Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
taniwha

Is God All In The Mind?

2,046 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

eight bits

WCF

Except you are being rather narrow in assuming shamanic exsperiences all come from the use of entheogenes.

Really? Let's read again what you quoted from me on this point.

I suspect that some shamans become drug pushers because their calling has an occupational problem: shamans claim to have experiences that nobody else can confirm. So, they might seek to persuade by manipulating setting and set, then passing out the Kool-Aid. Of course, almost everybody experiences a load of crap. Which is a double win for the shaman: (s)he has "proven" to the paying public that there is another reality, and also that only specially trained people like the shaman can make sense of it. Ka-ching.

Some not all shamans, and not one word about where their experiences come from, only discussion about why some of them might want other people to abuse drugs.

Shaman were never originally "paid" for their services.

Neither were English barristers, originally. So what?

I find your analysis of this subject unusually out of character for the thoroughness of most of your arguments. time to pick up some books on anthropology eight bits.

Am I somehow to be chastened because the quality of my argument suffers when words are put in my mouth that I didn't say? I think not, WCF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather

WCF

Really? Let's read again what you quoted from me on this point.

Some not all shamans, and not one word about where their experiences come from, only discussion about why some of them might want other people to abuse drugs.

Neither were English barristers, originally. So what?

Am I somehow to be chastened because the quality of my argument suffers when words are put in my mouth that I didn't say? I think not, WCF.

You said "drug pushers" not me. What exactly were you referring to? "Shamen" that sell psycsdelic experiences for profit are not any more than a catholic priest is a bar tender.

Can you give me an example of abuse?

Edited by White Crane Feather

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits

WCF

You said "drug pushers" not me

Yes, I did. About some members of an occupational category, not all of them, and of the ones I discussed, without commenting on their own drug use, if any.

Can you give me an example of abuse?

Neuro-tourism has already been mentioned in the thread, and I think you may have referred to something like that in your post (see below for my comment).

What exactly were you referring to?

A practice in which one person enocurages others to consume drugs which alter cognition or perception, which are toxic at the doses which elicit these recommended effects, and which the one person provides the others from an inventory regularly maintained and replenished for that purpose. I thought the term "drug pusher" to be familiar and self-explanatory in our shared culture; that's why I used it. My bad. Now you have a definition.

"Shamen" that sell psycsdelic experiences for profit are not any more than a catholic priest is a bar tender.

Is X shamen supposed to be the plural of shaman? If so, then who are you to say who isn't a shaman? Or did you mean something else?

It is not obvious why a Roman Catholic priest couldn't also tend bar. I can attest that I have been served distilled spirits by one in a social setting; neither of us thought it inappropriate. I know that some Gentile clergy take seriously the rabbinical practice of having a trade in order to be self-supporting, so that the community to which they minister is not burdened by having to support them. Why not tend bar?

Also, I am a libertarian. Why not distribute other drugs besides alcohol, for all I care? The problem to which I object is to misrepresent drug abuse as a means to improve perception or cognition. (There are drugs that do that, for some people and in some circumstances, but those aren't the drugs, people and circumstances we're talking about here). As I recall, Steppenwolf (beloved among libertarians for The Monster) sang about a similar distinction between those who sold drugs with effects like alcohol's (often with less toxicity) for reasons that healthy lay people consume alcohol moderately, as opposed to a drug pusher - using that very term.

Conclude: whatever analogy you were attempting to present between people who make an honest living, like bartenders, and those who exploit thier clients, like drug pushers, failed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather

WCF

Yes, I did. About some members of an occupational category, not all of them, and of the ones I discussed, without commenting on their own drug use, if any.

Neuro-tourism has already been mentioned in the thread, and I think you may have referred to something like that in your post (see below for my comment).

A practice in which one person enocurages others to consume drugs which alter cognition or perception, which are toxic at the doses which elicit these recommended effects, and which the one person provides the others from an inventory regularly maintained and replenished for that purpose. I thought the term "drug pusher" to be familiar and self-explanatory in our shared culture; that's why I used it. My bad. Now you have a definition.

Is X shamen supposed to be the plural of shaman? If so, then who are you to say who isn't a shaman? Or did you mean something else?

It is not obvious why a Roman Catholic priest couldn't also tend bar. I can attest that I have been served distilled spirits by one in a social setting; neither of us thought it inappropriate. I know that some Gentile clergy take seriously the rabbinical practice of having a trade in order to be self-supporting, so that the community to which they minister is not burdened by having to support them. Why not tend bar?

Also, I am a libertarian. Why not distribute other drugs besides alcohol, for all I care? The problem to which I object is to misrepresent drug abuse as a means to improve perception or cognition. (There are drugs that do that, for some people and in some circumstances, but those aren't the drugs, people and circumstances we're talking about here). As I recall, Steppenwolf (beloved among libertarians for The Monster) sang about a similar distinction between those who sold drugs with effects like alcohol's (often with less toxicity) for reasons that healthy lay people consume alcohol moderately, as opposed to a drug pusher - using that very term.

Conclude: whatever analogy you were attempting to present between people who make an honest living, like bartenders, and those who exploit thier clients, like drug pushers, failed.

Honestly eight bitts I don't even no why we are haveing the discussion to begin with. It seems you have some become stuck on definitions or semantics. Example: I was not suggesting that a priest being a bartender was somehow strange ( though it is a bit) I was suggesting that being considered a bartender because of the duties in passing out communen was not at all accurate, the parallel being a shamen being a drug pusher for dispensing and being a guide through entheogenes. I would think that clear, but evidently not. It apeared you were drawing paralleles to drug pushing with some shaman's use of entheogens in their guidance of others. I'm aware that some abuse that position, but I'm not seeing what relation it has to the idea that ASC is the historical possibly even evolutionary beginnings of spiritual awareness which was the original point to begin with.

Nothing failed. It's quit obvious a priest is not being a bartender for distributing wine to the congregation and a shaman isn't a "drug pusher" for using entheogenes to help the people that come to him/her to atain an ASC. Certainly a priest that takes a job as a bartender is and certainly shaman the turns their sacraments into a business is also. I suspect you and I simply have different ways of communicating because I would have considered all of that self evident. I'm a libertarian aswell by the way though with a tad leaning in the conservative direction on certain issues.

By the way many Entheogens do improve perceptions of certain things. Particularly in the area of self reflection. A stage known as the unveiling often ensues and the personal illusions of the person on the journey is torn away to reveal what they actaully are. The adict is forced to recognize that they are indeed an adict, the abusers an abuser, a lier a lier, etc etc. All the lies one tells oneself are striped. Even if one knows they are these things, they rarely have truelly faced it. This has powerfully positive effects on the human psyche and people emerge determined to change themselves for the better because they can finally come to terms with their shortcomings and false images of themselves. This is why the plants are considered teachers. Just some info there. People that seek the help of a shaman are not always just looking for a good trip or to get high. Entheogens are medicines just as much as anyother medicine that can be used for good or Ill.

Edited by White Crane Feather

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits

WCF

It seems you have some become stuck on definitions or semantics.

Umm...

... What exactly were you referring to? ...

If you're not interested in the answer, then don't ask the question.

the parallel being a shamen being a drug pusher for dispensing and being a guide through entheogenes.

What parallel could there be between a Roman Catholic priest distributing communion and anybody superintending drug abuse? However, upon seeing such a florid phrase as "being a guide through entheogens," I can now undertand your disquiet towards inquiry into the meaning of words (semantics) or attention to their definitions.

It apeared you were drawing paralleles to drug pushing with some shaman's use of entheogens in their guidance of others.

If the shaman's purpose were guidance, then I have a pro-tip: students learn better when they aren't doped up first. Is your experience as a teacher different, WCF?

I'm aware that some abuse that position, ...

