Any one feel off put by atheist's?

[VerbosityCat]

20 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

One of the reasons for this thread is to try and work through problems like this. It's more directed at those who are spiritual maybe letting it fall off, to some degree, and not allowing it to consume them.

 

One of the questions I've faced down is what does it matter, really, if the more hard atheists and ultra skeptics don't see the relevance of engaging anything not strictly proven by science and all of that? And I've found that I don't see why it would matter all that much. It's not as if they're missing out on something that they must not miss out on.

 

I've gone through so much of the 'myth is metaphor' material, and looking at it as more than just a lie. And granted, Campbell and others present arguments. I've followed those arguments all the way through as far as they reach. And I still don't see anything there that doesn't constitute a 'take it or leave' status. Everything points to the transcendent mystery, ok. In other words, the gods are not literally true. That means the gods don't literally exist, hence lack of belief in the existence of gods is well justified - through this spiritual journey into myth. It all sort of comes together in the end. 

 

So I'm wondering how close this is to your beliefs about the gods as ancestors and the spirit of a given people and so on. It sounds to me like you're also taking the gods as something of a metaphor, or symbolic more so than literal existing entities. Is that correct or have I misunderstood the position you're laying out? 

 

 

 

re: your first point: I don't care what atheists believe or don't believe. I don't care if hardline atheists don't see the relevance of engaging in anything not strictly proven by science. That is not my issue. I only care when they feel the need to follow spiritual people around like dogs waiting for some bacon to fall off the table so they can argue about the personal views of other people which are simply not their concern. It's this "I know what's better for you" subtle smugness that irritates me. I mean I shouldn't let it, I should just fucking ignore it, but we don't have mute buttons so it's not that easy for me.

 

re: the gods; I can't speak for other people obviously...  but my view is the myths are metaphors but the gods themselves IMO DO literally exist in the ancestral soul/the people from which they spring. Like... we are going WAY into wooland here, so buckle up... I believe the gods were once humans and we will someday be the gods. We are not "metaphysically different beings" it is only a difference in soul development and advancement. I think there are direct ancestors who for whatever reason are not currently incarnated and are "on the other side" connected to their family through a larger group soul. And then the gods themselves would be kind of "super souls" within that soul. So like... I believe Freyja, Thor, Tyr, Odin, and really not just them, ALL the gods. ANd not just my gods, all gods period are "real beings" in the sense that they are ancestors inside the folk soul of a people. Myths aren't "literally true stories about them". The myths in a sense are really stories "about us". The adventures the gods have are IMO a metaphor for the adventures we now have. So there is a sort of fluidity in that regard.

 

There is also the symbolic understanding... like Thor isn't just "the god of Thunder" in an earlier phase of the development of the religion he was "the god thunder" putting a spiritual energy into the thunder itself. At this point that's a symbol for most people and not the pure animism it once was, but there was a point in cultural development when that would have been literal. Sif is not just the goddess OF grain but... "the goddess grain". So Thor brings the rain which falls on the ground and the grain grows. And this is their relationship poetically in the sense of nature. Which is really sort of romantic. But they are "also" the archetypal figures inside the myths which inspire people, and they are ALSO literal ancestors (IMO)

 

And because I believe souls are a thing and the gods are "the next level of soul development", then yes, I think they are "literal beings" but not in the sense of these random disincarnate entities that float around "out there" somewhere, but something that is "a part of me" and connected to me on a soul level.

 

That may be total nonsense to other people and that's fine. I understand it's a pretty esoteric and unfamiliar way of looking at things. But for clarification that's what I (and many heathens) think. I know quite a few heathens who are hard polytheists and see  things in this ancestral spirit way. I can fully embrace and accept this as "take it or leave it" to other people but to me it's like "taking or leaving" my family. It's a part of who I am so it's not the same thing to me.

 

And again, even if I did NOT see things in a spiritual way in the sense of "there is something beyond this lifetime" I would still see the gods as "my ancestors" I just wouldn't believe they "still exist on the other side" like I do.

[florduh]

1 hour ago, disillusioned said:

 

I agree with all of this,  except for the Santa bit. I think it can be a more than that. Also,  the Santa belief is inherently empircally testable.  The kind of thing I'm talking about isn't. Once you move to testable claims you're doing something different from what I'm talking about. 

I didn't mean to imply it's the same kind of claim, only that the feel good factor is the same. Whether it's true, false, testable or not that result is the same, that's all.

[Joshpantera]

2 hours ago, VerbosityCat said:

re: the gods; I can't speak for other people obviously...  but my view is the myths are metaphors but the gods themselves IMO DO literally exist in the ancestral soul/the people from which they spring. Like... we are going WAY into wooland here, so buckle up... I believe the gods were once humans and we will someday be the gods. We are not "metaphysically different beings" it is only a difference in soul development and advancement. I think there are direct ancestors who for whatever reason are not currently incarnated and are "on the other side" connected to their family through a larger group soul. And then the gods themselves would be kind of "super souls" within that soul. So like... I believe Freyja, Thor, Tyr, Odin, and really not just them, ALL the gods. ANd not just my gods, all gods period are "real beings" in the sense that they are ancestors inside the folk soul of a people. Myths aren't "literally true stories about them". The myths in a sense are really stories "about us". The adventures the gods have are IMO a metaphor for the adventures we now have. So there is a sort of fluidity in that regard.

 

This is clearly a different perspective than what I was saying, but it seems pretty related. Because myth is like public dreams and dreams are like private myths, as it goes. This group soul seems to correspond to that. Are you basing any of this on Joseph Campbell? 

 

2 hours ago, VerbosityCat said:

There is also the symbolic understanding... like Thor isn't just "the god of Thunder" in an earlier phase of the development of the religion he was "the god thunder" putting a spiritual energy into the thunder itself. At this point that's a symbol for most people and not the pure animism it once was, but there was a point in cultural development when that would have been literal. Sif is not just the goddess OF grain but... "the goddess grain". So Thor brings the rain which falls on the ground and the grain grows. And this is their relationship poetically in the sense of nature. Which is really sort of romantic. But they are "also" the archetypal figures inside the myths which inspire people, and they are ALSO literal ancestors (IMO)

 

Again, archetypal figures I understand pretty well through Campbell. Literal ancestors, however, sounds like you're involving a type of Evemerism (the mythic gods were ancestor historical figures later deified, basically). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euhemerism

 

I'm just trying to hone in on whether I understand what you're saying or if it's different than the way it sounds to me. These examples should help open up communication one way or the other. 

 

2 hours ago, VerbosityCat said:

And because I believe souls are a thing and the gods are "the next level of soul development", then yes, I think they are "literal beings" but not in the sense of these random disincarnate entities that float around "out there" somewhere, but something that is "a part of me" and connected to me on a soul level.

 

In a way similar to how Advaita Vedanta adherents view Brahman? Or more specifically, "tat tvam asi" in sanskrit? Or different? 

 

2 hours ago, VerbosityCat said:

That may be total nonsense to other people and that's fine. I understand it's a pretty esoteric and unfamiliar way of looking at things. But for clarification that's what I (and many heathens) think. I know quite a few heathens who are hard polytheists and see  things in this ancestral spirit way. I can fully embrace and accept this as "take it or leave it" to other people but to me it's like "taking or leaving" my family. It's a part of who I am so it's not the same thing to me.

 

And again, even if I did NOT see things in a spiritual way in the sense of "there is something beyond this lifetime" I would still see the gods as "my ancestors" I just wouldn't believe they "still exist on the other side" like I do.

 

These discussions are going to remain discussions, not debates. It doesn't matter if it's nonsense to other people or not. You're free to exercise your voice and discuss personal beliefs without having to prove them or answer to any one because of expressing your beliefs. 

 

So you're good with others 'taking it or leaving it.' It looks like we agree in that way. But as for you, I see why it's not 'take it or leave it' for you personally. It sounds like you view this as a genetic thing, and integral part of who you are. And I should listen to what you're saying because I'm of the same background of northern European. All of this applies towards me as well, so it's interesting to read through and consider your thoughts on the ancestors. 

 

 

[VerbosityCat]

21 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

This is clearly a different perspective than what I was saying, but it seems pretty related. Because myth is like public dreams and dreams are like private myths, as it goes. This group soul seems to correspond to that. Are you basing any of this on Joseph Campbell? 

 

 

Again, archetypal figures I understand pretty well through Campbell. Literal ancestors, however, sounds like you're involving a type of Evemerism (the mythic gods were ancestor historical figures later deified, basically). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euhemerism

 

I'm just trying to hone in on whether I understand what you're saying or if it's different than the way it sounds to me. These examples should help open up communication one way or the other. 

 

 

In a way similar to how Advaita Vedanta adherents view Brahman? Or more specifically, "tat tvam asi" in sanskrit? Or different? 

 

 

These discussions are going to remain discussions, not debates. It doesn't matter if it's nonsense to other people or not. You're free to exercise your voice and discuss personal beliefs without having to prove them or answer to any one because of expressing your beliefs. 

 

So you're good with others 'taking it or leaving it.' It looks like we agree in that way. But as for you, I see why it's not 'take it or leave it' for you personally. It sounds like you view this as a genetic thing, and integral part of who you are. And I should listen to what you're saying because I'm of the same background of northern European. All of this applies towards me as well, so it's interesting to read through and consider your thoughts on the ancestors. 

 

 

 

I apologize this is so long. I'm trying to answer your questions fully.

 

Re: Campbell, I'm actually JUST NOW getting into Campbell. (Shamefully) Reading the power of myth now, but this is not where my ideas originate but it IS really cool to see some things I've been thinking for  a while mirrored back to me. That's always a good sign LOL. The public dream/private myth thing was actually mentioned in the power of myth, a chapter I just read actually, funnily enough and I very much like that idea. I think really that "spiritual revelations" are either for... an individual or a SPECIFIC group for their soul growth and development where they are. I don't think any "revelations" are empirical things that apply to all peoples in all times or all of reality. I hate these absolutist ways people have of seeing so many things.I think it's really unhelpful from a spiritual perspective.

 

I don't know for sure if Campbell sees "group souls" like I do or not. I didn't pick up that idea from there specifically. I'm not sure where I picked it up actually. I heard it in a few different places in my "spiritual travels" but... it was something that also came about as a form of deductive reasoning. Like in India for example talking about the idea that everything is God and this sense of "oneness" you get through meditation. Well, yes, that's true, but in my view, a permanent remerging with GOD is NOT something you can accomplish on this plane. Like to me this is like elementary school or even First grade and merging fully back with "Big G" is pretty much graduate school. So it's absurd to me these gurus who run around saying you can achieve "enlightenment" on earth. No, I think earth is a high contrast world that is all about conflict and contrast and basically starting to define who you are as a soul and the journey your soul is going to take. I don't think there is any "fixing" this world. It's a feature not a bug. It is as it is. That doesn't mean there is nothing worth fighting for.

 

As parts of God we all have the (IMO) divine right to fight to make this world more into our own image of what we want it to become. Like I personally would like there to be "more balance in the world". I don't feel some need to "eradicate all evil" because what is evil to me is not evil to another etc. But I do think there needs to be enough balance so that this is a "good learning environment" so to speak.

 

I think there are actually several levels, planes, dimensions beyond and above this one WAY before you get to "the final merge'. Also, I think all that shit is consensual. It's not something you "Have" to do. part of what I base this on is to do with the NDE research. The "hell stories" are pretty fascinating. When you get rid of the obvious fake stories (people who didn't actually have an NDE but just wrote a book claiming to have one to try to push Christianity or whatever stupid organized religious bullshit on the masses), pretty much ALL the hell cases are instructive and nothing more. And what comes out over and over is the people in these "hell dimensions" are not there for not being "perfect" or for "believing the wrong things" or being atheists or any other ridiculous thing like that... they are there because they have REPEATEDLY chosen to be fucking evil nasty souls (by a definition we would all agree is evil. people who constantly enslave, murder, rape, molest children etc), And basically they finally just go their own way to this little containment area to be with other souls like them to do whatever nasty shit they want to each other.

 

So IF you accept there is relevance to these stories and having read a lot of them and looked into it,I DO think they are relevant, when you take this and you combine this with the NDE experience of everybody who "meets God" has the same sense of "oneness" with God but also is still their own thing, and doesn't feel like god is angry, judging them, going to punish them for anything. This being doesn't need or want to be worshipped and genuinely is love... well then you start to see this idea that... beyond this very solid plane souls are all free things. Ultimately. How can a part of god destroy another part of god if god is eternal by definition of quality? We are all a piece of that and as such we all have creative powers, and an ability to freely choose our destiny over many lifetimes IMO.

 

Now as for the "hell" souls... they can walk out anytime they want and start the education process. Nobody is keeping them there. They are free to decide to play ball with the rest of us and grow and learn things, but yeah.

 

So IMO and again I've been on a journey that's over 2 decades long, so I can't pinpoint where I got every idea I have because these things formed around me over a long period of time and a lot of exploration, but I definitely believe the "next level up" would be "the gods" in the sense of... still very much "like us" but a bit more evolved/advanced. Still in the Male/female division of things, etc. As things move up the chain they move closer and closer to a merging with God. Will EVERYTHING eventually merge with god? EVERY soul eventually take the journey and go back to God? I don't know. Maybe. Maybe not. If/when it does happen it would likely just start back all over again because nothing sounds more hellish to me than being ONE undifferentiated being with no adventures or experiences. Nothing to love or hate. Nothing to fight for or against. No way to live or die. The myth that we are mortal is perhaps the greatest gift we gave ourselves. It infuses everything with meaning.

But like eternity is RIGHT NOW. This is not some thing we are doing "later" like the Christians believe. It's now. This is just an experience we are having right now. But as for SPECIFICS about anything beyond this life... there is simply no way to know anything beyond the tiny glimpses from NDE research and that's IF you accept those things. You are free not to.

 

So I hope that explains a little better. Like I think people are in a "soul group". This is comprised of family/friends, souls you've been with in many lifetimes and created strong bonds with. But these various connections are something I can't "explain" because I don't have human language for it. I do thing, souls do kind of "merge together", but again, his is something I believe is consensual from both ends. Like if I'm merging with ANYTHING, it's not going to be freaking "Brahman" ... or "Big G" but... Freyja. That's pretty much the only thing other than "me" in whatever version I'm willing to become. But in order to merge with anything you have to IMO be a "resonant energy". You become things by repeated actions and behaviors and the way you think and feel, based on all the choices you make over many lifetimes. When you resonate strongly enough with one thing instead of another even in this life you sort of "become that thing". To a large degree we are "creating ourselves."

 

Like you become brave by continually choosing to be brave in the face of your fears. You might start out a coward, but one day you wake up and realize you are brave because of the thousands of choices you made. If you are continually telling the truth when you have the option to lie about who you are, over time you become someone with integrity. I think this is a thing that goes all the way up until you stop identifying with all the various forms you take and become pure love and merge with Big G. But again, it's gotta be totally resonant and you can't go from first grade to graduate school IMO.

 

Sorry that was long. I don't know that I've ever explained my feelings on this to another person before.

 

As for the "mythic gods were historical ancestors"... kinda yes kinda no. In a sense yes absolutely. There is just a "type" of person like an archetype that appears over and over. There may be a really STRONG example of that that came to be called Odin or Thor for example... but like what I now call "Odin" is not necessarily comprised of all the exact same souls it was comprised of a thousand years ago. New souls who resonate so strongly with that being that it is basically "them with an additional set of memories" becomes part of that.

 

Though I also think one could grow up through the soul ranks and become a "god", without being necessarily one of the specific gods, any people specifically prayed to. It is very much IMO a co-creative process, this relationship between "the gods" and people. And again, Jesus would be one of these figures and I would guess most cultures have their own "version" of Jesus within their ancestral soul that more reflects parts of their own natures. But to me that's just a foreign imposed religion and I prefer the old gods. I haven't lost anything in Christianity.

 

And yes, I definitely think there are spiritual paths that are based on ancestry and "who you are" (and everybody has these sorts of options. Before the creedal religions took over this was what people had) and then you have the creedal faiths. While I think people can believe and follow whatever they want and would never stand in the way of someone else's spiritual choices, I do think there is value in following your spiritual path through a tradition that is really part of 'your story'. Everybody has a story they are a part of and I think a lot of the disconnection in the modern world has to do with people not knowing their story and adopting someone else's story. Again, I'm not someone who says "No, you don't share ancestry with me, you can't pray to Thor". I mean dude, anybody can pray to whatever they want and believe whatever they want, I just think that the link works through soul groups which are ultimately related to your own ancestors. But it's just my opinion and how I relate to it. We are all probably laughably wrong about everything.

 

But to me, it really doesn't make a whole lot of sense to believe in random gods that people haven't actively prayed to for centuries UNLESS they are yours in this soul group sense. Unless they are your family. Otherwise this idea of all these disincarnate entities just floating around... nope. I'm not into that. I feel like there has to be an actual soul link.

 

Also, as to background... there is no, IMO, requirement to believe any specific thing about anything. All I know is that when I first read the norse/germanic myths I cried and my immediate thought was: These stories are about me.This is MINE. THis is a feeling I've never felt this strongly about anything else in my life. It was like coming home.

 

 

[VerbosityCat]

 

22 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

This is clearly a different perspective than what I was saying, but it seems pretty related. Because myth is like public dreams and dreams are like private myths, as it goes. This group soul seems to correspond to that. Are you basing any of this on Joseph Campbell? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, to add to that uber long post... about "this world". I think, as I mentioned that this is a VERY high contrast world. So very good stuff is VERY good and very bad stuff is VERY bad. I don't think necessarily every place one can incarnate to is the same as this place. This seems to me like a sort of "accelerated learning environment" and a "hard school". I think you can really lose your way here sort of like a  bad acid trip. Though I don't think there is some "eternal consequence" for fucking up in this place. But I do think some types of souls are just more drawn to this place and attached to this place than others. Again, this is TOTALLY my subjective thoughts/feelings/impressions/intuitions based on a WHOLE lot of perspective shit from a long period of time thinking about all this shit. That doesn't mean I think I am "right" in an empirical sense though I think this way of viewing it DOES tend to keep one from getting "too sucked in" to all the crazy drama of this world.

[florduh]

If there is anything else besides what's obvious in everyday life I must say the only woo view that seems reasonable, if such a thing can be reasonable, is the view of Alan Watts. He makes a case and illustrates principles well. For those who don't know, he was a philosopher who brought Eastern thought to the Western mind in terms we can relate to. Part Hindu, part Buddhist, flavored with a lot of Zen and other thoughts, it seems the most reasonable view of how a spiritual side to life would work.

[Joshpantera]

1 hour ago, VerbosityCat said:

Re: Campbell, I'm actually JUST NOW getting into Campbell. (Shamefully) Reading the power of myth now, but this is not where my ideas originate but it IS really cool to see some things I've been thinking for  a while mirrored back to me. That's always a good sign LOL. The public dream/private myth thing was actually mentioned in the power of myth, a chapter I just read actually, funnily enough and I very much like that idea.

  

The Campbell foundation created several newer books out of his lectures, which sort of combine power points from various lectures into one comprehensive work. Here's two suggestions that I have for you that I'm pretty sure you would enjoy: 

 

Myths of Light: eastern metaphors of the eternal

 

Thou Art That: Transforming Religious Metaphor

 

1 hour ago, VerbosityCat said:

But like eternity is RIGHT NOW. This is not some thing we are doing "later" like the Christians believe. It's now. This is just an experience we are having right now.

 

In the Bill Moyer interviews Campbell elaborates on that very thing. Eternity is now. I'm following along with this. 

 

1 hour ago, VerbosityCat said:

It's not something you "Have" to do. part of what I base this on is to do with the NDE research. The "hell stories" are pretty fascinating. When you get rid of the obvious fake stories (people who didn't actually have an NDE but just wrote a book claiming to have one to try to push Christianity or whatever stupid organized religious bullshit on the masses), pretty much ALL the hell cases are instructive and nothing more. And what comes out over and over is the people in these "hell dimensions" are not there for not being "perfect" or for "believing the wrong things" or being atheists or any other ridiculous thing like that...

 

I have Moody's, "Life after Life" on my book shelf. I haven't read much more on the subject but I've watched a lot of TV programs with witnesses and all that. What I've seen is a mix of things. Some people do claim to see heaven and hell like their beliefs biased towards the bible would lead them towards. Others do not, they have experiences contrary to the bible. It seems obvious enough to me that the people who claim to have hell experiences usually give away the fact that that's how they see themselves - someone prone to hell. They usually are people who think they deserve something like that. And of course near death is not death, so these are psychological experiences going on prior to actually being 100% dead as a door nail. 

 

One flute, however, is that story of the Russian physicist who was apparently dead in the morgue for some three days before he abruptly awoke upon autopsy. He had elaborate stories of drifting around the hospital and such during the time he supposed to have been dead. That aired on an old TV show years ago. I'd have to find the citation. Afterward, he moved to the US (I think it was Texas)  and became bishop or minister. It's a pretty wild tale. That's why I remember it. I remain agnostic on a lot of these topics. That's some of the 'agnostic' in my agnostic atheism. I don't pretend to know if these are all hoaxes or if by chance there's something to at least some of it. How could I know that? I could have a hunch, but not certainty based knowledge. 

 

My grandfather had an elaborate experience during the time he was flat lined after a massive heart attack. Following quadruple bipass surgery, he lived another ten years. He had an experience as one would expect coming from his religious back ground and focus. He saw a light. He went into the light. He asked who the light was, to which came back the reply, "I am!" This was well conditioned to his personal beliefs. But I gotta tell you, I could see the truth of his experience in his eyes. This was going on in his mind, and to him it was as real as anything. He was speaking with Yahweh, basically, in his own mind. I don't believe Yahweh is real or that Yahweh spoke to my grandfather, but I believe that he had this experience and that it was very real to him. 

 

I'm just sort of along for the ride as far as life and death go. If consciousness were to continue on in a disembodied form, great. I'll take it. If it doesn't, I'll leave it. I really don't have any personal preference one way or the other, that would push a bias in my own mind in one direction or the other. I'm content to accept reality for whatever it actually is, understanding that ultimately no one knows. That's not scary for me. I'm at peace with uncertainty and not knowing. 

 

1 hour ago, VerbosityCat said:

Sorry that was long. I don't know that I've ever explained my feelings on this to another person before.

 

That's the purpose of this website, and more specifically this sub forum. I'm glad to see that we're back to functioning properly again after a few hick ups along the way. 

[Joshpantera]

23 minutes ago, florduh said:

If there is anything else besides what's obvious in everyday life I must say the only woo view that seems reasonable, if such a thing can be reasonable, is the view of Alan Watts. He makes a case and illustrates principles well. For those who don't know, he was a philosopher who brought Eastern thought to the Western mind in terms we can relate to. Part Hindu, part Buddhist, flavored with a lot of Zen and other thoughts, it seems the most reasonable view of how a spiritual side to life would work.

 

What I like about Watts is that his back ground in Judeo-Christianity makes it easier to describe these things to western audiences in contrast to what we were raised on. I enjoy hearing these things from him more so than a non-western Buddhist Monk or Hindu Guru. I find it easier to understand and relate to. 

[VerbosityCat]

17 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

  

The Campbell foundation created several newer books out of his lectures, which sort of combine power points from various lectures into one comprehensive work. Here's two suggestions that I have for you that I'm pretty sure you would enjoy: 

 

Myths of Light: eastern metaphors of the eternal

 

Thou Art That: Transforming Religious Metaphor

 

 

In the Bill Moyer interviews Campbell elaborates on that very thing. Eternity is now. I'm following along with this. 

 

 

I have Moody's, "Life after Life" on my book shelf. I haven't read much more on the subject but I've watched a lot of TV programs with witnesses and all that. What I've seen is a mix of things. Some people do claim to see heaven and hell like their beliefs biased towards the bible would lead them towards. Others do not, they have experiences contrary to the bible. It seems obvious enough to me that the people who claim to have hell experiences usually give away the fact that that's how they see themselves - someone prone to hell. They usually are people who think they deserve something like that. And of course near death is not death, so these are psychological experiences going on prior to actually being 100% dead as a door nail. 

 

One flute, however, is that story of the Russian physicist who was apparently dead in the morgue for some three days before he abruptly awoke upon autopsy. He had elaborate stories of drifting around the hospital and such during the time he supposed to have been dead. That aired on on an old TV show years ago. I'd have to find the citation. After ward he moved to the states and became bishop or minister. It's a pretty wild tale. That's why I remember it. I remain agnostic on a lot of these topics. That's some of the agnostic in agnostic atheist. I don't pretend to know if these are all hoaxes or if by chance there's something to at least some of it. 

 

My grandfather had an elaborate experience during the time he was flat lined after a massive heart attack. Following quadruple bipass surgery, he lived another ten years. He had an experience as one would expect coming from his religious back ground and focus. He saw a light. He went into the light. He asked who the light was, to which came back the reply, "I am!" This was well conditioned to his personal beliefs. But I gotta tell you, I could see the truth of his experience in his eyes. This was going on in his mind, and to him it was as real as anything. He was speaking with Yahweh, basically, in his own mind. I don't believe Yahweh is real or that Yahweh spoke to my grandfather, but I believe that he had this experience that it was very real to him. 

 

I'm just sort of along for the ride. If conscious were to continue on in a disembodied form, great. I'll take it. If it doesn't, I'll leave it. I really don't have any personal preference one way or the other to push a bias in my own mind in one direction or the other. I've content to accept reality for whatever it actually is, understanding that ultimately no one knows. That's not scary for me. I'm at peace with uncertainty and not knowing. 

 

 

That's the purpose of this website, and more specifically this sub forum. I'm glad to see that we're back to functioning properly again after a few hick ups along the way. 

 

I will look into those reading recommendations. As for NDEs, yes, people DO tend to see things based on "what they believed" but I've already pretty much stated that I think "the next level up" DOES involve that sort of thing. But the point is there is not "one true reality". Hindus see hindu deities, Christians see Jesus, Buddhists see Buddha, people with no spiritual beliefs at all see a family member who already passed on. I fully expect to see one of the old gods of my ancestors... or really I'm happy if they send ANY RANDOM VIKING to pick me up, just none of this "Jesus" shit.  It's important though to look at all the similarities that go far beyond any of these personal versions of things. To me this says that there ARE DIFFERENT OPTIONS. Everything isn't all one flavor. There is not a "one true religion" to pick  and get right "or else".

 

Also, the only people who have "hell experiences" believed in such a place. That should tell you something. But even then, digging deeper into a lot of these experiences you find it's not exactly what it seems. But I digress. There are thousands upon thousands of these experiences by this point. I know someone personally as well who had an NDE and his was of the "observing shit he could not possibly have observed while flatlined and then reporting it back to people". So I mean people are free to believe or not believe whatever but to me, this is definitely not all there is.

It's fundamentally impossible for me to look at the extreme complexity and beauty of this world and think "whelp, none of it means anything, it's all just a random accident and then you die" that's so fucking nonsensical to me. Other people are welcome to hold this view, I don't care, but... to me it's extremely lacking.

 

As for uncertainty... yeah that's fine. Nobody "knows". That's really the point. And if we jsut die and that's it, then it is. Whatever. But to me to live as if that were true (unless someone really just has NO need for spirituality or NO ability to see the world that way) is just very nihilistic. And let's assume I have just "one life" and I and only I determine my purpose. Well... I just did. Atheists though, very often feel the need to "correct" those of us who chose a different purpose than them and a different vision for their "one life" because it didn't match their personal values or opinions about reality.

[VerbosityCat]

Another way to put this is... someone being colorblind doesn't mean the colors they can't see don't exist. Other people can see those colors just fine. What I see a lot of the time with atheists (not always, since I do respect people's right to "not see' the stuff I see) is this sort of attitude that "Because I can't personally see this color, it doesn't exist and you are stupid if you see it." or "you are deluding yourself".

 

It's just that level of arrogance. I know it's easy for us ALL to get hung up on our own personal conceptions of reality, that goes for ALL of us whether we have any 'woo' or not. But I just find it obnoxious this idea that because you can't see a color that color doesn't exist and anybody who sees it is crazy, lying, or dumb.

 

If someone is fundamentally incapable of seeing a particular color then why are they the ones called upon to "define color reality?" This seems absurd to me. Would you ask someone who has never been in the ocean what swimming in it feels like? Would you ask a deaf person to explain sound? I'm not trying to imply that atheists are somehow "disabled" just that they obviously lack some functional ability to see the world in a particular way. But their lack of it doesn't mean what they can't experience or understand isn't real. To say that is to imply they actually are some "empirical source" of reality rather than just another subjective participant in this life with a different value system and way of seeing the world from me.

 

If you can't hear the music, don't tell me music isn't real. Just admit you can't hear it and move on.

[Joshpantera]

44 minutes ago, VerbosityCat said:

I will look into those reading recommendations. As for NDEs, yes, people DO tend to see things based on "what they believed" but I've already pretty much stated that I think "the next level up" DOES involve that sort of thing. But the point is there is not "one true reality". Hindus see hindu deities, Christians see Jesus, Buddhists see Buddha, people with no spiritual beliefs at all see a family member who already passed on. I fully expect to see one of the old gods of my ancestors... or really I'm happy if they send ANY RANDOM VIKING to pick me up, just none of this "Jesus" shit.  It's important though to look at all the similarities that go far beyond any of these personal versions of things. To me this says that there ARE DIFFERENT OPTIONS. Everything isn't all one flavor. There is not a "one true religion" to pick  and get right "or else".

 

If we understand that people tend to see their own religious figures, or even relatives, due to what they were mentally conditioned towards, then I don't think you would experience some "Jesus" shit experience. You're changed your perspective. It's all about the Norse gods and ancestral souls now, literally informing your sub conscious mind. It seems likely that if you were to have an NDE that it would be more prone to your new way of thinking and believing than the old way. But that's obviously not rock solid claim making, I'm just seeing how it would make more sense to experience what's been fresh on your mind and informing your sub conscious. With my grandfather he was obsessed with this "names of god" bible study. This was when the whole 'Jesus is really Yeshua' stuff starting going around in christianity, but before it was popular and more mainstream. That completely informed his NDE. He did die, but I no way of knowing whether the experience was near death, or after death, or just after coming back. It was in his mind, how could we know?  

 

44 minutes ago, VerbosityCat said:

It's fundamentally impossible for me to look at the extreme complexity and beauty of this world and think "whelp, none of it means anything, it's all just a random accident and then you die" that's so fucking nonsensical to me. Other people are welcome to hold this view, I don't care, but... to me it's extremely lacking.

 

Can I outline this, because this is relevant to the thread. 

 

Atheists do make those kinds of comments, I know, but at the same time I think they are often turned into straw men a lot of the time by spiritual minded people.

 

I wonder if random chance is necessarily devoid of meaning, for instance?

 

There's a lot of truth to random chance in my view. I was thinking about it this week. I was thinking about the randomness involved in the dinosaurs going down and small mammals surviving them. There could have been no plan, internal or external, that involved a random event like an asteroid hitting the earth, at some specific time where both dinosaurs and small land mammals coexisted, giving a sporting chance to the small creatures to one day inherit the earth, so to speak. And then I began to imagine how differently life would likely evolve on other planets, do to other types of chance events and randomness. But some see the evolution of life and the evolution of intelligent life very inevitable. It could be that whole universes have been coming and going out of existence for ever, with life, observation and experience a part of the process, over, and over, and over again. In the sea of possibilities, I understand how existence could be both chance and random event based, and also all but inevitable all at the same time. With no super intelligence guiding the way. Just trial and error processes that naturally occur over, and over, and over again. Maybe awareness involved in the trial and error. But not an all knowing intelligence. 

 

I also have to wonder about the way in which we've evolved to become the sensing organs of the planet, as Alan Watts once said. Paraphrasing, 'the earth peoples as an apple tree apples.' We are the eyes and ears of the planet, along with it's contemplative qualities. We peer out at the universe and seek to uncover it's every mystery. Why? Could it be that the evolution of a universe is likely to involve the evolution of it's own properties to self awareness, given the time it takes for some life form to get there? Or many different types of life forms to get there? Are we some type of function as animal self awareness? I've found over the years that there's a ton of questions and not a whole lot of absolute or certain answers. And none of it stands so black and white in my mind anymore. The earth will die. But we may leave it. We have no idea what's ahead or what will come of it all. Despite a lot of speculation often in negative directions. 

 

That may be why I'm not too bothered by a hard atheist saying it's chance and random, or someone else saying no there's more to it than that. Because I understand that neither seems to have a full comprehension of what's actually taking place here in this moment. There seems to be more going on than meets the eye. Maybe I'm wrong. But it's a hunch that hasn't gone away. 

 

 

44 minutes ago, VerbosityCat said:

As for uncertainty... yeah that's fine. Nobody "knows". That's really the point. And if we jsut die and that's it, then it is. Whatever. But to me to live as if that were true (unless someone really just has NO need for spirituality or NO ability to see the world that way) is just very nihilistic. And let's assume I have just "one life" and I and only I determine my purpose. Well... I just did. Atheists though, very often feel the need to "correct" those of us who chose a different purpose than them and a different vision for their "one life" because it didn't match their personal values or opinions about reality.

 

That's driven some people away from here over the years. What's left are those with skin thick enough to survive it. So you're looking at a lot of atheists, and a few 'survival of the fittest' spiritual minded folk who remain. 

 

[florduh]

32 minutes ago, VerbosityCat said:

Another way to put this is... someone being colorblind doesn't mean the colors they can't see don't exist. Other people can see those colors just fine. What I see a lot of the time with atheists (not always, since I do respect people's right to "not see' the stuff I see) is this sort of attitude that "Because I can't personally see this color, it doesn't exist and you are stupid if you see it." or "you are deluding yourself".

