Hi My Name Is Aaron And Im A Christian How Are You Today/nite/morning/afternoon?

[par4dcourse]

Why DID the chicken cross the road?

[Akheia]

Here is the problem, End. *I* know what goes into figuring out how we know history and what goes into evaluating a claim. It's a hell of a ride just to arrive at simple things like "what was Herod's rank?" You do not have the faintest idea what goes into these deliberations, but you're going at displaying your ignorance in about the most mind-blowingly glaring way possible. It is far outside the scope of a forum post to teach you the critical thinking skills you need to evaluate an objective claim, clearly. But it is not my responsibility to teach it to you, nor is the burden of proof on me to disprove your faith (though I did six ways from Sunday). It is your burden to prove your faith has validity, and you can't because if skilled apologeticists couldn't, you sure as hell won't manage it. Shuffling behind demanding I reinvent a wheel that is quite round enough already, thanks, doesn't impress.

 

But if you parrot on about stuff you are ignorant about long enough, are you hoping I'll forget you totally haven't addressed the very simple question I posed? Sorry, but I didn't. So how do you, End, a guy who has no earthly clue how science or archaeology or history works, decide if a random religion is right or wrong without resorting to circular reasoning? If someone comes to you and says he has the real truth and Christianity is a lie, and his 'truth' will send you to eternal torture if you don't buy into it, how do you go about figuring out if it's the real thing and you might need to make a switch?

 

You usually do take three tries before you actually answer any straight question, and this is try #3. So in relationship math, that means tonight is the night. Answer the question. Oh, and I normally don't post this time of night. This is family time. See you much later, or in the morning.

[Guest end3]

Here is the problem, End. *I* know what goes into figuring out how we know history and what goes into evaluating a claim. It's a hell of a ride just to arrive at simple things like "what was Herod's rank?" You do not have the faintest idea what goes into these deliberations, but you're going at displaying your ignorance in about the most mind-blowingly glaring way possible. It is far outside the scope of a forum post to teach you the critical thinking skills you need to evaluate an objective claim, clearly. But it is not my responsibility to teach it to you, nor is the burden of proof on me to disprove your faith (though I did six ways from Sunday). It is your burden to prove your faith has validity, and you can't because if skilled apologeticists couldn't, you sure as hell won't manage it. Shuffling behind demanding I reinvent a wheel that is quite round enough already, thanks, doesn't impress.

 

But if you parrot on about stuff you are ignorant about long enough, are you hoping I'll forget you totally haven't addressed the very simple question I posed? Sorry, but I didn't. So how do you, End, a guy who has no earthly clue how science or archaeology or history works, decide if a random religion is right or wrong without resorting to circular reasoning? If someone comes to you and says he has the real truth and Christianity is a lie, and his 'truth' will send you to eternal torture if you don't buy into it, how do you go about figuring out if it's the real thing and you might need to make a switch?

 

You usually do take three tries before you actually answer any straight question, and this is try #3. So in relationship math, that means tonight is the night. Answer the question. Oh, and I normally don't post this time of night. This is family time. See you much later, or in the morning.

 

Ma'am, I just told you that is the way I would approach the subject. And I acknowledged my ignorance. I have no clue, except for what I expressed, the process for validating archeological evidence. But you asked, and I gave you an honest answer. I asked you to fill in, or translate modern analytical practice over to archeological terms. Can you do that, or do you mind?

 

Just a simple example would help me. Suppose I find a single spur out here in the dirt while I am tilling my garden......after all, I am in Texico...I mean Texas. So I find this spur and have no idea the history, but want to know. So do I go to an old cowboy, or the internet, or do I dissolve it in nitric and introduce an aliquot into my AA or ICP? I don't think I would want to do the latter, it being destructive and all. Maybe I look for a mark on the spur that denotes the maker? What if it doesn't have a mark?

 

Can I trust the old cowboy, or has he been out in the weather too long and doesn't remember.

And who can trust the internet....everyone's got an agenda there.

