Atheism is incompatible with science

[Habitat]

16 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Do you consider Mohamed a mystic? 

Of course.

[Horta]

Just now, Habitat said:

I don't know whether anyone walked on water, or raised people from the dead, but I am pretty confident space aliens didn't blow up volcanoes with hydrogen bombs, if only because it all sounds very 1950's-ish ! But I am 100% that the JC we hear about, is spouting advice on mysticism.

Yes, just like the fellow with the volcanoes and nuclear (or is that nucula? lol) weapons. If the bible had mentioned nuclear weapons people would be all over that. Bye bye atheism, hello jesus. They didn't mention them because they weren't around, there was no historical or cultural context for them.

How is the bible a "mystically" derived document, while the other isn't? If your saying jesus was a mystic, then it follows the stories are mystically derived. Did mysticism indicate that such a person existed? Mainstream scholars generally don't believe a jesus consistent with the gospels accounts existed. They have to invent a whole 'nother one. So far you seem to be applying hefty doses of rational logic, though quite inconsistently.

[onlookerofmayhem]

3 minutes ago, Habitat said:

I don't know whether anyone walked on water, or raised people from the dead, but I am pretty confident space aliens didn't blow up volcanoes with hydrogen bombs, if only because it all sounds very 1950's-ish ! But I am 100% that the JC we hear about, is spouting advice on mysticism.

I'm pretty confident nobody has walked on water or raised anyone from the dead.

To me, the idea is just as far fetched as the alien/volcano/nuke story.

I don't understand how you can rule the last one out, yet sit on the fence on the first two.

What makes it's more likely that the first two events occurred?

[Habitat]

14 minutes ago, Horta said:

Why should anyone believe you?

This is a matter for you. I know the beyond is real. I also know where the dividing line is, it is between those that decline to make a call on the matter, and those that do, in the negative. The latter really are not bright people, their assessment of their competence to judge, does not match actuality. And why make that judgement, when there is no reason to, except to exercise their ego. I know you are still are on the undecided side of that line, but have a strong urge at times, to make that leap. You won't do it. And rightly so. Even P101 will all his bluster, won't make the leap. God help those that do !

[jmccr8]

7 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Like santa, a known exclusively human invention.

Hi Habitat

As a child, we love the illusion and as adults, we take joy in the delusion of Santa. Is it a sin to believe or give reference to a spirit of giving? No, I don't think so as I see it as a lesson of giving of oneself. Many gifts that I have given could not be wrapped and put under a tree but they were received with the same respect. Because I work in the construction industry I use those skills to help people gain greater financial stability and rather than look for a gift that they may not want I will renovate their homes and give them equity if I feel that they will use that gift to their best advantage. Unfortunately, the person that I have recently been trying to help does not understand the significance of what I have offered them and have chosen to see me as a mark that can be played and has lost my support. Some of my frustration the other day under the influence may have had some impact in how I expressed my thoughts here at the forum and to you, Walker and the rest of my fellow members I offer my apologies.

jmccr8

 

[+Sherapy]

32 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

And I'd still give your big toe the benefit of the doubt given those choices. 

What does it even mean to claim enlightenment?

For me, a person who struggles with humility is not an enlightened being, but tethered to their ego. 

 

[Habitat]

7 minutes ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

I'm pretty confident nobody has walked on water or raised anyone from the dead.

To me, the idea is just as far fetched as the alien/volcano/nuke story.

I don't understand how you can rule the last one out, yet sit on the fence on the first two.

What makes it's more likely that the first two events occurred?

That's for you to judge, one seems rather simple, with supposedly eyewitnesses, the other speaks eloquently of its implausibility.......

 

Xenu (/ˈziːnuː/),^[1][2][3] also called Xemu, was, according to Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard, the dictator of the "Galactic Confederacy" who 75 million years ago brought billions^[4][5] of his people to Earth (then known as "Teegeeack") in DC-8-like spacecraft, stacked them around volcanoes, and killed them with hydrogen bombs. Official Scientology scriptures hold that the thetans (immortal spirits) of these aliens adhere to humans, causing spiritual harm.^[1][6]

These events are known within Scientology as "Incident II",^[7] and the traumatic memories associated with them as "The Wall of Fire" or "R6 implant". The narrative of Xenu is part of Scientologist teachings about extraterrestrial civilizations and alien interventions in earthly events, collectively described as "space opera" by Hubbard. Hubbard detailed the story in Operating Thetan level III (OT III) in 1967, warning that the "R6 implant" (past trauma)^[8] was "calculated to kill (by pneumonia, etc.) anyone who attempts to solve it".^[8][9][10]

