Vigile Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 Its funny to me that people don't realize that pure rationality is a religion, too. I'm pretty sure no one is attacking you or atheists in general. Disagreeing with materialism or not liking when SOME atheists behave like jerks is not equivalent to "attacking you". Claiming those who use the same tools used by scientists, universities, etc... in humanity's slow crawl toward understanding are just religious like, say a scientologist, is religious, is an attack and it's a strawman of our position to phrase our efforts that way. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badpuppy Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 Its funny to me that people don't realize that pure rationality is a religion, too. I'm pretty sure no one is attacking you or atheists in general. Disagreeing with materialism or not liking when SOME atheists behave like jerks is not equivalent to "attacking you". Claiming those who use the same tools used by scientists, universities, etc... in humanity's slow crawl toward understanding are just religious like, say a scientologist, is religious, is an attack and it's a strawman of our position to phrase our efforts that way. It's not the "efforts" that is the problem. It's the way SOME people seem to treat science as if it's some kind of religion. Many people DO hang onto materialism as if it's some sort of religion and instead of the bible as the authority it's "science". Much of the materialistic worldview is not falsifiable because a priori it's decided what is "part of science" and what "isn't part of science" (whether or not it uses the scientific method.) and it's fine to say some things are part of science and some things aren't if that's how you feel... but it doesn't end there... it ends with science somehow "defining the whole of reality" and shutting everyone else out of a philosophical discussion unless there is some obligatory condescension toward alternate views involved. (Even though science doesn't own philosophy and never has.) Someone in this thread asked me if I was pulling some kind of "god of the gaps." So CLEARLY this idea is pervasive that "science" defines everything and if it's not materialistic it's not science... so it doesn't exist... and if someone posits some alternate way of looking at the nature of reality then it's some sad little attempt to "fill in some gaps" with a juvenile worldview. (And if that's not what was meant with the "god of the gaps" statement then I apologize to the poster for the assumption, but every time I've heard it, that is the attitude that has followed upon further explanation. So if that isn't the attitude now, it would be the exception, not the rule.) I absolutely respect the scientific method and all the knowledge that has been acquired, but I also think some people are overzealous and shoot way beyond what the evidence warrants. I also think some people DO treat science as some type of religion and follow it with a religious fervor. YOU may not be like that, but it's something many of us have personally witnessed so to say it's a strawman is an unfair assessment, IMO. I also don't think anyone said "all materialists", "all atheists", "all who use science as their main source of knowledge". etc. If someone has, then I missed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 It's not the "efforts" that is the problem. It's the way SOME people seem to treat science as if it's some kind of religion Feel free to start a thread outside this section leveling this charge so that we may be free to defend it. I'm not going to deal with it here where my hands are tied. My point is, when you make these charges in this forum where they cannot be rebutted, it is just a cheap shot and a one-sided argument. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev R Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 Feel free to start a thread outside this section leveling this charge so that we may be free to defend it. I'm not going to deal with it here where my hands are tied. My point is, when you make these charges in this forum where they cannot be rebutted, it is just a cheap shot and a one-sided argument. According to my reading of the rules, so long as you are not using the opportunity for personal attacks or ridicule of someone's belief structure, you are more than free to respond to this "charge" here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev R Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 In my early career, a friend said to me: "Often the flaws we see in others mirror our own." Oh. I feel offended. "Flaw" is a very derogatory word. It means something is wrong with us. We can't say that... If the shoe fits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 I am not an animal! I am a human being! Er... Okay, so I am an animal who calls himself human. Or, I am a human animal? There's nothing wrong with me, damn it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 I think people who find messages from random patterns, such as supposed answers to prayers, ghosts, etc... are deluded that anything is going on but random probability. Read into that what you will. No. You misunderstand. Yes, from your perspective it is delusion. But is it? Let me explain. Reading tea leaves for instance is an action which takes looking into random patterns as a mental tool to "unfocus" the otherwise analytical mind and allow the subconscious to manifest itself, to speak to the conscious mind. Have you ever just sat and cleared your mind and then suddenly, the answer presented itself to you? It's a lot like that, except on steroids. This is what meditation does. It stills the busy mind and allows the messages of your own mind from deep within to surface and convey otherwise hidden or masked insights. So, is that irrational? Is that delusional? Or is that simply doing something you are unfamiliar with and because it sounds so "weird" to you, you respond calling it crazy, or "delusional"? (That's how I hear this). You should really read some Jung sometime, unless you think he is delusional as well. How this moved from beliefs to meditation is beyond me. You mentioned the delusion of reading tea leaves. I demonstrated how it is a form of meditation. It's right there in the post above. My point is that you call tea leaves crazy thinking. I say it is not. It is only to someone who does not participate in the ritual and does not understand its function. You, not being a participant, "don't get it". Is it therefore delusional? Not to them. It actually serves a function. It is a tool, and aide to unfocus the rational mind and let the subconsious speak. Since you call 'casting spells', reading leaves, praying to gods, etc, a type of mental delusion, I will now demonstrate it has function. And having function it is a tool-set, a means to an end, an aide to access something on a subtle level otherwise blocked off. Mediation ties directly into this as meditation is the direct path into inner space, where the subconscious and conscious meet and the end result is a value-add beyond mere rationality alone. As such it is not a delusion at all, but a technique in personal development. So prayers to a god. What nonsense is that for a rational mind, pray tell? Answer: Focusing the mind in a form of guided meditation; especially if that is a mantra, repeated prayers counted on a string of beads. It offers the mind a point of focus that allows what is beneath the surface of rational thought to surface and manifest itself. Deep feelings of the otherwise ineffable arise from within, taking hold on highly symbolic mental imagery representing a transcendence that the rational mind itself has not, nor can access because it comes from the deep within. To quote something from Jung, since he came up in this. This is from his Red Book, which was just finally published 2 years ago after the family kept it private for the last 50 years. The Red Book is his personal journal and illustrations of his journey into the subconscious, upon which all his later achedemic works draw from. (It was my Christmas gift this year): " My speech is imperfect. Not because I want to shine with words, but out of the impossibility of finding those words, I speak in images. With nothing else can I express the words from the depths. " And to add something else I found 'enlightening' that many will appreciate here in this discussion: " The spirit of the depths has subjugated all pride and arrogance to the power of judgment. He took away my belief in science, he robbed me of the joy of explaining and ordering things, and he let devotion to the ideals of this time die out in me. He forced me down to the last and simplest things ." "The spirit of the depths took my understanding and all my knowledge and placed them at the service of the inexplicable and the paradoxical. He robbed me of speech and writing for everything that was not in his service, namely the melting together of sense and nonsense, which produces the supreme meaning ." So we see here that if religion, or ritual, or practices is used to take one into the 'spirit of the depths' and that through the 'melting together of sense and nonsense' there is a transformation of mind and being into 'supreme meaning', then is it delusion, or is it in fact transrational? Transcending reason and rationality into a greater knowledge that reason alone cannot offer access into? Now I'll add here to clarify. There is a prerational mind that goes into those depths, and often times that is taken as NotBlinded pointed out, a literal god. But this does not invalidate that inner symbolic experience. The only difference is one is the rational understanding of a child who sees these as literal gods, the other is the experience of the gods understood by the rational mind in terms such as described above. I experience such deities, such visual imagery as flames that ascend and descend in rivers of light, various figures, etc. To a prerational mind, they could easily say "A god appeared to me!" and externalize the whole affair as a literal god. To me however, they are informative imagery that arise from the deep, bringing together my subconscious and conscious mind through transcendent, and archetypal symbols that reason alone cannot penetrate. It simply is not the right tool. But what is understood is what comes from that place of depths, that place of ourselves bound to the essence of our own being in the Universe. It brings the two together into the waking, conscious mind with knowledge of our very self from the depths. So when I hear the rationalist say 'this is woo-woo', a delusion, etc. I hear ignorance, and arrogance from that ignorance. Take any religious practice and then evaluate them in this light and see where they may or may not