 

It's just that level of arrogance. I know it's easy for us ALL to get hung up on our own personal conceptions of reality, that goes for ALL of us whether we have any 'woo' or not. But I just find it obnoxious this idea that because you can't see a color that color doesn't exist and anybody who sees it is crazy, lying, or dumb.

 

If someone is fundamentally incapable of seeing a particular color then why are they the ones called upon to "define color reality?" This seems absurd to me. Would you ask someone who has never been in the ocean what swimming in it feels like? Would you ask a deaf person to explain sound? I'm not trying to imply that atheists are somehow "disabled" just that they obviously lack some functional ability to see the world in a particular way. But their lack of it doesn't mean what they can't experience or understand isn't real. To say that is to imply they actually are some "empirical source" of reality rather than just another subjective participant in this life with a different value system and way of seeing the world from me.

 

If you can't hear the music, don't tell me music isn't real. Just admit you can't hear it and move on.

I get your point, but I can't ignore the fact that sound and color frequencies can be demonstrated to exist even though some people can't personally perceive them. You can see the wavelengths of light and sound on appropriate equipment. Nobody can see x-rays yet nobody claims they therefore don't exist. Basically, there are things we can't perceive with our normal senses yet they can be proven to exist anyway.

[TruthSeeker0]

19 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

That's driven some people away from here over the years. What's left are those with skin thick enough to survive it. So you're looking at a lot of atheists, and a few 'survival of the fittest' spiritual minded folk who remain. 

 

Well that's really too bad, because I'm enjoying this forum, and hearing the ideas of people like @VerbosityCat. I'm not anywhere near as spiritual as she is, but I don't feel the need to tell her she's on the wrong path etc. Clearly, it has some positive benefit to her, and that's important. It's going to become way too boring around here if we can't have space for anyone else besides the hard nosed atheist types. I think we should be able to recognize that some people have a need for their own spirituality and their own path, and that in this section, we can respect that need without having to impose another need for debate on it.

[midniterider]

6 hours ago, VerbosityCat said:

Another way to put this is... someone being colorblind doesn't mean the colors they can't see don't exist. Other people can see those colors just fine. What I see a lot of the time with atheists (not always, since I do respect people's right to "not see' the stuff I see) is this sort of attitude that "Because I can't personally see this color, it doesn't exist and you are stupid if you see it." or "you are deluding yourself".

 

It's just that level of arrogance. I know it's easy for us ALL to get hung up on our own personal conceptions of reality, that goes for ALL of us whether we have any 'woo' or not. But I just find it obnoxious this idea that because you can't see a color that color doesn't exist and anybody who sees it is crazy, lying, or dumb.

 

If someone is fundamentally incapable of seeing a particular color then why are they the ones called upon to "define color reality?" This seems absurd to me. Would you ask someone who has never been in the ocean what swimming in it feels like? Would you ask a deaf person to explain sound? I'm not trying to imply that atheists are somehow "disabled" just that they obviously lack some functional ability to see the world in a particular way. But their lack of it doesn't mean what they can't experience or understand isn't real. To say that is to imply they actually are some "empirical source" of reality rather than just another subjective participant in this life with a different value system and way of seeing the world from me.

 

If you can't hear the music, don't tell me music isn't real. Just admit you can't hear it and move on.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dress

[midniterider]

6 hours ago, florduh said:

I get your point, but I can't ignore the fact that sound and color frequencies can be demonstrated to exist even though some people can't personally perceive them. You can see the wavelengths of light and sound on appropriate equipment. Nobody can see x-rays yet nobody claims they therefore don't exist. Basically, there are things we can't perceive with our normal senses yet they can be proven to exist anyway.

 

 I find Doppler Shift interesting. Two different perceptions of one frequency.

[LogicalFallacy]

8 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

That's driven some people away from here over the years. What's left are those with skin thick enough to survive it. So you're looking at a lot of atheists, and a few 'survival of the fittest' spiritual minded folk who remain. 

 

 

Evolution, survival of the fittest. Us atheist predators have ensured that only the people with the fortitude and skills to withstand constant criticism remain. Thus this forum, and the group of spiritual minded folk left are stronger for it.

.

.

.

I'll find me way out 

[Joshpantera]

14 hours ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

Well that's really too bad, because I'm enjoying this forum, and hearing the ideas of people like @VerbosityCat. I'm not anywhere near as spiritual as she is, but I don't feel the need to tell her she's on the wrong path etc.

 

By sticking to the rules, that shouldn't be a problem anymore. And I intend to steer conversations towards the sub forum guidelines so that we all have an open forum for discussion of beliefs. I think it's counter productive to have people scared to open up and share what they're really thinking and feeling for fear of being badgered to death and embarrased. We can leave that for the Den. The fittest debaters can play over there. 

[TruthSeeker0]

7 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Evolution, survival of the fittest. Us atheist predators have ensured that only the people with the fortitude and skills to withstand constant criticism remain. Thus this forum, and the group of spiritual minded folk left are stronger for it.

.

.

.

I'll find me way out 

Oh my. And now you're wondering why people might sometimes call you arrogant

[LogicalFallacy]

51 minutes ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

Oh my. And now you're wondering why people might sometimes call you arrogant

Lol not for that I hope. Obvious joke is obvious?

[wellnamed]

So now that we're done with the main part of this conversation, can I just ask whether anyone feels put off by errant apostrophes? Like a dagger being driven into my eyeball. What can be done about this? The worst is when I find them deployed in my own post's. Oh the humanity.

[LogicalFallacy]

1 minute ago, wellnamed said:

So now that we're done with the main part of this conversation, can I just ask whether anyone feels put off by errant apostrophes? Like a dagger being driven into my eyeball. What can be done about this? The worst is when I find them deployed in my own post's. Oh the humanity.

 

And what about commas? They can be all over the show. I correct a post three times and it's still wrong. In a world of autocorrect how does this happen?

[TruthSeeker0]

2 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

Lol not for that I hope. Obvious joke is obvious?

Yes, it was obvious.

[TruthSeeker0]

31 minutes ago, wellnamed said:

So now that we're done with the main part of this conversation, can I just ask whether anyone feels put off by errant apostrophes? Like a dagger being driven into my eyeball. What can be done about this? The worst is when I find them deployed in my own post's. Oh the humanity.

Personally, I get affronted by semicolons in the wrong places, but that's just me, we're all different

[disillusioned]

1 hour ago, wellnamed said:

So now that we're done with the main part of this conversation, can I just ask whether anyone feels put off by errant apostrophes? Like a dagger being driven into my eyeball. What can be done about this? The worst is when I find them deployed in my own post's. Oh the humanity.

 

That has been bugging me for a while too. Every single time,  I'm like "who is atheist,  and what does he have that might put me off?". 

[VerbosityCat]

21 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

If we understand that people tend to see their own religious figures, or even relatives, due to what they were mentally conditioned towards, then I don't think you would experience some "Jesus" shit experience. You're changed your perspective. It's all about the Norse gods and ancestral souls now, literally informing your sub conscious mind. It seems likely that if you were to have an NDE that it would be more prone to your new way of thinking and believing than the old way. But that's obviously not rock solid claim making, I'm just seeing how it would make more sense to experience what's been fresh on your mind and informing your sub conscious. With my grandfather he was obsessed with this "names of god" bible study. This was when the whole 'Jesus is really Yeshua' stuff starting going around in christianity, but before it was popular and more mainstream. That completely informed his NDE. He did die, but I no way of knowing whether the experience was near death, or after death, or just after coming back. It was in his mind, how could we know?  

 

 

Can I outline this, because this is relevant to the thread. 

 

Atheists do make those kinds of comments, I know, but at the same time I think they are often turned into straw men a lot of the time by spiritual minded people.

 

I wonder if random chance is necessarily devoid of meaning, for instance?

 

There's a lot of truth to random chance in my view. I was thinking about it this week. I was thinking about the randomness involved in the dinosaurs going down and small mammals surviving them. There could have been no plan, internal or external, that involved a random event like an asteroid hitting the earth, at some specific time where both dinosaurs and small land mammals coexisted, giving a sporting chance to the small creatures to one day inherit the earth, so to speak. And then I began to imagine how differently life would likely evolve on other planets, do to other types of chance events and randomness. But some see the evolution of life and the evolution of intelligent life very inevitable. It could be that whole universes have been coming and going out of existence for ever, with life, observation and experience a part of the process, over, and over, and over again. In the sea of possibilities, I understand how existence could be both chance and random event based, and also all but inevitable all at the same time. With no super intelligence guiding the way. Just trial and error processes that naturally occur over, and over, and over again. Maybe awareness involved in the trial and error. But not an all knowing intelligence. 

 

I also have to wonder about the way in which we've evolved to become the sensing organs of the planet, as Alan Watts once said. Paraphrasing, 'the earth peoples as an apple tree apples.' We are the eyes and ears of the planet, along with it's contemplative qualities. We peer out at the universe and seek to uncover it's every mystery. Why? Could it be that the evolution of a universe is likely to involve the evolution of it's own properties to self awareness, given the time it takes for some life form to get there? Or many different types of life forms to get there? Are we some type of function as animal self awareness? I've found over the years that there's a ton of questions and not a whole lot of absolute or certain answers. And none of it stands so black and white in my mind anymore. The earth will die. But we may leave it. We have no idea what's ahead or what will come of it all. Despite a lot of speculation often in negative directions. 

 

That may be why I'm not too bothered by a hard atheist saying it's chance and random, or someone else saying no there's more to it than that. Because I understand that neither seems to have a full comprehension of what's actually taking place here in this moment. There seems to be more going on than meets the eye. Maybe I'm wrong. But it's a hunch that hasn't gone away. 

 

 

 

That's driven some people away from here over the years. What's left are those with skin thick enough to survive it. So you're looking at a lot of atheists, and a few 'survival of the fittest' spiritual minded folk who remain. 

 

 

 

I don't know that I would make this distinction based on thickness or thinness of skin. I'm not sure life should be an "endurance sport" of how much bullshit you can constantly tolerate.

 

Re: NDE stuff, yeah i'm sure you're right re: my change of mindset. I was never really that strongly christian in the sense of being "committed to it". I was raised in it but it always felt foreign and "off" to me. I didn't like Jesus. I thought he was a pansy and didn't really care for any of the stupid shit he said and I thought biblegod was scary and not to be trusted. I didn't like Christian Heaven and hoped it wasn't real. As soon as I hit the teen years and had a car I was showing up at church so my parents saw me there and then leaving during the service like to get breakfast somewhere and then coming back at the end and sitting in the back. As soon as I was 18 I was exploring other denominations of Christianity and making my way out. So outside of being "scared of it" and being raised that way I wouldn't consider myself ever REALLY Christian. You know? Despite having a few year buddhist phase, the only thing I can say I REALLY felt strongly about in a "this is it for me" sort of way has been the Heathen thing/the old gods.

 

re: random chance/evolution. I've never said evolution doesn't happen. I think it does. It's only that I believe matter emanates from consciousness rather than the other way around.  The idea of consciousness coming somehow from matter is just idiotic to me. I mean you can show me ALL the random chance and natural selection and shit you want. I AGREE this happened. I just don't think it just "somehow happened magically" because really there is NO "natural" way to describe this. It's either magic you refuse to call magic or it comes out of a consciousness which IMO doesn't even have to be "magic". I mean my consciousness isn't magic. It isn't magic when I have a dream. So why is a super consciousness having a dream (this universe) somehow "supernatural". It's just fucking bizarre to not be able to see this IMO.