "conviction" in a belief can be the result of rational or irrational
reasoning.
My conviction in a belief is as minimal as possible at all times. Much like
the "scientific" rationale that making a theory as "flimsy" as possible is
a "good thing" because then it can be refined more easily through disproving
it's unsupported parts.
Holding as many beliefs as possible as "flimsily" as possible is my definition of
an inquisitive and "open" mind.
If one does it this way, the "pain" of relinquishing a disproven (unbelievable)
belief is ALWAYS and MASSIVELY overridden by the pleasure of finding yet
another part of the truth.

I don't see how this could possibly prove your point instead of supporting mine.
If believing something previously disbelieved, thanks to new experiences, is a pleasure, and keeping an open mind protects from the pain we usually go through while changing it... then you agree with me?

If you prefer to not believe not-unbelieveable things, in "hopes" that they will
become believable at some future time, then I say "have fun with that".

I prefer to believe not-unbelievable things until my experience shows me that
they are unbelievable.

Originally Posted by Iakeonui
One does not "randomly" believe anything.

I've flipped a coin to decide wether or not this was true.
Then, an hour later, someone pointed out that my action made it false.
Have I not believed randomly?

If you can believe something "at random", meaning arbitrarily with no
foundation either way, then it's not belief.

It's caprice. And I personally refuse to admit that "belief" is mere caprice.

That does not fit my meaning of "belief", because it deprives it of all meaning.

-Iakeo

Willamena

17-01-2006, 18:44

Trying this again...

I choose to count our "internal" (mental/spiritual/etc) within nature, by
definition and as an a priori axiom.

It can be touched (felt as sensation). Tasting is another variety of touch
(exchange of particles). Hearing is yet another form of touch (particle
pressure)

It can be seen, as all artifice (man-made objects) are "concretized thought".

We share our "inner worlds" with each other everytime we talk. The fruits of
the "inner world" are all we have to give each other. That IS nature.
That is OUR nature, to take the unreal and make it real; but that's another context of the word "nature", one that looks at behaviors. Nature is the concretized, not what is concretized, not the idea. Nature is the 'real world', not the conceptual 'world' of the unreal imaginings that we have access to.

Once caught in the "illusion" that we are not natural beings, with special
capabilities that are not of "normal nature", we lose sight of the fact that our
choices, which will always be acted upon by nature according to nature's
rules, are our responsibility.

When you say, "The devil made me do it!", you're really saying "There
shouldn't be a bad consequence for my basing a choice on something outside
of nature (an "inner world belief"), because things outside of nature aren't
accountable to nature."
I guess it depends on what you think I think "we are"... are we the body (materalism), or are we the mind and the body (idealism)? What you say seems to suggest that our "being" is the mind alone. I don't believe that the mind can exist alone, without the body; such a thing would be unnatural. However, the mind is not the body, and it does not exist (concretely) in nature; therefore it is "supernatural". We are natural beings with the ability to envision and make use of the unreal through a means we (should) call supernatural. That is not unnatural; it is a very special capability, and not one beyond the reach of other beings.

I believe our "choices" are always our responsibility. Blaming it sincerely on "the devil made me do it" is an example of superstitious thinking, a result of belief in the expectation that supernatural things (spirits and ghosts, for example; "luck" is another) should and must exist in nature/reality, because they are purported to be "real". If our language would keep them where they belong (as unreal entities) we wouldn't have this problem; but we've gone and included "genuine" and "valid" in the defintion of "real", in order to accommodate the "good" unreal entities... So we have "real" feelings for each other; we have "real" ideas and some of our "real" concepts even have a life of their own ("luck" for example).

Bodinia

17-01-2006, 19:14

If you prefer to not believe not-unbelieveable things, in "hopes" that they will become believable at some future time, then I say "have fun with that".
I prefer to believe not-unbelievable things until my experience shows me that
they are unbelievable.

Yeah, I do that alot... In fact I haven't made up my mind yet and you didn't address my points.

If you can believe something "at random", meaning arbitrarily with no foundation either way, then it's not belief.
It's caprice. And I personally refuse to admit that "belief" is mere caprice.
That does not fit my meaning of "belief", because it deprives it of all meaning.

I guess you're right, I'll reformulate in response to:
It's when we base hugely important matters on untested beliefs that we feel "bad" about having to give them up, because the work we SHOULD have done when originally faced with a thing to "believe" now HAS to be done,.. and people are generally quite lazy about doing work.
Oh wait, does untested belief mean caprice here? :confused:

Darwinianstan

17-01-2006, 19:26

I tried, but God kept leaving messages on my machine.
lmao, so true. That guy is too clingly for me, hes like "no, I swear I'll answer your prayers next time." I was almost gonna take him back when I found out he did it with a married chick and now hes her baby daddy.

Iakeonui

17-01-2006, 19:39

Trying this again...

Originally Posted by Iakeonui
I choose to count our "internal" (mental/spiritual/etc) within nature, by
definition and as an a priori axiom.

It can be touched (felt as sensation). Tasting is another variety of touch
(exchange of particles). Hearing is yet another form of touch (particle
pressure)

It can be seen, as all artifice (man-made objects) are "concretized thought".

We share our "inner worlds" with each other everytime we talk. The fruits of
the "inner world" are all we have to give each other. That IS nature.

That is OUR nature, to take the unreal and make it real; but that's another context of the word "nature", one that looks at behaviors. Nature is the concretized, not what is concretized, not the idea. Nature is the 'real world', not the conceptual 'world' of the unreal imaginings that we have access to.

Your description suits you well, I imagine, and it therefore is useful to you.

My description suits me.

To me, there is no "platonic" world of "imaginary things" from which the "real"
things of the world are "actualized" out of.

There are no blueprints in nature. Even DNA is not a blueprint. It is a catalyst
that becomes triggered into developing what it is there to develop.

Your "unreal" aspects are what I would call "subtle" aspects. To me, to call
them "unreal" is to make "real" mean something that it obviously doesn't mean.

Originally Posted by Iakeonui
Once caught in the "illusion" that we are not natural beings, with special
capabilities that are not of "normal nature", we lose sight of the fact that our
choices, which will always be acted upon by nature according to nature's
rules, are our responsibility.

When you say, "The devil made me do it!", you're really saying "There
shouldn't be a bad consequence for my basing a choice on something outside
of nature (an "inner world belief"), because things outside of nature aren't
accountable to nature."

I guess it depends on what you think I think "we are"... are we the body (materalism), or are we the mind and the body (idealism)?

"We" are more-than-one creatures (plural) that have a highly-ish developed capacity to generalize principles out of observation of reality, and act using those generalizations to survive and "have fun" in reality (nature).

Any questions? :)

What you say seems to suggest that our "being" is the mind alone. I don't believe that the mind can exist alone, without the body; such a thing would be unnatural.

Absolutely! I agree completely. There is no mind-body discontinuity.

If we imagine there IS one, then that "creation" (the split) will prompt nature to do all sorts of weird things in response.

However, the mind is not the body, and it does not exist (concretely) in nature; therefore it is "supernatural".

The mind DOES exist in nature. Much the same way "running software" exists
in nature.

It is simply axiomatic (to me and any sensible being in the universe) that
anything claiming any connection or "influence" on anything "natural" must be
a part of nature (included within it) because if it had no connection or
influence it would not be observable.

We are natural beings with the ability to envision and make use of the unreal through a means we (should) call supernatural. That is not unnatural; it is a very special capability, and not one beyond the reach of other beings.

And this is where the "supernatural" becomes dangerous.

The common (and mostly correct) view of the "supernatural" (as "above
nature") is that it is a way AROUND natural processes.

That it is a "magic bullet".

Nature will ALWAYS (as it has no choice) create unending conflict and
disturbance ("weirdness" that equates to illness) whenever someone tries
to "go around" it.

To believe in the "magic bullet" is to believe it, and invariably shoot yourself
in the head with it.

I believe our "choices" are always our responsibility. Blaming it sincerely on "the devil made me do it" is an example of superstitious thinking, a result of belief in the expectation that supernatural things (spirits and ghosts, for example; "luck" is another) should and must exist in nature/reality, because they are purported to be "real".

They ARE real, yet erroneous. I can SAY, "1+1=3", which is a real statement,
but acted in reality as if it was correct will invariably cause me trouble.

It's not that "1+1=3" isn't REAL,.. it's that it's incorrect.

If our language would keep them where they belong (as unreal entities) we wouldn't have this problem; but we've gone and included "genuine" and "valid" in the defintion of "real", in order to accommodate the "good" unreal entities... So we have "real" feelings for each other; we have "real" ideas and some of our "real" concepts even have a life of their own ("luck" for example).

All things have an inside and an outside (except one, of course).

All incorrect beliefs have their antithesis.

There are no "good" incorrect things, except in so much as they are pointers
to correct things.

There are absolutely no "unreal" things. Thus, there are no good or
bad "unreal" things.

There are only correct things, which are good, and incorrect things, which
are bad.

-Iakeo

Myotisinia

17-01-2006, 19:39

This thread is in response to the "challenge to Atheists/Agnostics"

To all religious people, I have a challenge for you.

Try atheism for a week, tell me the results.

Likewise. Been there, done that, now I'm Christian. Every one (almost everyone, that is) after a time, seeks answers to why things in our lives and in the lives of those who come into our awareness are the way they are. Often simply deciding that life is just a meaningless set of random events gets too depressing to contemplate after awhile. For some, life for pleasure's sake is enough. For me, it was not. I'd kinda like to think things have a purpose. Hedonism is ultimately a dead end. Eventually you'll get older, then no-one knocks on your door and no-one calls to invite you to the latest party anymore. Then you become that pathetic hanger-on that stayed too late but doesn't know it yet that eveyone likes to make fun of, if you continue to pursue that course. You'll figure it out in time.

Advice? Do whatever brings you peace and makes you happy.

Iakeonui

17-01-2006, 19:46

Originally Posted by Iakeonui
It's when we base hugely important matters on untested beliefs that we feel "bad" about having to give them up, because the work we SHOULD have done when originally faced with a thing to "believe" now HAS to be done,.. and people are generally quite lazy about doing work.

Oh wait, does untested belief mean caprice here?

Yes,.. untested beliefs are caprice. Sometimes (usually?) the caprice
of "laziness" (the choice to arbitrarily NOT deal with something when it should
be dealt with).

"Untested beliefs" are more commonly called "obstinant dogma", or
simply "dogma".

And holding dogmatic ideas ("ideas" as opposed to beliefs, since they're not
REALLY beliefs at all) will ALWAYS attract nature to hand you enormous
amounts of annoyance.

-Iakeo

Willamena

17-01-2006, 21:54

Your description suits you well, I imagine, and it therefore is useful to you.

My description suits me.

To me, there is no "platonic" world of "imaginary things" from which the "real"
things of the world are "actualized" out of.

There are no blueprints in nature. Even DNA is not a blueprint. It is a catalyst
that becomes triggered into developing what it is there to develop.

Your "unreal" aspects are what I would call "subtle" aspects. To me, to call
them "unreal" is to make "real" mean something that it obviously doesn't mean.
I don't understand about the blueprints.

"Subtle" is a very good word for them, but then the whole understanding of supernatural things (and the misunderstanding that the modern world wallows in) falls down, and they are relegated once again to being dismissed.

I guess it depends on what you think I think "we are"... are we the body (materalism), or are we the mind and the body (idealism)?
"We" are more-than-one creatures (plural) that have a highly-ish developed capacity to generalize principles out of observation of reality, and act using those generalizations to survive and "have fun" in reality (nature).

Any questions? :)
Having fun is good. The mind itself is not dissimilar to one of those principles (explanation below).

Absolutely! I agree completely. There is no mind-body discontinuity.

If we imagine there IS one, then that "creation" (the split) will prompt nature to do all sorts of weird things in response.
Right; there is only discontinuity if both mind and body are determined to be real.

What sort of responses from nature did you have in mind?

The mind DOES exist in nature. Much the same way "running software" exists
in nature.
The brain exists in reality; the mind does not. You cannot remove it from the body and hold it in your hand and say, "Oh, look! a mind!"

"Running software" is an analogy that never worked for me. The software that is run is patterns of energy, 1's and 0's... that is not a mind, that is patterns of energy, 1's and 0's. The computer can be compared to a brain, and the software program to the brain's processes, but that is not a mind. A mind is what we perceive from our individual perspective of the operation of our body, and by extension the world around us. It consists of thoughts, ideas, feelings and imaginings, not 1's and 0's. A better analogy would be to compare the mind to the actual data presented on the monitor, but even that falls short, as we cannot know what it is that the monitor, if it had a mind, sees of the data that it is presenting to us; we can only know what we see and interpret of it. Hence my trouble wrapping my brain around the whole software analogy.

It is simply axiomatic (to me and any sensible being in the universe) that
anything claiming any connection or "influence" on anything "natural" must be
a part of nature (included within it) because if it had no connection or
influence it would not be observable.
The mind is observable? Or are things (like feelings, or the aforementioned principles) that are actualized what are observable?

The problem, I think, is still in insisting that the mind is real; then the "thing" that is the mind is separated from the "thing" that is the body, because the two cannot occupy the same "real"-space (or the same logical placeholder in language). I propose that the mind is unreal, built and maintained by the same faculty that produces the unreal things of imagination. What I propose is that the mind, which is the subjective perspective on the workings of the body and by extension the world around us, is not doing anything different than body when a person "influences" things in nature. The body IS a part of nature; but we (humans) participate in nature from the shelter of our mind. The real world is "out there".

We are natural beings with the ability to envision and make use of the unreal through a means we (should) call supernatural. That is not unnatural; it is a very special capability, and not one beyond the reach of other beings.
And this is where the "supernatural" becomes dangerous.

The common (and mostly correct) view of the "supernatural" (as "above
nature") is that it is a way AROUND natural processes.

That it is a "magic bullet".

Nature will ALWAYS (as it has no choice) create unending conflict and
disturbance ("weirdness" that equates to illness) whenever someone tries
to "go around" it.

To believe in the "magic bullet" is to believe it, and invariably shoot yourself
in the head with it.
That ('magic bullet') is what I refer to as the misunderstanding of the supernatural that is prevailant today. It takes the supernatural out of context, and that reduces it to being something useless and meaningless, mostly in order that it can be dismissed.

The only "danger" supernatural presents is to the person for whom it means "magic bullet", for they are operating under an "illusion". However, the concept does retain much of its original meaning handed down through things like myth and folklore. And in astrology, which is where I first encountered the idea.