actually fall. Not all practices go into this domain, mind you, but the things you mentioned certainly can be understood in a different light that simply 'nonsense'. They have a function. And to underscore this point clearly so it doesn't come up later, the tea leaves, or the gods, don't have power outside the practitioner. The "magic" is what is allowed to come up from within the practitioner through the symbols. They are aides, not the magic themselves, so to speak. The real magic, is what is in all of us. To use a better word, that transcendent power is in all of us to bring about higher awareness and depth of our very being in the world. Use rationality as a tool to separate apart the field to find a path through it, but the journey is with the whole body, mind, and spirit, not just the tool of reason alone. That's why meditation came up. It answers your point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 'casting spells' When I was a younger man I was once speaking with a young woman in a group of people. ya ha And the first thing she said aloud, looking at the others, and pointing to me was, "I could eat this guy for breakfast." I thought surely she must be confused or something, because I had no ill will towards her. I immediately focused on her in an intense way. And we went through a remarkable little dance. Among the exchanges between us was this... Me: Do you have a lot of fear? Her: [looks me in the eye and nods] Me: Is there no place for faith? Her: [gaurded nod] And we went through some more exchanges. When I felt it was winding down I did this. I looked her dead in the eye while inhaling deeply and loudly through pursed lips. Then I brought my hand forward into the space between us and extended my index finger into the air and made sound [snick]. Then I drew a circle around her in the air while exhaling and blowing outwards, returning my finger to the point where I had begun. We'll make great pets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 @ LH glad to hear you are feeling better. No need to apologize for anything. Maybe you were not quite as marginalized as you felt. You look normal to me. @ Everyone else Say, uh, next time someone really needs help can we have a lot less fighting among ourselves and more of the helping the one who needs it? I had no idea there was so much tension between atheists members and spiritual members. I got some good suggestions and I'm going to do my part. Just saying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 I had no idea there was so much tension between atheists members and spiritual members. It almost mirrors the tension between the humanities and the sciences. If so there may be no reconciliation. Deep aspects of personality. 2 sticks + 3 sticks = 5 sticks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 You mentioned the delusion of reading tea leaves. Nope, not that I recall. I believe I was pretty clear about what I called a delusion. I said a delusion is finding patterns that don't exist. E.g., answered prayer when random probability produces the same results. Someone who thinks they were healed by god, ghosts, etc... when in fact they were just one of the lucky ones whose cancer remissed is deluded by a misunderstanding of the probability some cancer patients experience remission. Likewise, someone who believes a medium is communicating with their dead relative when in fact the medium is just using cold reading techniques is deluded. The term may be seen as an insult, but it's entirely accurate in certain situations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 A Grandfather from the Cherokee Nation was talking with his grandson. "A fight is going on inside me," he said to the boy. "It is a terrible fight between two wolves." The young grandson listened intently. "One wolf is evil, unhappy, and ugly: He is anger, envy, war, greed, selfishness, sorrow, regret, guilt, resentment, inferiority/superiority, false pride, coarseness, and arrogance. He spreads lies, deceit, fear, hatred, blame, scarcity, poverty, and divisiveness." "The other wolf is beautiful and good: He is friendly, joyful, loving, worthy, serene, humble, kind, benevolent, just, fair, empathetic, generous, honest, compassionate, grateful, brave, and inspiring resting wholeheartedly in deep vision beyond ordinary wisdom." The grandson paused in deep reflection of what his grandfather had just said. Then he exclaimed; "Oyee! (in recognition). Grandfather continued; "This same fight is going on inside you, and inside all human beings as well." The grandson paused in deep reflection and recognition of what his grandfather had just said. Then he finally cried out deeply; "Oyee! Grandfather, which wolf will win this horrific war?" The elder Cherokee replied, "The wolf that you feed. That wolf will surely win!" The problem with this is putting the Western mind on top of it. What really does "feeding your shadow" (or demon) really mean? In the Eastern sense it does not mean letting it rule you. It does not mean giving into your baser impulses, such as anger and envy and empowering them in your life as the guiding forces. Not at all. It's paradoxical. It means we have have to embrace that ugly demon child that is our own, and release its energy into the forces of good. But you first have bring yourself together in order to do this. It is the merging of opposites within ourselves, channeling the