That's what I said.

but I'm not seeing what relation it has to the idea that ASC is the historical possibly even evolutionary beginnings of spiritual awareness which was the original point to begin with.

I assume that ASC is "altered state of consciousness." Again, weasel words. Consciousness is not some rigid unadaptive thing that invites toxic chemicals to change it. Campbell describes consciousness change by stepping from a busy street into a quiet church - on the assumption that the person's perceptual and cognitive faculties are operating normally. And, as discussed in earlier posting, such examples exaggerate the difficulty and degree of effort needed.

a shaman isn't a "drug pusher" for using entheogenes to help the people that come to him/her to atain an ASC.

No, (s)he'd be a drug pusher for posturing that victims need the potion to change consciousness, a potion which actually prevents them from using their own faculties of consciousness to advance without his unique "guidance." The essential nature of drug pushing is to foster an unneccessary or counterproductive dependency on substance and supplier.

This is not anything peculiar to shamanism nor necessarily integral to it. It's perfectly possible for a shaman to have nothing to do with this, just as it's perfectly possible for a heroin or crack cocaine dealer to have nothing to do with shamanism.

... a shaman isn't a "drug pusher" for using entheogenes to help the people that come to him/her to atain an ASC. Certainly a priest that takes a job as a bartender is ...

Certainly is what? A drug pusher? No, I have already distinguished drug pusher from drug seller, just as the mother tongue also makes that distinction. Obviously, making distinctions like that goes against the interests of drug abuse apologists. Those of us who care about words and what they mean (you know, those of us who "have become stuck on semantics") push back.

The adict is forced to recognize that they are indeed an adict, the abusers an abuser, a lier a lier, etc etc. ...

Funny, that sounds just like a stereotypical Baptist sermon, maybe given in a church that uses plain grape juice for its Lord's Supper. As counterexamples go, then, it needs work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CelticBanshee

Yes it is. He/she/it is thought. Nothing but thought. There is no physical and separate God. This is where all of religion fails. They want to believe God is separate so they can be rewarded for their faith and NOTHING ELSE. If EVERY religion practiced what they preached then we truly would be living in peaceful times. But because of the idea 'have faith in me and I will reward you big in my everlasting kingdom' people turned cold and judgmental toward those who disagree in hope of sitting in a mansion sipping on martinis for thousands of years (A selfish thing would you agree?) and over time turned that to burning hatred and yearning for universal agreement over their one God as to go to war. One problem of course we all know is that almost EVERY religion adopted this. Everyone's trying to push their views onto everyone else, even the Atheists. For long have Atheists said 'don't push your views on me and I won't do the same' yet like the religious they can be just as bad in forcing their truth onto others.

Lets be clear neither side has evidence. You cannot claim that because of the lack of evidence God doesn't exist, that is merely a belief. Just as you cannot say, I believe in God because he cannot be dis proven, that is also a belief.

Whatever you believe remember you do not know for 100% even me, yes I know I could be completely wrong but I thought it worth saying. We're in the same boat remember, we need that final nail in the coffin that says A) God exists or B) It's baloney.

Even though I don't believe we have had extraterrestrial contact I'm betting that's where we'll find the answer. I do believe everything that has happened already on Earth is proof of what can happen elsewhere therefore it is happening elsewhere, and that someday should we not blow ourselves up, we will get off Earth and find another neighbor like us who will share common grounds. Love, humor, hate etc... and to me, the belief in a creator.

With that said here is my thought. I'm not forcing this on anyone so no hate please.

Atoms are made up of 99.9% nothing but vibrations and their .1% nucleus - This is fact isn't it?.

So try to think of God as working on a vibratory level. That's why music can be so powerful as to literally manipulate your emotions and bring you to tears, pumped up etc.. Sound is the propagation of vibrating particles - This is fact. Since everything including our own bodies is made up of 99 % vibrations we can see the relationship between the two.

Anyone who studies philosophy will be familiar with the idea that sensory perception is fallible in deducting the true nature of our world. We can only see so much color and hear so much sound and while we have instruments to see and hear what we can't that doesn't mean they see 100% of all existent objects.

Remember this friend. The only 100% truth that you and other humans can be absolutely sure of is that you are your mind.

Outside of this you cannot hold the ultimate truth behind something as that truth can be ever changing. Therefore we only have an opinion.

Okay yes you can be 'sure' that 'johns a d********' yes you can be sure that 'I'm petting this cat'. But John being a d******** is you only perceiving him to be that way, someone else may think he's cool. Who's right? It's all in the mind.

Yes we live in a physical world blah blah you know what I mean. The point is, the way you view things makes you believe it so. You are your mind, you are essentially thought. Think of anything that exists because of man. Remember, whatever you can think only first existed as a thought in that mans head.

Invention of lightbulb, car etc... didn't just come out of nowhere, it was a thought first, then word, then creation. This we can take as true, this is what is often forgotten by this and the upcoming generation. This is what God is. Thought. Sorry to say to anyone who doesn't want it to be true. But every little atom, every single cell organism, every grain of dirt, everything is actually The God itself. Me and you are God, him and herself.

This is what I think Jesus tried to preach however the people didn't understand so they viewed him as God. I don't know. Jesus wasn't one almighty son of God, we all are, even the fish of the sea. I don't see why Jesus is viewed now as fake. All the wars straight after his death is surely testimony along with the texts? Sure you can say the same for Zeus but I don't recall wars being started over the man he was, or Aries, or Thor for that matter.

Everything that happens whether good or bad, happens. What we feel about it is different.

Think of the oneness of everything like a web. When you say a prayer you vibrate your feelings and thought along this web. Except its not going anywhere it's instantly heard, as for the answer I believe we're here by our own choice. If God is all loving all powerful, why force us to do anything? Why not let us choose? I believe we reincarnate over and over, either out of repentance for past life mistakes/evils or for an Earthly experience again.

I believe after a long time in Gods essence after death we've known everything for so long we actually forget what it's like not to know so we come down here to create a unique experience. Therefore some prayers will be answered and some won't as we may have once chose to make certain path open at certain stages in our lives.

Where I'm going with this I could type forever and with the hate I'll draw it's not worth it. I'll just leave it with this. And this will draw a lot of criticism. But to any who do criticize I say remember, true 'all loving' cannot be imagined by anyone who disagrees (not even me as I also disagree, I want murderers to pay for their crimes, so that's probably one reason we reincarnate, there is no devil and no hell, that implies power over God which there is none) with what I'm about to say, because 'all loving, infinite forgiveness' implies otherwise.

We are God.

Hitler went to heaven.

Once you know this. You know God.

All the best :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

So, out of interest im wondering is it possible that God, angels, demons etc be simply a figment of our imagination?...and if so how did they get there?...and why? There should be some sort of rational explaination...shouldnt there?... if indeed we live in a purely rational world.

Are believers simply fooling themselves and no one else? Or are skeptics the foolish ones?

A skeptic might ask, where is the proof of God...where is he hiding?

On the skin of things this seems like a righteous enough question, one that we have all asked of ourselves at one point in our lives. Maybe deep down we are all believers, in some case without answers.

But if God be put down to pure fantasy, how is it that miracles can manifest through prayer such as spiritual healing?

Do you have any other instances of other miracles or spiritual experiences that has happened to you?

Ideally something manifest in the physical world.

Are there scientific or earthly answers to any of this? Or to all of this?

Is there an idiot proof test perhaps? One that can put rest to the question once and for all,

"Is God all in the mind?"

When or will this mystery ever have closure? Any answers?...Any questions?

Thanks.

The answer is simple.

One can only know god exits, in the same way one knows anything exists. ie By encountering it. Until that time, one has a choice of belief or disbelief..

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

Is God all in the mind? Yes.

How can we tell? No one knows God except in their mind.

That is untrue, but a logical perception if one has never encountered god, "in the flesh"

God, like all real things, is known and knowable via the mind and though our physical senses, but its existence is independent of our minds, and of our physical senses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright

Yes it is. He/she/it is thought. Nothing but thought. There is no physical and separate God. This is where all of religion fails. They want to believe God is separate so they can be rewarded for their faith and NOTHING ELSE. If EVERY religion practiced what they preached then we truly would be living in peaceful times. But because of the idea 'have faith in me and I will reward you big in my everlasting kingdom' people turned cold and judgmental toward those who disagree in hope of sitting in a mansion sipping on martinis for thousands of years (A selfish thing would you agree?) and over time turned that to burning hatred and yearning for universal agreement over their one God as to go to war. One problem of course we all know is that almost EVERY religion adopted this. Everyone's trying to push their views onto everyone else, even the Atheists. For long have Atheists said 'don't push your views on me and I won't do the same' yet like the religious they can be just as bad in forcing their truth onto others.

Lets be clear neither side has evidence. You cannot claim that because of the lack of evidence God doesn't exist, that is merely a belief. Just as you cannot say, I believe in God because he cannot be dis proven, that is also a belief.

Whatever you believe remember you do not know for 100% even me, yes I know I could be completely wrong but I thought it worth saying. We're in the same boat remember, we need that final nail in the coffin that says A) God exists or B) It's baloney.

Even though I don't believe we have had extraterrestrial contact I'm betting that's where we'll find the answer. I do believe everything that has happened already on Earth is proof of what can happen elsewhere therefore it is happening elsewhere, and that someday should we not blow ourselves up, we will get off Earth and find another neighbor like us who will share common grounds. Love, humor, hate etc... and to me, the belief in a creator.

With that said here is my thought. I'm not forcing this on anyone so no hate please.

Atoms are made up of 99.9% nothing but vibrations and their .1% nucleus - This is fact isn't it?.

So try to think of God as working on a vibratory level. That's why music can be so powerful as to literally manipulate your emotions and bring you to tears, pumped up etc.. Sound is the propagation of vibrating particles - This is fact. Since everything including our own bodies is made up of 99 % vibrations we can see the relationship between the two.

Anyone who studies philosophy will be familiar with the idea that sensory perception is fallible in deducting the true nature of our world. We can only see so much color and hear so much sound and while we have instruments to see and hear what we can't that doesn't mean they see 100% of all existent objects.

Remember this friend. The only 100% truth that you and other humans can be absolutely sure of is that you are your mind.

Outside of this you cannot hold the ultimate truth behind something as that truth can be ever changing. Therefore we only have an opinion.

Okay yes you can be 'sure' that 'johns a d********' yes you can be sure that 'I'm petting this cat'. But John being a d******** is you only perceiving him to be that way, someone else may think he's cool. Who's right? It's all in the mind.

Yes we live in a physical world blah blah you know what I mean. The point is, the way you view things makes you believe it so. You are your mind, you are essentially thought. Think of anything that exists because of man. Remember, whatever you can think only first existed as a thought in that mans head.

Invention of lightbulb, car etc... didn't just come out of nowhere, it was a thought first, then word, then creation. This we can take as true, this is what is often forgotten by this and the upcoming generation. This is what God is. Thought. Sorry to say to anyone who doesn't want it to be true. But every little atom, every single cell organism, every grain of dirt, everything is actually The God itself. Me and you are God, him and herself.

This is what I think Jesus tried to preach however the people didn't understand so they viewed him as God. I don't know. Jesus wasn't one almighty son of God, we all are, even the fish of the sea. I don't see why Jesus is viewed now as fake. All the wars straight after his death is surely testimony along with the texts? Sure you can say the same for Zeus but I don't recall wars being started over the man he was, or Aries, or Thor for that matter.

Everything that happens whether good or bad, happens. What we feel about it is different.

Think of the oneness of everything like a web. When you say a prayer you vibrate your feelings and thought along this web. Except its not going anywhere it's instantly heard, as for the answer I believe we're here by our own choice. If God is all loving all powerful, why force us to do anything? Why not let us choose? I believe we reincarnate over and over, either out of repentance for past life mistakes/evils or for an Earthly experience again.

I believe after a long time in Gods essence after death we've known everything for so long we actually forget what it's like not to know so we come down here to create a unique experience. Therefore some prayers will be answered and some won't as we may have once chose to make certain path open at certain stages in our lives.

Where I'm going with this I could type forever and with the hate I'll draw it's not worth it. I'll just leave it with this. And this will draw a lot of criticism. But to any who do criticize I say remember, true 'all loving' cannot be imagined by anyone who disagrees (not even me as I also disagree, I want murderers to pay for their crimes, so that's probably one reason we reincarnate, there is no devil and no hell, that implies power over God which there is none) with what I'm about to say, because 'all loving, infinite forgiveness' implies otherwise.

We are God.

Hitler went to heaven.

Once you know this. You know God.

All the best :)

Hello CelticBansee, (looooove your board name) I really do love your post. Very well thought out, in my feeling. The thing is, this is your opinion right? Especially, the part I highlighted, right? Well, for one, your thoughts on the vibrations, I find awesome! I often reflect and wonder about that myself. But, if this is not your opinion, what links do you have that says that this is God?

I agree with you, you are what your experiences, and no other would understand that. So, you understand why I am confused as to this part of God as part of vibrations, (if I got you right, :) ) Where did you get that?

Other than that, I really love your post. Mind blowing!!! :yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather

WCF

Umm...

If you're not interested in the answer, then don't ask the question.

What parallel could there be between a Roman Catholic priest distributing communion and anybody superintending drug abuse? However, upon seeing such a florid phrase as "being a guide through entheogens," I can now undertand your disquiet towards inquiry into the meaning of words (semantics) or attention to their definitions.

If the shaman's purpose were guidance, then I have a pro-tip: students learn better when they aren't doped up first. Is your experience as a teacher different, WCF?

That's what I said.

I assume that ASC is "altered state of consciousness." Again, weasel words. Consciousness is not some rigid unadaptive thing that invites toxic chemicals to change it. Campbell describes consciousness change by stepping from a busy street into a quiet church - on the assumption that the person's perceptual and cognitive faculties are operating normally. And, as discussed in earlier posting, such examples exaggerate the difficulty and degree of effort needed.

No, (s)he'd be a drug pusher for posturing that victims need the potion to change consciousness, a potion which actually prevents them from using their own faculties of consciousness to advance without his unique "guidance." The essential nature of drug pushing is to foster an unneccessary or counterproductive dependency on substance and supplier.

This is not anything peculiar to shamanism nor necessarily integral to it. It's perfectly possible for a shaman to have nothing to do with this, just as it's perfectly possible for a heroin or crack cocaine dealer to have nothing to do with shamanism.

Certainly is what? A drug pusher? No, I have already distinguished drug pusher from drug seller, just as the mother tongue also makes that distinction. Obviously, making distinctions like that goes against the interests of drug abuse apologists. Those of us who care about words and what they mean (you know, those of us who "have become stuck on semantics") push back.

Funny, that sounds just like a stereotypical Baptist sermon, maybe given in a church that uses plain grape juice for its Lord's Supper. As counterexamples go, then, it needs work.

No you have an obvious bias dare I say a hard line attitude toward something that I don't think you understand very well. A priest administering sacraments is identical in nature so is a shaman administering sacraments. The only difference is that the sacrament is quite a bit more powerful and the shaman is familure wit ASC ( not from the entheogens mind you, most shaman can achieve it without it) so he/she becomes a guide for the other person. Not only looking out for them but helping them to cope with new found and often powerful self revelation.