Within the Church of Scientology, the Xenu story is part of the church's secret "Advanced Technology",^[7] considered a sacred and esoteric teaching,^[11] which is normally only revealed to members who have completed a lengthy sequence of courses costing large amounts of money.^[12] The church avoids mention of Xenu in public statements and has gone to considerable effort to maintain the story's confidentiality, including legal action on the grounds of copyright and trade secrecy.^[13]Officials of the Church of Scientology widely deny or try to hide the Xenu story.^[14][15] Despite this, much material on Xenu has leaked to the public via court documents, copies of Hubbard's notes, and the Internet.^[14] In commentary on the impact of the Xenu text, academic scholars have discussed and analyzed the writings by Hubbard and their place within Scientology within the contexts of science fiction,^[16] UFO religions,^[17] Gnosticism^[18][19] and creation myths.^[11]

[jmccr8]

18 minutes ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

I'm pretty confident nobody has walked on water or raised anyone from the dead.

Hi Onlooker of mayhem

I live in the"Great White North and walking on water is not a mystery and believe me we do more than walk on ice. I died to a life I knew and everyone involved, some tried to raise me the first few years but my girls mean more to me than that so I stayed dead.

jmccr8

[psyche101]

29 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Like santa, a known exclusively human invention.

But so is mysticism. 

[psyche101]

28 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Of course.

Yet he didn't seem to have divine morals? 

[psyche101]

26 minutes ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

I'm pretty confident nobody has walked on water or raised anyone from the dead.

To me, the idea is just as far fetched as the alien/volcano/nuke story.

I don't understand how you can rule the last one out, yet sit on the fence on the first two.

What makes it's more likely that the first two events occurred?

I can walk on water 

But I stagger on the liquor. 

 

I personally feel that's its more likely that many people were referenced to make one Jesus myth 

But I also think one of them could have simply been a good magician. 

 

 

[Habitat]

Just now, psyche101 said:

But so is mysticism. 

An evolved capability, more likely. But, no doubt, a great deal of fakery has surrounded the subject. 

[Habitat]

5 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Yet he didn't seem to have divine morals? 

Meaning ? I am not an apologist for any mystics, I am not sure what you are alluding to.

[onlookerofmayhem]

5 minutes ago, Habitat said:

That's for you to judge, one seems rather simple, with supposedly eyewitnesses, the other speaks eloquently of its implausibility.......

I would have to firmly say that, unless involving some kind of trickery, walking on water and magically raising a four day old dead body to life are highly, highly implausible.

Now if we could only know if it was somehow an illusion. Or trickery. Or a total fabrication. All way more plausible than the idea they ever really did happen.

And a huge BLAH! to "supposed eyewitnesess." BS. 

Same thing as saying there were many witnesses to a giant ape terrorizing NYC. "Well, in the movie King Kong..."

The bible is a fairy tale and I don't take any of it's supernatural tales seriously. Why would anyone?

 

[psyche101]

21 minutes ago, Habitat said:

This is a matter for you. I know the beyond is real. I also know where the dividing line is, it is between those that decline to make a call on the matter, and those that do, in the negative.

Its starting to sound like you are declaring yourself a mystic? 

21 minutes ago, Habitat said:

The latter really are not bright people, their assessment of their competence to judge, does not match actuality.

That contradicts how you keep saying the path to mystic enlightenment is irrational. As such, should that path bit appear irrational to a critical mind? 

21 minutes ago, Habitat said:

And why make that judgement, when there is no reason to, except to exercise their ego.

Why not? It's human nature to be curious and to question. 

It sounds like you would prefer it if people just accepted the god idea and mysticism when really, there's no good reason to. 

How does your view of mysticism differ greatly from walkers claims if travelling the galaxy in a night? Why would you in reality be any more believable or mentally stable? 

21 minutes ago, Habitat said:

I know you are still are on the undecided side of that line, but have a strong urge at times, to make that leap.

You say this often yet it makes zero sense. What brings you to such a ridiculous conclusion? 

21 minutes ago, Habitat said:

You won't do it. And rightly so. Even P101 will all his bluster, won't make the leap. God help those that do !

I don't find self delusion appealing. Nothing you have said indicates that you or the mystics have anything more than that to offer. 

[danydandan]

4 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

A life long study of both history and of comparative religions, and the history of religious development.   The basics can be gleaned from a quick study of the biographies of those who began the  big world religions and those who usurped control of them  . 

quote

I was talking about people who have had a genuine revelation or gnosis.  A connection to the universal, or cosmic, consciousness. 

This tends to drive out materialism, selfishness, isolation, and self importance.

  Such leaders believe they have been given something which is inherent in humanity and, when utilised, can allow us to fulfil our potential 

others do indeed come along and make use of those teachings to gain power and wealth, but  they  were not those who experienced the gnosis or revelation.   

