Atheism

[coaly]

Shamans! I laugh at that. :lol: Apologies, but I do. I find it quite funny. Maybe we should all get blotto on drugs, rather than attempt to progress the human race, and try to understand what and how!

 

[cranionaut]

Shamans! I laugh at that. :lol: Apologies, but I do. I find it quite funny. Maybe we should all get blotto on drugs, rather than attempt to progress the human race, and try to understand what and how!

What do you think humanity has been doing ?

Its addicted to ego , maerialism , ignorance and many other things which is why - when we do have technology we use it in an unethical way i.e. at the expense of the very planet we live on.

Now that isnt very smart is it ?

I would not compare reckless weekend drug binges or pub crawls quite the same as what these cultures practiced , your comment indicates very little understanding of what its involved and the fact the drugs arent needed to be used by shaman really that much - if at all.

Theres difference between entheogens and man made drugs i.e. you can get away with taking heroin etc up to point - but try that with something ayahasuca and you find'll your ass where your head should be.

Unless you come prepared and with respect , and not inertia like most - you aint going to like what you see when the plant spirit talks.

Of course anything abused is going to mess you up , to blame the plant is like blaming the car for the drivers death if he was driving too fast.

 

[coaly]

I'm not blaming a plant my friend, after all, the human took the drugs, the human faces the consequences of hallucinating and going insane. As regards a plant talking, well, that's just simply the same thing. People who try to find spiritual self by using drugs, is like someone getting close to nature, by living in a lead lined bunker with a virtual reality machine. Yes, the human way has been typically unethical, but what are ethics? Why are most people compassionate? That is what makes us different to the other animals of the world. This, intrinsically, is what Dawkins talks about, in difference to what theologists waffle about. Compassion without religious, or God fearing dogmas. To be Godless, and ethical, is more sincere than being moralistic simply because you fear punishment. As he once said to a leading religious leader, "So your belief in God, is the only prevention from you, say, killing and raping?" (Or something similar) But that's another story. "Mind cosmo/astronauts" are simply exploiting the human weakness, not enhancing it. Maybe they feel a better understanding, and self awareness, but the only guarantee a human can get of this, is to stand in the hot desert, with no clothes, no food or drink and no technology, to be stripped bare. We're all fallible, afterall.

 

[cranionaut]

I'm not blaming a plant my friend, after all, the human took the drugs, the human faces the consequences of hallucinating and going insane. As regards a plant talking, well, that's just simply the same thing. People who try to find spiritual self by using drugs, is like someone getting close to nature, by living in a lead lined bunker with a virtual reality machine. Yes, the human way has been typically unethical, but what are ethics? Why are most people compassionate? That is what makes us different to the other animals of the world. This, intrinsically, is what Dawkins talks about, in difference to what theologists waffle about. Compassion without religious, or God fearing dogmas. To be Godless, and ethical, is more sincere than being moralistic simply because you fear punishment. As he once said to a leading religious leader, "So your belief in God, is the only prevention from you, say, killing and raping?" (Or something similar) But that's another story. "Mind cosmo/astronauts" are simply exploiting the human weakness, not enhancing it. Maybe they feel a better understanding, and self awareness, but the only guarantee a human can get of this, is to stand in the hot desert, with no clothes, no food or drink and no technology, to be stripped bare. We're all fallible, afterall.

Well I disagree , I dont think most humans are compassionate at all , as I said just look at the planet and how they've treated other animals whom they consider inferior .

Just look at Africa or the countless wars or the average individual.

There are countless examples of the insidious natures of humans to expoilt and control - hence why most of the earth itself owned by small minority while the rest are poor or suffer.

So I disagree , what makes human different and dangerous is their reason , ability to create - i it werent wed still be in the jungles competeing with wild life.

Its this creation , of beleifs , ideals and then the need to make it material / seperate from each other till we are seperate oursleves that is dangerous because it creates illusion , ego and sufering.


Theologian argument is indeed flawed if you look at it from Dawkins pespective because hes suggesting godless compassion is more unique or special therefore sincere , but by that note and as I already said , it also suggest it doenst exist much either.i.e. giving to children need once a year while exploting your workers does not = compassion - its not something you turn on / off to suit yourself unless you have a reason too. ( the intellect has countless reasons )

If anything , unless it was an aim , I would not trust someone who usually exhibited bad traits to suddenly do me a good turn , would you ?