Shamans are not teachers nor do they have them. The Entheogen is the teacher. As stated shaman are guides because they know their way around. If you are in a complety foreign country, you seek the aid of somone who is familiar with the environment to guide you and make sure you don't get lost and you acomplish what you are there to do. your continued use of prejudicial language fallacies is lost on me. I have many students that have been "doped" up on adderall, riddalin, and God knows what else in the name of makeing them function better. The issue is that its you who cannot see something as medicine and insist upon spinning emotion around it with words.

You are also completely incorrect. Conciousness is a continuum of states of awareness that fluctuates wildly trough out your day and during sleep. Your body ( including your brain) has evolved to take in chemicals from its environment and then to use them for a multitude of reasons including affecting how you feel and preceive something.

That's not what is happening. The person is taking advantage of different concious vantage points particularly in the self reflection Department. Certainly the shaman is not needed to be there, one is perfectly capable themselves, but the shaman is an expert at ASC and will have techniques to pull you away from darker places, comfort you with his/her presence, provide rythems and chants that affect you. ( see the paper I linked to). The shaman is experienced and understands what you are seeking and knows how to push you in that direction. You are still under the wrongheaded assumption that this is some sort of recreational persuit. It's not. I'm sure some see it that way, but some take opiates for recreation but it's intended for sever Pain. Some take bennzopenes for recreation but it's intended to alter conciousness around anxiety, till others take a multitude of other compounds for reasons far from the intent that they were made for. I dont know of any entheogens that are physicsllh adictive. It's near impossible to be used for any type of real recreation because quite frankly it's not any fun.

I'm not a drug abuse apologist (more inflamitory language ehhh borderline ad hominem maybe). I have never taken a puff of weed, swallowed a pill for any other reason than what it was intended, I don't even drink anymore no a beer nothing. I preach against drug and alcohol abuse to teens and kids, and I live a healthy clean lifestyle. Enthogenes are considered medicine by the people that Use it in their practice, and as I have mentioned it's not just about seeing colors and it certainly is not about getting high or feeling food. Most entheogens make you puke your guts out dive deep into your psyche to unravel your dellusions of self and generally are like you said "toxic."

Words represent ideas. To communicate efectivly there must be a meeting of the minds as to the idea being conveyd. Semantic games are useless and usually used by people that are engaged in rhetoric because their arguments can't stand on their own merits.

A sermon is only talk. What I described actually happens on a nurochemical level. It's not some esoteric exsperince that might happen after you die. It's real and in your face. However entheogens work on the mind, one of the first things to be torn down are self illusions. Human beings are engaged in constantly lieing to themselves weather it be justification for certain actions, false self images, or things one is hideing from. This is why entheogens are so good helping to end addictions, moveing people out of depression, and helping them to enter the right mental space to change their lives for the better. Some are actaully anti depressents themselves. It's not drug abuse anymore than somone takeing a prescription.:)

Edited by White Crane Feather
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

No you have an obvious bias dare I say a hard line attitude toward something that I don't think you understand very well. A priest administering sacraments is identical in nature so is a shaman administering sacraments. The only difference is that the sacrament is quite a bit more powerful and the shaman is familure wit ASC ( not from the entheogens mind you, most shaman can achieve it without it) so he/she becomes a guide for the other person. Not only looking out for them but helping them to cope with new found and often powerful self revelation.

Shamans are not teachers nor do they have them. The Entheogen is the teacher. As stated shaman are guides because they know their way around. If you are in a complety foreign country, you seek the aid of somone who is familiar with the environment to guide you and make sure you don't get lost and you acomplish what you are there to do. your continued use of prejudicial language fallacies is lost on me. I have many students that have been "doped" up on adderall, riddalin, and God knows what else in the name of makeing them function better. The issue is that its you who cannot see something as medicine and insist upon spinning emotion around it with words.

You are also completely incorrect. Conciousness is a continuum of states of awareness that fluctuates wildly trough out your day and during sleep. Your body ( including your brain) has evolved to take in chemicals from its environment and then to use them for a multitude of reasons including affecting how you feel and preceive something.

That's not what is happening. The person is taking advantage of different concious vantage points particularly in the self reflection Department. Certainly the shaman is not needed to be there, one is perfectly capable themselves, but the shaman is an expert at ASC and will have techniques to pull you away from darker places, comfort you with his/her presence, provide rythems and chants that affect you. ( see the paper I linked to). The shaman is experienced and understands what you are seeking and knows how to push you in that direction. You are still under the wrongheaded assumption that this is some sort of recreational persuit. It's not. I'm sure some see it that way, but some take opiates for recreation but it's intended for sever Pain. Some take bennzopenes for recreation but it's intended to alter conciousness around anxiety, till others take a multitude of other compounds for reasons far from the intent that they were made for. I dont know of any entheogens that are physicsllh adictive. It's near impossible to be used for any type of real recreation because quite frankly it's not any fun.

I'm not a drug abuse apologist (more inflamitory language ehhh borderline ad hominem maybe). I have never taken a puff of weed, swallowed a pill for any other reason than what it was intended, I don't even drink anymore no a beer nothing. I preach against drug and alcohol abuse to teens and kids, and I live a healthy clean lifestyle. Enthogenes are considered medicine by the people that Use it in their practice, and as I have mentioned it's not just about seeing colors and it certainly is not about getting high or feeling food. Most entheogens make you puke your guts out dive deep into your psyche to unravel your dellusions of self and generally are like you said "toxic."

Words represent ideas. To communicate efectivly there must be a meeting of the minds as to the idea being conveyd. Semantic games are useless and usually used by people that are engaged in rhetoric because their arguments can't stand on their own merits.

A sermon is only talk. What I described actually happens on a nurochemical level. It's not some esoteric exsperince that might happen after you die. It's real and in your face. However entheogens work on the mind, one of the first things to be torn down are self illusions. Human beings are engaged in constantly lieing to themselves weather it be justification for certain actions, false self images, or things one is hideing from. This is why entheogens are so good helping to end addictions, moveing people out of depression, and helping them to enter the right mental space to change their lives for the better. Some are actaully anti depressents themselves. It's not drug abuse anymore than somone takeing a prescription. :)

Liking this post wasn't enough I really like it. Although I am not very familiar with modern shamanism, your comments make logical sense. The rest of your points are, to me at least, very self evident truths.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

Who even knows how near or how far heaven is? Angels carry messages from God. Wings are symbollic of the transmission between earthman and this heavenly realm. A lot of ancient stories are symbollic, even cryptic, their meanings lost through the ages. For instance there exists a Maori carving i know, it is of a human figure, its mouth is ferocious, carved with two tongues protruding from it, one tongue curling to the left and one tongue curling to the right.

Heaven has shifted with more understanding to save face, we made up this place you go to when you die but when we could travel up there in a balloon, and saw no heaven over the clouds, we "adjusted" the tale to suit so it would not be laughed out immediately. We thought man was created from a rib bone, then Darwin came along and sorted that nonsense out, we were told of a great flood, which living creatures insist could not have happened, how many excuses do you feel religion can keep making as opposed to admitting "OK, that was completely wrong"?

I do not understand why people think a book written by man, with many exposed flaws is considered something to take seriously. As time wears on the veracity of the Bible shrinks, each new scientific discovery challenges a theistic approach.

Is this a realistic representation of an ancestor? Was there really once a race of people in NZ, born with this ominous looking facade? No. Is it all fantasy? No. Is it a God? No. This ancestor was well versed in both English and Maori language. It is a stylised depiction of bilingualism. Thus the two tongues. There are many such carvings that tell the stories of the past. Once they are explained, through their simplicity one may become enlightened.

