Ouroboros Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 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 ) Absolutely. I believe that's true too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 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. I'm not sure "irony" is the right word, but okay, I think I understand what you're aiming at. Santa Claus, a fluffy character, criticizing fluffy things... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badpuppy Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 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? Hey Sunny, I don't remember anything that happened before age 4, and I don't remember most of what happened during the year I was 4. That doesn't mean i didn't exist when I was 3 or existed off and on when I was 4. I don't remember some things I did last week. I didn't temporarily blink out of existence because I don't remember. Memory is a funny thing and shouldn't, IMO be used as the definition of what is and isn't possible with regards to consciousness. How come you can't watch a TV program on your TV if it's busted? Does it mean the program no longer exists? I don't think we need bodies. I just think we need them to have a human experience. Just like I only need water skis if I'm going waterskiing or bowling shoes for bowling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badpuppy Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 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. I'm not sure "irony" is the right word, but okay, I think I understand what you're aiming at. Santa Claus, a fluffy character, criticizing fluffy things... hehe yes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 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. Ok. This quote: 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. Why did you argue that DesertBob was wrong about creating a purpose for ourselves based on that you consider that materialism is wrong? This is what I'm trying to understand. This is the part that I can't make sense out of. Why is he wrong out of a materialist perspective when he didn't say it was a materialist view he presented? Did I miss something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badpuppy Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 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. Ok. This quote: 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. Why did you argue that DesertBob was wrong about creating a purpose for ourselves based on that you consider that materialism is wrong? This is what I'm trying to understand. This is the part that I can't make sense out of. Why is he wrong out of a materialist perspective when he didn't say it was a materialist view he presented? Did I miss something? Because, earlier in his post that I snipped and was replying to he said this: Is science actually trying to answer "why" questions or simply presenting evidence that there is no "why" and that "why" is the wrong question? To ME from MY perception this is a "materialist assumption"... that science is simply presenting evidence that there is no "why". This does NOT mean that I think Bob is a strict materialist. (Or even that I think it's "wrong" to be a strict materialist. People see things how they see them and that is fine.) It has nothing to do with Bob as a person or his worldview in total at all. However, I still think that statement is a materialist assumption, which in my personal opinion colors the part I was replying to. I was trying to point out that IF strict materialism is true and IF there is no higher reality and everything is mechanistic or whatever then no, it would not be accurate that we "make our own purpose". That would merely be an illusion... since free will would be an illusion. The illusion would be no better or worse than any OTHER illusion any human being holds. At that point the issue would be... "which illusion is most beneficial for any given individual to hold", and "can they hold it without harming society and other individuals". Here is where I think I'm often misheard. I think people think I feel they SHOULD have a spirituality. No, actually I don't. I dont' think spiritual people are "better" than materialists. My issue is merely that there are not only two options: "supernatural woo", or "strict materialism". There actually are other ways to view the world. Both "supernatural woo" and "strict materialism" flow from the same basic materialistic assumption. Monotheism and other "external supernatural entity" systems, merely try to explain it with divine agency. I think consciousness is the ground of being. This does NOT mean I am right just because I think it. It also doesn't mean I think everybody else should agree with me. I do not care what anybody thinks or believes as long as it is not personally harming them. But here, at Ex-C, the majority are atheists. This may or may not be beneficial for all members here. I present my views so people who are NOT suited for a materialistic worldview can see an alternative way to think and be and know that there are NOT only two options. That's it. If someone is a materialist and they are happy with it. Fine. If you don't believe in free will. Okay. Many people here think I'm angry, defensive, insecure, trying to convert them, or all sorts of other motives that have nothing to do with me. I understand why they may perceive it that way, but it's still untrue. I can see WHY someone would think I was calling Bob a materialist and telling him he was "wrong", but I wasn't. I was addressing what I perceived as a materialist assumption (made consciously or unconsciously) and why I think there is a logic problem there. That's it. It wasn't anything about Bob personally at all. It's also completely possible that the statement Bob made that I replied to had NOTHING to do with the earlier statement that I felt was a materialist assumption. It's also possible that Bob wasn't making any assumptions but was merely stating one way of viewing science (though I disagree that that is the purpose of science as well.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 I don't remember anything that happened before age 4, and I don't remember most of what happened during the year I was 4. That doesn't mean i didn't exist when I was 3 or existed off and on when I was 4. I don't remember some things I did last week. I didn't temporarily blink out of existence because I don't remember. Memory is a funny thing and shouldn't, IMO be used as the definition of what is and isn't possible with regards to consciousness. Are you saying you or your consciousness existed before you were <9months from conception? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 Because, earlier in his post that I snipped and was replying to he said this: Is science actually trying to answer "why" questions or simply presenting evidence that there is no "why" and that "why" is the wrong question? To ME from MY perception this is a "materialist assumption"... that science is simply presenting evidence that there is no "why". It's the same assumption made by naturalists, who are not materialists. You made an assumption that he was arguing from a materialist standpoint while it doesn't have to be. You can be a naturalist and have positive attitude towards the power of explanation by science. Science isn't necessarily materialist. So again, you did argue against materialism, when he didn't argue from materialism. And in a later post, you did agree that we can make our own purpose. Here is where I think I'm often misheard. I think people think I feel they SHOULD have a spirituality. No, actually I don't. I dont' think spiritual people are "better" than materialists. My issue is merely that there are not only two options: "supernatural woo", or "strict materialism". There actually are other ways to view the world. Agree. There are more ways to view reality. But why the hard stance against anyone who doesn't express it in a spiritual manner? Why is science so worthless to you? And why do you consider all science to be materialistic? To me, it still seems like that if anyone utters a positive statement for science, it's equated to materialism to you and hence wrong ("wrong" in the sense that you automatically disagree). I don't believe in all science. I don't believe all what scientists say. I'm a naturalist and I believe a lot can be explained with science. You have a different view, but the differences in views doesn't make me a materialist. Right? I do understand your concern about people calling your spirituality a "woo woo". But you can't even admit a small bit that you calling someone a "materialist" as soon as they express support for science is also a concern? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 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 ) Absolutely. I believe that's true too. Thank you. After all, why did this spirituality forum get created in the first place if it wasn't for the incessant hell hounds nipping at the heels of the witches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deva Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 Can a person be a determinist and also spiritual? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Thank you. After all, why did this spirituality forum get created in the first place if it wasn't for the incessant hell hounds nipping at the heels of the witches. I can also tell you that atheists, like me, can be real assholes... (I try really hard, but I think I'm too nice most of the time. ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 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? I don't know, when I watched my son emerge from his mother, he sure seemed conscious to me. He was aware of the world, and cried like mad at that blaring fact. Just because he can't consciously remember that day in the delivery room doesn't mean he was unconscious for the first 4 years of his life. Don't confuse memory recall with the fact of being conscious. Just wait till you pass 50 years of age, and for the love of you you can't recall something that happened a year ago, every now and then. Were you just a hunk of unconscious flesh for that day when you were 49? 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? It appears you confuse consciousness with memory recall. A dog is conscious. So is an ant. Some could even argue a plant is, in a primitive form. It is in fact aware of its environment on some level and responds accordingly. Don't confuse consciousness with cognitive reasoning either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Can a person be a determinist and also spiritual? I don't see why not. Since I just learned about "religious naturalism" I think it's very possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badpuppy Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 I don't remember anything that happened before age 4, and I don't remember most of what happened during the year I was 4. That doesn't mean i didn't exist when I was 3 or existed off and on when I was 4. I don't remember some things I did last week. I didn't temporarily blink out of existence because I don't remember. Memory is a funny thing and shouldn't, IMO be used as the definition of what is and isn't possible with regards to consciousness. Are you saying you or your consciousness existed before you were <9months from conception? Yes. I believe I have always existed in one form or another. There are (I think) three basic assumptions with regards to consciousness: (If I'm leaving something out, please let me know) 1. Consciousness is either an illusion or some type of emergent property. It is tied intrinsically to matter and once the matter is "dead" the consciousness goes. (strict materialism... but also not necessarily "strict" materialism. Legion, I believe, holds a complexity viewpoint that has consciousness as an emergent property but still tied to the matter for existence, but he'd have to confirm that.) 2. Consciousness comes into being at some point in the womb and then somehow ends up eternal through some divine agency. (supernatural theism) 3. Consciousness is pre-existent and enters a body to experience a physical life (for whatever reason not being defined right here in this post). (reincarnation.) My view is view 3. Most who hold reincarnation views believe all consciousness is ONE but being expressed/experienced in different forms. Some people who hold that view think that when they die, their consciousness is reabsorbed by the whole so there is no "personal continuance". My view is that there is a personal continuance due to the NDE and reincarnation research out there. As well as personally knowing someone who had an NDE. I also feel VERY strongly that I've been here before this individual life. I cannot "prove" this to you. It is merely my perception and my perception could be wrong. None of the three above assumptions can be empirically proven, but those who hold each one, tend to find supporting proof for their view. You might note that one could substitute the word "consciousness" for "soul". And that would be fine. I just think it's problematic. I believe we all have a soul because I believe your soul IS your consciousness. What one believes about that soul will vary... that it is mortal just like the body, that once it comes into being it's eternal, or that it's pre-existent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badpuppy Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Can a person be a determinist and also spiritual? Of course. I'm not saying they can't. Though I personally find "strict determinism" incoherent. I'm a compatibalist. i.e. I don't believe in total extremes on either end of the free will/determinism spectrum because I personally feel both are incoherent and unsupportable by basic human experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Thank you. After all, why did this spirituality forum get created in the first place if it wasn't for the incessant hell hounds nipping at the heels of the witches. I can also tell you that atheists, like me, can be real assholes... (I try really hard, but I think I'm too nice most of the time. ) Oh you're not an atheist. You just say that because it's fashionable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Thank you. After all, why did this spirituality forum get created in the first place if it wasn't for the incessant hell hounds nipping at the heels of the witches. I can also tell you that atheists, like me, can be real assholes... (I try really hard, but I think I'm too nice most of the time. ) Oh you're not an atheist. You just say that because it's fashionable. I'm still looking for a better term to describe myself... without all the baggage that comes with labels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Thank you. After all, why did this spirituality forum get created in the first place if it wasn't for the incessant hell hounds nipping at the heels of the witches. I can also tell you that atheists, like me, can be real assholes... (I try really hard, but I think I'm too nice most of the time. ) Oh you're not an atheist. You just say that because it's fashionable. I'm still looking for a better term to describe myself... without all the baggage that comes with labels. I'll work on it for you and get back to you later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badpuppy Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 It's the same assumption made by naturalists, who are not materialists. You made an assumption that he was arguing from a materialist standpoint while it doesn't have to be. You can be a naturalist and have positive attitude towards the power of explanation by science. Science isn't necessarily materialist. So again, you did argue against materialism, when he didn't argue from materialism. That is possibly true. We'd have to get clarification from Bob. However even IF he was not making any materialist assumption at all, it is still an accurate point what I said about IF strict materialism is true and IF there is no higher reality than "making our own purpose" is an illusion. And in a later post, you did agree that we can make our own purpose. No. *I* believe in free will, so in my view OF COURSE we can make our own purpose. However, someone who doesn't believe in free will, by their own logic CANNOT make their own purpose. They only have the illusion that they can. No better or worse, IMO than any other illusion that doesn't cause someone harm. But... I still believe you and every other determinist can make your own purpose... because *I* don't think free will is an illusion. I think even saying it's an illusion is incoherent. Agree. There are more ways to view reality. But why the hard stance against anyone who doesn't express it in a spiritual manner? Why is