Your astronaut example makes no sense , humans always are aced with their mortality and weakness, but you and dawkins miss the point of how that very mortality is actually the very foundation of many faiths i.e. self awareness or as more new age folk like Tolle call the " NOW"

If you dont think this awareness of mortality or death is any good just look at the technology that leaped during the war , or how we used it to fuel our curious minds and developed science itself.

If the world was under attack from aliens tomorrow do you really think wed all still be worried about climate change or what was on x factor ?

The fakirs of India quite literally sit without nothing in the same postion for years to transcend their body , and of course many buddhists have been known to meditate in caves for years too .

Death which is really the human interptation of the unkown is powerful tool for developing that part of yourself ( conciouness ) that doesnt happen to most folk under normal circumstances .

Mist attribute fear to the unkown , and that is certainly part of it , but its also part that used and justified by their intellect every day to remain trapped the way they are too .i.e you dont need to be in space to be helpess , just look at how miserable most folk are , in jobs, work , relationships.

Perhaps the fear isnt it quite as obvious but it = the same thing i.e. no job , money , illness helpness again and of course death and the unkown.

 

[cranionaut]

I am not trying to put down the intellect or ability to reason in fact the opposite - is so powerful ( a bit lke wildhorse ) that without being aware of it , it can run anywhere and get lost - hence why so many become slaves to it )

It for the very reason then , respect for the minds ability to create that a lot of these faiths developed such practices to disrput i.e. because the only way you could bypass was by using dierent approaches.

Even then the mind adapts , hence why the persuit of these practices is always usually an on going thing.

They realised and saw this danger of the mind to create and where it lead , that is why as species in spite of our technology we are still not better and in fact probably far less developed than we would like to believe.

Using intellect / ration all the time to interpt , express is akin to leaving a light on too long and then having to go to some other source and depelete it instead.

 

[coaly]

It depends how you interpret it. Of course a lot of humans are nasty, vicious bastards, but that's not all. Ok, most 'civilised' people aren't nasty shitbags, but to be human, to show compassion, to feel guilt, is what separates us completely from any other animal in the world. We use and abuse this, which is our nature, but I still stand on what I said. God fearing is dogmatic, and that is false, slavish and wrong. To be compassionate and ethical simply because you know it's right, is far more trustworthy and sincere than to be like that through fear of some supernatural belief.
Yes, Children In Need is once a year, so is Xmas, we all know that to be successful is to be ruthless, non sentimental, but this even has its boundaries. The bastard boss at work may treat their workers like shit, but does that automatically mean that they treat everyone like this? It's all selective. That's nature. It wouldn't work otherwise. If this world were an idealistic one, it wouldn't last 20 years. I would not harm, let alone kill a person, but not because I fear punishment or judgement in another life, or by a God, I feel guilt and sorrow, lament, not because I am told to feel it, but because it is in my nature, instinct. I like to think of myself as humanist, and attribute human marvels to humans, not some bloody God. Take credit for the good things you do. THe hard work which has paid off is due to you making the right choices, and doing it well. Not because some Mullah or priest, etc, has instilled some claptrap about fantasy into your mind, to make you subserviant.
Our mortality? This simply makes us appreciate our fragile and short existance. It makes us want to make the most of it. I celebrate life, not prepare for the next one, wasting the little time we have on Earth. Death to me, is the end. To a loved one, it is naturally, a heart breaking blow, but to the living, the dead live on in memory. Once you are dead, then, to yourself, you never existed at all. (In the voice of William Burroughs)
It would be quite scarey indeed, if all religious people suddenly realised that there is no God/Gods, and that was all that was stopping them becoming anarchistically devious!
Dawkins is a great believer in truth, or the nearest thing to it, and the quest for it. It may seem a little absolutist, but it's a damn site better than living with weak lies, and causing more grief than good. If you can't live your life how you wish, without compromising the welfare of others, then you should change your thinking, but live your life how you wish, with the minimal of harm to yourself and others, and you're doing everything right.

 

[cranionaut]

It depends how you interpret it. Of course a lot of humans are nasty, vicious bastards, but that's not all. Ok, most 'civilised' people aren't nasty shitbags, but to be human, to show compassion, to feel guilt, is what separates us completely from any other animal in the world. We use and abuse this, which is our nature, but I still stand on what I said. God fearing is dogmatic, and that is false, slavish and wrong. To be compassionate and ethical simply because you know it's right, is far more trustworthy and sincere than to be like that through fear of some supernatural belief.
Yes, Children In Need is once a year, so is Xmas, we all know that to be successful is to be ruthless, non sentimental, but this even has its boundaries. The bastard boss at work may treat their workers like shit, but does that automatically mean that they treat everyone like this? It's all selective. That's nature. It wouldn't work otherwise. If this world were an idealistic one, it wouldn't last 20 years. I would not harm, let alone kill a person, but not because I fear punishment or judgement in another life, or by a God, I feel guilt and sorrow, lament, not because I am told to feel it, but because it is in my nature, instinct. I like to think of myself as humanist, and attribute human marvels to humans, not some bloody God. Take credit for the good things you do. THe hard work which has paid off is due to you making the right choices, and doing it well. Not because some Mullah or priest, etc, has instilled some claptrap about fantasy into your mind, to make you subserviant.
Our mortality? This simply makes us appreciate our fragile and short existance. It makes us want to make the most of it. I celebrate life, not prepare for the next one, wasting the little time we have on Earth. Death to me, is the end. To a loved one, it is naturally, a heart breaking blow, but to the living, the dead live on in memory. Once you are dead, then, to yourself, you never existed at all. (In the voice of William Burroughs)
It would be quite scarey indeed, if all religious people suddenly realised that there is no God/Gods, and that was all that was stopping them becoming anarchistically devious!
Dawkins is a great believer in truth, or the nearest thing to it, and the quest for it. It may seem a little absolutist, but it's a damn site better than living with weak lies, and causing more grief than good. If you can't live your life how you wish, without compromising the welfare of others, then you should change your thinking, but live your life how you wish, with the minimal of harm to yourself and others, and you're doing everything right.

Well it seem your idea of religion is based mainly on the popular western notion of it i.e. Christian or Catholic

Under those terms i agree completely that is bs , the idea itself is nothing more than something subverted to suit the interests of others , mianly political as I understand it and control.

I dont think the interptation of these popular religions are the same as the one they were originally intended to be i.e. you just have look at the Judas manuscript and how greatly it differs from the other gospels to see that.

You dont think animals show compassion ?

What about mans best friend , that some of the best uncoditional / no strings attached love , a human can experince without finding it himself.

 

[cranionaut]

You got to remember too a lot of relgion is really just metaphors for something else , not something literally i.e. rather like a code that only be understood by those have experince or access to the knowledge - and i by this i dont mean reasoning

Its the reason and the inability of the intellect to decipher it in its pure form that leads to misinteprtation and typical need for humans to fit into anything that makes sense .

 

[coaly]

You're talking about spiritual experiences? Then reasoning also explains these, and has done.
Dogs as an example of compassion? Misinterprited anthropomorphic idealism more like. That faithful, reciprocating friend will eat your genitals, then your face if it has to, in order to fill its stomach. It only appears to show you unconditional love because it thinks you are its pack leader and sole sustinance, the bread winner. Human beings are the only creatures on Earth who have compassion to others and feel guilt. Don't get me wrong, I'm more of an animal lover/appreciater than most, and for reasons I won't discuss, I have the upmost respect for them (the wild variety anyway.)
So I'm not just bitching. Border collies, on the other hand, aren't actually dogs. No, they are superior beings, capable of extraordinary feats of intelligence. They don't even regard themselves as dogs, (and I don't just mean on the concept of self awareness here!) They are cool. But seriously, humans are the only creatures who have evolved with this, if you like... freaky nuance of guilt and compassion, *much to our detrement*... and we should just accept humans for what they are, instead of going over moral dillemas, and hating each other. Humans aren't as bad as all that. We do protect ourselves by choice, and we do lots of things by choice, think of the arts, mucic, theatre, sport, inventors, scientists, thinkers, doers, innovators etc. All other creatures act on instinct, as there's no reason for any other act. I'd say that other animals kill and destroy much much more than us humans do or have, and we progress. But this is going past the point of this thread, I think.

 

[cranionaut]

" Dogs as an example of compassion? Misinterprited anthropomorphic idealism more like. That faithful, reciprocating friend will eat your genitals, then your face if it has to, in order to fill its stomach "

And a human wouldnt ?

I suggest you watch the film , " Alive " then and explain how this theory does not apply humans .

i.e. uncoditional love does not mean its above the laws of instinct to survive - also not all relationships are the same i.e. some humans treat their dogs better than others .