That Maori carving may well have been a real warrior. Island life, as the Polynesian peoples tended to exist, can and does promote dwarfism. The tiny People of Palau only died out about 1400 years ago, and were about the size of a Hobbit, and had strange features, such as heavily protruding teeth, which did not shrink fast enough to be in proportion with the rest of their bodies and as such had something of a ferocious look. I could see a a warrior having his tongue cloven in a fight, or perhaps on purpose to inspire his position as greatest warrior, but such an entity in not outside the realms of possibility.

So yes, i think you are right, the bible stories are totems in written form, they have a deeper meaning than face value.

To an individual imagination, to a culture yes, to the real world, no. It is a record of how we developed, not a window into some spiritual realm. It is historical record detailing the rise of man, and our brain power.

If you dont read it of course it will remain stagnant, if you dont wish to understand it then it will be no more than badly written poetry.

If you do decide to blow the dust off the pages, take care it doesnt blow into your eyes. :)

I have read the King James Version, the JW new world version, went to Bible Classes, grew up in a very religious family and even attended BAC Churches as a teenager, and many Catholic services with my father in his final years - he held a position in church where he would collect plates, carry out the Fathers staff, and would often invite church members back to his house. I was quite in touch with the Church 13 years ago when my son was born, as a result, he was named in honor of my conviction at the time, and my fathers faith. I bothered to do the course to become a proper Catholic what with my mothers influences over the years. Being an Atheist is not something I was born into, rather the opposite. People think "oh, if you only went to Church and saw for yourself" But I assure you I have and many times - too many to count for sure. I "get" the Church, but it seems I have tooo much knowledge about the Church and it's teachings to continue to ae it seriously. I also have a collection of Bibles, including a Bible my Father left me that dates back to the late 1700's. Hard to read, but I honestly feel that with such resources at hand, I have religious backgrounds to match any poster claiming to be religious here.

Are you actually stopping short of saying you know that God doesnt exist? I just happen to believe some intelligent energy greater than our being exists, but its not called science so i call it God.

Yep.

I cannot get on board with this "higher power" it's just something we imagined, there is no reason to consider this exists, it is merely hope.

​May I ask, what gives you hope this exists? What makes you feel this is at all a viable concept? I mean no disrespect, I am genuinely intrigued as to what drives your faith.

No man should let faith be beaten into him, and no man should let it be beat out of him. We have to be true to ourselves. After all we are only human beings. Good luck to you psyche. I admire your honesty.

Not beaten, it was a very gradual transition from not so religious to very religious, to not so religious to agnostic, to atheist. Knowledge made religion redundant, I can see why Penn Jillette, Dawkins and Krauss want to share this marvelous beautiful thing that is science, for science is merely understanding. Religion is oppression.

Indeed we are only human beings, and that is a very accurate statement that I agree with. We are not wired to understand string theory (although "theory" is a wrong term there), we were not assembled to understand quantum physics, our psyche goes back to more basic skills, climbing a tree to escape a predator and the like, our brains are wired to understand that which we can manage in the macro world, science is a new era of understanding that we should embrace on the short time we have on this planet, not waste this amazing knowledge in order to prepare for an afterlife which does not exist. We have no basis for being conversant with quarks and gluons, this is a new realm of existence. And as such, I think it is an exciting time to be alive, The birth of a new era of mankind.

How does this provide an idiot test?

It id not supposed to but illustrate historical record for Gods bygone, once held in the same light. We are simply repeating history. I feel we are capable of moving forward as opposed to remaining static.

Im pressed for time now but i will check it out when possible. Will comment as soon as, cheers psyche.

Thank you very much for your efforts, you are a very nice and interesting person, and a real pleasure to discuss a topic with, my thanks right back for the effort you put in to create this interesting conversation. Should I head back to NZ in the near future, I would certainly get in contact, it would be my honor to shake your hand, and enjoy a conversation face to face.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CelticBanshee

Hello CelticBansee, (looooove your board name) I really do love your post. Very well thought out, in my feeling. The thing is, this is your opinion right? Especially, the part I highlighted, right? Well, for one, your thoughts on the vibrations, I find awesome! I often reflect and wonder about that myself. But, if this is not your opinion, what links do you have that says that this is God?

I agree with you, you are what your experiences, and no other would understand that. So, you understand why I am confused as to this part of God as part of vibrations, (if I got you right, :) ) Where did you get that?

Other than that, I really love your post. Mind blowing!!! :yes:

Hello :) Thank you for your kind words! :D

Basically this idea came about because of the question of where God physically is or exist's, what he/her is made of, and does he look like a man like the bible portrays?

Once I started really questioning these, I came to my own conclusions based on the building of other beliefs and theories around the web, that to me seem very plausible. Also one book 'Conversations with God' really helped me clear a lot of things up, I recommend you Google 'Conversations with God Quotes' and click on the '10 Epic Quotes' link.

Anyway all of that led me to conclude that, God isn't a separate entity but existent everywhere as a shred of thought, as an expression of itself being what it has created. It stretches out infinity, not bound to structure, and in no way could it look like a man when live in an entire universe which in my opinion is sprawling with life. So why would it look like one life form on one Earth? Anyway, once I thought of God as an infinite source of energy, I realised nothing cannot be outside of it, it doesn't have an outside because we are all inside it so to speak. Do you understand what I mean by this? God doesn't have arms or legs and lives in a different place in reality. To me, any and everything that is, is God realising itself through the existence of any and everything that is. We are all one, as some say.

To me, once you see God as a whole containing any and everything that is, you can then think of God as thought. Rather than separating the realm of the universe from the realm of Heaven, they are all one. They are just different shades of God's infinite thought. Different expressions of it's infinite creativity.

Regarding vibrations, and sorry it took this long to address your original question, I feel I needed to add the above to explain better.

Vibrations are the connections between everything, God's blood, so to speak. This is a theory held by some, including me.

I said God is an infinite energy source, so it must be able to be experienced.

God must have some physicality, in a way, in which it builds our dimension and the others. We know already that atoms make up pretty much existence itself with the exception of non materialistic things like time, laws of physics etc... (Btw aren't laws/rules usually the result of intelligent thought?.. Just saying) So once we realise atoms are 99.9% vibrations and apply that to the universe. 99.9% of creation only works because its vibrating itself together.

Love and hate are feelings yes? and feelings are triggered by vibrations in the body and brain would you agree? Sound is vibration and 99.9% of the universe is vibrating. So because all of this is contained within, not outside God, we might conclude then that God works on a vibrating level. Would you agree? That is the conclusion I have reached anyway. Some people hold this belief some think of it as nonsense. To me, it's the most rational way of explaining God scientifically.

I think once taking the above into account you might realise Gods plan is literally existing. Existing as an expression in infinite forms, across infinite universes (for multi-verse theorists) and in infinite realms. Giving every last thing that exists its own unique reflection of the reality it exists in.

God's work ethic, or rules of creation in my opinion would be the following...

Light, Life and Love.

For without a single one, would everything fall apart.

Hope I cleared that question up. I do have a tendency to stray from the topic regarding specific questions about God whenever conversing about it, so much to talk about :P Please do let me know if I didn't answer appropriately. It is a very complex topic as we're dealing with the most complex entity.

Do let me know if there is anything I could clarify further on. Also, this is strictly my opinion based on three things 1) Some scientific fact (atoms etc...) 2) The theories of those who have spent more time and dedication to me finding the answers i.e meditation, psychedelics, OBE etc... and 3) My own thoughts.

My own thoughts that help me explain my beliefs. Rational of course, thoughts that may hold truth.

Your mind is the most vital thing ever. It's the only thing you can ever be sure of truth. The only way you make sense of anything is by your mind converting your thoughts into perception and perception into experience. So at the end of the day you hold your own truths. By this I don't mean thinking of a unicorn dragon battling dinosaur aliens in space makes it true. Stick to what is fact and build upon it.

Using logic and reason you come to your own conclusions. It's how we got this far today.