energy of the 'dark wolf' into the power of good. Both are us, and to deny the power of that lower self through suppression is not healing the whole self into higher light. Think of them in terms of the lower and higher Chakras. The lower chakras are the baser instincts of survival, sex, competition, etc. The higher chakra are of awakening spirit; the heart, throat, mind, and crown. Think of it as spirals connecting the higher to the lower, from the heart to the solar plexus, the throat to the sacral, the third eye to the base chakra. These represent infusing the lower with the higher, harnessing their energies into higher function, as oppose to denying and suppressing them in the body. "Feeding them" doesn't mean letting them rule you. It means acknowledging them and releasing their suppressed energies into doing good, the higher centers. See? Here's a quick link I found talking about this: http://www.spiritualityandpractice.com/books/excerpts.php?id=18043 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 You mentioned the delusion of reading tea leaves. Nope, not that I recall. I believe I was pretty clear about what I called a delusion. I said a delusion is finding patterns that don't exist. But they are, in how I described it at length. You are taking it too literally. You seemed to have missed what I was saying at length. They are finding meaning in the leaves, through the act, through the use of the leaves to open the mind to the subconscious. They may ascribe them to the leaves as having the power, whereas it actually comes through themselves, but that is irrelevant actually. They are accessing something in themselves, and therefore the tool is valid. The patterns they "see" actually do exist - in themselves. It's simply an external means to an internal end. You don't see this yet? E.g., answered prayer when random probability produces the same results. Or, perhaps, they are actually tapping into a self-healing power within themselves which does in fact occur and is documented within the empirical sciences more and more. Belief or faith can in fact help someone to heal themselves, very often. Now I'm not so stupid as to think that means supernatural feats such as walking on water or healing an amputated limb. But the mind and body are vastly far more connected to each other towards health and illness than many pill-pushers may wish to acknowledge, but that is in fact becoming more an more evident all the time. For goodness sakes, studies into Epegentics is showing what seems almost common sense to me, that our cultural environments can directly affect genetic traits. The power of mind towards the body is phenomenally powerful, and only now beginning to be recognized in the West. It's not just the body towards the mind! So yes, "Your faith has made you whole", can have some real teeth to it. A healthy mind can lead to a healthy body, stress reduction, etc. A diseased mind can lead to a sick body, gnarled and twisted leading to disease bones and muscles, and what not. Not magic, but nature. Body, Mind, and Spirit. The whole human. Someone who thinks they were healed by god, ghosts, etc... when in fact they were just one of the lucky ones whose cancer remissed is deluded by a misunderstanding of the probability some cancer patients experience remission. Likewise, someone who believes a medium is communicating with their dead relative when in fact the medium is just using cold reading techniques is deluded. The term may be seen as an insult, but it's entirely accurate in certain situations. In certain situations, yes. Again though the point is, are you aware enough of the larger picture to make that judgment? You didn't appear to understand about the use of tea leaves, or prayer, etc and how they in fact have legitimate function, regardless of the ideas of the practitioners about them. Can you rightly call something delusional, when you lack understanding yourself? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 You don't see this yet? I'll say it again, I did not mention tea leaves. I don't know where this came from. But what I see here is you equivocating. Millions of people just believe there are magical connections occurring when in fact their brains are just pattern seeking. I'm honestly not interested in getting into a discussion about symbolism, et al. It's just not a subject I empathize with or really care much about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 I'm honestly not interested in getting into a discussion about symbolism, et al. It's just not a subject I empathize with or really care much about. Language is symbolism. Language is mysterious in an awesome way. I think you demonstrate an upward turned nose while participating in the very mystery for which you have disdain. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 I'm honestly not interested in getting into a discussion about symbolism, et al. It's just not a subject I empathize with or really care much about. Language is symbolism. Language is mysterious in an awesome way. I think you demonstrate an upward turned nose while participating in the very mystery for which you have disdain. Not at all. I've been in discussions with AM over symbolism in the past and have reached the conclusion that this is just not a subject I'm interested in. My lack of interest is in no way a judgement about it's validity. At the same time, I will reject the idea that everyone engaged in magical thinking is engaged in symbolism of some sort. Many, if not most, are just buying a load of crap. Before I get my head bit off for that last statement, tell me you don't believe that Johnathan Edwards isn't deluding the majority of his followers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 You don't see this yet? I'll say it again, I did not mention tea leaves. I don't know where this came from. Oh, sorry. When you say seeing patterns where none exist, this is the essence of what tea leave reading is. They lets the leaves fall where they may and opened the mind to them and thoughts arise out of the chaos. But what I see here is you equivocating. Millions of people just believe there are magical connections occurring when in fact their brains are just pattern seeking. It may or may not be that in all cases. So it's best to not blanket judge all practices as functioning at that level. No doubt may do take them literally, but I still would not call that delusional. I'd call that a stage of development. I'm honestly not interested in getting into a discussion about symbolism, et al. It's just not a subject I empathize with or really care much about. Your entire reality is mediated through symbols. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 According to my reading of the rules, so long as you are not using the opportunity for personal attacks or ridicule of someone's belief structure, you are more than free to respond to this "charge" here. This made me consider a complication we might have here. In this thread (and other threads before), members have argued that science, materialism, and atheism are belief structures.Then I wonder if this section should be open for atheist rants about religious attacks, just like the OP? Aren't atheists hurt by hearing that atheists are just as bad as fundamentalists? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 Your entire reality is mediated through symbols. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 It's funny to me that so many in this section of the forum knock down strawmen and those outside the forum aren't allowed to defend. Let's have an agreement. You guys can have your own private section of the forum and you don't use it to attack those outside it. If you have issues, then move them outside this area so they can be challenged. Yeah I fell for it at first too. Since these attacks are made against people who don't exist who hold positions nobody holds it's just better to ignore the rants. Let anybody who wants rail against those science worshipers all they want. There is no need to challenge it; no need to point out that the target set is empty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 "science worshippers" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 It's funny to me that so many in this section of the forum knock down strawmen and those outside the forum aren't allowed to defend. Let's have an agreement. You guys can have your own private section of the forum and you don't use it to attack those outside it. If you have issues, then move them outside this area so they can be challenged. Yeah I fell for it at first too. Since these attacks are made against people who don't exist who hold positions nobody holds it's just better to ignore the rants. Let anybody who wants rail against those science worshipers all they want. There is no need to challenge it; no need to point out that the target set is empty. I don't have a huge issue with it except when it's said that atheism/science/materialism is a religion or belief system, because then I don't see why anyone should attack it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 "science worshippers" Right. Which means, everyone needs to lay off the "atheists are just like the crazy fundamentalist" talk. Fair should be fair. (Which I've noticed is an impossible dream. I'm deluded to ask for it and think it would work. ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 Aren't atheists hurt by hearing that atheists are just as bad as fundamentalists? Some few atheists are. And those few need to hear it, in my opinion. It's a generalization to accuse all atheists of being in need of some social skills. (cough, cough, dawkins, cough). Some are convinced of the goodness of their cause to the exclusion of good behavior towards others. (and I'm innocent, look, look over there! It's a blue bird!) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 Some few atheists are. And those few need to hear it, in my opinion. It's a generalization to accuse all atheists of being in need of some social skills. (cough, cough, dawkins, cough). And some religious people are delusional. Not all religious people are, but some are. Perhaps they just don't need to hear about it. Some are convinced of the goodness of their cause to the exclusion of good behavior towards others. And unfortunately, I've seen this with non-atheists as well. But that's okay. We are the punching bag around here when Christians are away. (and I'm innocent, look, look over there! It's a blue bird!) We all are guilty of it. And no, the bird isn't just blue. It is midnight blue with hints of turquoise. Be specific about it and don't do such general color assessments... damn... do we have to have materialist atheists here to keep people in order... hmmm.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts