Jump to content

Peanut Gallery for JoshPantera vs. Endgarcito3


Recommended Posts

  • Super Moderator

Point of Clarification: 

 

Occam's Razor does not actually state that the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one.  This is a common misperception or misunderstanding of the original phrase, "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate."  Translated literally, it says, "Plurality should not be needlessly posited."  This means that in looking for an explanation for something, adding complexities to a supposition or hypothesis which adequately explains the something is counter-productive and often leads to erroneous conclusions.  While "the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one" is a good rule of thumb, "the simplest explanation is preferred over the more the complicated one" is actually closer to the meaning and intent of the Razor. 

 

As an illustration, "rain makes crops grow" is a simple explanation.  However, "tilling the soil, drilling seeds at the proper depth for germination, providing a viable source of nitrogen and other minerals, proper irrigation and pest control, and a native rain dance... makes crops grow," while much more complex, is also much closer to the correct explanation.  Occam's Razor, applied in this situation would only eliminate the rain dance part, and that based only because of modern advances in meteorological sciences.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 172
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

From my point of view the argument for who's spirituality is superior is a hard one to win. I have felt spirituality in several different ways. Including Christianity. As a teenager and into my early

I think you did a good job.    What irritates me is the general Christian indoctrination that makes good people like Ed fear or loathe things that dont mention Jesus. Ed is a good guy but hi

Ed said, "My introductory statement about a counselor and woo expert was an attempt at levity, not a real request from these men......although I do believe them more than qualified.  If I catch o

Posted Images

  • Moderator
1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Point of Clarification: 

 

Occam's Razor does not actually state that the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one.  This is a common misperception or misunderstanding of the original phrase, "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate."  Translated literally, it says, "Plurality should not be needlessly posited."  This means that in looking for an explanation for something, adding complexities to a supposition or hypothesis which adequately explains the something is counter-productive and often leads to erroneous conclusions.  While "the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one" is a good rule of thumb, "the simplest explanation is preferred over the more the complicated one" is actually closer to the meaning and intent of the Razor. 

 

As an illustration, "rain makes crops grow" is a simple explanation.  However, "tilling the soil, drilling seeds at the proper depth for germination, providing a viable source of nitrogen and other minerals, proper irrigation and pest control, and a native rain dance... makes crops grow," while much more complex, is also much closer to the correct explanation.  Occam's Razor, applied in this situation would only eliminate the rain dance part, and that based only because of modern advances in meteorological sciences.

 

Yeah, but regardless of that Ed's list is false right on down the line. So that's not good for his case however we frame it. The complex analogy above lists facts that fall under the simple truth of rain making plants grow. Ed has no facts behind his complex explanation. And it doesn't lead anyone to deep spiritual insights where the depths are set according to human standards, not just christian standards alone. 

 

I think the argument that Ed's already lost is a good argument. Especially listing everything out like that. In the sense of last man standing, Ed's model listed out in order doesn't stand up. It can't. It fails at Genesis. 

 

So it looks like this fight can be called with Ed the loser at any time. 

 

If not, well, I'll keep the punches coming. I have a lot of endurance left in me....

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Point of Clarification: 

 

Occam's Razor does not actually state that the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one.  This is a common misperception or misunderstanding of the original phrase, "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate."  Translated literally, it says, "Plurality should not be needlessly posited."  This means that in looking for an explanation for something, adding complexities to a supposition or hypothesis which adequately explains the something is counter-productive and often leads to erroneous conclusions.  While "the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one" is a good rule of thumb, "the simplest explanation is preferred over the more the complicated one" is actually closer to the meaning and intent of the Razor. 

 

As an illustration, "rain makes crops grow" is a simple explanation.  However, "tilling the soil, drilling seeds at the proper depth for germination, providing a viable source of nitrogen and other minerals, proper irrigation and pest control, and a native rain dance... makes crops grow," while much more complex, is also much closer to the correct explanation.  Occam's Razor, applied in this situation would only eliminate the rain dance part, and that based only because of modern advances in meteorological sciences.