All the best :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits

WCF

No you have an obvious bias dare I say a hard line attitude toward something that I don't think you understand very well.

I have an opinion. So do you. So what?

If it pleases you to think that to disagree with you requires some deficit in understanding, then bully for you. But it does somewhat gut the point of seriously discussing anything with you.

The only difference is that the (non-priest's) sacrament is quite a bit more powerful ...

You mean "toxic," I think.

Not only looking out for them but helping them to cope with new found and often powerful self revelation.

That's protection racket logic. If the shaman hadn't posioned the client, then there would be no need to help the client cope with having been poisoned.

If you are in a complety foreign country, you seek the aid of somone who is familiar with the environment to guide you and make sure you don't get lost and you acomplish what you are there to do.

Actually, I rarely hire a guide. When I'm there, I sometimes do get lost. I would be disappointed if I didn't, occasionally. No biggie. I am not blasted out of my mind on drugs, so I manage pretty well, even when lost. Quite a bit can be accomplished while sober.

have many students that have been "doped" up on adderall, riddalin, and God knows what else in the name of makeing them function better.

I missed the part of my post where I advocated the use of these drugs. Could you please point out where I did that? Otherwise, I'd be thinking we are in agreement, at least partially, on the pro tip that I offered, that students learn better when not being doped up.

You are also completely incorrect. Conciousness is a continuum of states of awareness that fluctuates wildly trough out your day and during sleep.

I also missed the part of my post where I said anything like the denial of the last sentence.

Certainly the shaman is not needed to be there, one is perfectly capable themselves, ...

Yes, I did say something like that. But it is not the sharing of learning and experience to whcih I objected, I objected to the drugs and fostering unnecessary dependency on substance and supplier. That's a real distinction, which you treat as a "semantic game." Something at which you're pretty handy yourself, as in

I'm not a drug abuse apologist (more inflamitory language ehhh borderline ad hominem maybe).

The only place I can find where I used the phrase recently is here:

Certainly is what? A drug pusher? No, I have already distinguished drug pusher from drug seller, just as the mother tongue also makes that distinction. Obviously, making distinctions like that goes against the interests of drug abuse apologists. Those of us who care about words and what they mean (you know, those of us who "have become stuck on semantics") push back.

I don't see where I mentioned you or any other particular poster in the thread. Could you point out where I did?

A sermon is only talk.

Nevertheless, the spiel you wrote sounded to me like a sermon, and of a kind that people report changes their lives by making them confront who they really are. Which was, supposedly, the benefit of being posioned and then sermonized, or guided or whatever semantic ostensibly-non-game you were playing.

Edited by eight bits
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

First off, it's important to mention that it's not science's role to weight on religious or metaphysical topics. It has it's own limits.

I agree and disagree, science has no limits, it simply is what it is. We are observers, not creators, not controllers. We utilise that which we observe to better our daily lives. It has no roles at all, it simply "is". Science does not exist to disprove anything, it exists to illustrate how things work. If science broaches into religious aspects and makes them redundant, it is not for you or anyone else to say "hey that is out of bounds, no science here thanks" It simply explains things better than ur imagination does.

As such, I am skeptical to the claim that science can answer any questions a human being might have.

I suggest you try it, with the disclaimer of definite proof of abiogenesis, it should be able to answer anything else you can throw at it. What science has told us to date is that God is now redundant. You may disagree with science, but you can put it to the test and insist in repeatability. Science is brutally honest, and that is what I think many fear. We already know God did not have to exist for us or the Universe to exist. That is challenged as Darwin was. But will be accepted by rational minds wanting to move on and learn more also as Darwin is.

It seems clear to me that if religious beliefs still (strongly) exist today in modern societies it is because science in itself does not meet the spiritual needs of a great deal of people around the world. You call it a 'safety blanket', I say it is a longing, a thirst to connect with who or what we are at a fundamental level.

We are the conscious matter of the Universe wondering how it came into being. We are the Universe wondering about itself, why it exists. It's a big step from some old guy in the clouds that we can play harps for (I assume we instantly get that skill upon entering heaven as well, with your wings I suspect) and as such, a bit much for people to fathom when they have invested most of their lives living "the right life" for the ideal of an afterlife. Often cheating themselves from many wonderful experiences for the sake of an imaginary being. I agree with the term "longing" people want to feel secure, they want to think someone is watching over them, it is comforting to think someone cares. That it matters that you exist. Religion is a placebo that helps man overcome that feeling of being alone. We need to toughen up, and stand on our own two feet, and face life for what it is.

Science is a tool, a rational methodology to acquire knowledge of the physical world using observation and experimentation objectively, it's not meant to be a set of beliefs. If you think the physical world is the only thing that can possibly be than fine. We call that materialism/physicalism in philosophy.

I never so much as insinuated that science should even become a set of beliefs, not sure how you came to that conclusion. That is the opposite of why science exists. It has no time for belief. That the tools give us the information to make religion redundant is all we need to know here. Science has no bias, it neither loves nor hates religion, it just tells it like it is.

And it is fluid, capable of adjusting as new information becomes available. Science is not static as the Bible is, neither is the Universe. it is chaotic.

Science has made philosophy dead too. We do not need rational argument if science can provide the facts being argued do we?

But why should you expect people to view the world in the same way? There is nothing in the current scientific paradigm suggesting that the divine don't exist, nor is there any indication that it will be the case in the future. It's usually the reductionists or those who have an anti-theist agenda who make that claim, not the data. While science is essential to the development of the human specie, it does not mean we should stop wondering or believing that there can be something more to it.

I do not expect anything from people other than to learn, and evaluate information honestly for what it is. Without the religious dogma ingrained from birth, there is a good chance many will see religion for what it truly is. If one has a half decent education, you have no choice but to eventually face the reality of religion. It's simply a man made construct used to control the masses and create enough fear to have some sort of crowd control.

The current scientific paradigm has made God redundant, you cannot prove a negative, so it cannot be proven that something that does not exist, does not exist. There will be continual excuses for an omnipotent being that finds some need to hide from us, yet demands worship. Even the most stupid argument is given time by science to disprove it. But Science has gone a step further and answered the question of how everything came into being. On the level of creation, science has already made God Redundant. We need no God to exist for the Universe to exist.

Religions at their very sources are a manifestation of spirituality, an attempt of giving it a structure, a coherence, organizing it and focusing it in precise ways. The sheer diversity of organised belief systems around the world and from all ages is a strong indication of that. But spirituality is not reductible to religion only. You can be 'spiritual' without being 'religious'.

And people always have been, and different parts of the world have developed their own belief systems - all to one omnipotent being? We do not have AFariests anymore, not do we have ALeprechaunists, it is only a matter of time before the term Atheist is redundant when religion is redundant. Being "spiritual" is a personal thing and means different things to different people, like for me, a persons "spirit" is how they act - bold, meek etc. As such, you have to be correct, it is not for religion only, but a state of mind we can attain to clear thoughts. But I do not see a spirit as being a ghost or some such internal energy that retains consciousness. In fact I wonder why people have so much faith in something that sounds good, but has not tangible aspects to it, it is driven by emotion. That is how con men operate.

I have been in a place where I thought God was real, are you capable of visiting a place where he may not in order to gain a wider perspective? Or does that thought seem offensive? Not meaning to be upsetting, but a genuine question. It's as big step to take, and it's like seeing things on the Internet, you cannot unsee them. I honestly think that has much more to do with modern "spirituality" than any Church does. 2,000 years is a big investment, and a hard drug to give up. Taking that road, I do feel that more people than would admit deep down know that religion is just a tall tale, but know when they admit that to themselves, that warm fuzzy feeling will be gone forever. Nobody wants to die alone, knowing that is the end of it all. Facing that can be tough, and something I feel many would rather just not have to face.

Religion causes pain, it ousts entire communities and sets man against fellow man. What people personally get from it does not ever consider the rest of the globe, which is the aspect I prefer to view. I do not want to spend my life trying to make an imaginary afterlife seem plausible to mitigate the thought of losing my loved ones and this wonderful brain forever. I want to leave this place a better one than I found it so my children may have an even more enjoyable experience, and understand more than I can of that which is around them. I feel that is the greatest legacy we can leave behind, not a selfish insistence of ones own continued existence. In that way, religion dehumanizes us.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather

WCF

I have an opinion. So do you. So what?

If it pleases you to think that to disagree with you requires some deficit in understanding, then bully for you. But it does somewhat gut the point of seriously discussing anything with you.

You mean "toxic," I think.

That's protection racket logic. If the shaman hadn't posioned the client, then there would be no need to help the client cope with having been poisoned.

Actually, I rarely hire a guide. When I'm there, I sometimes do get lost. I would be disappointed if I didn't, occasionally. No biggie. I am not blasted out of my mind on drugs, so I manage pretty well, even when lost. Quite a bit can be accomplished while sober.

I missed the part of my post where I advocated the use of these drugs. Could you please point out where I did that? Otherwise, I'd be thinking we are in agreement, at least partially, on the pro tip that I offered, that students learn better when not being doped up.

I also missed the part of my post where I said anything like the denial of the last sentence.

Yes, I did say something like that. But it is not the sharing of learning and experience to whcih I objected, I objected to the drugs and fostering unnecessary dependency on substance and supplier. That's a real distinction, which you treat as a "semantic game." Something at which you're pretty handy yourself, as in

The only place I can find where I used the phrase recently is here:

I don't see where I mentioned you or any other particular poster in the thread. Could you point out where I did?

Nevertheless, the spiel you wrote sounded to me like a sermon, and of a kind that people report changes their lives by making them confront who they really are. Which was, supposedly, the benefit of being posioned and then sermonized, or guided or whatever semantic ostensibly-non-game you were playing.

Except it wasn't. It's the truth. Entheogenes have a place in medicine. Your classification of it as a toxic poison is far to extreem. There are very few deaths or serious problems associated with entheogens. It's a recognized medicine and now that certain stigmas are starting to relaxing it's starting to find its way back into psyco therapy. I don't wan to argue about it anymore. It's been around long before you or I and it will be around long after. My orginal point was that ASC are the fundamental base for most religions and spirituality. If think it stands.

Edited by White Crane Feather

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

I am talking about the base of historical spirituality in our cultures. What atheist? Nearly eveyone one minus a few on even this website. Everyone that said "gods were invented to control the masses."

You are broad brushing to tarnish atheists though. It seems obvious to me that the context of said quotes insist that reference pertains to Abrahamic Gods, quite obviously not Dreamtime Gods, and many Native beliefs, obviously the rainbow serpent was how Indigenous Australians came to terms with the formation of the landscape. These cultures operated with different values, to their religions reflected the lifestyles. As the West colonised the world, it brought it's belief system with it, and made native religions redundant, just like science now makes modern religion redundant. In many areas today, religion still does control the masses, it inspires far to many people to take Islam to the streets in a literal fashion.

I find it hard to beleive that you don't know exactly what I'm talking about. "Flying spaghetti monsters" " sky daddy." Shall I continue.

Are not meant to be insults, but examples, and it is a crying shame that so many people miss that, and simply decide to take offence to a challenge to their belief system.

Nearly every argument from every atheists about the fabrication of spirituality.

Honestly, I fail to see what is wrong with that? if that is proven, then all it can do is enlighten us.

Why does religion feel it is above question? Only those devoutly faithful to said dogma do not want to know if that is a valid question or not.

It's not complicated. Its understood loud and clear. Human beings would have no concept of a spirit world if it were not for our propensity to enter altered states of conciousness where we perceive entities and feelings of union with nature and more.

I do not believe that for a second, what altered states of consciousness are the Australian Indigenous famous for?

And why do these "states" often involve illicit substances that we know affect the brain?

it really doesn't take much more study than examining what anthropologists have to say about the origins of spirituality and this the origins of religions.

That anthropologists can find origins seems a bit of a dead giveaway to me?

And if that is the case, why do the sharpest minds in the cutting edge on the planet reject religion?

This is why I can't understand why people that seem willing to read about science and claim logical high ground when it comes religion and spirituality don't actually read about what we know about the history of such things and the obvious parallels in what people exspeeience to this day. I'm being fairly General here. I have had discussions with atheists many many times. I know most of the hard arguments as opposed to the true agnostics .

You have never answered the hard questions directly though, you state is is an experience one must have, but we are all individual, so we are not going to have "the same" experience. As such, there are no answers to the hard questions. Science does have the high ground here, sorry, but that's just the reality of the situation. Religious people often see themselves o some sort of moral high ground, thinking they answer to a higher power, they think they are more tolerant, they think they think more about their fellow man, Tom Cruise even went out in public and said so about Scientologists. It's just self delusion. That removes high ground, it does not gain it. And it should not be a "race" anyway, it should be what it is, who can answer the big questions and show how they came to that conclusion, and not give some talk about having a conversation with an omnipotent being. Does it not strike yu somewhat odd that people get thrown into mental wards for talking to imaginary beings, but if that being is God, it's just fine, and in fact something to comment favourably upon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NewAge1
Science has made philosophy dead too. We do not need rational argument if science can provide the facts being argued do we?

I disagree with that, there will probably be always things to ponder; problems and challenges associated with reality, knowledge, mind, ethics ect. I am not seeing the end in sight.

The current scientific paradigm has made God redundant, you cannot prove a negative, so it cannot be proven that something that does not exist, does not exist. There will be continual excuses for an omnipotent being that finds some need to hide from us, yet demands worship. Even the most stupid argument is given time by science to disprove it. But Science has gone a step further and answered the question of how everything came into being. On the level of creation, science has already made God Redundant. We need no God to exist for the Universe to exist.

You cannot conclude that 'God' don't exist based on current scientific data. The idea is not to prove a negative, rather to prove the existence of 'God' but that may be - as far as we know - beyond the boundaries of science. As it stands, the honest answer from any man of science should be 'I don't really know', if you say 'We need no God to exist for the Universe to exist' you are merely stating a personal belief that isn't supported by any conclusive data. How do you know? Were you there before the big bang?

Also, you are using the Judeo-Christian definition of 'God' but that is far from being the only one. Did you look into Pantheism, Panentheism or Deism? The 'God' theory has some very interesting models, rational and fully compatible with science which cannot be easily dismissed. I suggest you look into astrophysicist Bernard Haisch's theory for instance, he provides compelling arguments. There is nothing redundant about this, more like cutting edge stuffs to me. A way out of reductionism and the 'pointless Universe' worldview which are but assumptions.

Some ideas:

and
Edited by sam_comm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spacecowboy342

To say that we don't need God to explain our existence is not a belief but merely stating that the laws of physics as we understand them allow a universe to come into existence from nothing without magical aid. This does not disprove God, but with this being the case, what reason is there to suppose a God exists other than to satisfy the pre0existing idea that there was one?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NewAge1
To say that we don't need God to explain our existence is not a belief but merely stating that the laws of physics as we understand them allow a universe to come into existence from nothing without magical aid.

But the point is, how do you know that existence - meaning the Universe and reality - only required the actual laws of physics to come into being? As far as science is concerned, there was no laws of physics, no time and no space as we know them before the big bang. That is in itself a very challenging notion that raises fundamental questions. What's the point of this incredibly small singularity coming out of 'nowhere'? Claiming that there is no need of a setting forth by a metaphysical progenitor or anything else with 'purpose' or not is but a belief that isn't supported by any scientific data. We simply don't know.

Edited by sam_comm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

I disagree with that, there will probably be always things to ponder; problems and challenges associated with reality, knowledge, mind, ethics ect. I am not seeing the end in sight.

There will be challenges, but that does not mean we have to sit and guess wild conclusions, science can drill down and give us the answers we seek, philosophy cannot do that, it can only offer us how many alternates one can come up with. As such, new challenges will be wrestled down by the best minds in science, we do not have to wonder, we can move right onto investigation and get that answer.

You cannot conclude that 'God' don't exist based on current scientific data. The idea is not to prove a negative, rather to prove the existence of 'God' but that may be - as far as we know - beyond the boundaries of science. As it stands, the honest answer from any man of science should be 'I don't really know', if you say 'We need no God to exist for the Universe to exist' you are merely stating a personal belief that isn't supported by any conclusive data. How do you know? Were you there before the big bang?

Sorry, I seem to have misread your post, I thought it was asking how determine that God does not exist.

There is no "beyond the boundaries of science" Science is like the Universe, if you throw a spear 50 meters beyond the limit of the universe, the Universe is now 50 meters bigger. People who have good position in religious circles will say this to protect their place, but can you give me one good reason as to why religion is beyond the boundaries of science? How is that not saying "I have no answers and do not ask me"?

We have an honest answer from science, we can say how the Universe was formed, and no, you do not have to be there, but we do have solid sources of evidence to support that conclusion but what do you have on God? A man made and dictated concept.

LINK - Stephen Hawking makes it clear: There is no God

"Religion believes in miracles, but these aren't compatible with science."

Also, you are using the Judeo-Christian definition of 'God' but that is far from being the only one. Did you look into Pantheism, Panentheism or Deism? The 'God' theory has some very interesting models, rational and fully compatible with science which cannot be easily dismissed. I suggest you look into astrophysicist Bernard Haisch's theory for instance, he provides compelling arguments. There is nothing redundant about this, more like cutting edge stuffs to me. A way out of reductionism and the 'pointless Universe' worldview which are but assumptions.

Some ideas:

and

I am honestly not sure how you feel that supports the idea of an omnipotent being? Some of these gods were snakes, some creatures that are a hybrid of creatures on earth, they performed different functions, and many societies had a God for everything, there was even a Roman God of Cupboards!! We now know Zeus did not hurl lightning bolts, and Thor did not exist using a mighty hammer to create thunder, so what makes an Abrahamic God more likely to be real than the ones we used to have?

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather

[/size]

You are broad brushing to tarnish atheists though. It seems obvious to me that the context of said quotes insist that reference pertains to Abrahamic Gods, quite obviously not Dreamtime Gods, and many Native beliefs, obviously the rainbow serpent was how Indigenous Australians came to terms with the formation of the landscape. These cultures operated with different values, to their religions reflected the lifestyles. As the West colonised the world, it brought it's belief system with it, and made native religions redundant, just like science now makes modern religion redundant. In many areas today, religion still does control the masses, it inspires far to many people to take Islam to the streets in a literal fashion.

Are not meant to be insults, but examples, and it is a crying shame that so many people miss that, and simply decide to take offence to a challenge to their belief system.

Honestly, I fail to see what is wrong with that? if that is proven, then all it can do is enlighten us.

Why does religion feel it is above question? Only those devoutly faithful to said dogma do not want to know if that is a valid question or not.

I do not believe that for a second, what altered states of consciousness are the Australian Indigenous famous for?

And why do these "states" often involve illicit substances that we know affect the brain?

That anthropologists can find origins seems a bit of a dead giveaway to me?

And if that is the case, why do the sharpest minds in the cutting edge on the planet reject religion?

You have never answered the hard questions directly though, you state is is an experience one must have, but we are all individual, so we are not going to have "the same" experience. As such, there are no answers to the hard questions. Science does have the high ground here, sorry, but that's just the reality of the situation. Religious people often see themselves o some sort of moral high ground, thinking they answer to a higher power, they think they are more tolerant, they think they think more about their fellow man, Tom Cruise even went out in public and said so about Scientologists. It's just self delusion. That removes high ground, it does not gain it. And it should not be a "race" anyway, it should be what it is, who can answer the big questions and show how they came to that conclusion, and not give some talk about having a conversation with an omnipotent being. Does it not strike yu somewhat odd that people get thrown into mental wards for talking to imaginary beings, but if that being is God, it's just fine, and in fact something to comment favourably upon?

None of that is the point. Even Islam started within the abrahamic tradition which also has its roots in altered states and transitions do hunter gatherer societies.

Hardly so. "Sky daddies" and "FLSMs" are Mostly used to riducule.

Intelligence has nothing to do with faith in a religion.

No science dosnt have any high ground. Science has nothing to say about the existance of God or gods. By its very nature it is silent on the issue. There certainly is atheistic philosophy. But it snot science.

No it dosnt strike me as odd at all. Kids are drugged, people that have mystical exsoeriences called crazy, and medications dished out at every opertunity. Anything out of the standard meme of the time is always considered a threat.

I'm not religons in the standard sense, you won't get an argument out of me on that subject, but the irony is that many atheists act just like them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

To say that we don't need God to explain our existence is not a belief but merely stating that the laws of physics as we understand them allow a universe to come into existence from nothing without magical aid. This does not disprove God, but with this being the case, what reason is there to suppose a God exists other than to satisfy the pre0existing idea that there was one?

:tu:

Nail on the head.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

But the point is, how do you know that existence - meaning the Universe and reality - only required the actual laws of physics to come into being? As far as science is concerned, there was no laws of physics, no time and no space as we know them before the big bang. That is in itself a very challenging notion that raises fundamental questions. What's the point of this incredibly small singularity coming out of 'nowhere'? Claiming that there is no need of a setting forth by a metaphysical progenitor or anything else with 'purpose' or not is but a belief that isn't supported by any scientific data. We simply don't know.

Yes that is right, we only needed these laws to exist to exist.

We simply do not know which model kicked of the big bang,because there are a couple of viable models. But that there was one seems more than soundly supported by evidences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

None of that is the point. Even Islam started within the abrahamic tradition which also has its roots in altered states and transitions do hunter gatherer societies.

Abrahamic Traditions 2,000 years ago do not matter, as these practices are forgotten and only exist verbally. That is the point, we have moved on, religion did it's job, but we can do better now.

Hardly so. "Sky daddies" and "FLSMs" are Mostly used to riducule.

I am sure from a religious point of view it appears so, to my perspective it is just an alternative based on the same ideals illustrating the futility of said practises. In that light, I see it as an example.

Intelligence has nothing to do with faith in a religion.

I do not agree, The best minds on the planet are atheist.

No science dosnt have any high ground. Science has nothing to say about the existance of God or gods. By its very nature it is silent on the issue. There certainly is atheistic philosophy. But it snot science.

Why is science banned form approaching God, if it is not that it can call him out?

No, it is not at all silent on the issue, Lawrence Krauss, Stephen Hawking, Penn Jilette and Richard Dawkins are very outspoken on the subject.

No it dosnt strike me as odd at all. Kids are drugged, people that have mystical exsoeriences called crazy, and medications dished out at every opertunity. Anything out of the standard meme of the time is always considered a threat.

Not outside of the standard meme, medicine tells us what these drugs actually do to you these days now that we can watch a brain expending energy as it works.

I'm not religons in the standard sense, you won't get an argument out of me on that subject, but the irony is that many atheists act just like them.

No they do not, they are the polar opposites, Atheists insist on evidence, whereas religious people tell you to consult your inner self and simple have faith. Verbal assurances are not worth anything at all. An atheist will say "here is the answer" a religious person will tell you to talk to God. Chalk and Cheese.

Edited by psyche101
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.