Legion Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 I could have chosen many things here Badpuppy but I chose this. objective reality I think every mode of discernment creates a duality and I believe making the distinction between objective reality and subjective experience is a very important discernment to make. But I also think after we've looked high and low among the things we will discover is this... We are a mystery named paradox situated in a vast sea of interconnected mystery. We can understand in part and with ever greater acuity but that ultimately we are presented with mystery. And that's what I think this forum is all about. I think we should let the people here communicate their symbols as they see fit to produce what art they may. I think part of the whole thing is to suspend judgement so that free expression, imagination, and intuition gather. something like that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badpuppy Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 OMG I'm sorry. UGH I just thought I was replying to Antlerman. That was all to MyMistake and MM was the one who was speaking. I'll correct it in my post. I briefly looked at the icon and thought I saw an icon I didn't see... again... still foggy, recently woke up. My apologies for that. While I was reading comments I was thinking: "Wow, that doesn't sound like Antlerman". LMFAO. It's because it wasn't. *head desk* I should go sleep some more LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 My problem would be is if you confused your personal perception and interpretation of information with "objective reality". Materialism operates from an assumption, that, IMO falls apart when it goes from methodological to metaphysical in nature. I'm not entirely sure what you are referring to when you use the word materialism or materialists. It feels very much like the way creationists use the word "evolutionists." Since I don't know what you are getting at I can neither agree or disagree with what you are saying here. You won't find those challenges from me. I agree that the spirituality forum needs to be somewhere where someone doesn't have to constantly defend their worldview to others. Outside it if I say something about my spirituality, I expect someone might say something to challenge me. Cool, because that's what makes this forum unique and why I continue to remain here even though I'm pretty much over my deconversion process. Virtually everywhere else we aren't allowed to offend, voice opinion or challenge because it's impolite, not politically correct or what have you. I'm interested in honest pursuit of the truth. I doubt I'll ever have a valid theory of everything, but none of us will ever evolve or move toward truth if we have to walk on egg shells because we can't offend someone else's sacred cows. So it really is okay to just let people think what they think. See what I wrote above. At issue isn't ego, but the free exchange of ideas, put to the test. Before I deconverted I determined to test my beliefs, rationalizing that if they had a solid foundation, they could withstand reasonable and rational scrutiny. Personally, I see this forum as a free market of ideas. Those without merit are not shouted down -- ideally anyway -- rather, they either survive scrutiny, or they don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badpuppy Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 @Antlernman... um... did I miss something? Is Luna's life somehow in danger? I wasn't aware that that was the situation here and I'm still not aware that's the situation. But people seem to be asserting it So if there is something going on behind the scenes that I'm not seeing, I can't be expected to know about it. I feel my response to the original statement I was responding to is quite rational in light of the pieces of the puzzle I have in front of me. Mymistake posted that in regards to the original posters comment about how her(his) beliefs are what keepers her(him?) from killing his or herself. I had to go back and look too. Yeah I later caught that. My only defense is I'm a big moron right this second. HAHA! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lunaticheathen Posted December 31, 2011 Author Share Posted December 31, 2011 I don't want to dredge that shit up again, but for clarification, the "bigot" thing wasn't so much about not wanting to date christians, it's about painting all theists as mentally defective. I admit I was highly emotional over that, for lots of personal reasons, but it still stands, that viewing all theists as defective is like looking down on people who eat cream cheese on their bagels. It makes no sense, and it rather stupid, imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badpuppy Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 Except for the fact that it didn't happen. The accusations being made are not fact. They are distortions and misrepresentations made in places where atheists are not allowed to defend themselves or in the update section where comments are blocked so only one side of the story is told. Where are these places that "atheists are not allowed to defend themselves...etc.?" LMAO yeah, I wasn't going to say it but... hahaha yeah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 viewing all theists as defective is like looking down on people who eat cream cheese on their bagels. It makes no sense, and it rather stupid, imo. O M G She just out atheisted the atheists. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lunaticheathen Posted December 31, 2011 Author Share Posted December 31, 2011 viewing all theists as defective is like looking down on people who eat cream cheese on their bagels. It makes no sense, and it rather stupid, imo. O M G She just out atheisted the atheists. ....Do I need to shower? xD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 viewing all theists as defective is like looking down on people who eat cream cheese on their bagels. It makes no sense, and it rather stupid, imo. O M G She just out atheisted the atheists. ....Do I need to shower? xD I don't know. Maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 OMG I'm sorry. UGH I just thought I was replying to Antlerman. That was all to MyMistake and MM was the one who was speaking. I take that as a complement. I'll correct it in my post. I briefly looked at the icon and thought I saw an icon I didn't see... again... still foggy I'm proud of my trees but I don't think they are quite up to the level of art that we see in Antlerman's sig. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badpuppy Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 I could have chosen many things here Badpuppy but I chose this. objective reality I think every mode of discernment creates a duality and I believe making the distinction between objective reality and subjective experience is a very important discernment to make. But I also think after we've looked high and low among the things we will discover is this... We are a mystery named paradox situated in a vast sea of interconnected mystery. We can understand in part and with ever greater acuity but that ultimately we are presented with mystery. And that's what I think this forum is all about. I think we should let the people here communicate their symbols as they see fit to produce what art they may. I think part of the whole thing is to suspend judgement so that free expression, imagination, and intuition gather. something like that... I don't disagree with you, but I don't think "objective reality" is knowable in an empirical way. (Which actually may be your point as well.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 Except for the fact that it didn't happen. The accusations being made are not fact. They are distortions and misrepresentations made in places where atheists are not allowed to defend themselves or in the update section where comments are blocked so only one side of the story is told. Where are these places that "atheists are not allowed to defend themselves...etc.?" LMAO yeah, I wasn't going to say it but... hahaha yeah. Okay I can see how that looks funny. I feel like I have one hand tied behind my back because I can't make personal comments or my post will get nuked. And in chat it's even worse I don't know where the line is with all those disclaimers. All of that is trumped by the ramification; if the original poster disappears then it won't matter how much I apologized or how good my intentions were. But the Big Bad Atheists are out to hate you all. <edit: clearly I did not give up. I'm still responding to this thread.> Hate the mean atheists for being so mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deva Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 I feel like I have one hand tied behind my back because I can't make personal comments or my post will get nuked. And in chat it's even worse I don't know where the line is with all those disclaimers. All of that is trumped by the ramification; if the original poster disappears then it won't matter how much I apologized or how good my intentions were. Really? Seriously? The spirituality section is the only place I can think of where what you say is possibly true - of course that would also depend on what the "personal comment" is. If it is a defense of atheism I can't see anywhere on this site, except possibly here, that a post would be "nuked." I don't go into chat very often so can't really comment except to say that I understand some problems have developed there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badpuppy Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 My problem would be is if you confused your personal perception and interpretation of information with "objective reality". Materialism operates from an assumption, that, IMO falls apart when it goes from methodological to metaphysical in nature. I'm not entirely sure what you are referring to when you use the word materialism or materialists. It feels very much like the way creationists use the word "evolutionists." Since I don't know what you are getting at I can neither agree or disagree with what you are saying here. (bear with me, this is not a simple sound byte answer): Fair enough. But when i say "materialist" I mean those who believe it is some sort of unassailable fact that the universe started with a big bang that somehow then took us from non-life to life, that somehow got more and more complicated over time all by itself. I just don't believe in the "naturalistic" way of things. But that irritates me as well because it assumes my position is "supernatural". And supernatural is defined by many materialists as "crazy shit that doesn't exist." I don't think I believe in "crazy shit that doesn't exist". I think the "received scientific wisdom" about how we all got here is absurd. However I am NOT a "creationist" or a proponent of "intelligent design". My view is that this is another type of dream world. The reason I feel this way is... MIND is not a supernatural thing. I have a consciousness and you have a consciousness and we are not supernatural because of it. It is natural. I know for a FACT that a mind can create a realistic three-dimensional reality that can feel, smell, sound, look, taste... real. Dreams. I know that a physical body is not required to experience that dreamworld (inside the context of the dream itself... i.e. my dream body is not my physical body). And I know from personal experiences with lucid dreams that the dream state is not always some much-different-feeling thing from awake reality. I've had dreams where i was aware I was dreaming that were hyper real, where I spent time just observing and touching textured wallpaper saying: "How can this be a dream? It's so fucking REAL!" Upon awakening from such lucid dreams, they remain just as vivid and hyper real in my mind. It leads me to SERIOUSLY question the received wisdom of the nature of reality. To me, there just is little reason NOT to think this may be a dream created by a universal Mind. If MY mind creating a 3-D realistic reality is not supernatural, then how is a larger version of that, automatically "supernatural"? Several physicists are now starting to posit that the universe itself may in some way be conscious. I do not think consciousness can be separated from all this. I believe hardline materialists have it backwards by positing consciousness arises somehow from matter. I believe it's the opposite. And I do not believe that is "creationism" or "Intelligent design" it's an entirely separate third conceptualization of the nature of reality. A conceptualization Descartes briefly accepted but rejected on the basis of "God wouldn't allow him to believe an illusion". So I don't find the basis of his rejection very logical since I don't posit a "God" out there who personally interacts with me to begin with. Abiogenisis makes no sense to me. I'm sorry, it doesn't. And giving it a name doesn't make it less of a fairy tale in my opinion. No one has observed abiogenisis, no one can recreate it in a lab. SOME things have been produced this way, but nothing approaching "life". WHEN abiogenisis is fully created in a lab, THEN i will accept the possibility that the materialistic creation myth has some basis in fact. Additionally, I find it absurd that we are conscious beings who can actively create things like computers and televisions and the internet but nothing we can create can even approximate the complexity of the natural world that I'm expected to believe somehow "randomly came into existence." The only reason this is an easy idea for anyone to believe IMO is because the strawman being knocked down is primitive god conceptualizations. Not because it actually makes any sense. Cool, because that's what makes this forum unique and why I continue to remain here even though I'm pretty much over my deconversion process. Virtually everywhere else we aren't allowed to offend, voice opinion or challenge because it's impolite, not politically correct or what have you. I'm interested in honest pursuit of the truth. I doubt I'll ever have a valid theory of everything, but none of us will ever evolve or move toward truth if we have to walk on egg shells because we can't offend someone else's sacred cows. Offend away. I don't get upset when a Christian tells me I'm misguided, so why should I get upset if a materialist says the same? Neither worldview represents anything that makes sense to me. I'm secure enough in that to let people say and think what they will about my views. And I HATE PC nonsense. I have no sacred cows. I merely have what makes sense to me and what is most mentally healthy for me. Those are the two guiding lights I use to form my own personal working framework. See what I wrote above. At issue isn't ego, but the free exchange of ideas, put to the test. I can respect this side of things... but... there comes a point where people get tired of talking it to death and the feeling that if they don't constantly defend themselves the other person will think they are "scared" rather than just bored or tired. Before I deconverted I determined to test my beliefs, rationalizing that if they had a solid foundation, they could withstand reasonable and rational scrutiny. Personally, I see this forum as a free market of ideas. Those without merit are not shouted down -- ideally anyway -- rather, they either survive scrutiny, or they don't. I agree. Though i think sometimes the market feels less free to the spiritual here because it "feels like" statements of: "people who think this way are delusional" is a way to shame and shut down... much like Christians tried to do the same to keep people from questioning Christianity. The majority view here seems to be materialism so the perception of those who don't fit into that will be different and it's more easy for spiritual people here to feel as if they arent' allowed to question the prevailing worldview and if they do they will be called stupid and delusional. So, while I support other people's right to voice their viewpoints, it's still true that the spiritual people here can sometimes feel harangued and much like they did questioning the orthodoxy of Christianity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badpuppy Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 I don't want to dredge that shit up again, but for clarification, the "bigot" thing wasn't so much about not wanting to date christians, it's about painting all theists as mentally defective. I admit I was highly emotional over that, for lots of personal reasons, but it still stands, that viewing all theists as defective is like looking down on people who eat cream cheese on their bagels. It makes no sense, and it rather stupid, imo. Fair enough, and I agree. I guess it didn't upset me the same way because it doesn't upset me when a three year old yells at me that Santa Claus IS SO REAL! Anytime someone gets that defensive, no matter what their root viewpoint is, I assume they are experiencing pain or trying to escape pain. I assume it's self-protective or a defense-mechanism. i.e. I try not to assume it's "about me". Observing things on this forum is very different than interacting. When I finally had a voice (by signing up), it didn't bother me as much because most people here are not de facto assholes. And i DO understand the desire to be free FROM religion. But i recognize other people's mileage, including yours, varies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badpuppy Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 OMG I'm sorry. UGH I just thought I was replying to Antlerman. That was all to MyMistake and MM was the one who was speaking. I take that as a complement. I'll correct it in my post. I briefly looked at the icon and thought I saw an icon I didn't see... again... still foggy I'm proud of my trees but I don't think they are quite up to the level of art that we see in Antlerman's sig. Hehe yes, Antlerman is pretty awesome. LOL yeah your icons in reality look NOTHING alike. haha I just had a brief moment of apparent icon-hallucination. It happens to the best of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 .... I don't think "objective reality" is knowable in an empirical way. Hmm... I had many thoughts when you said this. Uh, let me re-write this as... I believe objective reality cannot be known in an empirical way. I believe observation and experiment are key components in the study of nature but not the only components. I think there is a theoretical and conceptual framework which abides in the study of nature too, which is also considered "known" but is subject to overturn or upheaval in poorly understood ways. We can be fairly sure I think that if science is allowed to progress then it will become something different from today Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 Uhm Badpuppy, please let us not confuse the use of reason with materialism. I can be highly logical about the natural world and have a basis for rejecting strict materialism. I say "strict" because I am thinking here of material and efficient causes being acceptable for natural explanations and disallowing either formal or final cause or both. I hope you guys realize I'm just hanging loose. I'm really pleased to be in your company today. And the above are just thoughts I've entertained. Nah. You're just delusional about non-materialism... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badpuppy Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 Except for the fact that it didn't happen. The accusations being made are not fact. They are distortions and misrepresentations made in places where atheists are not allowed to defend themselves or in the update section where comments are blocked so only one side of the story is told. Where are these places that "atheists are not allowed to defend themselves...etc.?" LMAO yeah, I wasn't going to say it but... hahaha yeah. Okay I can see how that looks funny. I feel like I have one hand tied behind my back because I can't make personal comments or my post will get nuked. And in chat it's even worse I don't know where the line is with all those disclaimers. All of that is trumped by the ramification; if the original poster disappears then it won't matter how much I apologized or how good my intentions were. But the Big Bad Atheists are out to hate you all. You know I think I'm just making it worse. I give up. Hate the mean atheists for being so mean. Okay, first, nobody hates the mean atheists. My best friend in the entire world is an atheist. My husband is an atheist. I love him more than anything. Neither of these people thinks I am "delusional, irrational, illogical, or suffering from a 'disease'". That is the difference. Neither treats me like some lesser being simply for viewing the world differently than they do. i am not saying all atheists feel that way about spiritual people. Quite obviously the existence of my husband and best friend make that a lie. I don't think ANYONE is saying that. The ONLY people any of us have the slightest problem with in any way are the people who treat anyone with any spiritual belief as if they are: "delusional, irrational, illogical, or suffering from a 'disease'". As if spiritual people are somehow "second class Ex-Christians". Where I differ from some is... I don't CARE if you think I'm stupid. I find materialism so absurd that it makes no difference to me what a hardline materialist thinks about my viewpoint and I believe in people being able to freely voice their views, so if someone wants to call me a crackhead, they are more than welcome to avail themselves of that need. (though they would still get in trouble in THIS forum for it, but that's the rules of this forum, not about me personally.) I'm not sure about the exact lines in this specific subforum... like i know you are supposed to be respectful and not attacking toward those with spiritual views because this IS our home here. (Just like I wouldn't go to your house and put muddy boots on your coffee table and then scream about my rights to do so.) But that's about being polite in THIS subforum. Personally, if I'm discussing something specifically WITH a materialist and I'm trying to have a discussion with them, they can disagree with me. I'm not going to go cry foul about that. I think the main issue is respect, but somebody correct me if I'm wrong. But... on EVERY OTHER subforum here, you can say we are all idiots with impugnity. That's quite a lot of free reign. To be quite honest... this sounds like a bit of a persecution complex. You know how we say all the Christians whine about how persecuted they are in the US even though they are the majority viewpoint and you can't go anywhere without hearing something goofy about Jesus? Well... this is a microcosm of that. You can't pretend persecution when you're the majority and we only have a SMALL safe haven where we don't have to be attacked for thinking differently and VOICING IT. Think about how annoyed you get when you can't proclaim your atheism around Christians because they'll just treat you like shit for it. Same. Thing. Here. It baffles me why this is so hard to internalize and understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 Nah. You're just delusional about non-materialism... It's difficult to get jazzed about materialism when I increasingly view "things" in terms of processes and relations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badpuppy Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 Also, I do recognize that some want to PC-up the whole board. I am not part of that contingent. If you recall, I SUPPORTED Interested's right to not only not date a Christian but to think any spiritual person (including me) is delusional. That's because that's the main Ex-C area and part of the thing many Ex-C's NEED is that ability to vent toward any and all religion. But you can't do it here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 Nah. You're just delusional about non-materialism... It's difficult to get jazzed about materialism when I increasingly view "things" in terms of processes and relations. Yeah. I get what you're saying. "Materialism" is not a good word to describe what really goes on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badpuppy Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 .... I don't think "objective reality" is knowable in an empirical way. Hmm... I had many thoughts when you said this. Uh, let me re-write this as... I believe objective reality cannot be known in an empirical way. I believe observation and experiment are key components in the study of nature but not the only components. I think there is a theoretical and conceptual framework which abides in the study of nature too, which is also considered "known" but is subject to overturn or upheaval in poorly understood ways. We can be fairly sure I think that if science is allowed to progress then it will become something different from today Yes. My opinion is that there will be a paradigm shift, and the shift won't be "materialism". LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 I don't care how many times you call materialism a delusion, nor how many others join you. I would never threaten to kill myself because you have an opinion. See the problem? That's the problem I've had with some people in the past. When I talked about my opinion about free will and my belief that it's an illusion (and a self-created delusion that is required for our continued existence), they might threaten to kill themselves if I'm right. So I don't want to be right... at least not to them. Hence, I'm not debating everything anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 Yes. My opinion is that there will be a paradigm shift, and the shift won't be "materialism". LOL Woah! Woah hammer! Gracious. You're scaring me. I think your prediction has some measure of accuracy. But wouldn't you also like to be able to predict what it will actually BE rather than what it will not be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts