Spirituality Is A Product Of Our Human-Ness

[Guest Xtech]

Oh and this Ted talk seems to fit in with this thread:

 

 

"What aspects of religion should atheists (respectfully) adopt? Alain de Botton suggests a "religion for atheists" -- call it Atheism 2.0 -- that incorporates religious forms and traditions to satisfy our human need for connection, ritual and transcendence."

[Ouroboros]

Oh and this Ted talk seems to fit in with this thread:

 

http://www.ted.com/t...theism_2_0.html

 

"What aspects of religion should atheists (respectfully) adopt? Alain de Botton suggests a "religion for atheists" -- call it Atheism 2.0 -- that incorporates religious forms and traditions to satisfy our human need for connection, ritual and transcendence."

Awesome. I like it. The only problem is the word "religion." It has so much connotations and baggage that people tend to misinterpret it. Same thing with spirituality.

[Guest Xtech]

Oh and this Ted talk seems to fit in with this thread:

 

http://www.ted.com/t...theism_2_0.html

 

"What aspects of religion should atheists (respectfully) adopt? Alain de Botton suggests a "religion for atheists" -- call it Atheism 2.0 -- that incorporates religious forms and traditions to satisfy our human need for connection, ritual and transcendence."

Awesome. I like it. The only problem is the word "religion." It has so much connotations and baggage that people tend to misinterpret it. Same thing with spirituality.

 

Agreed: they are both way imprecise terms. I had to totally reject both for a while but now can see finding a way to take what works from both (from religion - community; music; art; celebration; ritual - so much! but leave behind the politics and wackiness) and spirituality (accept that we are emotional creatures, that we long to feel connected to each other and to something bigger than ourselves, etc - and leave behind superstition, fear, credulity)

[badpuppy]

The good news is that we can create purpose for ourselves and work to build purposeful modes of existence into our society and culture. That is what we are actually in control of.

I disagree. If there is no higher reality and everything is a bunch of mechanistic randomness or whatever then there is NO purpose and "creating one" is merely an illusion. You wouldn't even be able to really create one, since strict materialism requires strict determinism... meaning free will would be an illusion. It's a completely nihilistic way to go about life, and I refuse to have any part of it.

 

Many people here have stated that if Christianity turned out to be true they still wouldn't follow it because hell is immoral. I have just as much contempt for nihilistic attitudes like strict materialism.

I am not a strict materialist. That I don't see a creator or a prefabricated purpose to life handed to us on a silver platter does not at all mean that I do not see ways for there to be legitimate and useful personal subjective / spiritual experiences or even that there isn't a possibility for consciousness to transcend physicality in some way. And it certainly doesn't mean I don't believe in all sorts of subjective things like love. I have purpose, it is simply not purpose that was assigned to me by someone else. It is purpose I've discovered (and, yes, in some cases, created) for myself. Although that purpose could arguably be somewhat illusory, it is no more illusory than the pre-made purpose that Christianity tried to tell me I had. Nor do I find it entirely satisfying, but at least it lacks the complete pointlessness of the imaginary purpose I used to have.

 

Even if strict materialists are wrong, you should ask yourself why you feel contempt for them. Why not compassion, or at least pity? Contempt usually indicates you are threatened and trying to avoid contact with something you're not ready to accept. Why are you so insecure in your purpose, if it's so non-illusory? If I tell you something so ridiculous as you think it is, your reaction would be one of amusement, not anger, if in fact you are confident and secure in your belief ;-)

 

I didn't say you were a strict materialist. Also, when have I ever said that *I* see a supernatural creator or a prefabricated purpose handed to us on a silver platter? I'm merely responding to what you typed. If you want to have a different discussion we can have a different discussion but my response was to the words you typed.

 

If you know anything about me at all I don't believe purposes get "assigned". I believe we live in a free will universe and we're all perceiving beings with our own unique perceptual realities. I absolutely do not believe we're all supposed to follow Buddha or Jesus or whoever the spiritual guru du jour is. We're supposed to... IMO, go on our OWN journey and have our OWN views about things.

 

For some that will be strict materialism. And that's fine. (And I know YOU are not a strict materialist, I'm saying some people are.) I was saying that I have the same degree of contempt toward strict materialism that I have toward fundie Christianity. I was not labeling you a strict materialist. But the way you were speaking in the words I actually responded to, made it seem, to me... as if we can all make our own purpose even if the world is strict materialism. And no, that is not true. We could have the ILLUSION that we did, but we wouldn't have any free will and love, courage, beauty, etc. would all be similar illusions.

 

This is a basic assumption many non-spiritual types have (materialism with no spiritual reality), and they rarely take it to the logical conclusions. That's all I'm saying.

 

I also never said I felt contempt for MATERIALISTS... I feel contempt for that worldview (moreso when expressed dogmatically as in: "I can't be wrong about this") because I believe it is anti-human and denies everything of value to me. It is just as horrific to me as fundie Christianity. I also do not have contempt for Christians. I understand they are where they are and they are who they are and they are having the experience they are having. That's fine. But I'm sure as shit not going to go: "Yes, I respect the idea that an evil snake talked to a woman and got her to eat a magic apple and that's why the world sucks."

 

I'm not insecure. Again, please stop reading things I'm not saying or psychoanalyzing me. Did you not ever get irritated by Christianity all around you in your face? Did it mean you were insecure or just annoyed?

 

I think EVERYBODY is living in illusion in this life. Including me. Some of us may be more awakened than others but it would be foolhardy for anyone to pretend they have the ultimate truth. I do not believe it is knowable by human beings. I'm a human being. I do not pretend that I stand outside reality to objectively judge it.

 

I'm not amused because adults who are basically still in children and teenager modes of being are running our planet. In Indonesia a man could go to prison for 5 years for blasphemy because he said there is no god on the internet. This is not amusing to me. People are being told there is no spiritual reality because "science says so" and when they die there is nothing. Some become deeply depressed or anxious by such a fucked-up worldview. I don't find this amusing.

 

People can believe whatever they want, when they start indoctrinating children with it as fact or start sending people to prison over it, then I cease being amused. If you think that means I'm "insecure" in my views I don't know what to tell you.

[badpuppy]

I don't think science is qualified to make those judgments. They need to stick to calculating and observing, not dictating the why or ultimate complete truth of our existence. They are overshooting and behaving like a god in their own right.

 

I don't get why you say that "science is [not] qualified to make those judgement." Can you explain why you say this?

 

Can you give an example of a scientist "dictating the why or ultimate complete truth of our existence?" I've never really heard a scientist say anything like that in their capacity as a scientist. A link to an article or video lecture, or a citation of a line from a book might be very helpful.

 

Where do you think statements of ultimate complete truth of our existence should come from?

 

Richard Dawkins, Daniel C. Dennet and many of the "New Atheists" write books in which they state things as facts that we do not know and cannot know. They make claims about the mind being the same thing as the brain. They make bald statements about how the world got here and how we got here. They go way beyond the evidence, ignore all contradictory viewpoints as "woo woo" and "pseudoscience".

 

A very big majority of certain areas of science is filled with people who not only hold a strict materialistic assumption but are not shy about conflating their science with their personal worldview.

 

Every time I watch a special on television about the universe and how it all came to be... I hear bald assertions without any humility or "currently most scientists think..." it's just stated as fact without bothering with such things as "currently most scientists think..."

[badpuppy]

The good news is that we can create purpose for ourselves and work to build purposeful modes of existence into our society and culture. That is what we are actually in control of.

 

I disagree. If there is no higher reality and everything is a bunch of mechanistic randomness or whatever then there is NO purpose and "creating one" is merely an illusion. You wouldn't even be able to really create one, since strict materialism requires strict determinism... meaning free will would be an illusion. It's a completely nihilistic way to go about life, and I refuse to have any part of it.

 

Many people here have stated that if Christianity turned out to be true they still wouldn't follow it because hell is immoral. I have just as much contempt for nihilistic attitudes like strict materialism.

Is Naturalism the same as Materialism to you?

 

When i say materialism I am talking about "strict materialism". I understand my monist view of "consciousness is the only thing that fundamentally exist" is an "out there" view for most. I don't have an issue with a dualist view of material and immaterial. Strict materialism where everything is reduced to matter is my issue.

 

When people say naturalism they "may" be speaking of what I call strict materialism (matter is all that exists, free will isn't real love isn't real it's all illusion created by chemicals in the brain blah blah blah), or they may mean "methodological naturalism". I have no issue with methodological naturalism. I have no issue with science. I do take issue with science not just sticking to observing the natural world but trying to define the whole of reality for all humans without sufficient evidence. Which, IMO is what strict materialism does.

[badpuppy]

The good news is that we can create purpose for ourselves and work to build purposeful modes of existence into our society and culture. That is what we are actually in control of.

 

I disagree. If there is no higher reality and everything is a bunch of mechanistic randomness or whatever then there is NO purpose and "creating one" is merely an illusion. You wouldn't even be able to really create one, since strict materialism requires strict determinism... meaning free will would be an illusion. It's a completely nihilistic way to go about life, and I refuse to have any part of it.

 

Many people here have stated that if Christianity turned out to be true they still wouldn't follow it because hell is immoral. I have just as much contempt for nihilistic attitudes like strict materialism.

Is Naturalism the same as Materialism to you?

 

Strict materialism does NOT require strict determinism. Materialism requires following the laws of physics. Which is NOT strict determinism.

 

I think you misunderstand what I mean by strict materialism. The laws of physics include quantum mechanics which is NOT deterministic. However, most strict materialists are stuck in a classical physics way of viewing the world and nature. They refuse to entertain any implications of quantum mechanics... it works... but... that's as far as they'll go. Everything they say about the nature of reality is stuck in classical physics. In classical physics strict determinism IS the rule. The scientists who are embracing quantum mechanics and looking at the implications are not strict materialists.

 

A few scientists seem SO set on strict materialism and determinism while still trying to embrace quantum mechanics that they have posited parallel universes... i.e. every choice that COULD be made by any sentient being IS made in a parallel universe that splits off. This gets completely ridiculous... i.e. cheerios or wheaties? Well in one universe I pick cheerios one morning and in the other I pick wheaties. It's pure nonsense IMO. But it allows determinism to remain in tact because probability doesn't "really" exist in that type of theory... since everything that CAN happen, DOES happen in a universe somewhere. So it can still be a big machine. I don't believe the universe is a "big machine".

[Ouroboros]

Richard Dawkins, Daniel C. Dennet and many of the "New Atheists" write books in which they state things as facts that we do not know and cannot know. They make claims about the mind being the same thing as the brain. They make bald statements about how the world got here and how we got here. They go way beyond the evidence, ignore all contradictory viewpoints as "woo woo" and "pseudoscience".

My impression is that Dennett is open to the experience of religion (just not the supernatural kind).

[badpuppy]

The good news is that we can create purpose for ourselves and work to build purposeful modes of existence into our society and culture. That is what we are actually in control of.

 

I disagree. If there is no higher reality and everything is a bunch of mechanistic randomness or whatever then there is NO purpose and "creating one" is merely an illusion. You wouldn't even be able to really create one, since strict materialism requires strict determinism... meaning free will would be an illusion. It's a completely nihilistic way to go about life, and I refuse to have any part of it.

 

Many people here have stated that if Christianity turned out to be true they still wouldn't follow it because hell is immoral. I have just as much contempt for nihilistic attitudes like strict materialism.

 

Yes, but who knows the real purpose? Nobody. Evan those who claim they know the purpose are actually creating an illusion. It's only their opinion (in my opinion )

 

Agreed.

[Ouroboros]

The good news is that we can create purpose for ourselves and work to build purposeful modes of existence into our society and culture. That is what we are actually in control of.

 

I disagree. If there is no higher reality and everything is a bunch of mechanistic randomness or whatever then there is NO purpose and "creating one" is merely an illusion. You wouldn't even be able to really create one, since strict materialism requires strict determinism... meaning free will would be an illusion. It's a completely nihilistic way to go about life, and I refuse to have any part of it.

 

Many people here have stated that if Christianity turned out to be true they still wouldn't follow it because hell is immoral. I have just as much contempt for nihilistic attitudes like strict materialism.

Is Naturalism the same as Materialism to you?

 

When i say materialism I am talking about "strict materialism". I understand my monist view of "consciousness is the only thing that fundamentally exist" is an "out there" view for most. I don't have an issue with a dualist view of material and immaterial. Strict materialism where everything is reduced to matter is my issue.

 

When people say naturalism they "may" be speaking of what I call strict materialism (matter is all that exists, free will isn't real love isn't real it's all illusion created by chemicals in the brain blah blah blah), or they may mean "methodological naturalism". I have no issue with methodological naturalism. I have no issue with science. I do take issue with science not just sticking to observing the natural world but trying to define the whole of reality for all humans without sufficient evidence. Which, IMO is what strict materialism does.

Then I'm not sure why you're against the idea of creating a purpose for ourselves. Was DesertBob suggesting materialism or naturalism?

[Ouroboros]

The good news is that we can create purpose for ourselves and work to build purposeful modes of existence into our society and culture. That is what we are actually in control of.

 

I disagree. If there is no higher reality and everything is a bunch of mechanistic randomness or whatever then there is NO purpose and "creating one" is merely an illusion. You wouldn't even be able to really create one, since strict materialism requires strict determinism... meaning free will would be an illusion. It's a completely nihilistic way to go about life, and I refuse to have any part of it.

 

Many people here have stated that if Christianity turned out to be true they still wouldn't follow it because hell is immoral. I have just as much contempt for nihilistic attitudes like strict materialism.

 

Yes, but who knows the real purpose? Nobody. Evan those who claim they know the purpose are actually creating an illusion. It's only their opinion (in my opinion )

 

Agreed.

Agree 2. Purpose is an illusion. And it works even better when we believe and act on it as being true.

[badpuppy]

Richard Dawkins, Daniel C. Dennet and many of the "New Atheists" write books in which they state things as facts that we do not know and cannot know. They make claims about the mind being the same thing as the brain. They make bald statements about how the world got here and how we got here. They go way beyond the evidence, ignore all contradictory viewpoints as "woo woo" and "pseudoscience".

My impression is that Dennett is open to the experience of religion (just not the supernatural kind).

 

But won't he define any "higher" reality as supernatural by definition? I do find it ironic that Dennett tells us we die and there is nothing... but he looks like santa claus.

[DesertBob]

People can believe whatever they want, when they start indoctrinating children with it as fact or start sending people to prison over it, then I cease being amused. If you think that means I'm "insecure" in my views I don't know what to tell you.

OK, peace, I get it. I tend to take things a little too literally sometimes. Which causes me to assume to much. My apologies.

[badpuppy]

 

Then I'm not sure why you're against the idea of creating a purpose for ourselves. Was DesertBob suggesting materialism or naturalism?

 

I'm absolutely "for" creating purpose for ourselves, but without free will that is an "illusion" that is IMO no better or worse than a spirituality (even a supernatural spirituality... which I don't hold, I'm just including all the options here), that is not personally harmful to the person who holds it. i.e. a liberal espiscopalian is NOT the same as a fundie christian who is trying to legislate narrow views on the world.

 

A lot of people here poo poo all spirituality and call it all "woo woo", but... IF they have no free will, which intellectually is what many strict materialists do believe... then it is ALL an illusion, any purpose you create. So a spiritual purpose is just as valid if it creates a good life for a person than a non-spiritual purpose.

 

That's my point. I'm not saying, nor have I ever said, That DesertBob is a strict materialist. We've had many conversations before and I know that's not true. I'm saying that... when you say something like "make your own purpose" at Ex-C... an assumption SOME may have is that you can be a "strict materialist" and "make your own purpose, as long as that purpose isn't religious."

 

But that's irrational. because if strict materialism is true (which it could be, I don't know. I don't believe it is, but that doesn't make me right)... then it is ALL an illusion: free will, love, courage, beauty, etc. (You've said you don't believe in free will anyway so I think you get where I'm going here.)

 

No illusion is better or worse than any other illusion empirically. It would be based upon the positive or negative affect it had on the individual or society. i.e. my spiritual views are fundamentally healthy and positive for me. Strict materialism would only cause me suffering. We also can't know empirically which is true. So... by what authority would anyone tell me I shouldn't have a spiritual worldview? I'm not pointing fingers or singling anyone out. I'm saying this is an attitude many strong atheists display toward spiritual people. And it's a ridiculous and irrational attitude, IMO.

 

If free will is an illusion it doesn't matter WHAT purpose you create. If it's beneficial for your life, it is valid. That includes spiritual worldviews. I don't believe free will is an illusion, I'm just following the logic of that perceptual system.

[badpuppy]

People can believe whatever they want, when they start indoctrinating children with it as fact or start sending people to prison over it, then I cease being amused. If you think that means I'm "insecure" in my views I don't know what to tell you.

OK, peace, I get it. I tend to take things a little too literally sometimes. Which causes me to assume to much. My apologies.

 

No problem. We all do this sometimes. I do it, too.

[Ouroboros]

Richard Dawkins, Daniel C. Dennet and many of the "New Atheists" write books in which they state things as facts that we do not know and cannot know. They make claims about the mind being the same thing as the brain. They make bald statements about how the world got here and how we got here. They go way beyond the evidence, ignore all contradictory viewpoints as "woo woo" and "pseudoscience".

My impression is that Dennett is open to the experience of religion (just not the supernatural kind).

 

But won't he define any "higher" reality as supernatural by definition?

I'm not sure what a "higher" reality means.

 

I do find it ironic that Dennett tells us we die and there is nothing... but he looks like santa claus.

I don't see the irony.

[badpuppy]

Strict materialism does NOT require strict determinism. Materialism requires following the laws of physics. Which is NOT strict determinism.

 

I suspect many people kind of assume determinism is the same as pre-determinism, as if there is a set of actions put into motion that rules our lives, thoughts, etc, like robots, and that we are completely powerless to our fates. That does seem nihilistic if it causes one to in a sense give up to this destiny.

 

To me, that mindset seems more like that of the ancient Greeks (The Fates).

 

Determinism in the sense of materialistic, naturalistic and non-supernatural, means that everything has a cause, as Noggy says, in the real world, according to laws of physics and nothing supernatural.

 

It is easy to get caught up in the weeds of labels and definitions and semantics here, but in my view everything about us is explainable (one day!) according to nature. We are not outside of nature, not even consciousness. I remember realizing this, and feeling that angst or despair, that nothing about me 'mattered.' I now feel strongly that some things do matter, that are at least seemingly within my control, and they are making the world a better place, and improving the lives of those around me, in my small way.

 

I don't believe human beings will ever be able to explain everything WHILE being human beings. I don't believe in the "supernatural". Everything that exists, by definition is natural. "supernatural" IMO is just a way to say something is imaginary. I don't believe consciousness emerged or evolved from matter. I believe consciousness came first. If you see that as supernatural I can't stop you. But I don't think consciousness is supernatural. If I did, I would have to say *I* was supernatural. I just don't think it all boils down to brain chemicals. I certainly could be wrong, but that is my view.

[badpuppy]

Many people here have stated that if Christianity turned out to be true they still wouldn't follow it because hell is immoral. I have just as much contempt for nihilistic attitudes like strict materialism.

 

Consider Christians who believe that people are condemned, no matter how good they are, no matter how much they contribute to making the world a better place, because nothing matters except jumping through some hoops to get saved. It seems very nihilistic: why try? just sign on to ___ doctrine and you're in.

 

By contrast I find materialists to be compassionate because the view is people basically are the way they are because they have very little choice about it.

 

And yet... some people are more aware than others. Some people act instead of just 'react'. I don't think Christianity is a great way to be, either. I think one of the big issues in the west is that many seem to think monotheism and materialism are the only options that are worth considering. If a monotheist feels they've found the problems/holes in materialist logic, then by default monotheism must be true. If a materialist feels they've found the problems/holes in monotheist logic, then by default materialism must be true. I believe this is a false dichotomy with very little basis in reality.

[Ouroboros]

Then I'm not sure why you're against the idea of creating a purpose for ourselves. Was DesertBob suggesting materialism or naturalism?

 

I'm absolutely "for" creating purpose for ourselves, but without free will that is an "illusion" that is IMO no better or worse than a spirituality (even a supernatural spirituality... which I don't hold, I'm just including all the options here), that is not personally harmful to the person who holds it. i.e. a liberal espiscopalian is NOT the same as a fundie christian who is trying to legislate narrow views on the world.

And you're saying that DesertBob is one of those who throw the "woo woo" around?

 

A lot of people here poo poo all spirituality and call it all "woo woo", but... IF they have no free will, which intellectually is what many strict materialists do believe... then it is ALL an illusion, any purpose you create. So a spiritual purpose is just as valid if it creates a good life for a person than a non-spiritual purpose.

But... I don't think there's a lot of people here making the poo poo of spirituality or making the woo woo statements.

 

And again, you're making the charge that everyone here are materialists and accuse you of woo woo.

 

I think a lot of spiritual people on this board suffer some form of persecution complex.

 

That's my point. I'm not saying, nor have I ever said, That DesertBob is a strict materialist. We've had many conversations before and I know that's not true. I'm saying that... when you say something like "make your own purpose" at Ex-C... an assumption SOME may have is that you can be a "strict materialist" and "make your own purpose, as long as that purpose isn't religious."

But you accused him by saying the he was wrong of making that statement. In other words, unless he is a religious person, you won't accept him saying anything that you otherwise would gladly accept. I believe you're closing your mind to other people's opinions and views out of your fear of "the materialist persecution." Not everyone is a materialist here, but you're making the assumption when you disapprove.

 

But that's irrational. because if strict materialism is true (which it could be, I don't know. I don't believe it is, but that doesn't make me right)... then it is ALL an illusion: free will, love, courage, beauty, etc. (You've said you don't believe in free will anyway so I think you get where I'm going here.)

Who cares about strict materialism if DesertBob isn't one? You said he was wrong based on what he isn't...

 

No illusion is better or worse than any other illusion empirically. It would be based upon the positive or negative affect it had on the individual or society. i.e. my spiritual views are fundamentally healthy and positive for me. Strict materialism would only cause me suffering. We also can't know empirically which is true. So... by what authority would anyone tell me I shouldn't have a spiritual worldview? I'm not pointing fingers or singling anyone out. I'm saying this is an attitude many strong atheists display toward spiritual people. And it's a ridiculous and irrational attitude, IMO.

 

If free will is an illusion it doesn't matter WHAT purpose you create. If it's beneficial for your life, it is valid. That includes spiritual worldviews. I don't believe free will is an illusion, I'm just following the logic of that perceptual system.

Free will is an illusion, a beneficial illusion. Without it being illusionary, it wouldn't work. But I still think it's an illusion. In other words, I'm aware of that I need to be "delusional" about it. And when it comes to your spiritual worldview, it's all up to you. It's your choice and belief. But... does that mean no one can never, ever, ask you to define, support, or argue your belief? Does the "validity" of your faith mean that you can say things but no one can answer or respond in opposition? I'm always open to accusations and attacks to what I believe. I continue to believe the things I believe, but I also respond to the attacks on my belief. To shut yourself in and demand that everyone leaves you alone, is an act of closing your mind.

 

One problem I see here is that you throw around the "materialist" straw-man on everyone who you want to disagree with, but you don't want to hear anyone throw the "woo woo" straw-man at you. Is that fair?

[Vigile]

I think a lot of spiritual people on this board suffer some form of persecution complex.

 

QFT

[Antlerman]

I think a lot of spiritual people on this board suffer some form of persecution complex.

 

QFT

I think a lot of atheist people on this board suffer some form of persecution drive.

 

SFT (Spoken for Truth )

[Vigile]

I think a lot of spiritual people on this board suffer some form of persecution complex.

 

QFT

I think a lot of atheist people on this board suffer some form of persecution drive.

 

SFT (Spoken for Truth )

 

I know you are, but what am I?

 

 

Seriously, there is a lot of truth to what Hans wrote. I would profoundly disagree that it goes both ways. I would agree that many atheists on the board have a low tolerance for what they consider woo woo type thinking (I'm not leveling any woo woo charges here mind you, just clarifying). That's not a persecution complex, but most certainly what contributes to a persecution complex for many more spiritually oriented.

 

When is the last time you saw a long-winded rant from an atheist claiming they are being shot down or not taken seriously by spiritual types?

 

Me personally? I'm comfortable with the idea that atheists are from Mars and you and others are from Venus.

[badpuppy]

 

I'm not sure what a "higher" reality means.

 

I know.

 

 

 

I do find it ironic that Dennett tells us we die and there is nothing... but he looks like santa claus.

I don't see the irony.

 

Really? You don't see the irony in a person who looks like a symbol of love and hope and "magic" and all the fluffy woo woo stuff in the world is, himself, the exact opposite? Alrighty then.

[badpuppy]

And you're saying that DesertBob is one of those who throw the "woo woo" around?

 

NO. I have not said a SINGLE thing about DesertBob or his motives. If I have, please point it out to me with a direct quote of what I said and I will either clarify what I meant or apologize for saying it.

 

 

 

 

And again, you're making the charge that everyone here are materialists and accuse you of woo woo.

 

 

I did? Please quote me and show me exactly where I said this. I said no such thing. I have never EVER said "everyone" does "anything". That's not even how I think. At all. I've also never said anyone accuses me of "woo woo". The only people I say that about are people who have specifically SAID my views sound like woo woo to them.

 

 

 

I think a lot of spiritual people on this board suffer some form of persecution complex.

 

 

I think a lot of strong atheists on this board suffer from the same malady. Perhaps we should all start a support group. Oh wait... we're already on one.

 

 

 

But you accused him by saying the he was wrong of making that statement. In other words, unless he is a religious person, you won't accept him saying anything that you otherwise would gladly accept. I believe you're closing your mind to other people's opinions and views out of your fear of "the materialist persecution." Not everyone is a materialist here, but you're making the assumption when you disapprove.

 

I don't think I said he was wrong to make that statement. I don't actually feel like I'm being persecuted, either. I do often feel I am being misheard, which often highly frustrates me because I'm a human being prone to having emotions.

 

There have been a few times when people have been openly hostile to me because they wouldn't stop insisting I was saying things I wasn't saying. I don't think Bob is required to be a religious person, I'm just saying you can't be a STRICT materialist and hold the viewpoint that you "make your own purpose" without accepting it's an "illusion". Bob, is NOT a strict materialist, and I never said that he was.

 

If it SOUNDED like I was saying that, then I apologize, but.. I have already worked this out with Bob here directly. Bob and I are cool.

 

I was merely making a point that many here on Ex-C like to talk about "making their own purpose" but for SOME according to the logic of their own viewpoint, that purpose would be illusion... making it no better or worse than any OTHER illusion anyone holds which doesn't cause damage to themselves or others by holding it. I'm not sure why you feel the need to continue to insist I'm saying things I'm not saying. (I've told you more than once now that I do not think and have never thought and have never even said that Bob was a strict materialist.)

 

 

 

 

Who cares about strict materialism if DesertBob isn't one? You said he was wrong based on what he isn't...

 

No I didn't.

 

 

Free will is an illusion, a beneficial illusion. Without it being illusionary, it wouldn't work. But I still think it's an illusion. In other words, I'm aware of that I need to be "delusional" about it. And when it comes to your spiritual worldview, it's all up to you. It's your choice and belief. But... does that mean no one can never, ever, ask you to define, support, or argue your belief? Does the "validity" of your faith mean that you can say things but no one can answer or respond in opposition? I'm always open to accusations and attacks to what I believe. I continue to believe the things I believe, but I also respond to the attacks on my belief. To shut yourself in and demand that everyone leaves you alone, is an act of closing your mind.

 

 

where have I done that? I just find it pointless to continue to argue with people who don't speak my language. You don't see me arguing endlessly with Christians on here. You probably haven't seen me do it even ONCE because I don't think I've done it. I have zero interest in debating with Christians because it's pointless. I don't want to endlessly DEBATE my viewpoints. I'm willing to share my side of things but I'm not going to just debate it endlessly. If you think that's shutting myself in and demanding everybody leave me alone, I don't know what to tell you.

 

I don't recall ever telling anybody here to leave me alone, except for Legion when he was way out of line. And that wasn't about his viewpoint but his rude way of expressing it and the way he personally put me down, which Antlerman called him to task for as well.

 

You are free to believe free will is an illusion. But you state it like it's a fact.

 

 

 

One problem I see here is that you throw around the "materialist" straw-man on everyone who you want to disagree with, but you don't want to hear anyone throw the "woo woo" straw-man at you. Is that fair?

 

Again, I didn't call Bob anything. In fact, Bob and I have already reached an understanding, but you keep pushing it. Since Bob and I are fine, then why are you still defending him from something I never did in the first place?

[Sunny49]

So, some of you here are saying that consciousness comes before matter, then how come you don't remember anything when you were a child? How come you become consciouss after you are five or six? How come people can lose memory if they injure their brain? And if we can be consciouss without bodies they why do we need bodies?