Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Ignore Me. I'm High.


Guest

Recommended Posts

Ok, I'm trying desperately not to "text while baked" so I figure this is a safe space to share deep, if not silly, thoughts. (I hope most here are ok with someone who uses weed recreationally/medicinally and judiciously).

 

I've completely deconverted from Christianity and I have tried to believe that there is no higher power (no pun intended here, ha!), but I just can't do it. There is something internally that just won't allow me to completely dismiss the concept of a higher power. I can't let go of the thought that the 'scientific process'- as we know it and use it - is limited in its ability to measure the existence of all things. To say that science (as we currently know it) is THE definitive way of proving all things would be paramount to admitting that we have achieved perfection and are no longer capable of discovering new ways to measure what is 'real.'

I wonder if atheists (as a rule) reject the possibility of a higher power because any such higher power is seen through the lens of a traditionally defined diety? Or is it possible that something remains to be discovered by (eventually) very different means? And if there are discoveries yet to be made, is it not a prerequisite that someone believe there is something to be discovered in order to do the hard work of looking for it? I mean we could all wait like cavemen for lightening to strike and make accidental discoveries. But if we believe there are further non-tangeable truths to be found, like many great pioneer scientists that have preceeded us, is it possible that our hunches might lead to other ways of knowing? Or am I just disappearing down a rabbit hole here?. . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi, I've not smoked the weed since the days of my mispent youth - now I just mispend my old age. Anyway, as I see it, it would be a poor old world if there was never anything better in it than my little ego and its likes and dislikes.

 

Why does it have to be either/or? Why not both/and? When we throw off the shackles of a Sky God who drowns an entire world out of regret, chucks hailstones down upon his enemies and demands blood sacrifices before being able to forgive.........is the alternative nihilism? Atheism?

 

Why a "higher" power? Why not a lower power, one that serves as the foundation of our lives, in which ( as the Good Book says ) we "live and move and have our being"? For me it is always about moving and reaching across, not looking up or down. It is about all those we share the earth with.

 

Really, try to explore the world of those who see beyond - see through - the nonsense of fundamentalist Christianity.

 

All the best

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend to echo Derekw's view. There may be some kind of "spark of life" something that initiates life all through the universe. But I don't know that such a thing really exists. As far as mythic gods of old that sit on thrones or battle giants, not so much.

 

Could all life be interconnected in some way? Sure. But then again, life eats life and usually does so while the other creature is still living. Even with interconnectedness, there does not necessarily come kindness. To many animals and bacteria we are food and a breeding ground. Not that it is done out of malice, that is simply nature. I think humans are the only ones that think about it very much. We have an extraordinary ability to think abstractly, and that ability helps us survive by creating tools, language, mathematics, ethics, and sadly religions. But pondering who and what we are is a very valuable exercise, and helps us discover things about our minds and natures.

 

When I first deconverted, I spent a good amount of time in a crystal shop talking with the owners about energy healing, witchcraft, and such. I let myself explore concepts that were previously forbidden. I genuinely felt at home in some areas of the shop, like a very welcoming presence. I still don't really understand that. I was trained in Reiki healing, and was told by a couple of people that I have a lot of energy on a master level. I never feel it at all, so it seems like imagination, but I've seen others react to it so I don't really know if it is valid or not. But that harkens back to what we were first talking about, a kind of life-energy force that is there all the time.

 

And I discovered weed! I really do enjoy it now and then. I have to treat it like bourbon and understand that I can't have it before driving or work (and I can be called in to work, so have to weigh the possibility). But it puts me in a very upbeat and happy place, and tingles in happy body places (makes for great sex).

 

There are several of us on this site that are open to things that we have not yet figured out about life, and have not adopted a hard-nosed attitude about things other than mythic gods that demand blood and such.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for the replies. I hope I was clear that I don't believe in any traditional concepts of God/gods.

 

I think my hypothesis is that there are, perhaps, unseen forces (for lack of a better word) - whether 'higher' or not- that remain to be discovered. Electricity and magnetic forces have always been around, for example. It took the scientific process (which evolved from other ways of knowing) to discover, measure and harness these invisible energies. Some of our discoveries have been serendipitous, others have been made through sheer determination, and still others have been made through a combination of accidents and searching for truths. I just wonder if we limit the potential for discovery by making the assumption that the scientific process is the only valid way to discovery. It seems to me (not judging, this is just an observation) that many atheists completely dismiss any and all sorts of internal feelings as completely invalid when it comes to 'sensing' the existence of intangibles. I think that is a bit of a shame and it may be closing the door on discovering new things. To me, it's a bit like examining the concept of love. We could try to reduce it to a bunch of neurons firing that produce certain responses (that would be the scientific way of measuring it). Or we could look at love as a feeling (not measured in the same way at all), an invisible entity that is created as a result of neurons firing, etc. Most people accept that love is a real concept based on feelings (as proof that it exists). I just wonder why are we so quick to dismiss other feelings as being completely unreliable when (perhaps) they may be pointing us toward new paths.

Then again, what do I know?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
 I just wonder why are we so quick to dismiss other feelings as being completely unreliable when (perhaps) they may be pointing us toward new paths.

 

 

Because feelings are easily and frequently manipulated, therefore unreliable as a factual basis from which to draw conclusions.

 

Feelings may arise spontaneously or they may come from electrical/chemical interference in the brain's operation. That interference, sometimes through deliberate manipulation, uses the vehicles of drugs, religious ritual, sound waves, electrical stimulation, emotional trigger words or images and good old fashioned brainwashing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I'm trying desperately not to "text while baked" so I figure this is a safe space to share deep, if not silly, thoughts. (I hope most here are ok with someone who uses weed recreationally/medicinally and judiciously).

 

I've completely deconverted from Christianity and I have tried to believe that there is no higher power (no pun intended here, ha!), but I just can't do it. There is something internally that just won't allow me to completely dismiss the concept of a higher power. I can't let go of the thought that the 'scientific process'- as we know it and use it - is limited in its ability to measure the existence of all things. To say that science (as we currently know it) is THE definitive way of proving all things would be paramount to admitting that we have achieved perfection and are no longer capable of discovering new ways to measure what is 'real.'

I wonder if atheists (as a rule) reject the possibility of a higher power because any such higher power is seen through the lens of a traditionally defined diety? Or is it possible that something remains to be discovered by (eventually) very different means? And if there are discoveries yet to be made, is it not a prerequisite that someone believe there is something to be discovered in order to do the hard work of looking for it? I mean we could all wait like cavemen for lightening to strike and make accidental discoveries. But if we believe there are further non-tangeable truths to be found, like many great pioneer scientists that have preceeded us, is it possible that our hunches might lead to other ways of knowing? Or am I just disappearing down a rabbit hole here?. . .

 

I hope this will be of some help to you, Faithless.

It may not seem like a lot of help right now, but that's because you're confused about what science is, what it does and what it's for.  The main point here is that science doesn't prove anything.  So it's definitely not what you said it is.

 

To say that science (as we currently know it) is THE definitive way of proving all things would be paramount to admitting that we have achieved perfection and are no longer capable of discovering new ways to measure what is 'real.'

 

Instead, science attempts to describe what we observe in the most accurate way possible, according to our current knowledge.

Science does not prove - it tries to explain.  You are mistakenly thinking that ALL of science works the same way as math, where something can be absolutely proven to 100% certainty.  But math is the only branch of the sciences that deals in such absolute proofs.  All the others (physics, biology, chemistry, etc.) work differently.  They propose theories that attempt to explain how electrons move, how the brain functions or how sulfur combines with oxygen.  These theories are not proofs.  

 

I strongly suggest that you Google a query like 'how does science work?' or 'what is the scientific method?'

There are several sites dedicated to explaining these questions in easy terms and they should be of some help to you.  Ok, I could have just ignored you... but I didn't.

 

All the best,

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BAA,I do understand what the scientific process is and that it seeks to 'explain' as opposed to 'prove.' I get that (even if I didn't properly convey that). Clearly I'm having trouble articulating my point (even when sober).

Thank you for sharing your perspectives.

 

Florduh, I'm not so sure that feelings are always an unreliable basis from which conclusions can be drawn. Can I conclude that I love someone when it is only based on a feeling? Is love a 'real thing' or is it just a product of our imaginations? I don't the answer to these questions.

 

I just think it's important (for me personally) to anticipate that there are possibilities beyond our current realm of understanding and ways of knowing, perhaps beyond our ability to understand at this point in time. If cave men could have seen into the future, what ability would they have to comprehend the world as it exists today? I just find myself believing that as we continue to evolve, our ways of knowing will also continue to evolve into something that - at this point in time - we cannot comprehend. Historically, a lot of forward progress has been made by people who entertained possibilities that were deemed preposterous. Why not anticipate the preposterous? That's exciting to me . . .and probably a little weird, I know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
Florduh, I'm not so sure that feelings are always an unreliable basis from which conclusions can be drawn. Can I conclude that I love someone when it is only based on a feeling? Is love a 'real thing' or is it just a product of our imaginations? I don't the answer to these questions.

 

All feelings are real inasmuch as we really feel them. Their basis must be determined if we would give them any weight.

 

Let's take your example of loving someone. Most people have a basis for such love. You fall in love with someone who you have found relates to you, returns love, shares interests, makes you feel good and secure. Someone else experiences love at first sight and know virtually nothing about the person and has no reasons to love them, yet they do have that feeling anyway. You may fall in love with an ax murderer and not find out until it's too late. Feelings aren't facts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"All feelings are real inasmuch as we really feel them. Their basis must be determined if we would give them any weight."

How does one determine the basis of feelings and whether they should be given any weight? What is the criteria?

 

Let's take your example of loving someone. Most people have a basis for such love. You fall in love with someone who you have found relates to you, returns love, shares interests, makes you feel good and secure. Someone else experiences love at first sight and know virtually nothing about the person and has no reasons to love them (how does one determine a "reason to love?"), yet they do have that feeling anyway. You may fall in love with an ax murderer and not find out until it's too late. Feelings aren't facts.

I'm not saying that feelings are facts. I am saying that feelings should not be completely discounted as a means to new discoveries.  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I am saying that feelings should not be completely discounted as a means to new discoveries."

 

I'm sure we see it both ways, that "gut feelings" are a way that we can be warned about a situation (the mind picking up on subtle clues that haven't formed into a complete conscious thought yet), and yet feelings can also be purposefully manipulated to lure us into traps, etc.

 

I've met some people who have a very harsh attitude towards anything they consider "woo". I can understand that from one angle, having spent 30 years following a fake god and spending countless thousands of dollars after being emotionally manipulated by church services and appeals for donations. I also tend to take a far more critical investigatory view of claims than my mate. There are things I've experienced that I don't yet have any explanation for, and so I don't conclude anything, I keep looking at what all happened and wonder at them. That is a valid place to land logically. But I am still open to experiencing things, knowing that I am still subject to being fooled. Even investigating how humans are able to be fooled is fascinating. I watched a youtube video of a professional pickpocket who exploits the human flaw of distraction. If he can make someone's attention divert a couple of times, he can do astounding things without being noticed, like changing his clothing during the show and most people not realizing it until he points it out at the end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

"All feelings are real inasmuch as we really feel them. Their basis must be determined if we would give them any weight."

How does one determine the basis of feelings and whether they should be given any weight? What is the criteria?

 

Let's take your example of loving someone. Most people have a basis for such love. You fall in love with someone who you have found relates to you, returns love, shares interests, makes you feel good and secure. Someone else experiences love at first sight and know virtually nothing about the person and has no reasons to love them (how does one determine a "reason to love?"), yet they do have that feeling anyway. You may fall in love with an ax murderer and not find out until it's too late. Feelings aren't facts.

I'm not saying that feelings are facts. I am saying that feelings should not be completely discounted as a means to new discoveries.  smile.png

What is the basis of the feeling? Did it just pop up spontaneously or have events led to feeling a certain way?

 

Reason to love? Again, is it spontaneous for no reason or has someone demonstrated traits that are worthy of feeling love?

 

Feelings fall into different categories. We can feel as a reaction or we can feel spontaneously. Feeling that someone or something is worthy of love is quite different from feeling that invisible entities are watching over you. Feelings have never led to new discoveries, facts have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.