 

Does Walmart sell Occam's Razors or Gillette? I rest my case.

 

Gillette - "quis potest adepto optimus"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Florduh, sdelsolray, and the Prof I think would be a fair judge and jury.  I’m thinking this is more of an inside joke on the resident Christian to have him argue traditionally ex Christian views.  Basically Josh, you have no science that defines spirituality and only anecdotal evidence to show for your initial claim of superiority through information.  Mind you, your evidence points also to the claims of Christianity.  If you would like a list of evidences, then I have presented several through the years of how our reality points to Christianity.  Several is superior to one.  And it seems your ego is vested... and your team... which is telling of your spirituality.  I’m gonna rest my case.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

If we apply Edgrcito's standard to his own case, then within this debate he has presented no science to support his model of spirituality.

 

Having presented this evidence elsewhere in Ex-C does nothing to support his argument WITHIN THIS DEBATE.

 

He's going to have to un-rest his case and bring that evidence into this debate for it to have any bearing on the debate.

 

Secondly, since his argument is entirely faith-based ALL of his bible-based evidence is anecdotal.

 

Thirdly, while I have separated myself from Josh's position, that doesn't have any bearing on the consistency of his argument or his spiritual model.

 

I play devils advocate quite often in debates in this forum.

 

I couldn't do that if I were required to believe in the things I'm debating about.

 

If Edgarcito can argue that I must believe in Christ in order to explore Christian apologetic arguments, then he'll have a valid point about Josh and I holding to different views about spirituality.

 

But until he does that his comment about Josh and I holding separate views is irrelevant.

 

Lastly, my thanks to the RedneckProf for his clarification on Occam's Razor.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Super Moderator
9 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

The complex analogy above lists facts that fall under the simple truth of rain making plants grow. Ed has no facts behind his complex explanation. And it doesn't lead anyone to deep spiritual insights where the depths are set according to human standards, not just christian standards alone. 

Well, actually, the complex analogy lists several things that have nothing to do with rain.  Tilling the soil doesn't require rain; rain would be counter-productive.  Planting the seeds, providing nitrogen, pest control: none of these have anything to do with rain.  Really, with modern irrigation techniques, rain isn't even necessary for crops to grow.

 

That's the point of the analogy, to demonstrate that the simplest explanation is not necessarily the correct one or the most accurate one.  The explanation with the fewest "add-ons" is generally a better explanation than the one that is unnecessarily complex.  But the Razor isn't meant to be a litmus test for determining the "truth," only a means of finding a better explanation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Well, actually, the complex analogy lists several things that have nothing to do with rain.  Tilling the soil doesn't require rain; rain would be counter-productive.  Planting the seeds, providing nitrogen, pest control: none of these have anything to do with rain.  Really, with modern irrigation techniques, rain isn't even necessary for crops to grow.

 

That's the point of the analogy, to demonstrate that the simplest explanation is not necessarily the correct one or the most accurate one.  The explanation with the fewest "add-ons" is generally a better explanation than the one that is unnecessarily complex.  But the Razor isn't meant to be a litmus test for determining the "truth," only a means of finding a better explanation.

 

Good point Professor.

 

So, do you think that the standard of a 'better explanation' could be used as the deciding factor in this debate?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Super Moderator
52 minutes ago, WalterP said:

 

Good point Professor.

 

So, do you think that the standard of a 'better explanation' could be used as the deciding factor in this debate?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

Possibly, given that a better explanation could be loosely defined as "superior" to an unbetter explanation.  But that would be the only criteria met.  There would still be the question of whether or not the better explanation is accurate or "true."

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Ed is going to make a good ex-christian with that separation of science and spirituality talk. 

 

I suspect though in TX that Intelligent Design is taught in science class. I wonder if Ed would want ID taught in schools or if Jesus should be kept out of science class?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you realize Josh, that because you cite the/your gluon theory/research, that this gives you absolutely no authority to claim science and spirituality merge, until you have the steps in between to connect the two?  Do you not have a fundamental understanding of science?  That's a HUGE no no in science.  They would disqualify a third grade science fair project for what you are suggesting. 

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Are you sure about that, Edgarcito?

 

If you disallow Josh from merging science and spirituality, then you'll also have to disallow these folks from doing that.

 

 

 

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/Center

 

William Lane Craig merges science and spirituality.

 

https://biologos.org/

 

So does the physician and geneticist Francis Collins.

 

https://reasons.org/

 

And the astrophysicist Hugh Ross.

 

 

You can't have one rule for some folks and another for others.

 

 

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Possibly, given that a better explanation could be loosely defined as "superior" to an unbetter explanation.  But that would be the only criteria met.  There would still be the question of whether or not the better explanation is accurate or "true."

 

Ok Professor,

 

You raise an interesting question - one that I'll attempt to address.

 

First off, I'm not Josh so I don't hold to his particular views.  But here is my current understanding of what I think he's trying to say.  No doubt he'll correct if I'm off target, just as you corrected me about Occam's razor.  All such corrections are welcome, btw.

 

Anyway...

 

Josh's model of spirituality posits the existence of an infinitely interconnected universe, using quantum physics to give us an insight (not a proof, nor evidence) into that interconnection.  Being infinitely interconnected, nothing is separate from anything else.  So, this quality of interconnectedness is effectively an omnipresence.  An omnipresence every bit as omnipresent as the god of the bible is believed by faith to be.

 

The quantum science involved is the mathematics of path integral theory.  As I have explained earlier, every quantum particle is taken to have a probability wave that describes its location and path being spread out across the entire universe.  Therefore, each particle is effectively omnipresent because there is no location in the entire universe where its probability wave cannot be.  In the same way there is no path throughout the entire universe through which its probability wave cannot pass.

 

And this universal omnipresence would be true for all quantum particles, everywhere.

 

So, Josh’s model of spirituality points towards a cosmic connectedness and omnipresence without having to invoke any deities, creators or intelligent designers.  It relies only upon what we know about the universe, what we see in the universe and what we infer about the universe from evidence and from applied mathematics.

 

If I were to try and address your question about the truth and accuracy of his spiritual model Professor, I'd say this.

 

The accuracy of path integral theory in quantum mechanics seems to me to be some kind of indicator that this is the way reality actually works.  The theory consistently produces reliable results that have accurately matched predictions and observations.  

 

Since Josh's spiritual model rests on the foundations of such an accurate theory, whatever spiritual connections he makes and spiritual conclusions he draws from it rest upon a far better foundation than a spiritual model based upon evidence-free faith.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator
5 hours ago, WalterP said:

Josh's model of spirituality posits the existence of an infinitely interconnected universe, using quantum physics to give us an insight (not a proof, nor evidence) into that interconnection.  Being infinitely interconnected, nothing is separate from anything else.  So, this quality of interconnectedness is effectively an omnipresence.  An omnipresence every bit as omnipresent as the god of the bible is believed by faith to be.

 

This is what it is. Different people find it hard to understand this for various reasons. We know why christians are blocked out from accepting or entertaining any of it. But it's not always clear as a bell to atheists either. You seem to understand it pretty well. 

 

5 hours ago, WalterP said:

So, Josh’s model of spirituality points towards a cosmic connectedness and omnipresence without having to invoke any deities, creators or intelligent designers.  It relies only upon what we know about the universe, what we see in the universe and what we infer about the universe from evidence and from applied mathematics.

 

If I were to try and address your question about the truth and accuracy of his spiritual model Professor, I'd say this.

 

The accuracy of path integral theory in quantum mechanics seems to me to be some kind of indicator that this is the way reality actually works.  The theory consistently produces reliable results that have accurately matched predictions and observations.  