And I don't know what good elemental analysis might do me......maybe though, if it contained some specific regional element in the steel....crap who knows......then I would have to analyze soil from different regions and speculate......and soil analysis is so iffy anyhow.

And who knows the mark on the spur but an old cowboy.

 

So unless you enlighten me with expertise, I am forced to go fish the internet......and the damn agenda there. I guess I could go confide in some rabid liberal professor.

 

Please let me correct my horrific spelling.....archaeological....sorry, I found my mistake while trying to find you an answer on the agenda driven internets.

[florduh]

[Guest end3]

 

Oh shit......LOL!!

 

I appreciate that. Been awhile since I had a gut laugh. Lol.

[Guest end3]

Wait, did my spur have amber on it. Maybe I can extract the dna from the blood of the mosquito that just bit the spur maker.

 

God save the queen! I kick myself for leaving out this possibility.

[midniterider]

I don't trust anybody who says he has a handle on the real truth.

 

Wisdom right there. :-)

[Akheia]

Good god you're not seriously demanding I whip out a tit and breast-feed you a full science and history education...

 

Here is how I'd answer: GO TO FUCKING SCHOOL. Read. Research. The answers are out there for those who aren't too chicken to reach. Have some fucking self-respect, man. This is the internet. School yourself.

 

Now answer the question. This is time #4. I'm not asking anything that should be that tough if your god is real. Armed with the pathetic understanding of science and history you have now, how do you assess a religion?

 

You see, you accepted Christianity without more solid facts than you have now. If nothing else, do you even have the capacity to see that your current foot-dragging about how to know things about the very real and correct ketchup religion is something you should have been applying all this time to your own religion? You apply a standard to other faiths you simply won't apply to your own. So are you planning to answer, or do I finally chalk you up to a Viking troll and move on until you post your extimony?

[Guest end3]

Good god you're not seriously demanding I whip out a tit and breast-feed you a full science and history education...

That would be enjoyable...boobies and education. Perhaps I would have been more attentive provided my teachers were topless.....and I could have been an expert by now. Florduh likes mud wrestling pictures if you have any.

 

Here is how I'd answer: GO TO FUCKING SCHOOL. Read. Research. The answers are out there for those who aren't too chicken to reach. Have some fucking self-respect, man. This is the internet. School yourself.

I don't need school, I have you to tell me the facts.

 

Now answer the question. This is time #4. I'm not asking anything that should be that tough if your god is real. Armed with the pathetic understanding of science and history you have now, how do you assess a religion?

Grace, which you have none, would suggest you ask that I share. I have multiple times.

 

 

You see, you accepted Christianity without more solid facts than you have now. If nothing else, do you even have the capacity to see that your current foot-dragging about how to know things about the very real and correct ketchup religion is something you should have been applying all this time to your own religion? You apply a standard to other faiths you simply won't apply to your own. So are you planning to answer, or do I finally chalk you up to a Viking troll and move on until you post your extimony?

 

You won't tell me the correct standard to appy. All my standards are NIST. I'll go look again. I thought you were going to bed anyhow...

[Guest end3]

Ok, I did a cursory look. It sure looks like they use a lot of words like "clues" and "windows" into past populations. Carbon dating, potassium-argon dating, from a cursory view, look iffy. So I don't know that I can trust the facts you speak of. But I forgot tree ring dating. Oh damn, there's that tree analogy conversation. Let's get away from that.

 

The soil stratification thing looks ok, but crap, on a droughty year, I have tractor parts coming to the surface on our place from my wife's great-grandfather's time......so why is it not buried at a certain level. Matter of fact, it was so dry here in Texas last year, I think the trees lost a ring. Back to the internets....

 

But I am proud of the biological understanding....i.e. medicine. Very thankful there was medicine for my daughters infection.....

[Akheia]

Well. Thank you for clarifying that you still refuse to answer the question. I'm stubborn, but I don't see any way you and I are going to be able to communicate. You evade questions, redefine everything you can, refuse to open up, and then have the balls to suggest anything to the contrary. I want you to know that I see through your childish, coy attempts to be evasive. I see through your act. But you have given me too few reasons to care about yet another Christian sheep who must be dragged kicking and screaming through debates. Au revoir. Enjoy your mad god and insane fake religion, with my compliments. I'm done.

[mymistake]

 

 

 

I'll never understand Viking porn.

[LivingLife]

LivingLife, I have the clear perception you have your mind closed to this like a steel trap, so regardless of the actual content of what I would offer to help you understand the differences, you will just go ahead and make surface comparisons and conclude as you will.

Err, uhm, I don't think I have made any surface comparisons. But here again we see what I alluded to in that the "spiritualist" builds a strawman then proceeds to defeat it. I think I gave a few hints as to what I think these folk may attribute to spiritualism and stated that words need no be redefined.

In which case there's no point in making an effort to clarify anything with you. I will say for the record however that I am to say the least easily as rational minded as you. I went from an I have the Truth! fundamentalist Christian, to a rationalist, reductionist, materialist atheist easily your equal, to someone who finds that rationality has its limits and is at best a partial way of understanding, interfacing with, and actually living life (pun intended).

There are no limits with rational thinking. It is how the world works in real life. Other dimensions, realities have no bearing on day to day life as we know it. The spiritualist assume that others are deficient for not exploring their imaginings (note here: it is all still in the head/brain).

 

It really boils down to this. Unless you can explain in rational terms w/o redefining words we all use and commonly understand their meaning(s), then I have to defer to logic and dismiss the claims until they can be empirically proven. One cannot explain a "spiritual" experience in these terms which leaves us one of three options. 1) It is a personal emotional thing, 2) It really does not exist outside of your own mind and thought processes, 3) It is a self willed illusion.

 

Perhaps stuff like this gives you a sense of peace, I don't need it as I am not really a troubled person. I know the limits of my interaction with the world and as such do not get myself in a twist because some kid in Somalia is dying every 6 seconds. When stuff pushes my buttons I react and rant or swear and then it is over.

So as much as it may seem a tempting target to shoot down what I say as anti-rational, good luck with that.

Why is it folk like you get so overly sensitive when your stuff is challenged? You seem to have wisdom but I personally cannot see it coming from another dimension or reality.

On the other hand, if I am mistaken in my perception of you and you are genuinely interested how a quite rational person as myself finds legitimacy in this and why in my personal history I find it personally far deeper and more rewarding than my Scientism period of rationality, without going the path of "woo" as you are fond of emotionally slapping on anything not rationalistic (inherent irony there), then please ask and I'll be happy to discuss. Otherwise, your position is understood clearly. I have no interest to convince you otherwise.

I think some introspection is required here. I noticed that you took Florduh's and my comments/opinion way to personal.

 

Maybe, this is just my opinion/observation; you have much invested in this as you actually attended a bible college and maybe like me you have to find reasons behind the anointing that obviously you and I both experienced. Perhaps my secular education and solid foundation in the sciences is where we differ vastly.

 

I have found the answer to these fuzzy/warm/feel good feelings and they were, in my case, all self induced. Obviously I looked for a rational/scientific explanation and found one that fits the "evidence". Perhaps your path of understanding this is a spiritual quest. Maybe the underlying differences is that my logical side of the brain is was was stimulated as a kid/young adult and not the emotional side so much.

 

When all these personal "religious" experiences are postulated as merely personal and not any reflection of known reality, then perhaps I will defer to not challenge that "personal" aspect of a person's being.

[Antlerman]

LivingLife, I have the clear perception you have your mind closed to this like a steel trap, so regardless of the actual content of what I would offer to help you understand the differences, you will just go ahead and make surface comparisons and conclude as you will.

Err, uhm, I don't think I have made any surface comparisons.