The point is a dog will not judge , criticise you unless you give it a good reason i.e. its own survival being under threat

That is not the same as a human who usually judge others based on some self inventory that itself is a illusion - there is no illusion when facting you mortality death i.e. the example you gave

 

[cranionaut]

" Human beings are the only creatures on Earth who have compassion to others and feel guilt. Don't get me wrong, I'm more of an animal lover/appreciater than most, and for reasons I won't discuss, I have the upmost respect for them (the wild variety anyway.) "

Guilt eh , so I guess all this warning about the state of the planet is bullshit then ?

Guilty means nothing other than self pity , its hardly a worthy attribute and pretty meaningless given its plays to the victims concioness for mercy . compassion

Animals kill for necessity not greed to acquire power or control , they are far more effecient at what they do than humans , who spend most of their time indulging in themselves or their persuite of " happiness " .

It completey different life unless your in the military or some life threatening sitaution - ironically usually as result of the very traits that keep humans farmed in.

 

[cranionaut]

You're talking about spiritual experiences? Then reasoning also explains these, and has done.
Dogs as an example of compassion? Misinterprited anthropomorphic idealism more like. That faithful, reciprocating friend will eat your genitals, then your face if it has to, in order to fill its stomach. It only appears to show you unconditional love because it thinks you are its pack leader and sole sustinance, the bread winner. Human beings are the only creatures on Earth who have compassion to others and feel guilt. Don't get me wrong, I'm more of an animal lover/appreciater than most, and for reasons I won't discuss, I have the upmost respect for them (the wild variety anyway.)
So I'm not just bitching. Border collies, on the other hand, aren't actually dogs. No, they are superior beings, capable of extraordinary feats of intelligence. They don't even regard themselves as dogs, (and I don't just mean on the concept of self awareness here!) They are cool. But seriously, humans are the only creatures who have evolved with this, if you like... freaky nuance of guilt and compassion, *much to our detrement*... and we should just accept humans for what they are, instead of going over moral dillemas, and hating each other. Humans aren't as bad as all that. We do protect ourselves by choice, and we do lots of things by choice, think of the arts, mucic, theatre, sport, inventors, scientists, thinkers, doers, innovators etc. All other creatures act on instinct, as there's no reason for any other act. I'd say that other animals kill and destroy much much more than us humans do or have, and we progress. But this is going past the point of this thread, I think.

If animals only act on instinct then what causes them to do things like save humans when they have no need too ?

Are you telling me a school of dolphins whom saved some swimmers recently from sharks were just doing it out of confusion ?

Because getting all their buddies together to protect them ( the only way they could of ) sounds a lot like not only compassion ( esp given mans reputation ) but also pretty smart thinking to me .

I also read a tale about some monkeys taking revenge on a hunter who killed one of their own i.e. they actually found out where he lived and killed him.

So again , you tell me where this comes from ?

 

[rynner2]

This ongoing duologue seems to have very little to do with Dawkins, and might be more suited to the Atheism thread, for example.

 

[cranionaut]

This ongoing duologue seems to have very little to do with Dawkins, and might be more suited to the Atheism thread, for example.

I'll think about it , or maybe open dawkins donuts thread if I feel like getting my ass flogged by the the pathological skeptics out there.

 

[stu neville]

This ongoing duologue seems to have very little to do with Dawkins, and might be more suited to the Atheism thread, for example.

I'll think about it...

No need for you to think about it, the relevant bits have been hived off and merged with the Atheism thread.

 

[coaly]

Sorry, but some "lovely" news about some *Yawn again* dolphins 'saving' humans, and a few chimps killing a hunter, hardly proves any sort of compassion outside instinct. Elephants do the same thing. It proves nothing, I'm afraid.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

Sorry, but some "lovely" news about some *Yawn again* dolphins 'saving' humans, and a few chimps killing a hunter, hardly proves any sort of compassion outside instinct. Elephants do the same thing. It proves nothing, I'm afraid.

Always good to see the scientific method being applied so rigorously and methodically. :lol:

 

[coaly]

HAHA! Sorry, I was being rushed, as it is Xmas, and was in the morning.
What I meant to convey, was that, although people have witnessed such seeming acts of compassion towards humans, from other animals, it's not the same thing. A lot of animal species will congregate and see off predetors, it's in their instinct. The behaviour probably is, ironically, confusion based upon instinct. But I'd say that elephants have displayed the most human like behaviour patterns, such as grief and revenge, more than any other non-human animal. But this isn't even atheism, it's more existentialism, but for the most, natural history. So don't ask me why it's turned into this thread, from the Dawkins thread. The tangent and variables would still the mind! Spiritualism to existentialism in 8 posts! HAHA! :lol:

 

[cranionaut]

HAHA! Sorry, I was being rushed, as it is Xmas, and was in the morning.
What I meant to convey, was that, although people have witnessed such seeming acts of compassion towards humans, from other animals, it's not the same thing. A lot of animal species will congregate and see off predetors, it's in their instinct.

