[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting article on atheism
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... wrote: > > "With old age comes inflexibility and the loss of mental agility which is > more than evident in your posts" > > Actually, I think you must *work* on closing your mind, to have that occur as > you age. Both my father in law at 86, and my dear departed father, at 89, > have and had far more flexible and open minds than Barry does. You're right, the sort of senility one can observe in some old people and the Turq's posts nowadays surely doesn't happen to all old people. For example, I have a meditating friend who is now 94 and she's fit as a fiddle in all ways and can beat me in chess any day. For some old people escaping into oblivion is also a result of their previous wish. If you've lived in a fantasy and denial during younger years senility is simply getting what you wanted. Perhaps that's why Maharishi warned: "Be careful what you wish" > > Of course both had a lot more real life experience that he ever will. He is a > perfect example of what my wife refers to as, "too much self-referencing". Ne > lives in his head, with a very spotty consciousness. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: > > > > > > > As I've pointed out before, lately you have lost it probably because you've > > become OLD. With old age comes inflexibility and the loss of mental agility > > which is more than evident in your posts about the only enlightened teacher > > you ever met, however briefly more than 40 years ago. > > It's as if you have to remind yourself of your less than positive points > > again and again here on FFL becuase NOONE else listens to you anymore > > except the occasional new bully in the class. So again and again now for > > years you are posting the same old, same old without having the > > discrimination which comes from a fresh mind to realize that that's what it > > is; same old. > > It should be obvious for you by now that you don't create the reaction you > > are craving for anymore, "the cultists > > > they are and go all reactive and paranoid and nasty > > > trying to demonize me," These "cultists" don't bother about you rants > > > anymore, you've become permanently irrelevant. Even I go into "ZZ" > > > mode when you post another of you rants we've read so many times before. > > > > Get over it Turq, enjoy your retirement and autoumn years instead. > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting article on atheism
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... wrote: > > Easy - Turq is no longer, "old as f*ck". He has advanced to his next step, > rotting.:-) That's right, his posts do have a certain odour :-) > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: > > > > I'm still trying to understand how someone 67 or 68 could call 38 yr old > > Russell Brand old as f**k. Only turq didn't use asterisks (-: If you hate the TMO with everything you've got small details like you bring up have NO relevance ! :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting article on atheism
"With old age comes inflexibility and the loss of mental agility which is more than evident in your posts" Actually, I think you must *work* on closing your mind, to have that occur as you age. Both my father in law at 86, and my dear departed father, at 89, have and had far more flexible and open minds than Barry does. Of course both had a lot more real life experience that he ever will. He is a perfect example of what my wife refers to as, "too much self-referencing". Ne lives in his head, with a very spotty consciousness. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > I think a little balance is in order, and hope to > > provide some from time to time. If my doing so > > occasionally causes people to act like the cultists > > they are and go all reactive and paranoid and nasty > > trying to demonize me, that's just gravy. THEY make > > my points FOR me by doing so. > > As I've pointed out before, lately you have lost it probably because you've > become OLD. With old age comes inflexibility and the loss of mental agility > which is more than evident in your posts about the only enlightened teacher > you ever met, however briefly more than 40 years ago. > It's as if you have to remind yourself of your less than positive points > again and again here on FFL becuase NOONE else listens to you anymore except > the occasional new bully in the class. So again and again now for years you > are posting the same old, same old without having the discrimination which > comes from a fresh mind to realize that that's what it is; same old. > It should be obvious for you by now that you don't create the reaction you > are craving for anymore, "the cultists > > they are and go all reactive and paranoid and nasty > > trying to demonize me," These "cultists" don't bother about you rants > > anymore, you've become permanently irrelevant. Even I go into "ZZ" mode > > when you post another of you rants we've read so many times before. > > Get over it Turq, enjoy your retirement and autoumn years instead. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting article on atheism
Easy - Turq is no longer, "old as f*ck". He has advanced to his next step, rotting.:-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: > > I'm still trying to understand how someone 67 or 68 could call 38 yr old > Russell Brand old as f**k. Only turq didn't use asterisks (-: > > > > > > From: nablusoss1008 > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 6:26 AM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting article on atheism > > >  > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > I think a little balance is in order, and hope to > > provide some from time to time. If my doing so > > occasionally causes people to act like the cultists > > they are and go all reactive and paranoid and nasty > > trying to demonize me, that's just gravy. THEY make > > my points FOR me by doing so. > > As I've pointed out before, lately you have lost it probably because you've > become OLD. With old age comes inflexibility and the loss of mental agility > which is more than evident in your posts about the only enlightened teacher > you ever met, however briefly more than 40 years ago. > It's as if you have to remind yourself of your less than positive points > again and again here on FFL becuase NOONE else listens to you anymore except > the occasional new bully in the class. So again and again now for years you > are posting the same old, same old without having the discrimination which > comes from a fresh mind to realize that that's what it is; same old. > It should be obvious for you by now that you don't create the reaction you > are craving for anymore, "the cultists > > they are and go all reactive and paranoid and nasty > > trying to demonize me," These "cultists" don't bother about you rants > > anymore, you've become permanently irrelevant. Even I go into "ZZ" mode > > when you post another of you rants we've read so many times before. > > Get over it Turq, enjoy your retirement and autoumn years instead. >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting article on atheism
I'm still trying to understand how someone 67 or 68 could call 38 yr old Russell Brand old as f**k. Only turq didn't use asterisks (-: From: nablusoss1008 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 6:26 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting article on atheism --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > I think a little balance is in order, and hope to > provide some from time to time. If my doing so > occasionally causes people to act like the cultists > they are and go all reactive and paranoid and nasty > trying to demonize me, that's just gravy. THEY make > my points FOR me by doing so. As I've pointed out before, lately you have lost it probably because you've become OLD. With old age comes inflexibility and the loss of mental agility which is more than evident in your posts about the only enlightened teacher you ever met, however briefly more than 40 years ago. It's as if you have to remind yourself of your less than positive points again and again here on FFL becuase NOONE else listens to you anymore except the occasional new bully in the class. So again and again now for years you are posting the same old, same old without having the discrimination which comes from a fresh mind to realize that that's what it is; same old. It should be obvious for you by now that you don't create the reaction you are craving for anymore, "the cultists > they are and go all reactive and paranoid and nasty > trying to demonize me," These "cultists" don't bother about you rants > anymore, you've become permanently irrelevant. Even I go into "ZZ" mode > when you post another of you rants we've read so many times before. Get over it Turq, enjoy your retirement and autoumn years instead.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting article on atheism
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > I think a little balance is in order, and hope to > provide some from time to time. If my doing so > occasionally causes people to act like the cultists > they are and go all reactive and paranoid and nasty > trying to demonize me, that's just gravy. THEY make > my points FOR me by doing so. As I've pointed out before, lately you have lost it probably because you've become OLD. With old age comes inflexibility and the loss of mental agility which is more than evident in your posts about the only enlightened teacher you ever met, however briefly more than 40 years ago. It's as if you have to remind yourself of your less than positive points again and again here on FFL becuase NOONE else listens to you anymore except the occasional new bully in the class. So again and again now for years you are posting the same old, same old without having the discrimination which comes from a fresh mind to realize that that's what it is; same old. It should be obvious for you by now that you don't create the reaction you are craving for anymore, "the cultists > they are and go all reactive and paranoid and nasty > trying to demonize me," These "cultists" don't bother about you rants > anymore, you've become permanently irrelevant. Even I go into "ZZ" mode > when you post another of you rants we've read so many times before. Get over it Turq, enjoy your retirement and autoumn years instead.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting article on atheism
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" > > wrote: > > > > > > As to the various flavours of those who believe in various > > > interpretations of reality, I recall reading a comment on > > > atheism somewhere that those who believe atheism is like a > > > religious belief are looking at the situation in the same > > > way a person imagines that baldness is a hair color. There > > > do seem to be those like this. > > > > Excellent post. I had never heard the baldness analogy but > > it will become a part of my future raps off the board. > > This IS indeed a fine analogy, Xeno, and one that > extends far beyond the topic of atheism vs. believerism. > > I would suggest that it also covers the good/bad, for/ > against, you're-either-with-us-or-against-us duality > that one sees so often on this forum coming from TM > TBs. This black-and-white oversimplicity rears its ugly > head almost every time someone proffers a criticism of > TM, the TMO, or Maharishi that they can't intellectually > counter or (truth be told) even deal with. So what they > do instead is to fall back on the Classic Cult Behavior > of implying (or stating outright) that there is something > WRONG with the person who would post such a criticism. > > They're an "enemy of the movement," or "paid by the CIA > or the Dalai Lama or *someone* to diss what we believe > in," or "their minds have deteriorated," or they're > "sneering, judgemental [sic], dismissive, and cynical." > > Methinks such tactics are very MUCH like thinking bald- > ness is a hair color. The critics are often doing nothing > more than presenting a *lack of belief* in the things > that the TBs believe in, and that pisses them off. The > people who continually try to create and perpetuate a > "them vs. us" environment on FFL IMO then project their > *own* beliefs and tendencies to see *everything* in terms > of "with us or agin' us" onto those who present ideas > they don't like (and can't counter), and to cast > *them* as being "enemies" or "anti-TM" or "anti-MMY." > > Me, I tend to think that what some of the critics so > often labeled this way are doing is providing some needed > BALANCE to the attempts by pro-TMers to keep selling it > the same way it's always been sold. That is, based on > a set of declarations about its supposed benefits THAT > HAVE NEVER WORKED OUT IN REAL LIFE. > > Stuff like "TM makes a person happier and more able to > interact with others in a 100% positive manner," or "a > few butt-bouncers, because their thoughts are 10,000X > more powerful than lesser people donchaknow, can create > world peace," or even "TM helps a person to become more > an example of enlightened behavior." > > Yeah, right. As Michael has pointed out (while being > labeled as many derogatory things for doing so), all > one has to do to see the ludicrousness of the TMO's > sales pitch for TM is to look to the leaders of the TM > movement itself. Maharishi found nothing whatsoever > wrong with money-laundering, fucking his female students > while claiming to be celibate and preaching celibacy to > his students, changing rules willy-nilly to deprive TM > teachers of their earned course credits, excommunicating > those same teachers en masse unless they *pay him again* > for a second TTC course and become 'recertified', going > medieval on England's ass and labeling it a 'scorpion > nation,' and spending his last days acting out King Lear, > imploring those around him to bid for his affections > by pledging to build the largest number of phallic > symbols to his memory. Are you trying to tell me THAT > is "enlightened behavior?" > > Now look to the other leaders of the TM movement over > the years, and to the crime statistics of Fairfield > itself. Has TM worked out according to the way it's > been sold in those instances? Has it worked out as > advertised in *any* instances? Can the TM movement > point to ANY human being who practiced TM -- even > one -- and say, "THIS is an example of a person who > has realized their enlightenment as the result of > practicing TM?" They cannot. > > But they continue to sell TM using the same olde > declarations. Some critics feel that a little balance > might be in order, to point out to lurkers and to > potential suckers...uh, I mean meditators...that very > few of the promises made for the benefits of TM have > ever shown up in in real life, where the rubber meets > the road. > > And what happens when these critics do this? In many > cases, the TM apologists don't even *bother* to try > to counter the criticisms any more. They just lash > out at the critics and call them names, and say that > *they* are lost in ignorance or stuck in a perpetual > fight against TM and all that is holy. > > We aren't. Or at least I'm not. > > I think that b
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting article on atheism
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" > wrote: > > > > As to the various flavours of those who believe in various > > interpretations of reality, I recall reading a comment on > > atheism somewhere that those who believe atheism is like a > > religious belief are looking at the situation in the same > > way a person imagines that baldness is a hair color. There > > do seem to be those like this. > > Excellent post. I had never heard the baldness analogy but > it will become a part of my future raps off the board. This IS indeed a fine analogy, Xeno, and one that extends far beyond the topic of atheism vs. believerism. I would suggest that it also covers the good/bad, for/ against, you're-either-with-us-or-against-us duality that one sees so often on this forum coming from TM TBs. This black-and-white oversimplicity rears its ugly head almost every time someone proffers a criticism of TM, the TMO, or Maharishi that they can't intellectually counter or (truth be told) even deal with. So what they do instead is to fall back on the Classic Cult Behavior of implying (or stating outright) that there is something WRONG with the person who would post such a criticism. They're an "enemy of the movement," or "paid by the CIA or the Dalai Lama or *someone* to diss what we believe in," or "their minds have deteriorated," or they're "sneering, judgemental [sic], dismissive, and cynical." Methinks such tactics are very MUCH like thinking bald- ness is a hair color. The critics are often doing nothing more than presenting a *lack of belief* in the things that the TBs believe in, and that pisses them off. The people who continually try to create and perpetuate a "them vs. us" environment on FFL IMO then project their *own* beliefs and tendencies to see *everything* in terms of "with us or agin' us" onto those who present ideas they don't like (and can't counter), and to cast *them* as being "enemies" or "anti-TM" or "anti-MMY." Me, I tend to think that what some of the critics so often labeled this way are doing is providing some needed BALANCE to the attempts by pro-TMers to keep selling it the same way it's always been sold. That is, based on a set of declarations about its supposed benefits THAT HAVE NEVER WORKED OUT IN REAL LIFE. Stuff like "TM makes a person happier and more able to interact with others in a 100% positive manner," or "a few butt-bouncers, because their thoughts are 10,000X more powerful than lesser people donchaknow, can create world peace," or even "TM helps a person to become more an example of enlightened behavior." Yeah, right. As Michael has pointed out (while being labeled as many derogatory things for doing so), all one has to do to see the ludicrousness of the TMO's sales pitch for TM is to look to the leaders of the TM movement itself. Maharishi found nothing whatsoever wrong with money-laundering, fucking his female students while claiming to be celibate and preaching celibacy to his students, changing rules willy-nilly to deprive TM teachers of their earned course credits, excommunicating those same teachers en masse unless they *pay him again* for a second TTC course and become 'recertified', going medieval on England's ass and labeling it a 'scorpion nation,' and spending his last days acting out King Lear, imploring those around him to bid for his affections by pledging to build the largest number of phallic symbols to his memory. Are you trying to tell me THAT is "enlightened behavior?" Now look to the other leaders of the TM movement over the years, and to the crime statistics of Fairfield itself. Has TM worked out according to the way it's been sold in those instances? Has it worked out as advertised in *any* instances? Can the TM movement point to ANY human being who practiced TM -- even one -- and say, "THIS is an example of a person who has realized their enlightenment as the result of practicing TM?" They cannot. But they continue to sell TM using the same olde declarations. Some critics feel that a little balance might be in order, to point out to lurkers and to potential suckers...uh, I mean meditators...that very few of the promises made for the benefits of TM have ever shown up in in real life, where the rubber meets the road. And what happens when these critics do this? In many cases, the TM apologists don't even *bother* to try to counter the criticisms any more. They just lash out at the critics and call them names, and say that *they* are lost in ignorance or stuck in a perpetual fight against TM and all that is holy. We aren't. Or at least I'm not. I think that basic TM -- taught as a technique done twice a day for 20 minutes and then *left there*, with no followup indoctrination or attempts to sell TMers the worthless add-on products like the Sidhis or Ayurveda or Jyotish or any of that crap -- is still a pretty good thing. If
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting article on atheism
Hi Curtis - not sure what I have to say about all of this. Let me give it a whirl: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > Thanks for keeping the rap going. I'd like to focus on a few points. > > > > > **Yeah, again, you must provide an example here. This ooga booga > > unconsciousness I don't know about. Even when I am asleep I have > > self-awareness. So I don't know what it is I should be facing, according to > > you, when there are no more shadows in my awareness. Expansion to discover, > > of course. These unconscious shadows, no. > > This is really getting to an interesting area concerning Maharishi's model of > the mind and what we are now learning in neuro-science. This area interests > me both theoretically as well as experientially since when I meditate I still > use TM. > > The more interesting question is not what examples I can provide of > unconscious processes, but to try to find ones that are actually driven > consciously. But I'll start with your question. > > Find a chair in the room and take a look. What part of that process of > locating and recognizing a chair, distinguishing it from other pieces of > furniture was conscious for you? Did you have to consciously compare it with > equally four legged tables and consciously say to yourself "it needs to have > a back on it to be a chair"? Did a stool without a back throw you and you > had to talk yourself into recognition of what it was through applying > conscious criteria? ***The conscious part was to deliberately not locate a chair in the room, but rather to keep reading. There is nothing in your paragraph above that indicates any type of belief necessary to recognize a chair. It is simply the same with anything else. > > 99. something of our mental processes are beyond our conscious awareness. > Perception is way too complex to be handled consciously. ***It is almost always impractical to view our mental processes and perceptions in the moment. However, by replaying anything in our awareness, slowing it down to frame by frame, the mechanics of perception become much clearer, more accessible. Again, as I've tried to emphasize, based on my successful experience of doing just that. i.e. works in real life, not just in my head. > > And that is just our perceptions. When we entertain thoughts it is also > driven unconsciously. Answer this question: " Are you a liberal or a > conservative?" Did that take a lot of conscious thought? And yet the > distinctions are complex. ***Your question had no meaning for me. I dismissed it almost immediately. > > What is the square root of 212? Now your conscious mind is probably kicking > in because you don't have an unconscious process for this answer. > > I hope this helps to understand how I am using it. ***Seems like you are writing off an awful lot. There is no rationale that our awareness of *anything* is somehow always unknown to us. It is an absurdity. > As far as the sleep witnessing thing goes, does this mean that you never > dream even while witnessing? In my experience just witnessing dreams does > not put them under complete conscious volition. ***Yeah, I witness everything, dreams included. I never try to interfere or take control of my dreams. It is much more restful and insightful just to watch them as extremely strange movies. > > I now believe that Maharishi's source of thought pure consciousness state is > just a quieter aspect of our conscious mind, which by interfacing with our > unconscious in a less filtered way can allow us to be aware of some creative > impulses sooner sometimes. It pays to hang out there. And there are a lot > of ways to get to that place including the conscious mind overload of > performance. Maharishi's model was trying to make too much out of that quiet > state of the mind, we are not even close to a source of creation in > transcending. It is an absurd overstatement of what meditation achieves. ***I do agree that Maharishi's talk when I first began meditation, about reaching the source of thought, from which springs fulfillment of every desire, seemed pretty idealistic. It has also driven some strange behavior around TM in general, myself included. I used it for years as a rationalization of "us vs. them" - Yes, THAT was a belief. I used to have them.:-) ***However, I recall what Maharishi specifically said about reaching the source of thought, and that a desire entertained at that source, would automatically be fulfilled. Using that criteria, I see a HUGE distinction between the quiet time you mention, and pure consciousness. With quiet time, we may have access to some creative areas we do not normally have time for. We can then use these resulting ideas later to improve whatever it is we want to. ***With consciousness established in pure consciousness though, the distinction comes from having any desire fulfilled, quickly and powerfull
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting article on atheism to Xeno
Xeno, if I may respectfully say: you are on quite a roll recently. I've enjoyed your last 4 posts immensely if not infinitely (-: I especially enjoyed baldness as a hair color and fart rays as a possible explanation of levitation and the blessing from the non existent Zeus. Now, onto more serious matters: did you know that there's research wherein the machine indicates that the muscle moves BEFORE the person has a perception?! I think Bruce Lipton talks about this or Heartmath. And this whole business about being and causality and relationship: to me relationship implies a time factor. And a time factor tempts one to think about causality. Maybe it's all just one big simultaneity. How's that for a hypothetical snare? Oh, almost forgot: really liked your questions about what if the mind brain question was answered one way or the other. What would that do for the person psychologically. And here I thought you were a psychology eschewing philosopher (-: From: Xenophaneros Anartaxius To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 10:40 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting article on atheism As to the various flavours of those who believe in various interpretations of reality, I recall reading a comment on atheism somewhere that those who believe atheism is like a religious belief are looking at the situation in the same way a person imagines that baldness is a hair color. There do seem to be those like this. A general indifference to the idea that there is some kind of god is sufficient, or the hypothesis that the various imaginings of the nature of a god that are in the marketplace seem highly untenable is sufficient. The only reason for the idea of an ultimate 'doer' is to support the concept of causality. A universe that is constructed entirely of being has no need of causality, or creation. It is just there. Like a tautology in logic is true, but conveys no information about anything; it is in your face and that is that. Within that being there are beginnings and endings, since to apprehend the universe as composed of distinct entities there has to be sense of differences. But when we try to extend that concept to the totality, we create an endless regress. Intellectually we are trying to impose the characteristics of limitation on unboundedness. We conceptually put infinity into a bounded intellectual space, and then imagine another infinity to produce the first one. Then we can always ask, who or what made the second infinity? This whole deal with 'enlightnment' is concerned with this question of causality. The 'path' is constructed to run all your ideas about reality into the dust, even though, if corrupted, or you are a total loser, the path may ensnare you in a new set of ideas. When your imaginings about life finally run down to zero, or perhaps thinned out enough, you wake up. You have to give up theism, you have to give up atheism as an idea about reality. These are hypothetical constructs the mind/brain maps onto unbounded being. Once you see on a gut level they are all hypothetical, that all thinking is hypothetical when it applies to understanding the world, you are free, though that freedom is not of the character of what you previously imagined. May Zeus bless you with his non-existence so that you may find what yours really is.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting article on atheism
Excellent post. I had never heard the baldness analogy but it will become a part of my future raps off the board. I am not sure that this: " These are hypothetical constructs the mind/brain maps onto unbounded being." has meaning for me. I guess I am not convinced that we could subjectively distinguish some expanded mental state from being able to actually experience Reality (I am using this as another term for unbounded being) this way. And I'm not even sure that Reality or unbounded being really has much value for us outside our filters that turn it into something we can comprehend. It has a bit of an acid trip feel to it where the only comment you can make is "Wow". I am kind of over seeking that out, ineffable experiences seem overrated to me somehow. I guess I am more interested in how these states can be used for creative expression. Is there a case for that? Thanks for joining the rap with this level of firepower! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" wrote: > > As to the various flavours of those who believe in various interpretations of > reality, I recall reading a comment on atheism somewhere that those who > believe atheism is like a religious belief are looking at the situation in > the same way a person imagines that baldness is a hair color. There do seem > to be those like this. > > A general indifference to the idea that there is some kind of god is > sufficient, or the hypothesis that the various imaginings of the nature of a > god that are in the marketplace seem highly untenable is sufficient. > > The only reason for the idea of an ultimate 'doer' is to support the concept > of causality. A universe that is constructed entirely of being has no need of > causality, or creation. It is just there. Like a tautology in logic is true, > but conveys no information about anything; it is in your face and that is > that. Within that being there are beginnings and endings, since to apprehend > the universe as composed of distinct entities there has to be sense of > differences. > > But when we try to extend that concept to the totality, we create an endless > regress. Intellectually we are trying to impose the characteristics of > limitation on unboundedness. We conceptually put infinity into a bounded > intellectual space, and then imagine another infinity to produce the first > one. Then we can always ask, who or what made the second infinity? > > This whole deal with 'enlightnment' is concerned with this question of > causality. The 'path' is constructed to run all your ideas about reality into > the dust, even though, if corrupted, or you are a total loser, the path may > ensnare you in a new set of ideas. When your imaginings about life finally > run down to zero, or perhaps thinned out enough, you wake up. You have to > give up theism, you have to give up atheism as an idea about reality. These > are hypothetical constructs the mind/brain maps onto unbounded being. > > Once you see on a gut level they are all hypothetical, that all thinking is > hypothetical when it applies to understanding the world, you are free, though > that freedom is not of the character of what you previously imagined. > > May Zeus bless you with his non-existence so that you may find what yours > really is. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting article on atheism
As to the various flavours of those who believe in various interpretations of reality, I recall reading a comment on atheism somewhere that those who believe atheism is like a religious belief are looking at the situation in the same way a person imagines that baldness is a hair color. There do seem to be those like this. A general indifference to the idea that there is some kind of god is sufficient, or the hypothesis that the various imaginings of the nature of a god that are in the marketplace seem highly untenable is sufficient. The only reason for the idea of an ultimate 'doer' is to support the concept of causality. A universe that is constructed entirely of being has no need of causality, or creation. It is just there. Like a tautology in logic is true, but conveys no information about anything; it is in your face and that is that. Within that being there are beginnings and endings, since to apprehend the universe as composed of distinct entities there has to be sense of differences. But when we try to extend that concept to the totality, we create an endless regress. Intellectually we are trying to impose the characteristics of limitation on unboundedness. We conceptually put infinity into a bounded intellectual space, and then imagine another infinity to produce the first one. Then we can always ask, who or what made the second infinity? This whole deal with 'enlightnment' is concerned with this question of causality. The 'path' is constructed to run all your ideas about reality into the dust, even though, if corrupted, or you are a total loser, the path may ensnare you in a new set of ideas. When your imaginings about life finally run down to zero, or perhaps thinned out enough, you wake up. You have to give up theism, you have to give up atheism as an idea about reality. These are hypothetical constructs the mind/brain maps onto unbounded being. Once you see on a gut level they are all hypothetical, that all thinking is hypothetical when it applies to understanding the world, you are free, though that freedom is not of the character of what you previously imagined. May Zeus bless you with his non-existence so that you may find what yours really is.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting article on atheism
Thanks for keeping the rap going. I'd like to focus on a few points. > > **Yeah, again, you must provide an example here. This ooga booga > unconsciousness I don't know about. Even when I am asleep I have > self-awareness. So I don't know what it is I should be facing, according to > you, when there are no more shadows in my awareness. Expansion to discover, > of course. These unconscious shadows, no. This is really getting to an interesting area concerning Maharishi's model of the mind and what we are now learning in neuro-science. This area interests me both theoretically as well as experientially since when I meditate I still use TM. The more interesting question is not what examples I can provide of unconscious processes, but to try to find ones that are actually driven consciously. But I'll start with your question. Find a chair in the room and take a look. What part of that process of locating and recognizing a chair, distinguishing it from other pieces of furniture was conscious for you? Did you have to consciously compare it with equally four legged tables and consciously say to yourself "it needs to have a back on it to be a chair"? Did a stool without a back throw you and you had to talk yourself into recognition of what it was through applying conscious criteria? 99. something of our mental processes are beyond our conscious awareness. Perception is way too complex to be handled consciously. And that is just our perceptions. When we entertain thoughts it is also driven unconsciously. Answer this question: " Are you a liberal or a conservative?" Did that take a lot of conscious thought? And yet the distinctions are complex. What is the square root of 212? Now your conscious mind is probably kicking in because you don't have an unconscious process for this answer. I hope this helps to understand how I am using it. As far as the sleep witnessing thing goes, does this mean that you never dream even while witnessing? In my experience just witnessing dreams does not put them under complete conscious volition. I now believe that Maharishi's source of thought pure consciousness state is just a quieter aspect of our conscious mind, which by interfacing with our unconscious in a less filtered way can allow us to be aware of some creative impulses sooner sometimes. It pays to hang out there. And there are a lot of ways to get to that place including the conscious mind overload of performance. Maharishi's model was trying to make too much out of that quiet state of the mind, we are not even close to a source of creation in transcending. It is an absurd overstatement of what meditation achieves. If he was right, people would be flying or at least long term meditators would be doing things more spectacular than what shows up in Batgap interviews. snip the obvious body point > > **The only other area you could be discussing, in terms of the "unconscious", > is emotions. This, I think has much more with forming a world view, than any > beliefs one may be using as crutches. Simple as that. If a person is > fundamentally struggling all of the time, and not meeting with success, they > will not feel great. Their world view will be affected more by immediate > circumstances and individual choices, than it ever will by their beliefs. I think we are using the terms in too different ways to come to an agreement here. In my view beliefs are not conscious and often drive emotions. For example if you have a deeply held unconscious belief that life should be easy and things in your life must be perfect, you will walk around pissed off a lot. This is the basis of Rational Emotive Therapy. Our unconscious assumptions about reality drive what we notice and what we ignore, internally and externally. > > **Beliefs are a way for the ego to sidestep authentic emotional > confrontation, within ourselves.> Can't you see that this is a statement of your beliefs? I wonder if you are conflating "beliefs" with "rationalizations"? The concept of "honesty" is a web of beliefs. > > **That is where I am coming from. > > > > expression of universal compassion.> > > > > > > I am with you if you want to equate God with life itself rather than the > > creator of life. > > **How do you see the two as different? I don't believe life needs a creator to have arisen on this planet. > > Life itself is so wondrous that it deserves all the PR the idea of the > creator usurped through men's imaginations. The added value of "compassion" > seems to be an imposition of personification onto life. > > **It is not an imposition of personification on life. It IS life. Life is not > some sterile value, which takes form. It takes form out of an active interest > to explore and express itself. By showing compassion and boundless > acceptance, it continues to grow and expand. Can't you see how many beliefs you just expressed in that paragraph? >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting article on atheism
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ wrote: > > > > > > Hey Curtis, I always thought it was an agnostic who doesn't know whether > > > or not God exists, and that an atheist flatly denies the existence of God. > > > > This is a common misconception about atheism. It has to do with people's > > difficulty in understanding that atheism is not a positive belief, but is > > the absence of belief. So people try to fit it into their own formula of > > belief systems by saying "atheists believe that there is no God." The > > nuances between the positions have more to do with how equivocally they > > state their opinions. > > > > EVerything boils down to sound-bites for you guys. > > I have met plenty of people who express a positive belief that God does not > exist. > > In fact, the nuances of atheism have been divided into hard/soft, etc by > people who go in for defining such things. > > What you really mean to say, Curtis, is that YOUR brand of atheism is an > absence of belief, which of course, at least somewhat approaches the agnostic > world-view, which is that one can't possibly decide such things given the > inability to test them properly. > I can't believe the human race is still having the conversation at all. If I said the sun was a large bowl of tapioca and that we should worship it as such and then, when it turned out to be something else, I wouldn't keep insisting it was *still* a bowl of tapioca but just in some mysterious, ineffable way that causes it to also be measured as something else. I'd just move on and accept that porridge isn't the source of all things (I'm in the middle of breakfast at the moment if you were wondering) Thing is, all concepts of god that the human race grew up believing, in the absence of good data about the natural world and our place in it, have turned out to be rubbish but for some reason that doesn't stop people changing the discredited belief we started with into something we can't quite test just yet (or continuing to believe it in a completely irrational and bloody minded way). It's time to give it up dudes! Smell the metaphysical coffee. Man's need to believe in things says more about him and the time he lives in than any creator being he invented. > L >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting article on atheism
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ wrote: > > > > Thanks for getting this ball rolling - > > I think you get that credit. > > > one more thing I want to add, is a response to the challenge, "How do I know > that my world view is correct?" > > > > Simple answer, I don't. However, I base my conclusions on my own > > experience.> > > Sounds honest and I can relate. We all do the best we can, especially in the > area of discussing ultimate reality. > > > of inner fulfillment and outer success. I consider both areas an excellent > mirror of what is, and is not, working for me.> > > Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP) has an interesting distinctions between > useful and un-useful beliefs.I am not the epistemological relativist they > are, but I think it relates to your position. It is sort of epistemology by > utility and I can relate to its pragmatism. But I am a bit more of an > idealist in that I believe we can do better in our beliefs. It all starts > for me, with weeding out the ones that lack good support. **As I mentioned, my actions are not based on a set of beliefs. I do the best I can, based on info presented to me. By the same token, I don't let beliefs cloud my view of how I am doing, right now. If I am hungry, I eat. If I need to reflect on something that I want to improve next time, same thing. It doesn't have to be a big deal. Then there are the obvious indicators - Am I comfortable, physically, financially, socially, intimately, and emotionally? Is life in its essence, here on Planet Earth, working, or do I tell myself one thing, and do another, or think another? Other than that, there are no beliefs to stand in the way of what I do next. > > > > > On that basis, I verify my path, the things I express, and the values that > > I hold, day by day. The consistency with which I express my ideas, is > > simply based on repeated experience, vs. belief. It may look like the same > > thing when expressed, but it isn't. No spider webs in my head.:-) > > > I'll answer your other post below as it relates to the above statements. It > starts with my assumption that you are not using a fundamentally different > cognitive mechanism than I am. I believe we are both bound by the same > constraints concerning how our experiences are shaped by beliefs. **Nope. The cognitive part I agree with, but getting me to say I form my experiences on the basis of belief is BS. Maybe true for you, but not me. It slows me down waay too much. > > response. If atheism is merely an absence of the *belief* in God, that is a > very positive thing. God is an ongoing journey, not a being described with > static values, that are then pitted against us, by comparison. > > I will argue that our experience is always shaped by beliefs, conscious or > unconscious. **What is the unconscious? Please give me an example of its operation. If we are witnessing experience 24/7, how is unconscious even possible?? We do not report, or even think about pure experience, we filter it through our language choices. And this is where our world view, which is actually a web of beliefs, imposes itself on our ineffable experiences. I think you are making a distinction about conscious beliefs which are a tiny part of our belief web, structuring and shaping all of our perceptions, even of ourselves and mostly beyond our conscious control. **Yeah, again, you must provide an example here. This ooga booga unconsciousness I don't know about. Even when I am asleep I have self-awareness. So I don't know what it is I should be facing, according to you, when there are no more shadows in my awareness. Expansion to discover, of course. These unconscious shadows, no. **Also, we do have bodily functions beyond our conscious control. That's kind of a no-brainer. There is an obvious hierarchy for our body intelligence. I personally do not want to consciously regulate the near infinite transmission of chemicals and fluids throughout my body. Seems to operate just fine. **The only other area you could be discussing, in terms of the "unconscious", is emotions. This, I think has much more with forming a world view, than any beliefs one may be using as crutches. Simple as that. If a person is fundamentally struggling all of the time, and not meeting with success, they will not feel great. Their world view will be affected more by immediate circumstances and individual choices, than it ever will by their beliefs. **Beliefs are a way for the ego to sidestep authentic emotional confrontation, within ourselves. To look unflinchingly, silently into the mirror, and dealing with whatever reflects back has nothing to do with beliefs. It is about being instantly honest with ourselves. **That is where I am coming from. > expression of universal compassion.> > > > I am with you if you want to e
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting article on atheism
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... wrote: > > Thanks for getting this ball rolling - I think you get that credit. one more thing I want to add, is a response to the challenge, "How do I know that my world view is correct?" > > Simple answer, I don't. However, I base my conclusions on my own experience.> Sounds honest and I can relate. We all do the best we can, especially in the area of discussing ultimate reality. Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP) has an interesting distinctions between useful and un-useful beliefs.I am not the epistemological relativist they are, but I think it relates to your position. It is sort of epistemology by utility and I can relate to its pragmatism. But I am a bit more of an idealist in that I believe we can do better in our beliefs. It all starts for me, with weeding out the ones that lack good support. > > On that basis, I verify my path, the things I express, and the values that I > hold, day by day. The consistency with which I express my ideas, is simply > based on repeated experience, vs. belief. It may look like the same thing > when expressed, but it isn't. No spider webs in my head.:-) I'll answer your other post below as it relates to the above statements. It starts with my assumption that you are not using a fundamentally different cognitive mechanism than I am. I believe we are both bound by the same constraints concerning how our experiences are shaped by beliefs. I am with you if you want to equate God with life itself rather than the creator of life. Life itself is so wondrous that it deserves all the PR the idea of the creator usurped through men's imaginations. The added value of "compassion" seems to be an imposition of personification onto life. As far as I can tell, this is a product of our lives as social primates, and doesn't play a big role in the vastness of life forms on the planet. I am a fan, but that is because I am human, not because there is a value of it existing beyond my human choices. Even if you were able to experience him without any of the unconscious filters of belief we now know human's process their experience through (which I don't believe you can) as soon as you articulate it into any words you are imposing your beliefs, meanings and values on the experience. And you are not the first to claim pure experience beyond belief as an epistemological jiu jitsu move. The problem is everyone can claim this including people whose pure experience you believe are full of it. You still haven't addressed how you distinguish your pure experience of subjective reality as more valid than the Moonies or Born Again Christians. Or maybe you did by saying you don't know. And the fact is that you cannot, no one can. It is the fundamental flaw in subjective knowledge about how the world is. You will never be challenged if you just apply it to your own sense of your self and don't make any statements about the reality of the world. I experience thoughts and beliefs as subjective experiences. I am not sure your distinction holds up. I believe you are denying one of our most valued human capacities here by putting down beliefs. I get it that it is part of the move to make your subjective beliefs about your internal experiences seem more than that. But it denies one of our most charming human abilities: to form beliefs based on what we can consider on reflection after the fact using more of our pre frontal cognitive brain. You seem to be denying your own humanity as a being capable of basing beliefs on better or worse evidence. It is almost a regression to the concept of the "noble savage" who was touted to embody pure, unfiltered experience. That view just does not hold up with what we know about neurology now. Making a claim like this with the evidence about how our mind works we now have is poetic but uninformed. You seem to actually be saying that there is one class of internal experience that can be trusted, even over later reflection on it. You are not the first and wont be the last to do so, but that ship has sailed with the rise of neurobiology, revealing that we are not as innocent in our internal experience as we believe. And perversely, we have another cognitive gap that makes us unreasonably confident about our interpretation of our subjective experiences. It is how the human monkey rolls. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ wrote: > > > > Hi Curtis, I did not say anything about beliefs, or use that word in my > > response. If atheism is merely an absence of the *belief* in God, that is a > > very positive thing. God is an ongoing journey, not a being described with > > static values, that are then pitted against us, by comparison. > > > > God is life, and love and infinity and everything else. All a coherent > > expression of universal compassion. > > > > This is all off the cuff - I h
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting article on atheism
The writer is obviously a confused man. He needs to spend some time in meditation to find out who he is. As such, he doesn't have to pray and still believe there is no God. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > A guy climbs to a mountaintop, looks out at the beauty > of creation, and realizes that none of it required the > existence of a God. > > http://www.salon.com/2013/03/03/my_sober_conversion_to_atheism_partner/ >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting article on atheism
Thanks for getting this ball rolling - one more thing I want to add, is a response to the challenge, "How do I know that my world view is correct?" Simple answer, I don't. However, I base my conclusions on my own experience. So far, the path I have chosen, has rewarded me incomprehensibly in terms of inner fulfillment and outer success. I consider both areas an excellent mirror of what is, and is not, working for me. On that basis, I verify my path, the things I express, and the values that I hold, day by day. The consistency with which I express my ideas, is simply based on repeated experience, vs. belief. It may look like the same thing when expressed, but it isn't. No spider webs in my head.:-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... wrote: > > Hi Curtis, I did not say anything about beliefs, or use that word in my > response. If atheism is merely an absence of the *belief* in God, that is a > very positive thing. God is an ongoing journey, not a being described with > static values, that are then pitted against us, by comparison. > > God is life, and love and infinity and everything else. All a coherent > expression of universal compassion. > > This is all off the cuff - I have no beliefs about God, but rather describe > God in the moment, as He and She is experienced. > > Any discussion on the basis of this belief, or that belief, is nonsense. Who > cares? Experience is the only thing worth discussing. Other than that, all > one does is make a case for a static thought, or as we so charmingly call it, > a belief. Beliefs are for dead people. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ wrote: > > > > > > Hey Curtis, I always thought it was an agnostic who doesn't know whether > > > or not God exists, and that an atheist flatly denies the existence of God. > > > > This is a common misconception about atheism. It has to do with people's > > difficulty in understanding that atheism is not a positive belief, but is > > the absence of belief. So people try to fit it into their own formula of > > belief systems by saying "atheists believe that there is no God." The > > nuances between the positions have more to do with how equivocally they > > state their opinions. > > > > For an atheist, all beliefs in the many Gods are equivalent to how society > > views the mythologies of the Greek Gods for example. I don't believe that > > it increases the probability that the God Zeus exists because a bunch of > > people made up stories about him. > > > > And that skepticism extends to people's subjective reports of experiencing > > "God". > > > > So an atheist more confidently states that there is no good reason for > > believing in Zeus, where an agnostic might make the point that we can't > > know such things with such confidence. It is more a nuance of emphasis > > rather than content. > > > > But in neither case is it stated that one holds the position for good solid > > reasons, that there could not be a God that has not been yet described by > > people so far. All we know is that so far people's reasons are lacking in > > epistemological merit. A standard that people are curiously eager to apply > > when dealing with other people's versions of the God belief, but are unable > > to apply to themselves. > > > > > > < I am referring to atheists, not agnostics. > > > > > > > And again, I correct your notion about what atheism is about. > > > > > > > Atheists are those who deny their childish ideas, but have not yet > > > advanced to adulthood. > > > > Condescending analogy aside, it is unlikely that many children have the > > philosophical background necessary to understand the epistemological issues > > atheists have with theist's claims. The problem of lack of reliability of > > subjective knowledge and experience seems to be hard for many adults to > > grasp. > > > > > > > > By this I mean, atheists do not provide themselves with enough > > > information on this, they are childish in their insistence that there is > > > no God, based on a lack of experience.> > > > > It would be hard for me to accept that you are in a position to evaluate > > the subjective experiences of people who, like myself, have had a lot of > > exposure to programs designed to shift your subjective experience. In fact > > this exposes the crux of the issue: > > > > How can you say with certainty that a Moonie's subjective experience of the > > divinity of the late Rev. is categorically less reliable than your own, > > once you have given your own subjective experience the epistemological > > position of being reliable? How can you distinguish your subjective > > confidence from theirs? Or anyone else, including mine? You are assuming > > a superiority of your experience that is not warranted philosophically. > > > > > > > > A lot of confusion aris
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting article on atheism