You commented that this is the same business you hear the Christians say. Believe me, that is only similar on the surface, save for a few very rare individuals within Christianity. In fact, you can hear the same words in many other traditions the world over which vastly deeper meaning. Should we say they are essentially Christians too? Things like "dying to yourself" to the Christian is largely interpreted to mean a punishing self-denial in an act obedience to their Overlord in the Sky, never wavering in fidelity to their beliefs. To the Buddhist however (myself as well), it means to recognize that all that we identify as the 'self' in us, is ultimately an illusion, and that through that recognition we let go of all that we put into to hang onto to protect that from loss in the world. The recognition of our own self-identity as 'greater' than our egoic self, has a profound effect on every aspect of our lives. I am stating this from directly, first-hand experience. And when I say rationality cannot penetrate this, I absolutely stand by that from personal experience.

 

My first comments we're "It's like getting an entire second brain!" It is seriously not some emotional high sort of deal, but an entire existential shift in perceptual awareness. I am highly intellectual, and when that happened for me all I could say was all my academic, scientific, theoretical knowledge utterly pales to this. In fact on the rational side, I swear my IQ shot up 10 to 15 points through this. Really what that means is it clears the garbage of the mind cluttering the intellect that you or I or everyone else don't even recognize is there until it is cleared, like cleaning the window on your car after driving it with dust and debris on it for years and years. Suddenly, "Holy shit!", you can see. That's a good metaphor. And again, it is not simply 'spiritual', but rational as well.

 

This is not 'woo' at all, this is not trusting some cosmic sky god for salvation to preserve our little lives, or whipping ourselves into so-called emotional warm fuzzies. In fact emotions are quite secondary and may or may not even be there within the experience (same thing can be said of your mental rational experiences). I would say overall that emotionally, there is a much more even distribution. There is a sort of 'detachment', without meaning going numb. That means in all, that the seat of our self identity moves beyond our egoic identification. That is why the term 'transpersonal' is used. Naturally what happens as an effect of this, is much more truely objective point of view of ourselves and the world. We are less embedded in our own minds, caught in the swirl of thoughts and ideas and relationships and self images we create that we identify as "us".

 

Now mentally, emotionally, rationally, etc, I have had a stable, relatively even psyche. I have not had any mental disorders, emotional disorders, or social, or otherwise environmental instabilities that would be seen to spur one to seek escape into 'woo' as you always love to attack things outside your experience with. I have a good career job with good pay, a healthy 10 year relationship, unconditionally loving parents, personal friendships lasting decades, a relatively high IQ, a thirst for knowledge on a scientific and philosophic level, constantly delving into areas of knowledge such as semiotics, myth studies, anthropology, systems theory, evolutionary theory, cosmology, etc. I am also highly creative. I taught myself piano and several other instruments. I compose my own music, and have produced one album of original material in studio. And so forth. In other words, I have no emotional need to seek for escape into promises of some feel-good warm fuzzies to help me deal with life. On the contrary, I want more of what I see in this world, and that is why going into the depths has been a compelling draw for me.

 

What this is is not some other mysterious realm 'out there' (which is where you are stuck in your thinking, despite my attempts to explain it as otherwise), but it is what is in fact real, here, in this world. Clear the dirt off the windshield and suddenly you see what is there. It's pulling back the curtain on the dressing booth at the beach, seeing the Ocean and swimming freely within her infinite depths. It is reality exposed! That is what this is. And the 'other realm' is in fact the hidden realm of our mental worlds, stuck within our thoughts about what the world must really be, trying to penetrate out from within it using our reasoning minds alone. That's the 'other realm'.

 

Do you use reason in bed with your wife? Forgive the crude example, but that touches on what I mean. You let go. With life, you fall into that Ocean with your mind, your body, your entire being. You swim in the depths of existence. It is like love-making, just transcending and including everything and everyone, including yourself. You lose yourself into Being Itself, and become your true Self.

 

Now, does this sound 'woo' to you? Seriously? I'm hoping that by letting you know some facts about me, it might challenge some of your perceptions just a tad.

 

But here again we see what I alluded to in that the "spiritualist" builds a strawman then proceeds to defeat it.

Which is of course how I have seen you doing with me. You're not understanding this, and characterizing it as something not this, then working off those incorrect assumptions. I hope I'm helping clarify so this can be an actual dialog about what this really is.

 

I think I gave a few hints as to what I think these folk may attribute to spiritualism and stated that words need no be redefined.

Words in fact become more complex when dealing with more complex realities. The language use in psychology for instance has a whole lot less 'common meaning' because it is dissecting reality into more integrate relations. The use of the word ego, for instance. I assume you like most people take that to mean vanity and self-glory, right? That is not what I mean when I use the term. But that does not invalidate it at all. In fact, the common meaning is for-shit, if you follow.

 

It really boils down to this. Unless you can explain in rational terms w/o redefining words we all use and commonly understand their meaning(s), then I have to defer to logic and dismiss the claims until they can be empirically proven.

Empirically proven. Rubbish. Empirically prove the ego. Do that, then get back to me. These are models of reality that we use in all sciences. Energy. Do you believe energy exists? Prove it empirically. I'll save you the trouble. It doesn't. There is no such thing in nature. But in your mind, the word Energy symbolically represents a conceptual reality and means something 'tangible' because it describes a certain 'place-holder' in our mental models of the world. Same thing with mental models of the mental phenomenological world. Same thing in speaking of spirituality. There are certain experiences that can be categorized and laid out in models of understanding in order to give us a vehicle to process within our mental, symbolic minds. They are ways to talk about reality, without they themselves being physical, material, "provable" objects. And that is the great irony of materialists! They use non-material, mental constructs to understand the world and then reject those as 'not real'! Hilarious.

 

One cannot explain a "spiritual" experience in these terms which leaves us one of three options. 1) It is a personal emotional thing, 2) It really does not exist outside of your own mind and thought processes, 3) It is a self willed illusion.

4) It is an experiential reality of perceptual awareness that doesn't violate reason, but it categorically different than material, biological, and mental realities, which is then spoken of using symbol sets, the same way we attempt to describe mental experiences such as ideas and concepts, etc.

 

(continued....)

[Antlerman]

(continuing from previous post....)

 

Perhaps stuff like this gives you a sense of peace, I don't need it as I am not really a troubled person.

It most certainly give me peace, but by bringing together all the parts of myself into a unified whole. I was not a troubled person either. See my first major description of myself personally earlier in the post before this one.

 

I have found the answer to these fuzzy/warm/feel good feelings and they were, in my case, all self induced.

Again, this is a grossly inaccurate way to describe what I am talking about. You are taking your experiences and projecting them on to what I am saying. Better to describe it as the difference between being asleep and being awake. It's not about emotions, nor some self-induced state of high that helps you get by, like a drug or something. No, it is about knowledge and awareness. A knowledge that you cannot get by thinking about something, ruminating over 'who am I" sorts of questions, through learning from books, through teachers, through reason and philosophy, through studying the cosmos, etc. It is a true journey into your self to be sure, but beyond reasoning. In fact you go into there by not-reasoning. You suspend all thoughts and then... well, you'll just have to be brave enough to go there, I guess. This is true introspection.

 

Obviously I looked for a rational/scientific explanation and found one that fits the "evidence".

Yep, I certainly relate to this.

 

Perhaps your path of understanding this is a spiritual quest. Maybe the underlying differences is that my logical side of the brain is was was stimulated as a kid/young adult and not the emotional side so much.

There is something to be said for this. Some people don't have this thirst, and that's fine. If it's not right for you, it's not right for you. The best I can hope for is that by attempting to rationally discuss this that the misconceptions are at least set aside for a reasonable respect for something that does violate the mind, but just simply goes places you might not feel compelled to go. Some people have a passion for hang-gliding. I don't.

 

When all these personal "religious" experiences are postulated as merely personal and not any reflection of known reality, then perhaps I will defer to not challenge that "personal" aspect of a person's being.