If it was instinct then why isnt there more reports of " wild " animals saving humans ,or for that matter any other animal in danger ?

Are you trying to say that protecting other species is instinctive to all animsls apart from the more " compassionate " / intelligent humans who actions are and have been responsible for killing them ?

Are you telling me its sign of compassion to take monkey or dog and peform vivisection on it without even sedation and then justify it in the name of " humanity " and science ?

i could think of a lot of humans who deserve this kind of treatmen far more than any other creature whose done nothing - esp when we're supposed to be so " compassionate " as you say.

 

[coaly]

I agree entirely on the vivisection department, having been on many protests in the past, (BUAV, Uncaged etc)... It's a tricky one, and one which returns this subject back to the thread. Some humans are genuinely compassionate, others are compassionate under dogma, and some are simply overly selective about their compassion and ethics. Speciesist is putting it too much, but nevertheless, this is what it is. Necesarry evils? Maybe, afterall, a cow wouldn't give a shit if a human was being tortured, skinned, eaten, etc. But that's besides the point: I would be as guilty of anthropomorphic reasoning as a child there. My point is, and this boils back down to Dawkins, and indeed much more natural history/anthropology... human beings have developed, whether right or wrong, the attributes which give them the ability to feel guilt, one which is unique to humans. The dolphins in question found humans to be of little or no threat, but the shark, a natural one. The monkeys? Were they monkeys or apes? I have to research the stories you used as examples, and get back to you. I am enjoying this little debate. Thank you.

 

[cranionaut]

I think your over complicating it .

humans have bassic emotions which animals seem to possess i.e. happiness, anger , sadness, fear

anything inbetween that, like guilt , remore , are just a mixture of a few and good dose of humanitys need to create / label in reference to itself ie. the ego

When you get down to the purest of these emotions then you have a purity of thought that isnt the result of this ego and direct to the source itself i,e. you / god - as above so below , i.e. god is within and once recognised ( love ) is also everywhere else.

You can not acquire love without knowing it , and that can only be done through you on an intimate level - not charity , not by going to church - but within .

This is not something most folk are capable of without it happening against their will , so of course its easy to denounce it on account of anything you like - its investment not something you can cross and then come back from and forget it as you would a tv show.


So you see , as long as humans are creating and using those illusions that they think think are unique , the more isolated they become - that is why logic / reasoning can not address god - in as much as I couldnt put the universe into a jam jar.

Reasong whatever you want to call it , is purely a human invention its is not the standard for everything or even ourselves or else we would already know everything.

 

[rynner2]

Reasong whatever you want to call it , is purely a human invention its is not the standard for everything or even ourselves or else we already know everything.

Much as God is 'a human invention', methinks.

Any definition of God? Any proof that that defined God exists? No, I thought not...

 

[cranionaut]

Reasong whatever you want to call it , is purely a human invention its is not the standard for everything or even ourselves or else we already know everything.

Much as God is 'a human invention', methinks.

Any definition of God? Any proof that that defined God exists? No, I thought not...

Of course gods a human invention .

i never said it wasnt but pointed out the limitation of being human , one being that its impossible to impart knowledge or this knowing simply through every day descriptions . words - that is why myth was invented.

And there plenty of myths and descriptions from cultures in different parts of the world referring to the same stories / archetypes i.e. how was that possible ?

Jung called this collective unconcious - some might also use that as an example of " god " .

 

[coaly]

Collective unconcious... or, more realistically, we all share the same organs, including brains. we even share the same instincts. That's because we are all human beings.
Your posts appear to be on the realms of Yogi or buddhism, or similar, *forgive my generalisations*. I once had a debate with some American bloke on the net, about 9 years ago. He was religious, but wanted to have a philosophical debate about theism and atheism with me. At one point, I remember saying to him, (this was all done on voice chat)... "If religion is genuinely the experience of being touched by God, then it would happen without the teachings or societal cohersion of organised beliefs. It doesn't happen, not even in the wild." To which he completely arrogantly replied, "Yes it does. There have been instances where remote tribes have followed some Gods or other" I specifically stated "without cohersion". If a person has been abandoned in the wild, and, for whatever reason, they have survived, they are 'Godless'. They may have superstitions, granted, but that's simply survival instinct , but they certainly don't interpret any emotions or reactions as Godlike. Now, some people could say that it is because they don't have a benchmark, as it were, with any religious feeling, but it's not that black and white. Children don't come out of their mothers, "loving Jesus". Animals don't rever the crucifix, etc... and another thing, slightly related, (well, extremely related, depending on your views!)... Children tend to "see things" and believe things, which they don't, as they grow up. This is used as an example of humans losing their abilities to see the supernatural, a loss of innocence which we once had. Claptrap. It's simple pure ignorance and immaturity, similar to primative tribes believing whatever is attributed to whatever, apart from the truth. In this way, some people believe they have supernatural powers, or supernatural powers effect their lives. Not that I'm calling them immature or thick, or even insane, but you get my drift.
Anyway, back to Atheism; I don't believe in God/s because I think on my feet, have a thirst for knowledge (like all Forteans) and I'm not gullible, or taken in easily, or live my life with so much guilt and fear of accepting my own responsibilities for my actions, be they right or wrong, but I can tell you this, apparantly, every year, I save about 200 animals from cruelty and death. How's that for compassion? And my only reward? Being able to live with myself.

 

[cranionaut]

Collective unconcious... or, more realistically, we all share the same organs, including brains. we even share the same instincts. That's because we are all human beings.
Your posts appear to be on the realms of Yogi or buddhism, or similar, *forgive my generalisations*. I once had a debate with some American bloke on the net, about 9 years ago. He was religious, but wanted to have a philosophical debate about theism and atheism with me. At one point, I remember saying to him, (this was all done on voice chat)... "If religion is genuinely the experience of being touched by God, then it would happen without the teachings or societal cohersion of organised beliefs. It doesn't happen, not even in the wild." To which he completely arrogantly replied, "Yes it does. There have been instances where remote tribes have followed some Gods or other" I specifically stated "without cohersion". If a person has been abandoned in the wild, and, for whatever reason, they have survived, they are 'Godless'. They may have superstitions, granted, but that's simply survival instinct , but they certainly don't interpret any emotions or reactions as Godlike. Now, some people could say that it is because they don't have a benchmark, as it were, with any religious feeling, but it's not that black and white. Children don't come out of their mothers, "loving Jesus". Animals don't rever the crucifix, etc... and another thing, slightly related, (well, extremely related, depending on your views!)... Children tend to "see things" and believe things, which they don't, as they grow up. This is used as an example of humans losing their abilities to see the supernatural, a loss of innocence which we once had. Claptrap. It's simple pure ignorance and immaturity, similar to primative tribes believing whatever is attributed to whatever, apart from the truth. In this way, some people believe they have supernatural powers, or supernatural powers effect their lives. Not that I'm calling them immature or thick, or even insane, but you get my drift.
Anyway, back to Atheism; I don't believe in God/s because I think on my feet, have a thirst for knowledge (like all Forteans) and I'm not gullible, or taken in easily, or live my life with so much guilt and fear of accepting my own responsibilities for my actions, be they right or wrong, but I can tell you this, apparantly, every year, I save about 200 animals from cruelty and death. How's that for compassion? And my only reward? Being able to live with myself.

I think your trying to " reduce " generalise a bit too much again i.e. our bodies ( which have yet to be understood ) might in theory all be the same to start with physically - but that does not take into account the soul or whatevery you like to call it that inside them nor their " potential " compared to somone with say countless karma .

It also does not take into account quirks genetic or otherwise that person may / may not have that make them mroe suited to cetain things than others , nor does does into account other intangibles like social enviroment , " fate ".

The instincts then of someone then who awareness is reduced to simply reacting ( the average human ) , is not the same as somone whose who life aim is accutely aware of whats passing i.e. their life . ( the aware human ) is like 2 different species.

Tests on meditating monks have shown highly evolved activity in the brain that is not measurably in everyday l humans , and that this activity has also affected the phyiscal aspects of those invovled areas too .


So i have to say that I disagree here one again

" If religion is genuinely the experience of being touched by God, then it would happen without the teachings or societal cohersion of organised beliefs. It doesn't happen, not even in the wild." To which he completely arrogantly replied, "Yes it does. There have been instances where remote tribes have followed some Gods or other" I specifically stated "without cohersion". If a person has been abandoned in the wild, and, for whatever reason, th "

This makes no sense i.e. if a person has been abandoned then how would any one else know what happened to him , or what he knew unless he came into human contact.

Perhaps its just me but I ssomehow doubt they had video cam handy at those times these things were going on , not that would show anything other than what you saw any way ..

Besdies - there are examples of many people having or experincing liffe changing events isolated i.e. the wounded healer who become the shaman , OBE's , NDEs and yes even my own experinces and others I know too - who like you did not believe , or were sitting on the fence.

This does not make me believer in the New Testament version of God , but it does make me believe in something beyond what I call " normal human perception " that wanst measurable to anything else I ever experinced before.

 

[coaly]

We know, because when these "ferel humans" have been discovered, they had no religious sense. * I shan't go into the whole autism debate etc*
This thread's about atheism, not whether the human mind can better the body through meditation. Meditating neither proves nor disproves the existance of God/Gods. It merely shows that the human mind is capable of extreme consentration and controls the body to a certain extent. Spiritual feelings, "NDE" etc can be attributed to the brain also, and experiments have shown this, (anyone who was born in the last 40 years must have seen or read about this. ) Your personal beliefs are based on subjective experience, which is fine, and no one should knock it, but remember, that's all it is, until someone/thing proves otherwise. People can believe in what they want, as long as it doesn't interfere with other people's lives or compromise them and cause suffering. (This extends to animals and the environment too, of course.) But to state things as factual, when they have no bearing on facts, is stretchin the boundaries somewhat. I'm not agnostic, I'm a-theist. I have no religious beliefs, I have no belief in the supernatural. Some people insist that, because atheists cannot know for sure that there is no life after death, it is foolish for them not to believe in it, at best, they should suspend belief and be agnostic. This is crap though, as, to be consistantly agnostic, one would be agnostic about everything which cannot be proved one way or the other. This would mean that everyone would be agnostic, because there is no absolute certainty, and it is possible that evidence may arise to show you are wrong. But who in their right mind would say that we should think, "I neither believe nor disbelieve that the pope is a robot"? Or "As towhether or not reading this forum would turn us into black holes, I am agnostic."? In the absence of any good reason to believe these outlandish claims, we rightly disbelieve them, we don't just suspend judgement. Just because things are defeasible, doesn't make them less likely.

 

[cranionaut]

From your posts it seems your only aware of the " spoon-feed variety of religion " i.e. where you went to Sunday School and were conditioned just like SImon Cowell on tv conditions people to buy crap music.

The other sort is the one that usually happens round middle age or after ( when children are gone ) that become hobby or some need to fill up the boredom or apathy thats set in as result of unspectacular lives i.e. Hollywood celebrates , single mothers with too many bad dates etc etc

From my experience this route is rare in men because women in general are attracted to the unkown.

But the third and the type I mentioned in my last post is independent of these things i.e. it happens usually young , and has too really for it to happen - unless you had near death experience or some brush with death.

Now ,I’m not saying the first 2 examples don’t - or cant produce instances where someone becomes learned- because obviously that environment happens all the time in school / temples etc

Or that in the 2nd example cant lead to the first, or even the third , but I do know ( personally ) that with those that skip right to the 3rd threes usually never any question or doubt , simply because they weren’t searching for it in the first place.

In others words you don’t choose it , it chooses you.

In that regards, as form of pure experince, I thinks its always better to experince without infleunces , the only downside that is that is also means you are very unprepared i.e. there is pretty much no turning back - not just because you own energy body has evolved and demands of you but that you own " inner being " becomes restless and unsatisfied with the everday garden variety of pereception thats usually accompanies life and social interaction - why do you think so many wise men , shaman are detached from it ?

its not just some romantic ideal of nature , its actually serves a practical purpose too i.e. it becomees a real struggle / chaallange existing in that sort of undesirable enviroment.

That is not say some cant or dont ( 4th way . gurdjieff ) but that it doesnt usually suit everyone unless it done for specific aim.