 

Since Josh's spiritual model rests on the foundations of such an accurate theory, whatever spiritual connections he makes and spiritual conclusions he draws from it rest upon a far better foundation than a spiritual model based upon evidence-free faith.

 

Yep, stripped of the woo we're looking at a situation where what it means to be spiritual is the acceptance of your true identity as existence itself. Seeing past the illusions that make you think otherwise, which, are deceptive. That's like the metaphor of a devil or trickster. The discrete, isolated, separateness view is incorrect. This leads to the notion of not be worthy of something. But alas, everyone is worthy and capable of finding the truth through these sea of trickster deception. 

 

Here's the kicker, christianity IS one of the tricksters deceptions. It's rubbish. And it stands in the way of seeing reality as it actually is, full, whole, interconnected, as an "omnipresence." The christian version of omnipresence is something akin to a metaphorical trick of the devil. It's complete bullshit set out to distract people away from having the mystical realization. 

 

This is a fun little debate I have going with Ed. He's the devil's tool in this scenario.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

From my point of view the argument for who's spirituality is superior is a hard one to win. I have felt spirituality in several different ways. Including Christianity. As a teenager and into my early twenties I was exposed to Wicca and had a "spiritual" experience that I never could deny even as a Christian. Even when I was preaching, in the back of my mind I could remember that feeling I got when my uncle had me absorb "energy" from a tree in my parents front yard. Afterward he had me give back to nature by crumbling crackers around the tree as an offering. Never the less in my mind the experience was real. Just as my experience "coming to christ" was real, to me atleast. 

 

To each their own however. Every person is going to experience the spiritual differently than the next I guess. For me my "coming to christ" moment was probably a more intense spiritual feeling in that the brainwashing technique used by Christianity brings a person to an intense low. You all know this im sure, in your mind you've come to a realization that everything "bad" you have ever done is causing you to go to hell. And if you haven't done any of the sins the born in sin catch all gets you to the same state of mind. And you have to ask this Savior (Jesus) to fix it for you because he loved you enough to take on the punishment for even your sins. So when you go from that horrible low to the extreme high of dread to relief, the spiritual experience is very, very, intense. So from that perspective it could be argued that Christian spirituality is superior because of that intense initiation once it clicks with someone. 

 

But as an exChristian with some religious trauma associated with my experience I have to argue a different point of view of that experience now that I am analyzing it from the outside. 

 

It is very similar to forms of abuse. Spousal abuse for instance usually involves one spouse or the other making the other spouse feel like a peice of shit. They left a spec on the dishes, didn't have the kids stuff cleaned up before they got home, calls them names and degrades them to the lowest possible point that they feel deserving of the beating that follows. Afterward he/she does something sweet to apologize and tells them how much they love them. And how it won't happen again. So they get this intense feeling of love after an intense feeling of worthlessness. Spouses will stay with abusers for years and repeat this cycle, over and over. And that is Christian spirituality. And it is that way from the start. Then you start hearing the sermons on how we are all going to fall short, and about how pretty much EVERYTHING is sin. So you constantly mess up then repent and get back in Gods(aka your abusers) good graces. And you constantly feel unworthy of that love, you deserve hell and its only his love that keeps you from going there. Christianity is a spiritual Rollercoaster and not in a good way.

 

Even looking at Wicca from the outside now I can't say that what I felt while practicing it was that intense. I can say that it was far more wholesome IMO. As Josh describes from his panthiestic point of view but on a smaller scale. I felt at one with nature and the natural world around me. But there were still rituals and rites offered to the Gods and Goddesses. So I suppose there were rules to be followed such as the three fold rule. (Aka karma) If you do something bad to someone it comes back on you three times as bad. Do something good. And it comes back 3 times as good. Neither is necessarily true, but it is a good rule of thumb to live by. Just as the golden rule is a good rule of thumb to live by. 