Then of course there is my own experience with this,  and its result on, and in, me

However, historically, we see people influenced by this enlightenment who begin religions,  then others seeking power  (for both good and bad reasons) who take the religion over  

Again, how do you know was gone unanswered. 

All you can be certain of is your own experiences. I thought Habitat and I established this already.

Edited April 11, 2019 by danydandan

[psyche101]

19 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

What does it even mean to claim enlightenment?

For me, a person who struggles with humility is not an enlightened being, but tethered to their ego. 

 

Walkers ego is the one thing I do not doubt about him! 

[onlookerofmayhem]

8 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

I can walk on water 

But I stagger on the liquor. 

 

I personally feel that's its more likely that many people were referenced to make one Jesus myth 

But I also think one of them could have simply been a good magician. 

 

 

Hahaha! Indeed.

Well, that's kind of my point.

I'm fighting against the divine, biblical version of the events.

It is totally plausible that deceptive magician type people could have fooled people into believing such things were occurring.

Same as if a person wasn't really dead, just really sick. A few days later, they get better and voila, people think he's back from the dead.

No divinity or magic needed.

[psyche101]

8 minutes ago, Habitat said:

An evolved capability, more likely.

Can't be or it could be passed on. 

8 minutes ago, Habitat said:

But, no doubt, a great deal of fakery has surrounded the subject. 

There's no reason to think its not all fakery, especially so when one had to convince oneself of the personal enlightenment allegedly received. 

I'm still not seeing how mystics and people who thinj they are Napoleon have less in common than more. 

[psyche101]

8 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Meaning ? I am not an apologist for any mystics, I am not sure what you are alluding to.

His marriage to a 9 year old. 

If he really did come to know God, why wouldn't such morals dawn on him? God should be above man's faults. Yet he seems to approve of them. 

[psyche101]

3 minutes ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

Hahaha! Indeed.

Well, that's kind of my point.

I'm fighting against the divine, biblical version of the events.

It is totally plausible that deceptive magician type people could have fooled people into believing such things were occurring.

Same as if a person wasn't really dead, just really sick. A few days later, they get better and voila, people think he's back from the dead.

No divinity or magic needed.

That's the thing with spirituality. It seems to be the leftovers when one tackles the horrors and absurdities of the god we know through history. 2,000 years later, we find 'the real god' 

Can't say I'm convinced. 

[Horta]

4 minutes ago, Habitat said:

This is a matter for you. I know the beyond is real. I also know where the dividing line is, it is between those that decline to make a call on the matter, and those that do, in the negative.

Good for you. It must be great to "know". Talked to plenty of bigfooters and alien abductees who "know" as well. They argue as passionately as you do (sometimes more so).

I find it unlikely you know where any such dividing line is.

I don't "know" if physical reality is real. I am aware that I only assume it is. The only thing I really know, is that I don't really know. I am indebted to socrates for this.

Quote

The latter really are not bright people, their assessment of their competence to judge, does not match actuality. And why make that judgement, when there is no reason to, except to exercise their ego.

Sound like anyone you know, habitat? Who has made a judgement here, do you think?

Refusal to accept your own personal claims, because you can't support them, doesn't rule out being open to possibility re the subject. That's non sequitur.

Quote

I know you are still are on the undecided side of that line, but have a strong urge at times, to make that leap. You won't do it. And rightly so. Even P101 will all his bluster, won't make the leap. God help those that do !

What leap? The one where you give up rationality when it pleases you? 

[jmccr8]

7 minutes ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

I would have to firmly say that, unless involving some kind of trickery, walking on water and magically raising a four day old dead body to life are highly, highly implausible.

Now if we could only know if it was somehow an illusion. Or trickery. Or a total fabrication. All way more plausible than the idea they ever really did happen.

And a huge BLAH! to "supposed eyewitnesess." BS. 

Same thing as saying there were many witnesses to a giant ape terrorizing NYC. "Well, in the movie King Kong..."

The bible is a fairy tale and I don't take any of it's supernatural tales seriously. Why would anyone?

 

Hi Onlooker of mayhem

It could have been a metaphor like the one I made about my life, obviously, the bible is about the human experience. For me, it has it's rooted in communal living and is a teaching tool taken out of context for reasons of manipulation.

jmccr8

[danydandan]

12 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Walkers ego is the one thing I do not doubt about him! 

Well it might be understated!

[Horta]

1 minute ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Onlooker of mayhem

It could have been a metaphor like the one I made about my life, obviously, the bible is about the human experience. For me, it has it's rooted in communal living and is a teaching tool taken out of context for reasons of manipulation.

jmccr8

The gospels can even sound quite beautiful and inspirational as a metaphor. Quite the opposite if they are supposed historical events though. A god that literally shows his love for humanity this way surely should be shunned by believers or at the very least pitied, yet they worship it?