 

[coaly]

Again, (And I'm not nit picking, or being offensive intentionally here...) you speak of shamans etc, as if they are right. Also, speaking of subjectivity in this way, is akin to saying, "When someone becomes mentally ill, without any previous concept of it, they are unprepared, and haven't been 'schooled' on the subject." Just because someone experiences a personal 'journey', and it is mainstream, or taught, doesn't make it any less tangible to the person, or, for that matter, righteous, than non "spoon fed" ones. They are, for all intents and purposes, the same thing. If someone were to come to you with tales of goblins and pixies, would you think it was less righteous than say, having an uplifting spiritual experience, where everything in the universe became one, and so close to your heart that you felt in union with all things? If one argues that one cannot disprove the existance of the supernatural, then one can also argue,(and with the same amount of feasibility) that one cannot disprove the existance a creator, who is a ball of dung with ears, who created everything in the image of its pet wooly comb. Which would make for as ridiculous amount of philosophical shredding and beliefs. Most people have experienced at least some form of what could be thought of as a spiritual or highly religious experience, but it doesn't mean that it is. THe human brain is a fragile thing, full of flaws and highly vulnerable to misinterpeting the outside world. But we don't have to go beyond the boundaries of reality, argue what is reality, and push into what ifs, when we perceive this 'reality', and manage so. It's unecessary to assume that the world around us, isn't what we perceive it to be, and there could be tons of dimensions/ realities/universes. I am not, by any means, living a mainstream and 'spoon fed' life. I'm not what could be considered very conformist either. I have my alternative lifestyle, passions etc, so I'm not speaking as a gullible rubber haired clone robot in the rat race. Neither am I a sucker for black and white.

 

[cranionaut]

Again, (And I'm not nit picking, or being offensive intentionally here...) you speak of shamans etc, as if they are right. Also, speaking of subjectivity in this way, is akin to saying, "When someone becomes mentally ill, without any previous concept of it, they are unprepared, and haven't been 'schooled' on the subject." Just because someone experiences a personal 'journey', and it is mainstream, or taught, doesn't make it any less tangible to the person, or, for that matter, righteous, than non "spoon fed" ones. They are, for all intents and purposes, the same thing. If someone were to come to you with tales of goblins and pixies, would you think it was less righteous than say, having an uplifting spiritual experience, where everything in the universe became one, and so close to your heart that you felt in union with all things? If one argues that one cannot disprove the existance of the supernatural, then one can also argue,(and with the same amount of feasibility) that one cannot disprove the existance a creator, who is a ball of dung with ears, who created everything in the image of its pet wooly comb. Which would make for as ridiculous amount of philosophical shredding and beliefs. Most people have experienced at least some form of what could be thought of as a spiritual or highly religious experience, but it doesn't mean that it is. THe human brain is a fragile thing, full of flaws and highly vulnerable to misinterpeting the outside world. But we don't have to go beyond the boundaries of reality, argue what is reality, and push into what ifs, when we perceive this 'reality', and manage so. It's unecessary to assume that the world around us, isn't what we perceive it to be, and there could be tons of dimensions/ realities/universes. I am not, by any means, living a mainstream and 'spoon fed' life. I'm not what could be considered very conformist either. I have my alternative lifestyle, passions etc, so I'm not speaking as a gullible rubber haired clone robot in the rat race. Neither am I a sucker for black and white.

Funny why you should keep referring to the idea of you being offensive when I said nothing

Anyhow my aologises if I agree with the shamans - there is difference though between an experince i.e. soemthing you cant control that happens and causes you change or something that just doesnt - in that sense I suppose what Im talking about is not experince but a transistion , ( the experince being the prelude )

The point I was making - in reerence to your comment about cohesion was that it was not necessary - not really what consitutes a world view of reality - which I agree could be anything.

The human brain of an average human as I said has shown to work differently than those of tibetan monks .

There is no flaw given the correlation between their propsed state of mind and the evidence for what was shown from the scans.

The only flaw is the lack of technology to investigate this and the average minds that contribute to it .

 

[coaly]

Anyone, with enough good training and strict dicipline, can make their mind like those of the Thibetan monks. Training your mind to do something which is irrelevant, but yet amazingly stunning and worthy of great awe is cool and displays extreme discipline, but it's just like an athlete, training to run a thousand miles. It's got to receive respect and appreciation, but it's entirely subjective. We no longer need to run, hunt, kill, rape, climb etc, most of these adaptive insticts (I'm not talking about killing or raping here by the way!)... are simply used for recreation for us now. To dedicate your entire life to 'moving to a higher conciousness and purity', is something one must want, not need. Respect to each personal choice, not conformity to its ways.