 

My conclusion of the debate purely from my own experiences and the various arguments made in the debate is that Josh is the winner. As was pointed out in the debate (not in these exact words) Christian spirituality has a leash. You can only go so far with it before you step outside of the innumeral rules that can govern it. I found out quickly that once christs "gift" is accepted you can no longer be yourself anymore. You have to follow rules based on a persona that is more myth and legend than anything real and true. I'm sure the real christ if there was one was far less than the narrative makes him out to be. 

 

Josh's version of spirituality reminds me more of the experience I had as a Wiccan but on a cosmic level rather than just a natural. The rules restricting Christian spirituality are not present. It is more accepting and not like an abusive spouse that leaves you feeling broken and worthless at different times throughout the relationship. 

 

But that is really just my opinion. I have known many Christians. And a few of those were truly inspiring people in my life. I'm sure the ones that are still alive will die feeling spiritually fulfilled. The Wiccans I knew will likewise die feeling spiritually fulfilled, I'm sure @Joshpantera and others like him and even BAA will and have died feeling spiritually fulfilled. In the end to each their own I guess. I had to get rid of that abusive relationship in my life tho. And now I hope to one day feel spiritual again, but I'll be damned if its in Christ Jebus.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, WalterP said:

Florduh, sdelsolray, and the Prof I think would be a fair judge and jury.  

...

 

 

While I appreciate your suggestion, I don't think I would contribute much as a judge or jury member.  In the few posts I have made in this thread, I indicated neither Josh or Ed can demonstrate that their spirituality is the superior spirituality, although they have certainly shown that their respective spiritualities are different.  

 

Therefore, I would either abstain from ruling/voting or declare a tie, or perhaps an amusing pyrrhic victory for both.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator

My anniversary is tomorrow, so I'm sure my wife would enjoy me not going into the forums. I won't be responding to anything till after. Then I'm off to the mountains for a week for fishing.

 

So I may appear absent, but I will return again and receive Ed unto myself so that where I am, there Ed may be also....

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Super Moderator
15 hours ago, WalterP said:

Ok Professor

Let me simplify it even further for you, Walt.  I know that the same matter and energy that exists in everything, everywhere in the universe also exists in me; therefore, I can experience a connection to people, places, things, and ideas. 

 

It's a pleasant idea; but, I have to admit, I agree with Edgarcito in that Josh has not really shown a connection between the theoretical and the practical.  In practical terms, is a rape victim supposed to feel a spiritual connection to her rapist because... quarks and shit?  Is a rapist going to wake up one morning with a startling realization and think, "Thank Gluons I'm Forgiven!"?

 

Now I'm just a simple redneck from out there where the foxes fuck; but it seems to me that knowledge is knowledge and spirituality is what you choose to do with that knowledge.  That might mean anything from choosing to meditate to choosing not to report a theft once you've been made aware of the extenuating circumstances that led to the crime.  Josh has certainly demonstrated that his personal spirituality is superior to Edgarcito's personal spirituality. But a truly "superior" spirituality should work for everyone.  Of course, they are both convinced that their spirituality would work for everybody, if everybody would just open their eyes to it and see past the deception. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Let me simplify it even further for you, Walt.  I know that the same matter and energy that exists in everything, everywhere in the universe also exists in me; therefore, I can experience a connection to people, places, things, and ideas. 

 

It's a pleasant idea; but, I have to admit, I agree with Edgarcito in that Josh has not really shown a connection between the theoretical and the practical.  In practical terms, is a rape victim supposed to feel a spiritual connection to her rapist because... quarks and shit?  Is a rapist going to wake up one morning with a startling realization and think, "Thank Gluons I'm Forgiven!"?

 

Now I'm just a simple redneck from out there where the foxes fuck; but it seems to me that knowledge is knowledge and spirituality is what you choose to do with that knowledge.  That might mean anything from choosing to meditate to choosing not to report a theft once you've been made aware of the extenuating circumstances that led to the crime.  Josh has certainly demonstrated that his personal spirituality is superior to Edgarcito's personal spirituality. But a truly "superior" spirituality should work for everyone.  Of course, they are both convinced that their spirituality would work for everybody, if everybody would just open their eyes to it and see past the deception. 

 

Thank you for getting right to the point, Professor.

 

Sadly, its a point that I cannot address.  I can help Josh out with the science and use that to demonstrate that quantum mechanics is a strong indicator of the fundamental interconnectedness of all things.  But that's as far as my contribution goes.

 

(That and keeping Edgarcito honest. ;) )

 

I don't share Josh's views on what this means spiritually.  The practicalities of how this interconnectedness affects us and our lives on a spiritual level is not something I can comment on.  For that you would have to wait for him to return from his vacation and then ask him.

 

Sorry to be unhelpful, but that's really all I can say.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

This is what it is. Different people find it hard to understand this for various reasons. We know why christians are blocked out from accepting or entertaining any of it. But it's not always clear as a bell to atheists either. You seem to understand it pretty well. 

 

 

Yep, stripped of the woo we're looking at a situation where what it means to be spiritual is the acceptance of your true identity as existence itself. Seeing past the illusions that make you think otherwise, which, are deceptive. That's like the metaphor of a devil or trickster. The discrete, isolated, separateness view is incorrect. This leads to the notion of not be worthy of something. But alas, everyone is worthy and capable of finding the truth through these sea of trickster deception. 

 

Here's the kicker, christianity IS one of the tricksters deceptions. It's rubbish. And it stands in the way of seeing reality as it actually is, full, whole, interconnected, as an "omnipresence." The christian version of omnipresence is something akin to a metaphorical trick of the devil. It's complete bullshit set out to distract people away from having the mystical realization. 

 

This is a fun little debate I have going with Ed. He's the devil's tool in this scenario.

 

Josh, 

 

Given that your spirituality (as I understand it) is devoid of gods, deities and other supernatural beings, surely the deception you are talking about can only be self deception?

 

In your model of spirituality here can't be some supernatural malefactor intent on deceiving us, can there?

 

Hoping that I'm reading this right.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator
On 5/4/2021 at 7:03 AM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Let me simplify it even further for you, Walt.  I know that the same matter and energy that exists in everything, everywhere in the universe also exists in me; therefore, I can experience a connection to people, places, things, and ideas. 

 

It's a pleasant idea; but, I have to admit, I agree with Edgarcito in that Josh has not really shown a connection between the theoretical and the practical.  In practical terms, is a rape victim supposed to feel a spiritual connection to her rapist because... quarks and shit?  Is a rapist going to wake up one morning with a startling realization and think, "Thank Gluons I'm Forgiven!"?

 

Now I'm just a simple redneck from out there where the foxes fuck; but it seems to me that knowledge is knowledge and spirituality is what you choose to do with that knowledge.  That might mean anything from choosing to meditate to choosing not to report a theft once you've been made aware of the extenuating circumstances that led to the crime.  Josh has certainly demonstrated that his personal spirituality is superior to Edgarcito's personal spirituality. But a truly "superior" spirituality should work for everyone.  Of course, they are both convinced that their spirituality would work for everybody, if everybody would just open their eyes to it and see past the deception. 

 

I'll be up there around the north Georgia fox fucking grounds shortly. Probably tomorrow. This is like my little post ascension commentary with Paul. I'm back, but shortly, then off again. 

 

So you bring up a good point. Which is simply once someone gets the mystical realization, identifies the meaning, understands that reality is an interconnected realm where the distances and appearance of separateness are just appearances and not literally true, what then? 

 

What does any of it mean? 

 

Religions have used it as a platform to speak of unity, kindness, empathy towards others, and similar. I don't know conscious or unconscious the bible writers were of their usage of the mystical realization. It could be that people were trying to graft it into a judaized presentation on purpose. Or could just be that it was starting to bubble up in small doses. But was never fully formed beyond and entry level sort of point like the Vedic traditions went on to become. 

 

But the notion of the golden rule, for instance, while not original to christianity, does make sense against something like the mystical realization. You do unto others as you would have done unto you BECAUSE you and others are essentially one and the same thing deep down where true identities are concerned. When the writers have the character of jesus saying things like, 'whatever you do unto the least of these, you have also done unto me,' that also can be read against the mystical realization content that I've brought forward from the book of John. When jesus is speaking as "me" that can be interpreted as self realization, a human being aware of it's identity as the whole, and one with the eternal god of the myths. Whatever you do to anyone, you are doing to ultimate reality, basically. 

 

So there are these lesson factors involved in the myths that stem off of something like the mystical realization. But at the same time, where christianity is concerned, there are contradictions. Because destroying satan doesn't amount to anything other than god destroying an aspect of itself, where the omnipresent god format is concerned. But hey, we realize that these myths come from desert nomads in the bronze age. They had a hard time thinking things through beyond a certain point. And left tons of holes in their reasoning. It's like little part way baby steps towards fuller morality and possibly spirituality that could not have been more than what it was until generations later. 

 

As to the rapist example. 

 

First off, the question is does a horrific crime change the facts that the universe is an interconnected realm of existence? Obviously no, where the science is concerned 1) we exist in an interconnected universe and 2) everything we see and experience takes place within an interconnected universe. So there's no way of trying to leverage backwards from the point of horrific crimes to then discredit the facts of existence in the universe. I've seen people try to make that move over the years. 

 

So the rape victim and rapist are both interconnected from a factual basis. As to whether either of the two parties acknowledges the facts on the table is entirely up to them. Chances are, being that few people do realize all of this, neither of them probably do. And I think the point speaks to whether or not violence plays into the mystical realization. I addressed with Ed at one point. Buddhist monks of the enlightenment bent, practice martial arts, fight for reasons deemed appropriate, and basically kick some ass around knowing full well that everything is interconnected through their philosophical and mystical insights. 

 

It means that both the light and dark forces are aspects of the same, non-dual reality. So the only difference between not knowing any of this and living life, and knowing all of this and living life, is a matter of perspective. In my case, it did tone down fighting. I was less inclined to engage in fights. And limited fights down to situations that cross so many lines that the fight has to happen. The point being that the mystical realization brought down aggression levels in my case. Another thing is that I see most as people through the perception of, 'they know not what they do,' in most cases. Because people are naive to all of this. They don't understand. And they're acting from the discrete, separateness, and distanced perspective of reality. So anyone who does know, has to interact with a majority who do not. That plays into it. 

 

One of my favor quotes is when Campbell when to India and spoke to Sri Krishna Menon who had been a police officer and was also a guru. He wanted to test the guru. So he led him into uncomfortable questions. If Brahman is all, then Brahman is all. Not just the good things. He asked the guru, 'if as we know, Brahman is all things, why then do we not see Brahman in the most brutal, most vulgar, most horrific, and most dark?' 

 

To which Menon responded, 'for men like you and me, that is where it is.' 

 

I see that as a high level of insight. Unlike these christians who profess an omnipresent god and then quickly run away from the implications where light and darkness are concerned, and contradict themselves, these Vedic tradition insights allow for a self consistent understanding. In nature we have evolved in ways that do not perceive reality as it literally is. And that's the issue. I think that how it literally is, which is interconnected as we've discovered, has been an intuition that meditation and paying close attention to reality has brought out ahead of actually discovering this scientifically. 

 

So the above works as true enough statement from a science stand point as well.

 

If as we know, all things are the universe itself, what about all of these bad things?

 

The answer: 'For people who see it as it actually is, it is all the same universe manifest in the various goings on on that we participate in and observe all the time.' 

 

There's only seeing it as it, or not seeing it as it is. 

 

And suppose one could still argue over whether seeing it as it is, is better or superior to not seeing it as it is. My arguing is for seeing it as it is as the better or superior position over the other. Mostly because it's more useful to know and understand than to not know and understand, from my perspective. 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/4/2021 at 4:03 AM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Let me simplify it even further for you, Walt.  I know that the same matter and energy that exists in everything, everywhere in the universe also exists in me; therefore, I can experience a connection to people, places, things, and ideas. 

 

It's a pleasant idea; but, I have to admit, I agree with Edgarcito in that Josh has not really shown a connection between the theoretical and the practical.  In practical terms, is a rape victim supposed to feel a spiritual connection to her rapist because... quarks and shit?  Is a rapist going to wake up one morning with a startling realization and think, "Thank Gluons I'm Forgiven!"?

 

Now I'm just a simple redneck from out there where the foxes fuck; but it seems to me that knowledge is knowledge and spirituality is what you choose to do with that knowledge.  That might mean anything from choosing to meditate to choosing not to report a theft once you've been made aware of the extenuating circumstances that led to the crime.  Josh has certainly demonstrated that his personal spirituality is superior to Edgarcito's personal spirituality. But a truly "superior" spirituality should work for everyone.  Of course, they are both convinced that their spirituality would work for everybody, if everybody would just open their eyes to it and see past the deception. 

 

I dont think Josh has presented a 'spirituality' as much as attempting to show that there is an illusion of an "I" separate from "not I." The misunderstanding leads us to desire pleasure and avoid pain. 

 

I have no idea what a rape victim who experienced satori would feel. I read once that Nisargadatta Maharaj had cancer, said 'there is a lot of pain' , but did not own it as 'his.' 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Super Moderator
2 hours ago, midniterider said:

I have no idea what a rape victim who experienced satori would feel. I read once that Nisargadatta Maharaj had cancer, said 'there is a lot of pain' , but did not own it as 'his.' 

I think this is what the Buddha was hinting at when he said, "There is an end of suffering." 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Super Moderator
2 hours ago, midniterider said:

I dont think Josh has presented a 'spirituality' as much as attempting to show that there is an illusion of an "I" separate from "not I." The misunderstanding leads us to desire pleasure and avoid pain. 

When I started attempting to become more "spiritual" in 2019, it was in an effort to feel more connected to my self, a connection that never really formed (wasn't allowed) due to childhood indoctrination.  The more in touch with my self I become, the more I realize there is no self, only passing consciousness. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator
On 5/4/2021 at 8:57 AM, WalterP said:

 

Josh, 

 

Given that your spirituality (as I understand it) is devoid of gods, deities and other supernatural beings, surely the deception you are talking about can only be self deception?

 

In your model of spirituality here can't be some supernatural malefactor intent on deceiving us, can there?

 

Hoping that I'm reading this right.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

Yes, self deception. Not our fault either. We're not perceiving reality as it is in a literal sense. Evolution is the reason. We haven't evolved to see reality as it actually is. But that's just so far. I think the jury's out on where it would be going from here. I can imagine that if we keep evolving into a space traveling civilization our perceptions would likely continue to evolve into what's suited for survival in that direction. If we're growing into global civilization then solar system exploring and possibly further. 

 

Supernatural doesn't have a lot of meaning by my way of thinking. I don't take the myths and the trickster characters as anything other than symbolic tales. We could make a new one about how our eyes trick us into thinking things are ways in which they actually aren't. In that case it's our own perceptions which are the trickster. By intellectual understanding we learn that the universe is interconnected. Against what our eyes and perceptions are revealing to us about reality. 

 

I don't think the myth makers understood that on the level we're discussing. But it works out against what we're discussing. It's not even that our eyes are intent on deceiving us, they've just evolved in a survival of the fittest arena and it wasn't necessary toward survival to perceive reality as it actually is. It was useful to see the distinctions and use them to our advantage. But where from here? I don't think it's over. It could be that a space traveling civilization would evolve in different directions according to what's suited for that life. And could possibly have a greater perception of reality in the universe. Who knows where it's headed? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator
5 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I think this is what the Buddha was hinting at when he said, "There is an end of suffering." 

 

The Bodhisattva concept seems to be coming up as well....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.