Take the demon, for instance. "Demon" was a word used in magical practices to describe a higher function of our mind that prompts us toward knowledge by allowing us to see and make irrational connections between seemingly unrelated things: divination. In the book I'm going to quote from, it is likened to what Jung called "synchronisity". It was originally viewed as nothing more than "an intelligence," and had any number of monsterous features added afterwards, mostly by people who misunderstood. "The demon is numinous in its presence, and those who experience it feel themselves touched by the supernatural. The demons reveal themselves as part of the domain of the sacred, intermediate between mortals and the great gods. Worship and rites were offered to the demons as well as to the gods, and they were generaly considered to be beneficient, helping us to know and understand things beyond our ordinary conscious range. As 'guardian angels', one of the tasks of the demon is to assist the individual to find fortune and destiny."

While talking about something "numinous" (in the mind), the quote uses language and describes participatory actions "as if" the demon were something outside and apart from us. Neither the presence of God nor the demon are taken to be real by the author, they are only "as if real". The person participating in these "rites" did not do so under the impression that they were participating with something in nature, "out there" in the world around them, but something apart from (above) nature. Yet, it describes a natural ability of the person to make irrational connections. (The language is in large part responsible for misunderstandings. Still, dispite understanding the concpets, St. Augustine took this same concept of "demon" and turned it into this: "(Astrologers) are inspired, in some mysterious way, by spirits, but spirits of evil, whose concern is to instil and confirm in men's minds those false and baneful notions about destiny.")

They ARE real, yet erroneous. I can SAY, "1+1=3", which is a real statement,
but acted in reality as if it was correct will invariably cause me trouble.

It's not that "1+1=3" isn't REAL,.. it's that it's incorrect.
...actualized in reality. The mathematical equation is made of symbols that represent something in reality. Supernatural things are symbols, too, of a sort, but they represent something in the mind/heart/soul.

All things have an inside and an outside (except one, of course).

All incorrect beliefs have their antithesis.

There are no "good" incorrect things, except in so much as they are pointers
to correct things.

There are absolutely no "unreal" things. Thus, there are no good or
bad "unreal" things.

There are only correct things, which are good, and incorrect things, which
are bad.

-Iakeo
IDIC

Bodinia

17-01-2006, 22:58

Yes,.. untested beliefs are caprice. Sometimes (usually?) the caprice of "laziness" (the choice to arbitrarily NOT deal with something when it should be dealt with).
"Untested beliefs" are more commonly called "obstinant dogma", or
simply "dogma".
And holding dogmatic ideas ("ideas" as opposed to beliefs, since they're not
REALLY beliefs at all) will ALWAYS attract nature to hand you enormous
amounts of annoyance.

Define belief then, please.
Though I'm guessing all you're left with is already covered by the words empiric knowledge, history, science, opinion and/or "truth". In that case I'd argue that only untested beliefs are REALLY beliefs at all, so be warned. ;)

Dinaverg

17-01-2006, 23:33

Seems a bit conceited to me to assume that humans are just so great that we must be supernatural. We're just too great to be the same as any other living thing on the planet.

Iakeonui

18-01-2006, 05:13

I don't understand about the blueprints.

There are no "supernatural" (or "ideal" or "platonic template") things on which
things in reality are based.

There are only other things that things in reality are "based". In the realm
of "concretized ideas", such as an airplane, the "idea" of it (the idea of it's
inventor) is not unreal (non-real), it is very real,.. just composed of a
collection of other "ideas" in the inventor's mind.

"Subtle" is a very good word for them, but then the whole understanding of supernatural things (and the misunderstanding that the modern world wallows in) falls down, and they are relegated once again to being dismissed.

That's my point. The "supernatural", like all the "unreal", SHOULD be relegated
to the trash bin.

But you don't trash the "things",.. you trash the idea of the "supernatural.

Having fun is good. The mind itself is not dissimilar to one of those principles (explanation below).

Right; there is only discontinuity if both mind and body are determined to be real.

Mind is real. Body is real. They ARE both real.

Methinks we have no conflict except in our definitions of various words.

"Real" is existent in the world.
"Unreal" is NOT-existent in the world. An impossible condition for any
concievable thing.
"Mind" is that which has thought or cognition. Period. Interesting implications
ensue from this definition.
"Body" is the "container" of life. Period.

What sort of responses from nature did you have in mind?

Always and only (to use a BuckyFullerism I heard once) incorrect
interpretations of reality which create "illusions" that seem to behave
inconsistently with the laws (rules) of nature. They do this because the
inconsistency is not investigated "properly" (for whatever reason) because
the observer is "commited" to (invested in) holding incorrect beliefs (which
upon examination become unbelievable) more heavily than doing the work of
honest observation.

Seeing the Virgin Mary (or the Virgin Susan) in cat droppings would be an
example of this.

The brain exists in reality; the mind does not. You cannot remove it from the body and hold it in your hand and say, "Oh, look! a mind!"

Like art, you know a mind when you see it. :)

One does not hold "art" in the hand.

"Running software" is an analogy that never worked for me. The software that is run is patterns of energy, 1's and 0's... that is not a mind, that is patterns of energy, 1's and 0's.

All of everything are patterns of energy. Period.

That is the point.

The computer can be compared to a brain, and the software program to the brain's processes, but that is not a mind. A mind is what we perceive from our individual perspective of the operation of our body, and by extension the world around us. It consists of thoughts, ideas, feelings and imaginings, not 1's and 0's.

And that is why you can't separate mind from body. They are inseparable.

A mind needs a body. A body needs a mind. Always.

And this has nothing to do with 1's and 0's.

A better analogy would be to compare the mind to the actual data presented on the monitor, but even that falls short, as we cannot know what it is that the monitor, if it had a mind, sees of the data that it is presenting to us; we can only know what we see and interpret of it. Hence my trouble wrapping my brain around the whole software analogy.

OK,..how about this then: A cloud is a mind. A collection of water vapor is
that mind's "body".

Does that help? :)

The mind is observable? Or are things (like feelings, or the aforementioned principles) that are actualized what are observable?

If you see a mind in an artifact, you see an observable mind.

So, yes,. you are correct. You see the "products" of the mind,.. but your
mind "resonates" with that mind-created artifact and creates an impression of
the creators mind. That is observing a mind, as when one observes a bird,
one sees (hears, smells,..) the artifacts of a bird (feathers, etc) while the
bird is not the same material that that same "bird" was composed of when it
came out of it's egg, and not of the same material that will compose the bird
in a month.

ALL things are artifacts.

The problem, I think, is still in insisting that the mind is real; then the "thing" that is the mind is separated from the "thing" that is the body, because the two cannot occupy the same "real"-space (or the same logical placeholder in language).

They are both real. And they are not separate. Therefore it (singular) has no
problem occupying only one "space".

I propose that the mind is unreal, built and maintained by the same faculty that produces the unreal things of imagination. What I propose is that the mind, which is the subjective perspective on the workings of the body and by extension the world around us, is not doing anything different than body when a person "influences" things in nature. The body IS a part of nature; but we (humans) participate in nature from the shelter of our mind. The real world is "out there".

If you wish to be separated like that from "reality", then may you enjoy that
position and do well from it.

I choose to be entirely within and of nature.

Just a quirk of mine, I suppose.

For me, having my "me" isolated from nature is supremely dangerous, because
in being so it will attract "illusions" that not only don't make me happy, but
threaten my survival as a person (individual lifeform).

It's a choice where you choose to put your "you", and as you choose it will
become real.

I don't choose that "reality".

That ('magic bullet') is what I refer to as the misunderstanding of the supernatural that is prevailant today. It takes the supernatural out of context, and that reduces it to being something useless and meaningless, mostly in order that it can be dismissed.

"Magic bullet", bad. Diligent observation, good. :)

(Supernatural-ness is meaningless.)

The only "danger" supernatural presents is to the person for whom it means "magic bullet", for they are operating under an "illusion". However, the concept does retain much of its original meaning handed down through things like myth and folklore. And in astrology, which is where I first encountered the idea.

You know me. I'm very story oriented. Stories are "pointers" (artifacts) of
mind. That is their only value.

Astrology's only value is what is says about the mind of it's practitioners.
Period.

The parts of astrology concerning personality typing and astronomy (among
other things) are not actually parts of astrology. They are "cruches" on which
the fabulous (pun intended) stories generated by astrology are built.

For astrology, it's the STORY (with it's interpersonal interplay) that is
important, not the "science" (knowledge) on which it is biult over.

Take the demon, for instance. "Demon" was a word used in magical practices to describe a higher function of our mind that prompts us toward knowledge by allowing us to see and make irrational connections between seemingly unrelated things: divination.

That would be correct. And therfore demons are real, and have real (and
massively "illusion attracting") natural effects.

In the book I'm going to quote from, it is likened to what Jung called "synchronisity". It was originally viewed as nothing more than "an intelligence," and had any number of monsterous features added afterwards, mostly by people who misunderstood. "The demon is numinous in its presence, and those who experience it feel themselves touched by the supernatural.

To feel "touched by the supernatural" is feel nature impinging on you in an
attempt to rectify your incorrectness.

To purposefully conjure that effect, which has some very positive as well as
negative potentials, is an exercise best left to one who knows how to "let go"
of the nonsense that attracted natures "wrath" efficiently, or one could end
up VERY mangled in the process.

The demons reveal themselves as part of the domain of the sacred, intermediate between mortals and the great gods. Worship and rites were offered to the demons as well as to the gods, and they were generaly considered to be beneficient, helping us to know and understand things beyond our ordinary conscious range. As 'guardian angels', one of the tasks of the demon is to assist the individual to find fortune and destiny."

And that's fine, but only for one who KNOWS that these "demons" are
nonsensical and who's utility are ONLY to open difficult to percieve (and only
possibly existant) connections between apparently unrelated things.

But then,.. those are the people whom you are talking about. :)

While talking about something "numinous" (in the mind), the quote uses language and describes participatory actions "as if" the demon were something outside and apart from us. Neither the presence of God nor the demon are taken to be real by the author, they are only "as if real". The person participating in these "rites" did not do so under the impression that they were participating with something in nature, "out there" in the world around them, but something apart from (above) nature.

And that is what separates the "neophyte" (maggot) from the "wizard"
(wielder, wize-guy).

The neophyte thinks he's dealing with something unreal and "outside nature",
and feels relatively "safe" because it can't have any REAL effect on nature.

The wizard thinks KNOWS he's dealing with something VERY REAL and natural,
but only influential because he says it is, and feels relatively safe because it
can be disengaged at will, but he also feels a bit nervous that he might want
to "hold on" too long and get hyperbolous and "dangerous" information.

The neophyte is in it for the "social value" of being associated with "wizards".
He MAY eventually be allowed into the "higher orders" if he can prove that
he's capable of really understanding what the goal is. And that goal is (unless
perverted into simple political power) that understanding only comes from
diligent and HARD (honest) observation of nature where one does as much as
possible to find those "hidden connections".

The wizard is in it for more connections to observe, thus more understanding
of nature.

The "supernatural" is the neophytes impression (a comforting one) that he's
in no real danger, when in fact he's in massive danger of finding "odd"
connections without the concommitant understanding that those connections
could become "addictive" (runaway chain-reactions) and that they are only
controlled by "letting go" of them.

Rather like the "catching the tiger by the tail" syndrome.

Yet, it describes a natural ability of the person to make irrational connections. (The language is in large part responsible for misunderstandings. Still, dispite understanding the concpets, St. Augustine took this same concept of "demon" and turned it into this: "(Astrologers) are inspired, in some mysterious way, by spirits, but spirits of evil, whose concern is to instil and confirm in men's minds those false and baneful notions about destiny.")

"Irrational" connections are only useful if they can be turned into "rational"
connections. And that is the real job of the wizard.

To leave "irrational" connections under-explored, such that they don't turn
into rational connections, is the evil of which Auggy was speaking.

The true job of the astrologer is to clarify to a "client" that they are NOT
their personality. It is NOT to tell about the future, or have anything to do
with "destiny" other than that if they continue to identify with their (present)
personality certain trends are likely to occur in their lives.

Once the astrologer (or diviner of whatever stripe) leaves the path of "curing"
the personal cult of personality that most all people have about themselves
("I am my personality and it is [good/bad/evil/saintly/etc]) they are entering
the realm of evil doing.

Thus speaketh me on the evils of not knowing what the hell one is talking
about and practicing it on others.

...actualized in reality. The mathematical equation is made of symbols that represent something in reality. Supernatural things are symbols, too, of a sort, but they represent something in the mind/heart/soul.

..which is in reality, which is the definition of being in nature.

Your "supernatural things" I call natural symbolic things.

IDIC

IDIC..? Oh,.. "Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations (http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/IDIC)"

We actually agree on all of this. I just find my conception of it
more "pleasing" to me than the misinterpreted nonsense that I see elsewhere.

-Iakeo

Iakeonui

18-01-2006, 05:18

Originally Posted by Iakeonui
Yes,.. untested beliefs are caprice. Sometimes (usually?) the caprice of "laziness" (the choice to arbitrarily NOT deal with something when it should be dealt with).
"Untested beliefs" are more commonly called "obstinant dogma", or
simply "dogma".
And holding dogmatic ideas ("ideas" as opposed to beliefs, since they're not
REALLY beliefs at all) will ALWAYS attract nature to hand you enormous
amounts of annoyance.

Define belief then, please.
Though I'm guessing all you're left with is already covered by the words empiric knowledge, history, science, opinion and/or "truth". In that case I'd argue that only untested beliefs are REALLY beliefs at all, so be warned.

Belief is holding an idea as true, for now, until it is shown to be unbelievable.

A very simple definition.

No belief is truly "untested",.. just "under-tested",.. or an idea that's
obstinantly held onto as dogma, in which case it's not belief at all, but dogma
mis-diagnosed as belief.

Was there another question in there that you had for me?

-Iakeo

M3rcenaries

18-01-2006, 05:19

So im catholic, what would I not prey or go to church for a week or what?

Willamena

20-01-2006, 16:30

There are no "supernatural" (or "ideal" or "platonic template") things on which
things in reality are based.
There are only other things that things in reality are "based". In the realm
of "concretized ideas", such as an airplane, the "idea" of it (the idea of it's
inventor) is not unreal (non-real), it is very real,.. just composed of a
collection of other "ideas" in the inventor's mind.
Yes, the idea is not a blueprint for objective existence, if that's what you meant, though it is a blueprint for human creativity. Even the smallest habitual movement is a "creative expression" of an unconscious idea. But the idea in the mind is only "as if" the happenings in the brain (1's and 0's).

I would say, rather, that the airplane (thing) and the idea of the airplane (another thing) both exist. Existence, though, is not reality; they are two different, but related, concepts.

Mind is real. Body is real. They ARE both real.

Methinks we have no conflict except in our definitions of various words.

"Real" is existent in the world.
"Unreal" is NOT-existent in the world. An impossible condition for any
concievable thing.
"Mind" is that which has thought or cognition. Period. Interesting implications
ensue from this definition.
"Body" is the "container" of life. Period.
They (mind and body) both exist.

Can I add one definition? Like so...

"The world" is the universe, or bits of it, "seen" (understood) from a subjective perspective. Our beliefs do not manifest themselves in the universe, or create reality, but they do shape our world.

"Unreal" is NOT-existent in the world. --But then, you are declaring imaginary (illusionary) things "real"; most people would not. The imaginary thing exists as an imagining, but is non-existent only in the sense of not being representative of anything real in the physical universe.

Always and only (to use a BuckyFullerism I heard once) incorrect
interpretations of reality which create "illusions" that seem to behave
inconsistently with the laws (rules) of nature. They do this because the
inconsistency is not investigated "properly" (for whatever reason) because
the observer is "commited" to (invested in) holding incorrect beliefs (which
upon examination become unbelievable) more heavily than doing the work of
honest observation.

Seeing the Virgin Mary (or the Virgin Susan) in cat droppings would be an
example of this.
Ah, now that's a blueprint! In this case, using objective reality as the blueprint to judge beliefs "correct" or "incorrect".

The particular "illusion" of the Virgin Mary most people would see as a "belief". The Virgin Mary in the cat droppings is meaningful to someone, else "she" wouldn't be seen there. It has the meaning "the Virgin Mary is real to me" (note, not the same as "Virgin Mary is in the poop!"). If it has meaning for the person who sees it, then there is nothing "incorrect" about that, except to the person expecting that "that person should have a different belief than they do".

We could go the other way and say that what the person saw in the cat droppings is equally a "correct illusion" (belief). "Honest" observation has its place, as does observation of the non-literal; and the only ones who have a problem with this are the ones who seek to blur the line between them by insisting that the Virgin Mary that was observed be objectively real so that *everyone* can see her in the poop! But it doesn't work that way. It was a subjective phenomenon, one mind's interpretation. Unique-case.

All of everything are patterns of energy. Period.
That is the point.
Ah… The Matrix. ;)

All of reality is vibrations/waves of energy, even matter... I saw something like that on the Learning Channel. Superstrings or something.

And that is why you can't separate mind from body. They are inseparable.
A mind needs a body. A body needs a mind. Always.
And this has nothing to do with 1's and 0's.
OK,..how about this then: A cloud is a mind. A collection of water vapor is
that mind's "body".
Does that help? :)
Well, for most people "cloud" is just the word-label to put on the collection of water vapour --they *mean* the same thing. "Mind," though, is more than just a word to put on the collection of 1's and 0's --it means a lot more to a person. For one (significant) thing, it is often identified with "self". Perhaps more significantly, it is more often equated to the things that go on "in the mind", like consciousness, that is the mechanisms of the non-physical aspect, rather than with the mechanism of the physical aspect, of which we are entirely unaware, though not immune.

If you wish to be separated like that from "reality", then may you enjoy that
position and do well from it.

I choose to be entirely within and of nature.

Just a quirk of mine, I suppose.
I do prefer it, actually. It's not about alienation from reality; as I said earlier, we *do* have a specific context of the concept of reality to include things of the mind. This "duality of reality" makes reality not of primary importance, to me, but I can see how it is to those who equate it with existence.

It's about self, and self-determination. It's "just me."

You know me. I'm very story oriented. Stories are "pointers" (artifacts) of
mind. That is their only value.

Astrology's only value is what is says about the mind of it's practitioners.
Period.

The parts of astrology concerning personality typing and astronomy (among
other things) are not actually parts of astrology. They are "cruches" on which
the fabulous (pun intended) stories generated by astrology are built.

For astrology, it's the STORY (with it's interpersonal interplay) that is
important, not the "science" (knowledge) on which it is biult over.
I think you have a misconception about what astrology is, understandably so.
Astrology is not about personality typing, and no hobbling is required. That is just the barking of the charlatans, both those who "practice" what they call astrology, and those who don't practice, at all.

There is indirect evidence that astrology was around long before what we call astronomy was formulated and included as a part of it (i.e. the study of the regular motions of the planets, their patterns mapped and charted, etc). Perhaps a discussion for another time, though.

To feel "touched by the supernatural" is feel nature impinging on you in an
attempt to rectify your incorrectness.
Ha! I like that. :)

*snip* Rather like the "catching the tiger by the tail" syndrome.
Heh. Much thinking will be required to see if I can reconcile your language with mine. Brain not working...

The true job of the astrologer is to clarify to a "client" that they are NOT
their personality. It is NOT to tell about the future, or have anything to do
with "destiny" other than that if they continue to identify with their (present)
personality certain trends are likely to occur in their lives.

Once the astrologer (or diviner of whatever stripe) leaves the path of "curing"
the personal cult of personality that most all people have about themselves
("I am my personality and it is [good/bad/evil/saintly/etc]") they are entering
the realm of evil doing.

Thus speaketh me on the evils of not knowing what the hell one is talking
about and practicing it on others.
I would say no, that's not the job of astrologers, that's the job of charlatans, particularly those practicing what they call "psychological astrology". There are practitioners, though, who actually know what astrology is about, and I would guess them to be the (silent) minority.

Destiny and fortune are not "telling the future"; most people don't realise that. Even fewer care. They WANT their fortune cookies and their astrologer to tell them "what will be"; any less would simply not be acceptable for mass consumption. Hence we have the charlatans.

..which is in reality, which is the definition of being in nature.
Your "supernatural things" I call natural symbolic things.

IDIC..? Oh,.. "Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations (http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/IDIC)"
We actually agree on all of this. I just find my conception of it
more "pleasing" to me than the misinterpreted nonsense that I see elsewhere.

-Iakeo
As do I find mine pleasing. Bwahaha.

Deiakeos

24-01-2006, 05:26

Yes, the idea is not a blueprint for objective existence, if that's what you meant, though it is a blueprint for human creativity. Even the smallest habitual movement is a "creative expression" of an unconscious idea. But the idea in the mind is only "as if" the happenings in the brain (1's and 0's).

I'm a simple person. "Objective reality" means simply that part of reality that is observed, to me.

An idea "in the mind" is observable by the mind containing the idea, and is therefore observable, making it a part of objective reality.

I would say, rather, that the airplane (thing) and the idea of the airplane (another thing) both exist. Existence, though, is not reality; they are two different, but related, concepts.

That they both EXIST is all that I'm interested in, in this conversation.

If they exist, they are real. What they ARE COMPOSED OF when they exist is not relevent to their "reality", as far as I'm concerned.

They (mind and body) both exist.

Can I add one definition? Like so...

"The world" is the universe, or bits of it, "seen" (understood) from a subjective perspective. Our beliefs do not manifest themselves in the universe, or create reality, but they do shape our world.

The world = The Universe. You're free to use your own definitions of terms, of course.

The "split" between "the world" (percievable part of the universe) and "the universe" (the big every damn thing) is exactly the same as the "body/mind" split.

It is not helpful (useful) and actually harmful to propogate such a "split".

"Unreal" is NOT-existent in the world. --But then, you are declaring imaginary (illusionary) things "real"; most people would not. The imaginary thing exists as an imagining, but is non-existent only in the sense of not being representative of anything real in the physical universe.

An "imagining" is a real thing. Do I REALLY need to add "to me" to the end of ALL the statements I make?

And the "imagining" is not non-existent, as it exists as a pattern of energy within a "brain", and within a "mind" as a sub-pattern, the mind being simply a "container"-pattern within a brain.

Ah, now that's a blueprint! In this case, using objective reality as the blueprint to judge beliefs "correct" or "incorrect".

The particular "illusion" of the Virgin Mary most people would see as a "belief". The Virgin Mary in the cat droppings is meaningful to someone, else "she" wouldn't be seen there.

The interpretation of the sight of some cat poop as "an image of the virgin mary" is exactly like seeing a bunch of pixels on a monitor and interpreting it as this forum page.

My point is (was) that holding that the "letters" on the screen are "letters" and not "pixels" could have some very interesting and "mystifyingly supernatural" consequences if the pixels were altered such that the "letters" seemed to do "unnatural" things (like being morphed and moved around the screen).

The seeming "supernatural" things that people "believe in" are their holding onto the "letters" of the world, without investigating further into their nature to discover that there are "pixels" there.

It has the meaning "the Virgin Mary is real to me" (note, not the same as "Virgin Mary is in the poop!"). If it has meaning for the person who sees it, then there is nothing "incorrect" about that, except to the person expecting that "that person should have a different belief than they do".

I absolutely agree with you. Finding a pattern in nonsense (noise) ("the poop") is what mind's do. And VERY meaningful. In fact, ONLY meaningful. But the meaning is "created" by the mind finding the pattern in the noise, and therefore tells us only about the mind, and not about anything else.

A mind finding pattern in noise (if it IS actual noise) says nothing about the "reality" of an actual "message" from anywhere BUT the mind itself.

We could go the other way and say that what the person saw in the cat droppings is equally a "correct illusion" (belief).

The "incorrectness" I was refering to was in HOLDING to a belief that is unbelievable.

The "image", and interpretation as that of the virgin mary (or susan) is quite correct.

It's when believing that this "vision" has any other meaning than "I need/want to see the virgin mary for some reason in this poop", that it's incorrect.

When people see Mary's visage, it's a "sign" that they need her help,.. but it's a sign from themselves to themselves. When one sees signs that are meaningful like this, one MUST believe that it's time to listen to "what Mary has to say to you at this special time" and act on it, because NOT to do so is a violation of the responsibility to listen to yourself (as the instrument of God) and do what needs to be done.

If "She" had no message for you, "She" wouldn't have been seen. And Ignoring those who you need for help is a VERY bad idea.

"Honest" observation has its place, as does observation of the non-literal; and the only ones who have a problem with this are the ones who seek to blur the line between them by insisting that the Virgin Mary that was observed be objectively real so that *everyone* can see her in the poop! But it doesn't work that way. It was a subjective phenomenon, one mind's interpretation. Unique-case.

Yup. :)

Ah… The Matrix. ;)

All of reality is vibrations/waves of energy, even matter... I saw something like that on the Learning Channel. Superstrings or something.

Well, for most people "cloud" is just the word-label to put on the collection of water vapour --they *mean* the same thing. "Mind," though, is more than just a word to put on the collection of 1's and 0's --it means a lot more to a person. For one (significant) thing, it is often identified with "self". Perhaps more significantly, it is more often equated to the things that go on "in the mind", like consciousness, that is the mechanisms of the non-physical aspect, rather than with the mechanism of the physical aspect, of which we are entirely unaware, though not immune.

All things are simply patterns of energy. I don't think we have any arguement here.

I do prefer it, actually. It's not about alienation from reality; as I said earlier, we *do* have a specific context of the concept of reality to include things of the mind. This "duality of reality" makes reality not of primary importance, to me, but I can see how it is to those who equate it with existence.

It's about self, and self-determination. It's "just me."

As you wish. :)

I think you have a misconception about what astrology is, understandably so.
Astrology is not about personality typing, and no hobbling is required. That is just the barking of the charlatans, both those who "practice" what they call astrology, and those who don't practice, at all.

It's not about typing, per se, but it is all about categorizing TYPES of personalities so that characteristic "probable futures" can be described to those with those identified personality types.

It is about "telling the future" in the same way that one "tells the future" to an obstinant fool who insists on doing handstands on narrow window sills 10 stories up that it's highly probable that he will fall to his death.

There is indirect evidence that astrology was around long before what we call astronomy was formulated and included as a part of it (i.e. the study of the regular motions of the planets, their patterns mapped and charted, etc). Perhaps a discussion for another time, though.

Hmm,.. was observing the heavenly bodies and their "effects" around before the systematic human study of those same heavenly bodies....?

Let's see,.. Long before humans, there were fish that could observe that when the moon was REALLY bright, more of the beach was covered by water. They eventually started timing their mating habits to these bright moons. They noticed (though not with the same type of "mind" that we humans have so their "interpretations" were a bit different) that this was a good thing, and kept doing it, to the point where it became imbedded in their very biology (DNA).

That is super-ancient astrology/divination. It is the application of discovered patterns to "predicting" (and using) the probable "best way" to do something.

I would also call this, simply, observing and understanding the universe (reality) in a useful way.

Ha! I like that. :)

Heh. Much thinking will be required to see if I can reconcile your language with mine. Brain not working...

Think about it. All I'm basically saying is that knowing the difference between what is "imaginitive reality" and "physical reality" is important, and that wanting "dreams" to become "physically real" is a bad idea.

(( Dreams are real, and water is wet, but not all dreams should be acted out, as man-blood is wet but not good to spill. ))

I would say no, that's not the job of astrologers, that's the job of charlatans, particularly those practicing what they call "psychological astrology". There are practitioners, though, who actually know what astrology is about, and I would guess them to be the (silent) minority.

Destiny and fortune are not "telling the future"; most people don't realise that. Even fewer care. They WANT their fortune cookies and their astrologer to tell them "what will be"; any less would simply not be acceptable for mass consumption. Hence we have the charlatans.

The astrologer's/diviner's job is to help others see patterns that the diviner has studied so that the others can act more wisely.

What is your conception of the astrologer's/diviner's job?

As do I find mine pleasing. Bwahaha.

Excellent..!!

(( Oh,.. I got banned, [not sure why] so the name changed a bit. ))

-Iakeo

Willamena

24-01-2006, 21:11

An "imagining" is a real thing. Do I REALLY need to add "to me" to the end of ALL the statements I make?

And the "imagining" is not non-existent, as it exists as a pattern of energy within a "brain", and within a "mind" as a sub-pattern, the mind being simply a "container"-pattern within a brain...
I'm really not up to butting heads about this, at the moment. If you're just going to default to pointing at the 1's and 0's, as so many before you, and ignore what I'm saying, then I'm done talking.

Willamena

26-01-2006, 18:05

Sorry I took so long to reply. I expect you've have been banned again, but I hope you get to see this.

I'm a simple person. "Objective reality" means simply that part of reality that is observed, to me.

An idea "in the mind" is observable by the mind containing the idea, and is therefore observable, making it a part of objective reality.
"Objective existence" is what I said, that being existence outside the mind. "That part of reality that is observed", by you, with the five senses of the body would qualify in what I was talking about.

A person's own idea (which cannot be anywhere but "in the mind") is not observable so much as experienced.

I would say, rather, that the airplane (thing) and the idea of the airplane (another thing) both exist. Existence, though, is not reality; they are two different, but related, concepts.
That they both EXIST is all that I'm interested in, in this conversation.

If they exist, they are real. What they ARE COMPOSED OF when they exist is not relevent to their "reality", as far as I'm concerned.
Their physical composition is irrelevant to what I'm talking about, as well. I am not claiming they do not exist, but rather that the only "reality" of that existence is in their physical composition.

The world = The Universe. You're free to use your own definitions of terms, of course.

The "split" between "the world" (percievable part of the universe) and "the universe" (the big every damn thing) is exactly the same as the "body/mind" split.

It is not helpful (useful) and actually harmful to propogate such a "split".
I have no idea what "harm" you mean. I cannot see how being an individual (which is the reality of our human existence) can be harmful.

An "imagining" is a real thing. Do I REALLY need to add "to me" to the end of ALL the statements I make?

And the "imagining" is not non-existent, as it exists as a pattern of energy within a "brain", and within a "mind" as a sub-pattern, the mind being simply a "container"-pattern within a brain.
Specifying your statements as from a subjective perspective wouldn't really help, no, as I assumed that from your use of the word "world" anyway.

This is why I get discouraged when people go off on the tangent of 1's and 0's (composition). We do not experience "patterns" and "subpatterns" in our mind --I can only imagine what that would be like. We experience feelings, and memories, and images, and fantasies, and cravings; these are imaginings. I tried to imagine the wave patterns of energy, and came up with some pretty images that were nothing like feelings, or memories, or cravings, etc. These are the things I'm talking about. I am not disputing that they exist; they do. However much things in the mind are physically composed of something real (the wave patterns, whatever), they are also representative of something actual or not actual. The memory of a loved one who passed away is representative of something that was, but is no longer present. The memory makes them "as if" present.

The thing in the mind, then, is a symbol, and it is the actuality of the thing it represents that makes it unreal. The thought ("I really need to get my car cleaned."), the feeling ("He's going to go for it, I know it."), the memory, the fantasy, the craving (so "real" you can almost taste/feel/experience it), all representative of things that are not real. The idea of the airplane, not yet turned into a real airplane, is representative of something to be actualized (with a will).

The interpretation of the sight of some cat poop as "an image of the virgin mary" is exactly like seeing a bunch of pixels on a monitor and interpreting it as this forum page.

My point is (was) that holding that the "letters" on the screen are "letters" and not "pixels" could have some very interesting and "mystifyingly supernatural" consequences if the pixels were altered such that the "letters" seemed to do "unnatural" things (like being morphed and moved around the screen).

The seeming "supernatural" things that people "believe in" are their holding onto the "letters" of the world, without investigating further into their nature to discover that there are "pixels" there.
Actually, interpreting the "Virgin Mary" in whatever media is different, in that it has meaning (religious meaning, for instance) apart from the sensual perception. This forum, too, can mean something apart from the sensual perception of it; the significant thing is what it means to someone, and that that will not be the same thing to everyone.

I don't understand about the letters. Are you thinking, like, that a person uninformed on modern technology sees them and goes, "Ooh! Magic! How unnatural..."? (Adds a grunt for effect.)

The "seeming supernatural" that people "believe in" usually has to do with the spiritual and not the physical. There are, of course, though, people who have to "concretize the image" to be comfortable with the idea, to insist that some actual image of the Virgin Mary is all that they are looking at (through senses). But they are "seeing" (understanding) much more.

It has the meaning "the Virgin Mary is real to me" (note, not the same as "Virgin Mary is in the poop!"). If it has meaning for the person who sees it, then there is nothing "incorrect" about that, except to the person expecting that "that person should have a different belief than they do".
I absolutely agree with you. Finding a pattern in nonsense (noise) ("the poop") is what mind's do. And VERY meaningful. In fact, ONLY meaningful. But the meaning is "created" by the mind finding the pattern in the noise, and therefore tells us only about the mind, and not about anything else.

A mind finding pattern in noise (if it IS actual noise) says nothing about the "reality" of an actual "message" from anywhere BUT the mind itself.
Yes, the meaning that is created by the mind tells us something about the person. But the same meaning tells that person something about the thing, namely that what we would refer to as "what it means to them". I agree that it says nothing about the actual reality of the thing; I think most of them would agree, too.

We could go the other way and say that what the person saw in the cat droppings is equally a "correct illusion" (belief).
The "incorrectness" I was refering to was in HOLDING to a belief that is unbelievable.

The "image", and interpretation as that of the virgin mary (or susan) is quite correct.

It's when believing that this "vision" has any other meaning than "I need/want to see the virgin mary for some reason in this poop", that it's incorrect.

When people see Mary's visage, it's a "sign" that they need her help,.. but it's a sign from themselves to themselves. When one sees signs that are meaningful like this, one MUST believe that it's time to listen to "what Mary has to say to you at this special time" and act on it, because NOT to do so is a violation of the responsibility to listen to yourself (as the instrument of God) and do what needs to be done.

If "She" had no message for you, "She" wouldn't have been seen. And Ignoring those who you need for help is a VERY bad idea.
The person who sees the Virgin Mary in the poop is not the one holding to a belief that is unbelievable --it is not unbelievable to them, or they would not hold to it. I do think I see what you mean, though. There could be some "faking belief" (but that actually says nothing about belief), looking for Virgin Mary, actual or no, in the poop and not finding her, and still going along with the flow and insisting they "see" her. That would be "incorrect" belief. Those looking for an actual (sensual) Virgin Mary image and seeing "something that looks like her" are believing they see "something that looks like her", nothing more.

When people, as you suggest, assign a meaning to the perceived image, whether it be "help" or something else, that is a "message" or "sign", and it comes from themselves, and it is one they should rightly heed, as that is the natural thing to do. The unconscious mind does not lie. (This instinct can, though, be wilfully over-written by conscious effort, training or intent.)

Friend Computer

26-01-2006, 18:11

If there is a God, why does he allow threads like this?

The South Islands

26-01-2006, 18:13

If there is a God, why does he allow threads like this?

Because we have free will. ;)

Grave_n_idle

26-01-2006, 18:14

If there is a God, why does he allow threads like this?

Why would 'god' NOT allow such threads... indeed.. what makes you think 'god' could stop us?

It sounds like you think you have an understanding of what 'god' might be, and how 'god' might react... but what if that image of 'god' is JUST an image?

What if there is a 'god'... but he is no different to you and I?

Willamena

26-01-2006, 20:46

Why would 'god' NOT allow such threads... indeed.. what makes you think 'god' could stop us?

It sounds like you think you have an understanding of what 'god' might be, and how 'god' might react... but what if that image of 'god' is JUST an image?

What if there is a 'god'... but he is no different to you and I?
Oh, pooh! Don't try to put the thread back on topic...

Grave_n_idle

26-01-2006, 20:56

Oh, pooh! Don't try to put the thread back on topic...

Sorry.. it was an accident... I was trying to post off-topic in the communism thread....

Willamena

26-01-2006, 20:58

Sorry.. it was an accident... I was trying to post off-topic in the communism thread....
:eek: oh! well done, then!

Grave_n_idle

26-01-2006, 21:27

:eek: oh! well done, then!

Thank... I just am that good. ;)

Willamena

26-01-2006, 21:57

In the true spirit of off-topiciness...

It's not about typing, per se, but it is all about categorizing TYPES of personalities so that characteristic "probable futures" can be described to those with those identified personality types.

It is about "telling the future" in the same way that one "tells the future" to an obstinant fool who insists on doing handstands on narrow window sills 10 stories up that it's highly probable that he will fall to his death.
I take it you are talking about the Zodiac signs, and while they are a part of astrology, I think it missing the point to say that they are what astrology is about. That's like saying karate is about chopping boards in half with the flat of your hand.

Astrology's purpose is not predicting the future, but resolving issues.

Hmm,.. was observing the heavenly bodies and their "effects" around before the systematic human study of those same heavenly bodies....?
No, probably not... but divination was. :)

Let's see,.. Long before humans, there were fish that could observe that when the moon was REALLY bright, more of the beach was covered by water. They eventually started timing their mating habits to these bright moons. They noticed (though not with the same type of "mind" that we humans have so their "interpretations" were a bit different) that this was a good thing, and kept doing it, to the point where it became imbedded in their very biology (DNA).

That is super-ancient astrology/divination. It is the application of discovered patterns to "predicting" (and using) the probable "best way" to do something.

I would also call this, simply, observing and understanding the universe (reality) in a useful way.
The idea of fish deliberately timing things is silly. Next thing you know, they'll be talking! ;)

Your story would make sense if astrology was about "effects" observed that coincide with external events. Unfortunately, that's not a realistic (:)) interpretation of what is going on when an astrologer does astrology.

Divination is garnering knowledge about a third party from the perspective of a second party.

The seer with her crystal ball and the scryer do this: the client is the third party, and the pattern revealed in the crystal ball or the pool or water (symbols) is the second party. The tea-leaf reader does this: the client is the third party, and the pattern (symbols) in the randomly placed leaves is the second party. The teenaged girl at a house party does this: her best friend is the third party, and the fellow whose intention she is trying to read through reading his body language (symbols) across the crowded room is the second party (edit: provided she learns something about her best friend that she didn't know before). And the ID scientist does this: God is the third party, and the "design" (symbols) revealed in nature is the second party.

And the astrologer does this: the symbols he has jotted down on paper, taken from the sight in the heavens at an arbitrary moment, is the second party. The positions of the planets (the "moving stars", the "gods") are the significant symbols of astrology, once placed against the backdrop of the fixed stars (the constellations along the ecliptic), and now placed relevant to a topical Zodiac of 360° along the ecliptic. Those 7 symbols of the visible planets can be used to describe any event, both physical and spiritual. They then can be manipulated, according to the rules of the divination, to "see" what would happen (note, not what "will" happen).

It is not necessary to have determined a regular, repeating pattern in order to do divination. Yes; it might have worked out that regular patterns for the planets were plotted before astrology devised, but it's not a necessary step. All that is required is that the constellations have been named and symbolized, and a sampling of the heavens made "in the moment" (a moment relevant to the issues being resolved) on paper (or whatever medium). This is ancient astrology. Modern astrology makes good use of the precise topical Zodiac, the precise ephemeris and tables of houses, the precise graphic horoscopes, etc. all of which grew out of astronomy.

The astrologer's/diviner's job is to help others see patterns that the diviner has studied so that the others can act more wisely.

What is your conception of the astrologer's/diviner's job?
The astrologer's job is to help the client resolve issues. The astrologer gives advice. The fact of it coming from the unconscious mind (which does not lie) makes it good advice. Wisdom, on the part of the astrologer or the client, is another matter.

The event for which a horoscope is drawn is almost always in the present, sometimes the past. Charts made of a future moment are not of real events; the future hasn't happened yet, so there's no event to make a chart of. More importantly, there is no way to connect the symbols to anything real.

Willamena

03-02-2006, 20:22

Bodinia, you sure deleted a lot of posts. ;)

Deiakeos

03-02-2006, 21:15

In the true spirit of off-topiciness...

I take it you are talking about the Zodiac signs, and while they are a part of astrology, I think it missing the point to say that they are what astrology is about. That's like saying karate is about chopping boards in half with the flat of your hand.

Astrology's purpose is not predicting the future, but resolving issues.

I agree. So there..!! <pfffffffffffffffffttt..!>

No, probably not... but divination was. :)

The idea of fish deliberately timing things is silly. Next thing you know, they'll be talking! ;)

Also true, and I agree. Fish with watches are BLASPHEMY!! Fish TALKING
are,... Democrats..!! <the horror!>

But I've watched flowers follow the sun, so,.. I don't know what to say
next... <cringe>

Your story would make sense if astrology was about "effects" observed that coincide with external events. Unfortunately, that's not a realistic (:)) interpretation of what is going on when an astrologer does astrology.

What does an astrologer do when "doing" astrology?

Divination is garnering knowledge about a third party from the perspective of a second party.

In other words, asking a friend about that friend's friend?

The seer with her crystal ball and the scryer do this: the client is the third party, and the pattern revealed in the crystal ball or the pool or water (symbols) is the second party. The tea-leaf reader does this: the client is the third party, and the pattern (symbols) in the randomly placed leaves is the second party. The teenaged girl at a house party does this: her best friend is the third party, and the fellow whose intention she is trying to read through reading his body language (symbols) across the crowded room is the second party (edit: provided she learns something about her best friend that she didn't know before). And the ID scientist does this: God is the third party, and the "design" (symbols) revealed in nature is the second party.

Hmmm,.. your "second parties" are merely things sufficiently vague (and
complex) that they allow the first party (diviner) to "fuzz their mind" to where
they can "pick up info" from either the third party, or from the "previously
unnoticed connections" in the mind of the first party.

And the astrologer does this: the symbols he has jotted down on paper, taken from the sight in the heavens at an arbitrary moment, is the second party. The positions of the planets (the "moving stars", the "gods") are the significant symbols of astrology, once placed against the backdrop of the fixed stars (the constellations along the ecliptic), and now placed relevant to a topical Zodiac of 360° along the ecliptic. Those 7 symbols of the visible planets can be used to describe any event, both physical and spiritual. They then can be manipulated, according to the rules of the divination, to "see" what would happen (note, not what "will" happen).

So it's a REALLY complex second party and a REALLY vague third party. OK.

It is not necessary to have determined a regular, repeating pattern in order to do divination. Yes; it might have worked out that regular patterns for the planets were plotted before astrology devised, but it's not a necessary step. All that is required is that the constellations have been named and symbolized, and a sampling of the heavens made "in the moment" (a moment relevant to the issues being resolved) on paper (or whatever medium). This is ancient astrology. Modern astrology makes good use of the precise topical Zodiac, the precise ephemeris and tables of houses, the precise graphic horoscopes, etc. all of which grew out of astronomy.

ANY arbitrary set of sufficiently complex weirdness (as using tea leaves and
heavenly bodies shows) can be used for the purpose of "divination".

And all any divination points at, shows us, are the connections that arise in
the mind of the diviner. Nothing more whatsoever.

If the diviner is sufficiently intuitive (of whatever the subject matter in
question might be), then "good" results flow.

But astrology as a "utility", a tool, is simply to probe the mind of the diviner.

The astrologer's job is to help the client resolve issues. The astrologer gives advice. The fact of it coming from the unconscious mind (which does not lie) makes it good advice. Wisdom, on the part of the astrologer or the client, is another matter.

That's correct. The diviner's job is to give advice, based on the contents of
the diviner's mind.

The event for which a horoscope is drawn is almost always in the present, sometimes the past. Charts made of a future moment are not of real events; the future hasn't happened yet, so there's no event to make a chart of. More importantly, there is no way to connect the symbols to anything real.

OK,... that's a description of uselessness. Thanks for that.

-Iakeo

NationStates Jolt Archive

A challenge to Religious People - Page 2