Hi Curtis, I did not say anything about beliefs, or use that word in my response. If atheism is merely an absence of the *belief* in God, that is a very positive thing. God is an ongoing journey, not a being described with static values, that are then pitted against us, by comparison. God is life, and love and infinity and everything else. All a coherent expression of universal compassion. This is all off the cuff - I have no beliefs about God, but rather describe God in the moment, as He and She is experienced. Any discussion on the basis of this belief, or that belief, is nonsense. Who cares? Experience is the only thing worth discussing. Other than that, all one does is make a case for a static thought, or as we so charmingly call it, a belief. Beliefs are for dead people. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ wrote: > > > > Hey Curtis, I always thought it was an agnostic who doesn't know whether or > > not God exists, and that an atheist flatly denies the existence of God. > > This is a common misconception about atheism. It has to do with people's > difficulty in understanding that atheism is not a positive belief, but is the > absence of belief. So people try to fit it into their own formula of belief > systems by saying "atheists believe that there is no God." The nuances > between the positions have more to do with how equivocally they state their > opinions. > > For an atheist, all beliefs in the many Gods are equivalent to how society > views the mythologies of the Greek Gods for example. I don't believe that it > increases the probability that the God Zeus exists because a bunch of people > made up stories about him. > > And that skepticism extends to people's subjective reports of experiencing > "God". > > So an atheist more confidently states that there is no good reason for > believing in Zeus, where an agnostic might make the point that we can't know > such things with such confidence. It is more a nuance of emphasis rather > than content. > > But in neither case is it stated that one holds the position for good solid > reasons, that there could not be a God that has not been yet described by > people so far. All we know is that so far people's reasons are lacking in > epistemological merit. A standard that people are curiously eager to apply > when dealing with other people's versions of the God belief, but are unable > to apply to themselves. > > > < I am referring to atheists, not agnostics. > > > > And again, I correct your notion about what atheism is about. > > > > Atheists are those who deny their childish ideas, but have not yet advanced > > to adulthood. > > Condescending analogy aside, it is unlikely that many children have the > philosophical background necessary to understand the epistemological issues > atheists have with theist's claims. The problem of lack of reliability of > subjective knowledge and experience seems to be hard for many adults to grasp. > > > > > By this I mean, atheists do not provide themselves with enough information > > on this, they are childish in their insistence that there is no God, based > > on a lack of experience.> > > It would be hard for me to accept that you are in a position to evaluate the > subjective experiences of people who, like myself, have had a lot of exposure > to programs designed to shift your subjective experience. In fact this > exposes the crux of the issue: > > How can you say with certainty that a Moonie's subjective experience of the > divinity of the late Rev. is categorically less reliable than your own, once > you have given your own subjective experience the epistemological position of > being reliable? How can you distinguish your subjective confidence from > theirs? Or anyone else, including mine? You are assuming a superiority of > your experience that is not warranted philosophically. > > > > > A lot of confusion arises, regarding our picture of God. I do not see some > > vengeful prick in the clouds, who rewards or condemns me, according to > > interpreted moral values. > > > I thought we had dispensed with the straw man? Agreed, even thoughtful > theists reject this view of God. It is not the version of God that would be > most interesting for an atheist to challenge. However, societally, this > version is highly relevant to a voting public who believes that they are able > to discern his will and POV on gay people for example.(Spoiler alert, he is > against them having the same civil protection as straight people couples from > this POV.) > > > > > What I do recognize is an essential element within you, me and everybody, > > and everything, that is both impersonal and universally compassionate.> > > I don't doubt that those words have meaning for you but it doesn't resonate > with me. You kind of have a mix-up with the juxtaposition of "i
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting article on atheism
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ wrote: > > > > Hey Curtis, I always thought it was an agnostic who doesn't know whether or > > not God exists, and that an atheist flatly denies the existence of God. > > This is a common misconception about atheism. It has to do with people's > difficulty in understanding that atheism is not a positive belief, but is the > absence of belief. So people try to fit it into their own formula of belief > systems by saying "atheists believe that there is no God." The nuances > between the positions have more to do with how equivocally they state their > opinions. > EVerything boils down to sound-bites for you guys. I have met plenty of people who express a positive belief that God does not exist. In fact, the nuances of atheism have been divided into hard/soft, etc by people who go in for defining such things. What you really mean to say, Curtis, is that YOUR brand of atheism is an absence of belief, which of course, at least somewhat approaches the agnostic world-view, which is that one can't possibly decide such things given the inability to test them properly. L
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting article on atheism
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... wrote: > > Hey Curtis, I always thought it was an agnostic who doesn't know whether or > not God exists, and that an atheist flatly denies the existence of God. This is a common misconception about atheism. It has to do with people's difficulty in understanding that atheism is not a positive belief, but is the absence of belief. So people try to fit it into their own formula of belief systems by saying "atheists believe that there is no God." The nuances between the positions have more to do with how equivocally they state their opinions. For an atheist, all beliefs in the many Gods are equivalent to how society views the mythologies of the Greek Gods for example. I don't believe that it increases the probability that the God Zeus exists because a bunch of people made up stories about him. And that skepticism extends to people's subjective reports of experiencing "God". So an atheist more confidently states that there is no good reason for believing in Zeus, where an agnostic might make the point that we can't know such things with such confidence. It is more a nuance of emphasis rather than content. But in neither case is it stated that one holds the position for good solid reasons, that there could not be a God that has not been yet described by people so far. All we know is that so far people's reasons are lacking in epistemological merit. A standard that people are curiously eager to apply when dealing with other people's versions of the God belief, but are unable to apply to themselves. < I am referring to atheists, not agnostics. > And again, I correct your notion about what atheism is about. > Atheists are those who deny their childish ideas, but have not yet advanced > to adulthood. Condescending analogy aside, it is unlikely that many children have the philosophical background necessary to understand the epistemological issues atheists have with theist's claims. The problem of lack of reliability of subjective knowledge and experience seems to be hard for many adults to grasp. > > By this I mean, atheists do not provide themselves with enough information on > this, they are childish in their insistence that there is no God, based on a > lack of experience.> It would be hard for me to accept that you are in a position to evaluate the subjective experiences of people who, like myself, have had a lot of exposure to programs designed to shift your subjective experience. In fact this exposes the crux of the issue: How can you say with certainty that a Moonie's subjective experience of the divinity of the late Rev. is categorically less reliable than your own, once you have given your own subjective experience the epistemological position of being reliable? How can you distinguish your subjective confidence from theirs? Or anyone else, including mine? You are assuming a superiority of your experience that is not warranted philosophically. > > A lot of confusion arises, regarding our picture of God. I do not see some > vengeful prick in the clouds, who rewards or condemns me, according to > interpreted moral values. > I thought we had dispensed with the straw man? Agreed, even thoughtful theists reject this view of God. It is not the version of God that would be most interesting for an atheist to challenge. However, societally, this version is highly relevant to a voting public who believes that they are able to discern his will and POV on gay people for example.(Spoiler alert, he is against them having the same civil protection as straight people couples from this POV.) > > What I do recognize is an essential element within you, me and everybody, and > everything, that is both impersonal and universally compassionate.> I don't doubt that those words have meaning for you but it doesn't resonate with me. You kind of have a mix-up with the juxtaposition of "impersonal" and "universally compassionate" for my way of understanding those words meaningfully. Universal compassion seems to include babies being born with no eyes sometimes, so the usefulness of the term seems diluted. Universal compassion seems like very weak Red Bull after all the ice has melted. > > We are not alone. We are this element's progeny.> I don't know what you are basing this assertion on but I haven't heard an argument yet that impressed me. You are welcome to try but just asserting it doesn't help. < The same ability that allows us to feel closeness to ourselves and another, is this same essential element, expressed personally. > I can follow the philosophy but don't buy the necessity for this additional universal thing. It is enough for me that we do in fact feel close to ourselves in a reflective state of self-consciousness and are close to other social primates within our very tiny groups by out natures. It is obviously not a quality that effectively transcends tribal groups too
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting article on atheism
Hey Curtis, I always thought it was an agnostic who doesn't know whether or not God exists, and that an atheist flatly denies the existence of God. I am referring to atheists, not agnostics. Atheists are those who deny their childish ideas, but have not yet advanced to adulthood. By this I mean, atheists do not provide themselves with enough information on this, they are childish in their insistence that there is no God, based on a lack of experience. A lot of confusion arises, regarding our picture of God. I do not see some vengeful prick in the clouds, who rewards or condemns me, according to interpreted moral values. What I do recognize is an essential element within you, me and everybody, and everything, that is both impersonal and universally compassionate. We are not alone. We are this element's progeny. The same ability that allows us to feel closeness to ourselves and another, is this same essential element, expressed personally. To wonder about the existence of God, I can accept. However, both an ego bound denial of God, and an ego bound acceptance of God sanctified through religion, seem childish to me. Kind of mentally retarded, actually. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > Favorite topic: how non-atheists misunderstand or misstate the philosophical > position of most atheists. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ wrote: > > > > The only thing I have seen in atheists is that they were brought up with a > > *belief system* about God, which they now reject. OK. > > Too broad. Most adults, atheists or theists have evolved their perspective on > the religious beliefs they were brought up with as children. I had already > rejected the Catholic version of God while still being an enthusiastic theist > in the movement. So this is not something only atheists do and is not > relevant to their philosophical position. > > > > > Joke is on them, strutting about and proclaiming no existence of God. > > Here you betray your own emotional bias against atheists. The "strutting > about" is an overplayed fantasy projection on people with different beliefs > than you hold. Atheists may just be as committed to their own world view as > you are of your own. So their expressing it may be no more "strutting about" > than your own descriptions of your beliefs. > > The second sentence is the reason I was compelled to write. I can't imagine > how many times I have tried to correct this bizarre misstatement of the > atheist's philosophical position here. It is a straw man and a pernicious > one. Robin played wack-a-mole with me using this fallacious position for > months. But I believe that correcting it again on this thread is my divinely > appointed duty, so I will press the same keys again. > > Atheists do NOT proclaim "no existence of God". Atheists don't know if there > is a God, and believe that neither do theists. What they reject are the > reasons theists propose that their beliefs have substance. Curiously these > same reasons are rejected between the different categories of theists for the > same reasons atheists reject them. For example it is almost universally held > that the Moonies reasons for believing that Sun Yung was God on earth are not > good ones by all non-Moonies. You don't buy their reasons for believing he > was God on earth do you? But to a Moonie all you would have to do is open > yourself to his reality and you could believe as they do. > > The issue you have with atheists is that they also don't buy your own > proposed reasons for your belief which you reveal below. > > > < All they need do, is quit thinking, just for 30 seconds, and they would > rediscover God with a vengeance. > > > Here you express your own confidence in subjective mystical experience as a > basis of knowledge. Most atheists don't share this confidence. It seems > more likely to atheists that people really suck at being able to evaluate the > meaning of profound ineffable subjective experience, and are unduly shaped by > whatever theology they buy into for their interpretation. Since perception > is always constructed internally by conception beyond our conscious minds, > atheists believe that this confidence is unfounded. And if you examine your > rejection of the mystical "reality" experienced by Moonies of his divinity, > you might understand why your own subjective confidence carries so little > weight outside your own skull. > > > > > Atheists are those who deny their childish ideas, but have not yet advanced > > to adulthood. > > > > The people who do not believe as you do, have poopy pants? Duly noted. I > don't feel the need to return a similar insult toward theists because I > believe they have what they believe are good reasons for believing as they > do. I know i sure did when I was a theist. I just think they are wrong in > their conclusions about God, alth
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting article on atheism
Favorite topic: how non-atheists misunderstand or misstate the philosophical position of most atheists. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... wrote: > > The only thing I have seen in atheists is that they were brought up with a > *belief system* about God, which they now reject. OK. Too broad. Most adults, atheists or theists have evolved their perspective on the religious beliefs they were brought up with as children. I had already rejected the Catholic version of God while still being an enthusiastic theist in the movement. So this is not something only atheists do and is not relevant to their philosophical position. > > Joke is on them, strutting about and proclaiming no existence of God. Here you betray your own emotional bias against atheists. The "strutting about" is an overplayed fantasy projection on people with different beliefs than you hold. Atheists may just be as committed to their own world view as you are of your own. So their expressing it may be no more "strutting about" than your own descriptions of your beliefs. The second sentence is the reason I was compelled to write. I can't imagine how many times I have tried to correct this bizarre misstatement of the atheist's philosophical position here. It is a straw man and a pernicious one. Robin played wack-a-mole with me using this fallacious position for months. But I believe that correcting it again on this thread is my divinely appointed duty, so I will press the same keys again. Atheists do NOT proclaim "no existence of God". Atheists don't know if there is a God, and believe that neither do theists. What they reject are the reasons theists propose that their beliefs have substance. Curiously these same reasons are rejected between the different categories of theists for the same reasons atheists reject them. For example it is almost universally held that the Moonies reasons for believing that Sun Yung was God on earth are not good ones by all non-Moonies. You don't buy their reasons for believing he was God on earth do you? But to a Moonie all you would have to do is open yourself to his reality and you could believe as they do. The issue you have with atheists is that they also don't buy your own proposed reasons for your belief which you reveal below. < All they need do, is quit thinking, just for 30 seconds, and they would rediscover God with a vengeance. Here you express your own confidence in subjective mystical experience as a basis of knowledge. Most atheists don't share this confidence. It seems more likely to atheists that people really suck at being able to evaluate the meaning of profound ineffable subjective experience, and are unduly shaped by whatever theology they buy into for their interpretation. Since perception is always constructed internally by conception beyond our conscious minds, atheists believe that this confidence is unfounded. And if you examine your rejection of the mystical "reality" experienced by Moonies of his divinity, you might understand why your own subjective confidence carries so little weight outside your own skull. > > Atheists are those who deny their childish ideas, but have not yet advanced > to adulthood. > The people who do not believe as you do, have poopy pants? Duly noted. I don't feel the need to return a similar insult toward theists because I believe they have what they believe are good reasons for believing as they do. I know i sure did when I was a theist. I just think they are wrong in their conclusions about God, although in every other way might be more or less intelligent and thoughtful than I am, and just as sincere in their convictions. My own path of belief and non belief went like this: Born atheist. We all are. Conditioned into believing in Catholicism's theistic views before I had any philosophical tools necessary to evaluate such claims. Began getting a bit snarky about their confidence about all non Catholics burning in hell at age 10, which increased and generalized into more distrust for the next 6 years. First 16 years. Rejected the external church's view in favor of Maharishi's subjective state-based belief system. I "experienced" what I believed was the reality of God beyond belief. Next 15 years Began to question that I had an ability to reliably evaluate my own subjective confidence in my experiences. Rejected subjective mystical experiences as a reliable basis for belief. Rejected mystical subjective experiences as a class of valued experience for about 18 years. Began to experiment again with meditation states as related to creative trance states. I now believe that subjective states cultivated by meditation have a value, but am still evaluating what that is. Now I am more interested in the altered states brought about during the performance of art as opposed to passive meditation as a creativity enhancer. I am particularly interested
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting article on atheism
"I just did that very thing and didn't find god. Maybe you should see a doctor if you're getting voices in your head, could be serious." I didn't say, or imply, anything about voices in my head. Try not thinking for another 30 seconds, please, until the voices go away. Rinse and repeat.:-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ wrote: > > > > The only thing I have seen in atheists is that they were brought up with a > > *belief system* about God, which they now reject. OK. > > > > Joke is on them, strutting about and proclaiming no existence of God. All > > they need do, is quit thinking, just for 30 seconds, and they would > > rediscover God with a vengeance. > > I just did that very thing and didn't find god. Maybe you should > see a doctor if you're getting voices in your head, could be > serious. > > > Atheists are those who deny their childish ideas, but have not yet advanced > > to adulthood. > > So having invisible friends is a sign of adulthood now? What > topsy-turvy times we live in! >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting article on atheism
"Sure, whole galaxies or universes may contract, disappear, and reappear from time to time, but that's nothing more than THE BREATHING OF A LARGER COSMOS [emphasis mine] -- breathe out, and you've got a universe; breathe in, and it goes poof!" Sure sounds an awful lot like God at play; Lila. So, according to your statement, we live in consciously created universe, created by an overarching entity, The Larger Cosmos. This larger cosmos transcends the creation and dissolution of this universe, and any other. Yep, I agree - we can call it anything we want. Let's call it Barry. Then the question becomes, does Barry exist? Or is he merely a complex set of beliefs, waiting to be transcended? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seekliberation" > wrote: > > > > I wouldn't go as far as saying that creation doesn't > > require the 'existence' of God, but more so it doesn't > > require an intricate belief system full of moral > > guidelines based on our perception of what God could, > > should, or would be. Creation exists regardless of what > > belief system we have or don't have. It is automatic, > > no beliefs required for it to exist. > > I would agree that the major drawback of believing in > a God is the baggage that accompanies it, in terms of > human-invented "moral" guidelines. But technically, > the only reason a God even *could* be considered nec- > essary in creation is if one assumes that there was > a Creation, meaning that at one point it did not exist > and then was "created." I don't believe that to be the > case, and feel instead that there has never been a time > when creation didn't exist. It is eternal, ever-renewing > and everpresent. Sure, whole galaxies or universes may > contract, disappear, and reappear from time to time, > but that's nothing more than the breathing of a larger > cosmos -- breathe out, and you've got a universe; breathe > in, and it goes poof! At every moment all aspects of > creation -- abstract or manifest -- were still present. > > I liked this guy's rap because it wasn't all "in your > face" like some of the hard-line atheists out there. > I liked that his "conversion" away from the AA-demanded > "belief in a higher power" was instigated by conversations > with a Buddhist who didn't have any need for a God, either, > while still being arguably spiritual. And I like that he > managed to find his way in an organization (AA) that is > pretty damned fundamentalist in its way. As it says on > the FFL home page, he managed to take what he needed and > leave the rest. Good for him. > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > A guy climbs to a mountaintop, looks out at the beauty > > > of creation, and realizes that none of it required the > > > existence of a God. > > > > > > http://www.salon.com/2013/03/03/my_sober_conversion_to_atheism_partner/ > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting article on atheism
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... wrote: > > The only thing I have seen in atheists is that they were brought up with a > *belief system* about God, which they now reject. OK. > > Joke is on them, strutting about and proclaiming no existence of God. All > they need do, is quit thinking, just for 30 seconds, and they would > rediscover God with a vengeance. I just did that very thing and didn't find god. Maybe you should see a doctor if you're getting voices in your head, could be serious. > Atheists are those who deny their childish ideas, but have not yet advanced > to adulthood. So having invisible friends is a sign of adulthood now? What topsy-turvy times we live in!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting article on atheism
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > A guy climbs to a mountaintop, looks out at the beauty > > of creation, and realizes that none of it required the > > existence of a God. > > > > http://www.salon.com/2013/03/03/my_sober_conversion_to_atheism_partner/ > > I liked this man's writing a lot. The article was worth a read for sure. > Thanks for posting. What is it about mountains, though, that causes these > kinds of 'enlightened' insights and experiences? Maybe it's the lack of > oxygen. When I was at camp as a 10 year old in the Swiss > Alps in Leysin I had my first witnessing experiences. Of course, not knowing > about these kinds of things they freaked me out at the time - I was just a > young kid. I guess heights, vistas and strenuous walking up hills might be > the answer - forget all this meditation stuff! Or maybe combine it? Good question though, what is it about mountains? I think there is a silence when you get above a certain height that is so unusual compared to anything at sea level. Except in the desert, I remember sitting in the Negev desert in Israel at night and being shocked by how loud my breathing felt. I always promised myself I'd go back and meditate there, just find a little cave and blow my mind with some serious transcending! Probably come back enlightened after the first day, that's probably why they say in the bible that God lives in the desert. Mountains are different again though and maybe that is due to oxygen levels, but then I get that *silent* feeling when I'm up mountains in Wales or Scotland and they aren't high enough for it to be noticeable are they? I also get a good feeling of insignificance when I'm hiking the hills, nature dwarfs you so much that you get the sort of sense of perspective you can't get in towns where everything is man made and noisy, even the so-called countryside. I feel a trip to the Isle of Skye coming on! Some serious mountains there...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting article on atheism
The only thing I have seen in atheists is that they were brought up with a *belief system* about God, which they now reject. OK. Joke is on them, strutting about and proclaiming no existence of God. All they need do, is quit thinking, just for 30 seconds, and they would rediscover God with a vengeance. Atheists are those who deny their childish ideas, but have not yet advanced to adulthood. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seekliberation" wrote: > > I wouldn't go as far as saying that creation doesn't require the 'existence' > of God, but more so it doesn't require an intricate belief system full of > moral guidelines based on our perception of what God could, should, or would > be. Creation exists regardless of what belief system we have or don't have. > It is automatic, no beliefs required for it to exist. > > seekliberation > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > A guy climbs to a mountaintop, looks out at the beauty > > of creation, and realizes that none of it required the > > existence of a God. > > > > http://www.salon.com/2013/03/03/my_sober_conversion_to_atheism_partner/ > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting article on atheism
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > A guy climbs to a mountaintop, looks out at the beauty > of creation, and realizes that none of it required the > existence of a God. > > http://www.salon.com/2013/03/03/my_sober_conversion_to_atheism_partner/ I liked this man's writing a lot. The article was worth a read for sure. Thanks for posting. What is it about mountains, though, that causes these kinds of 'enlightened' insights and experiences? Maybe it's the lack of oxygen. When I was at camp as a 10 year old in the Swiss Alps in Leysin I had my first witnessing experiences. Of course, not knowing about these kinds of things they freaked me out at the time - I was just a young kid. I guess heights, vistas and strenuous walking up hills might be the answer - forget all this meditation stuff! >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting article on atheism
Great article. Touches on many issues I think about. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > A guy climbs to a mountaintop, looks out at the beauty > of creation, and realizes that none of it required the > existence of a God. > > http://www.salon.com/2013/03/03/my_sober_conversion_to_atheism_partner/ >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting article on atheism
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seekliberation" seekliberation@ wrote: > > > > I wouldn't go as far as saying that creation doesn't > > require the 'existence' of God, but more so it doesn't > > require an intricate belief system full of moral > > guidelines based on our perception of what God could, > > should, or would be. Creation exists regardless of what > > belief system we have or don't have. It is automatic, > > no beliefs required for it to exist. > > I would agree that the major drawback of believing in > a God is the baggage that accompanies it, in terms of > human-invented "moral" guidelines. But technically, > the only reason a God even *could* be considered nec- > essary in creation is if one assumes that there was > a Creation, meaning that at one point it did not exist > and then was "created." I don't believe that to be the > case, and feel instead that there has never been a time > when creation didn't exist. It is eternal, ever-renewing > and everpresent. Sure, whole galaxies or universes may > contract, disappear, and reappear from time to time, > but that's nothing more than the breathing of a larger > cosmos -- breathe out, and you've got a universe; breathe > in, and it goes poof! At every moment all aspects of > creation -- abstract or manifest -- were still present. > > I liked this guy's rap because it wasn't all "in your > face" like some of the hard-line atheists out there. > I liked that his "conversion" away from the AA-demanded > "belief in a higher power" was instigated by conversations > with a Buddhist who didn't have any need for a God, either, > while still being arguably spiritual. And I like that he > managed to find his way in an organization (AA) that is > pretty damned fundamentalist in its way. As it says on > the FFL home page, he managed to take what he needed and > leave the rest. Good for him. > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > A guy climbs to a mountaintop, looks out at the beauty > > > of creation, and realizes that none of it required the > > > existence of a God. > > > > > > http://www.salon.com/2013/03/03/my_sober_conversion_to_atheism_partner/ > > > > > > Come, ye sinners, poor and needy, Weak and wounded, sick and sore, The Field ready stands to save you Full of pity, love and pow'r. It is able, It is able, It is willing, doubt no more; It is able, It is able, It is willing, doubt no more.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting article on atheism
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seekliberation" wrote: > > I wouldn't go as far as saying that creation doesn't > require the 'existence' of God, but more so it doesn't > require an intricate belief system full of moral > guidelines based on our perception of what God could, > should, or would be. Creation exists regardless of what > belief system we have or don't have. It is automatic, > no beliefs required for it to exist. I would agree that the major drawback of believing in a God is the baggage that accompanies it, in terms of human-invented "moral" guidelines. But technically, the only reason a God even *could* be considered nec- essary in creation is if one assumes that there was a Creation, meaning that at one point it did not exist and then was "created." I don't believe that to be the case, and feel instead that there has never been a time when creation didn't exist. It is eternal, ever-renewing and everpresent. Sure, whole galaxies or universes may contract, disappear, and reappear from time to time, but that's nothing more than the breathing of a larger cosmos -- breathe out, and you've got a universe; breathe in, and it goes poof! At every moment all aspects of creation -- abstract or manifest -- were still present. I liked this guy's rap because it wasn't all "in your face" like some of the hard-line atheists out there. I liked that his "conversion" away from the AA-demanded "belief in a higher power" was instigated by conversations with a Buddhist who didn't have any need for a God, either, while still being arguably spiritual. And I like that he managed to find his way in an organization (AA) that is pretty damned fundamentalist in its way. As it says on the FFL home page, he managed to take what he needed and leave the rest. Good for him. > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > A guy climbs to a mountaintop, looks out at the beauty > > of creation, and realizes that none of it required the > > existence of a God. > > > > http://www.salon.com/2013/03/03/my_sober_conversion_to_atheism_partner/ > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting article on atheism
I wouldn't go as far as saying that creation doesn't require the 'existence' of God, but more so it doesn't require an intricate belief system full of moral guidelines based on our perception of what God could, should, or would be. Creation exists regardless of what belief system we have or don't have. It is automatic, no beliefs required for it to exist. seekliberation --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > A guy climbs to a mountaintop, looks out at the beauty > of creation, and realizes that none of it required the > existence of a God. > > http://www.salon.com/2013/03/03/my_sober_conversion_to_atheism_partner/ >