"Known reality". Not meaning to offend, but look at it this way. With the experiences of what the world looked like to you when you were in your teens, versus what they look like to you now as an adult, can't it be said from the worldview of that teen to the person with 40 more years of life under their belt, "what your saying doesn't reflect any known reality"? Oh, it is a known reality. I live in that reality. In reality, pun intended, it all the same reality anyway. It's all perceptions and experiences of reality for all humans.

 

 

To clarify one last thing, I'm hardly sensitive about this. That's like saying I'm sensitive about being me. The only reason I wouldn't want to discuss it is if there is no attempt to try to understand and just some antagonistic skeptical dismissal. I would rather spend my energy with those open to dialog. I have nothing to prove to myself by converting anyone. I love talking about this actually.

 

 

P.S. I had this thought occur to me to share as I was preparing for my meditation just now this morning. The difference is between seeking to find the facts of the world, and exploring the depths of existence. Those are two different, but not opposed approaches to living life. They are in fact, complementary to each other. And now... inward and upward!

[LivingLife]

AMan I just did a reply and the quotes got fucked up. Not going to bother replying to TL;DR posts

[Antlerman]

Seriously? You didn't read my post in reply to you? Then I should assume you're not interested in dialog. Carry on in your beliefs happily then. But then stow your criticisms of something you don't bother to understand.

 

P.S. I took the time I did to explain out of respect to you. Clearly that respect was misplaced.

[LivingLife]

You commented that this is the same business you hear the Christians say.

The same special pleading and debating tactics.

Believe me, that is only similar on the surface, save for a few very rare individuals within Christianity. In fact, you can hear the same words in many other traditions the world over which vastly deeper meaning.

Appeal to numbers - not convincing

Should we say they are essentially Christians too? Things like "dying to yourself" to the Christian is largely interpreted to mean a punishing self-denial in an act obedience to their Overlord in the Sky, never wavering in fidelity to their beliefs. To the Buddhist however (myself as well), it means to recognize that all that we identify as the 'self' in us, is ultimately an illusion, and that through that recognition we let go of all that we put into to hang onto to protect that from loss in the world. The recognition of our own self-identity as 'greater' than our egoic self, has a profound effect on every aspect of our lives. I am stating this from directly, first-hand experience. And when I say rationality cannot penetrate this, I absolutely stand by that from personal experience.

Huge strawman and irrelevant to my answer to your accusation. And here is what I am claiming all along, a Personal Experience is anecdotal evidence. Perhaps for you that forms some alternative reality but as yet you have failed just like the xian to explain HOW this happens. I know WHY it happens, you want it to be real.

My first comments we're "It's like getting an entire second brain!" It is seriously not some emotional high sort of deal, but an entire existential shift in perceptual awareness. I am highly intellectual, and when that happened for me all I could say was all my academic, scientific, theoretical knowledge utterly pales to this. In fact on the rational side, I swear my IQ shot up 10 to 15 points through this. Really what that means is it clears the garbage of the mind cluttering the intellect that you or I or everyone else don't even recognize is there until it is cleared, like cleaning the window on your car after driving it with dust and debris on it for years and years. Suddenly, "Holy ****!", you can see. That's a good metaphor. And again, it is not simply 'spiritual', but rational as well.

I am sure you are intelligent, I doubt this meditation actually made you smarter or wiser than you already are. Somewhere your preponderance had to come out filtered through your rational mind to attempt to explain it.

This is not 'woo' at all, this is not trusting some cosmic sky god for salvation to preserve our little lives, or whipping ourselves into so-called emotional warm fuzzies. In fact emotions are quite secondary and may or may not even be there within the experience

^^Strawman. I have not inferred your spirituality is anything more than something happening in your mind. Now you defer to a perception of a sky daddy, shoot that down where I made no such assertion. The comparison for clarification was the same debating techniques and circular arguments.

 

Point here, you could come over with less words and say the same stuff w/o being so "defensive" Can you see a pattern here that I clearly see? Our discussion is not about theology merely me challenging the concepts of spirituality as being relevant to the real world we live in.

(same thing can be said of your mental rational experiences).

Not so. My mental rational experiences can be described in layman's terms w/o the need for superfluous language and metaphors.

I would say overall that emotionally, there is a much more even distribution. There is a sort of 'detachment', without meaning going numb.

And here we are into altered states of consciousness and I have made comparisons to LSD already. How can this be anything other than wilful illusion (used that word as opposed to delusion but both words work.)

That means in all, that the seat of our self identity moves beyond our egoic identification. That is why the term 'transpersonal' is used. Naturally what happens as an effect of this, is much more truely objective point of view of ourselves and the world. We are less embedded in our own minds, caught in the swirl of thoughts and ideas and relationships and self images we create that we identify as "us".

 

Now mentally, emotionally, rationally, etc, I have had a stable, relatively even psyche. I have not had any mental disorders, emotional disorders, or social, or otherwise environmental instabilities that would be seen to spur one to seek escape into 'woo' as you always love to attack things outside your experience with.

Yes I do call it woo for simplistic reasons. It is a pretty all encompassing word.

I have a good career job with good pay, a healthy 10 year relationship, unconditionally loving parents, personal friendships lasting decades, a relatively high IQ, a thirst for knowledge on a scientific and philosophic level, constantly delving into areas of knowledge such as semiotics, myth studies, anthropology, systems theory, evolutionary theory, cosmology, etc. I am also highly creative. I taught myself piano and several other instruments. I compose my own music, and have produced one album of original material in studio. And so forth. In other words, I have no emotional need to seek for escape into promises of some feel-good warm fuzzies to help me deal with life. On the contrary, I want more of what I see in this world, and that is why going into the depths has been a compelling draw for me.

That's very sweet but you need not qualify yourself to me, I have a pretty good idea of what and who you are. I read a lot of posts here.

What this is is not some other mysterious realm 'out there' (which is where you are stuck in your thinking, despite my attempts to explain it as otherwise), but it is what is in fact real, here, in this world.

I have heard this argument before from a MysticPhd dude (universalist) on City data forums and he claims the same reality as you do. However saying so does not make is so as we are left with really only a few that think this way. This leads me to the unanswered question that if this were al real it should be able to manifest despite my scepticism. I am sure this would hold true for the 7Bn folk on this planet yet this is NOT the reality most of us see and experience. This is again redefining definitions already widely accepted in the English language.BTW the editor is fucked up again, no toolbars and I checked the adblock plus. This is the only site I have problems with the adblock plus add on.

[LivingLife]

Clear the dirt off the windshield and suddenly you see what is there. It's pulling back the curtain on the dressing booth at the beach, seeing the Ocean and swimming freely within her infinite depths. It is reality exposed! That is what this is. And the 'other realm' is in fact the hidden realm of our mental worlds, stuck within our thoughts about what the world must really be, trying to penetrate out from within it using our reasoning minds alone. That's the 'other realm'.

No it is not reality exposed. Reality requires no exposition by altered states of whatever. I have said it and will reiterate that in your world/mind it is real as you have made it so

Do you use reason in bed with your wife? Forgive the crude example, but that touches on what I mean. You let go. With life, you fall into that Ocean with your mind, your body, your entire being. You swim in the depths of existence. It is like love-making, just transcending and including everything and everyone, including yourself. You lose yourself into Being Itself, and become your true Self.

We talk, we share. Unless you want to sex it up?

Now, does this sound 'woo' to you? Seriously? I'm hoping that by letting you know some facts about me, it might challenge some of your perceptions just a tad.

I never thought once you were stupid but I have covered that already.

[LivingLife]

  But here again we see what I alluded to in that the "spiritualist" builds a strawman then proceeds to defeat it.

 

Which is of course how I have seen you doing with me.  You're not understanding this, and characterizing it as something not this, then working off those incorrect assumptions.  I hope I'm helping clarify so this can be an actual dialog about what this really is.

 

Words in fact become more complex when dealing with more complex realities.  The language use in psychology for instance has a whole lot less 'common meaning' because it is dissecting reality into more integrate relations.  The use of the word ego, for instance.  I assume you like most people take that to mean vanity and self-glory, right?  That is not what I mean when I use the term.  But that does not invalidate it at all.  In fact, the common meaning is for-shit, if you follow.

 

And there you go, you have redefined reality to have various levels.  As for ego, the one word egocentric comes to mind here and I am not one of them other than I have personal views (as do you) but these personal views can be articulated w/o deference to mass hypothetical scenarios to make a point.

Empirically proven.  Rubbish.  Empirically prove the ego.  Do that, then get back to me.    These are models of reality that we use in all sciences.  Energy.  Do you believe energy exists?  Prove it empirically.  I'll save you the trouble.  It doesn't.

Does energy exist? Yes it does. I should know I studied in in my field of expertise. Hint go switch on your bedroom light. Empirically proven. Do I need to break it down for you? Sun, photosynthesis, fossilisation of trees, coal.... and so on till it arrives in your home as electrical energy, converted by the lamp to light and heat - ow wow full circle.

  There is no such thing in nature.  But in your mind, the word Energy symbolically represents a conceptual reality and means something 'tangible' because it describes a certain 'place-holder' in our mental models of the world.

No place holder required, anyone with basic science understands the concepts of energy. The physicists of course take it to a whole other level.

  Same thing with mental models of the mental phenomenological world.  Same thing in speaking of spirituality.  There are certain experiences that can be categorized and laid out in models of understanding in order to give us a vehicle to process within our mental, symbolic minds.  They are ways to talk about reality, without they themselves being physical, material, "provable" objects.  And that is the great irony of materialists!  They use non-material, mental constructs to understand the world and then reject those as 'not real'!  Hilarious.

We do this as we cannot of course see an electron or DNA and make models to convey knowledge.  I have yet to see a spiritual model that is peer reviewed - Oh I forget we silly atheists are now materialists? Hmmm materialism is/was the infatuation with material things like houses, car, flat screen TV's or loosely an expression of vanity and/or pride.

4) It is an experiential reality of perceptual awareness that doesn't violate reason, but it categorically different than material, biological, and mental realities, which is then spoken of using symbol sets, the same way we attempt to describe mental experiences such as ideas and concepts, etc.

Experiential anecdotes are not reality except in the mind of the believer.

[Antlerman]

You are extremely rude. I'm not interested in discussion with someone as stuck in religious thinking as you are. This is not a dialog. You have your beliefs.

[LivingLife]

Seriously?  You didn't read my post in reply to you?  Then I should assume you're not interested in dialog.  Carry on in your beliefs happily then.  But then stow your criticisms of something you don't bother to understand.

 

P.S.  I took the time I did to explain out of respect to you.  Clearly that respect was misplaced.

 

You really should read before spouting off at the mouth, The forum editor is fucked up again. I did manage to get in three posts.SHIT! Why do I bother?

[Antlerman]

Why do I bother?

Damned good question. You have the truth, go preach it.

[LivingLife]

You are extremely rude.  I'm not interested in discussion with someone as stuck in religious thinking as you are.  This is not a dialog.  You have your beliefs.

 

What the fuck are you talking about? Rude?Fuck it get off your fucking high horse. Now that is rude

[Antlerman]

You are extremely rude. I'm not interested in discussion with someone as stuck in religious thinking as you are. This is not a dialog. You have your beliefs.

 

What the fuck are you talking about? Rude?Fuck it get off your fucking high horse. Now that is rude

No high horse. You just don't get civil dialog. That's all. I'm not interested in discussion with you based on the ways in which you respond. It has jack shit to do with the content. You know it, and that's all there is to it. Reminds me a trying to discuss alternatives with a fundamentalist. Feels creepy. Sorry.