science so worthless to you? And why do you consider all science to be materialistic? To me, it still seems like that if anyone utters a positive statement for science, it's equated to materialism to you and hence wrong ("wrong" in the sense that you automatically disagree). I don't take a hard stance against anyone who doesn't express in a spiritual manner. I do not CARE if someone is a strict materialist. I would just like it to be acknowledged that it's not a proven "fact" that every other viewpoint is stupid, and that there are other ways of viewing the world. That's it. I have never said science is worthless to me. I'm not even sure where you get that idea. I respect science, I just don't agree with every idea expressed by scientists, nor with the overwhelmingly materialistic worldview of scientists in some fields of study. I also never said all science was materialistic. Quantum mechanics IMO is about as far from materialism as one can get. I think some quantum physicists may still cling to a strict materialism but I don't think that's actually logical inside quantum mechanics itself. There is plenty of science that suggests we are not living in a "material" world. I don't believe in all science. I don't believe all what scientists say. I'm a naturalist and I believe a lot can be explained with science. You have a different view, but the differences in views doesn't make me a materialist. Right? If you say you aren't a materialist I'm not going to disagree with you. Only you have the right to personally define you and your view. If I start doing it, then I'm an asshole, and also inaccurate since I don't live inside your mind and can't possibly define you better than you can define you. I do understand your concern about people calling your spirituality a "woo woo". But you can't even admit a small bit that you calling someone a "materialist" as soon as they express support for science is also a concern? I will admit there are a few occasions when my skin can be a little thin and it does hurt my feelings, usually with people I've considered somewhat friendly with me who I then feel are lashing out at me for my beliefs. HOWEVER, my primary concern isn't about "my personal feelings", it's the understanding that strict materialism is not the default position after deconverting from Christianity and wanting to be one voice of several that speaks about alternate views... for those who are interested in those views. If someone isn't interested, that is fine. I am not a Mormon knocking on your door. (No offense to Mormons, since I actually know a few pretty awesome ones.) It wasn't that he expressed support for science. *I* express support for science. Holy crap, I don't think you know just how excited I am about us going to the moon again, or how in awwww I was that we went the first time. Or how amazed I am by quantum mechanics. Or how fascinated I am by people who really pressed the limits with math and physics (even if I can't work out the formulas myself). I truly APPRECIATE science. What I don't appreciate is dogma hiding inside science. I don't think it has a place there. His statement was: (science) presenting evidence that there is no "why" and that "why" is the wrong question? It's not science itself, it's an assumption of what science should be. IMO. It's when science is used to define all of reality through one particular (and in my opinion, narrow) assumption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 I'll work on it for you and get back to you later. You do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 No. *I* believe in free will, so in my view OF COURSE we can make our own purpose. However, someone who doesn't believe in free will, by their own logic CANNOT make their own purpose. They only have the illusion that they can. No better or worse, IMO than any other illusion that doesn't cause someone harm. But... I still believe you and every other determinist can make your own purpose... because *I* don't think free will is an illusion. I think even saying it's an illusion is incoherent. The reason why I believe "free will" is an illusion is because it can't be both free and willful simultaneous. It's either free, disconnected from causes, or it's willed and related to reasons and causes. What we are, our will, our being, is the convergence of past causes and events. We act randomly at times, and other times because of what and who we are (which is the result of the past and current circumstances). As a convergent "will" of past and present, we make it happen. We make purpose because of who we are. In what sense is your "free will" free? And what is "will" in your "free will"? You will things freely? Randomly? Or with reasons? With random reasons or reasons based on who you are and what you do? This has nothing to do with "determinism" directly because free is indeterministic and will is deterministic. Either or, both are not true simultaneous. Separate, they're true, together, they are disjointed. That's my view, described in a poor carrier of thought, i.e. language. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 I cannot "prove" this to you That's the beauty of this section of the forum, you don't have to and I'll get my hand slapped if I pressure you to do so or denegrate you for not doing so. I was just curious. Thanks for your answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badpuppy Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Thank you. After all, why did this spirituality forum get created in the first place if it wasn't for the incessant hell hounds nipping at the heels of the witches. I can also tell you that atheists, like me, can be real assholes... (I try really hard, but I think I'm too nice most of the time. ) Oh you're not an atheist. You just say that because it's fashionable. I'm still looking for a better term to describe myself... without all the baggage that comes with labels. Sometimes I'll refer to myself as agnostic since, even though I have a narrative, I don't think we "can know". Sometimes I say I have a monist view of things with regards to only one thing fundamentally existing (consciousness), but usually I have tried to stay away from labels. I officially dropped the Buddhist label not too long ago because while I subscribe to Buddhist magazines and have Buddhist books and many Buddhist ideas, i also have non-Buddhist ideas and I felt like it was cramming me into a box I didn't want to be in. Not because it was a "Buddhist-box" but because it was a box, period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badpuppy Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 No. *I* believe in free will, so in my view OF COURSE we can make our own purpose. However, someone who doesn't believe in free will, by their own logic CANNOT make their own purpose. They only have the illusion that they can. No better or worse, IMO than any other illusion that doesn't cause someone harm. But... I still believe you and every other determinist can make your own purpose... because *I* don't think free will is an illusion. I think even saying it's an illusion is incoherent. The reason why I believe "free will" is an illusion is because it can't be both free and willful simultaneous. It's either free, disconnected from causes, or it's willed and related to reasons and causes. What we are, our will, our being, is the convergence of past causes and events. We act randomly at times, and other times because of what and who we are (which is the result of the past and current circumstances). As a convergent "will" of past and present, we make it happen. We make purpose because of who we are. In what sense is your "free will" free? And what is "will" in your "free will"? You will things freely? Randomly? Or with reasons? With random reasons or reasons based on who you are and what you do? This has nothing to do with "determinism" directly because free is indeterministic and will is deterministic. Either or, both are not true simultaneous. Separate, they're true, together, they are disjointed. That's my view, described in a poor carrier of thought, i.e. language. To me it's pointless to talk about a will that isn't free. i.e. will is intention. But I don't think there are no influences on behavior. My view is more compatibalist, somewhere on the spectrum. I think strict determinism is incoherent, but also that every choice and decision being 'totally free' without any pre-existing cause is also incoherent. Perhaps the problem here is human language. It's possible that your view and my view on this converge a lot more closely than we think because what you're describing to me doesn't sound like strict determinism. My perspective is that the ultimate consciousness/universal consciousness/ground of being/etc. would have total "free will" because there would be no other will or anything else acting "upon"it. (Though Deva has described the Absolute as beyond both concepts of free will and determinism. And she is probably right, but as a human being wanting to discuss something, all I have are concepts! ) I think each piece of consciousness coming from that original consciousness... (us and other sentient beings), have at least the potential to make choices that are not just mindless robotic determinism. I think one has to be aware that there is option A vs. option B before that begins to awaken. And even among human beings some are more self-directed than others. I would say someone like Tony Robbins is WAY more aware of his ability to make choices than the average wage slave. So I think it's a continuum based largely upon awareness. I don't think every will is equally "free" but neither do I think we are all deterministic robots. Even my cat sometimes makes a choice. ("No, I'm not getting out of this comfortable chair to come over there, I don't care if you have food.") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badpuppy Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 I cannot "prove" this to you That's the beauty of this section of the forum, you don't have to and I'll get my hand slapped if I pressure you to do so or denegrate you for not doing so. I was just curious. Thanks for your answer. LMAO No problem. The thing is... not everything is about "proving things". I really think there is a lot about life that is unknowable. You might be interested in a BBC documentary called Dangerous Knowledge. It's about 4 mathematicians/physicists who pushed the boundaries of what human beings can know... discovered there really are things we can't know... went mad... and killed themselves. Sometimes making peace with ambiguity is in our best interest. Having discussions about ideas and possibilities shouldn't always be about empirically proving every statement made. Nobody goes through life behaving like that consistently (except maybe Spock, but he's not real). No one is obligated to accept anything that doesn't make sense to them or that they don't feel is supported by enough evidence, that's fine. But neither should every person who shares an opinion or thought be required to "prove it". I figure people who REALLY want to know both sides of an issue, have Google, just like the rest of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts