Saturday, February 26, 2011

Narrative World

Wanting to be right so bad that you come to actually believe that you are right, is not the same thing as actually being right. If you can't tell the difference, you're hopelessly lost, and no one can help you anymore.
-StBtG

Beliefs are thoughts that the ego fell in love with.
-StBtG


***


This is an article about the two worlds we live in on this planet.

What two worlds?

Well, there is the consensual reality that we mostly tend to agree upon, with attendant facts and data that can be used to prove or disprove our theories.

And then there's Narrative World.

Narrative World is a world where the narrative rules over the facts. The love of the narrative is too intense for mere facts to be allowed in to interfere.

In Narrative World God is real. (In fact, only in Narrative World is God real)
God is so real in fact, that to even doubt in Him is considered wrongheaded, a 'sin.' To suggest that the facts do not support His existence, is to be ostracised and scorned. Facts and data have no power in Narrative World, you see. All that matters is the story. Facts are heresy; logic is a crime. Only the story is real.

Religious people are married to their story. They just fucking love it, more than they even love themselves, and that's an awful lot. You cannot even assail it without intense personal scorn being directed back at you. You can't suggest that they might be in error... what's wrong with you? Literally, they equate belief in their narrative with being 'good' as opposed to 'evil' and in their minds it's an eternal war between the two. No gray areas allowed. So if you're a skeptic, in their minds you are personally evil. Case closed. As are their minds.

Some narratives are childishly simple. 'Believe in God or else go to hell, period.' Fear is the ruling factor here. Of course egotism enters into it as well, the 'I'm right and you're wrong and I'm special and you're not and I'm going to heaven and you're going to hell' mentality. Schadenfreude abounds in Narrative World. All the petty emotions thrive there as well. After all, even God is petty and small and oh-so-humanly flawed, admitting personal jealousy and wrath openly, even gambling with people's lives on a whim. Indeed it would seem that 'Tis all a checkerboard of nights and days, where God with men for pieces plays...' And apparently, that's okay. No amount of overt examples of raw Biblical evil are enough for them to see their God in a bad light. He's always good, even when killing little innocent children. Somehow that must be good too. It's a mystery, and it's all God's plan for us and we're just not meant to understand it.

(One wonders how these people hold their shit in, since the functionality of even a simple sphincter muscle must surely be beyond them.)

(Oh right, it comes out their mouths, I forgot...)

However some narratives are ridiculously complicated. (For good reason!)
Thomas Aquinas (God's official liar and archetypal ass-smoke-blower-upper extraordinaire) for instance constructed huge and impressive edifices of logic upon the shifting sands of faith to 'inexorably' lead us to belief in God, and did so in such a seamless manner that later generations of christians are completely incapable of seeing that all those pretty words and logical-sounding sentences aren't ultimately based on hard fact as they sound like they must surely be, but are instead based upon what amounts to nothing more than childish wishful thinking. Their love of the narrative utterly clouds their perceptions of reality, and the more complex, more logical-sounding narrative in this case allows even relatively intelligent people to be caught like flies in amber.

We are human, fallible emotional animals at best. So at what point is the lure of the narrative so great that we are willing to forgive it for not meeting the test of facts and data?

At the point where it provides more meaning to our lives than just living them in consensual reality does. The fact that it's empty meaning based on wishes and dreams matters little if at all. The religious just don't know the difference. They do not want to know. They are (have been kept) far too ignorant of reality to glean any real deeper meanings out of it, and are far too lazy to learn to now, nor do they see any need to, so they crave the simple, children's fairy-tale version. It's like a nice, warm bottle of milk, lulling them to a comfortable sleep. Forever.

And they want everybody to join them in their slumber. In fact, they *insist.*

***

A part of the religious narrative is of course that all other narratives are false, including consensual reality's 'narrative.' This can become quite comical when religion's beloved narrative meets reality in a head-on collision. Heliocentrism comes to mind. Hell, all of the findings of modern science come to mind, for that matter. Religion has been dragged into the modern world kicking and screaming all the way, like the retarded child it is. It never agreed with science or even basic observations of the world, it always had it's own ass-backward ideas instead, and it has always, always been wrong. Pathetically wrong. And it's still trying with no better results. This is because, by nature, religion is viciously stupid. It ignores reality in favor of fantasy; what better definition of 'stupid' does one need? Today's religious people even go so far as to vilify learning and knowledge itself, to scorn them as effete and effeminate somehow. The 'real Christian man's' way is apparently to kill and fuck (and fuck over) one's way through life whilst blaming one's 'sinful nature' for one's flaws and still maintaining the belief that somehow they're still 'going to heaven' because after all, they do still believe in God and they do ask to be forgiven their many sins, which are then magically erased from their souls and from their consciences. Convenient. After a while, they even forget to ask. They assume forgiveness for whatever they might do, since hey, they're *christian* and that's how it works, that's what Jesus does. It's magic, no doubt. Magic, plus a heavily flawed system of pseudomorality that is ultimately coercion-based with heavy appeal to egotism, and therefore can produce no good thing in the world without an evil taint to it.

When one 'absolutely knows' that one is 'good' with no doubt left in one's mind, it frees one up to do considerable evil in the world. This is the boon of religion. Sure you're an evil fuck but you believe that you poop Ben and Jerry's, and that's all that matters. You get to sleep at night, guilt-free, no matter what heinousness you've comitted or contemplate comitting. You'll even eventually get to the point where you're *proud* of it.

That's because religion is Purina Ego Chow.

I am always amused at the christians who vehemently deny (irrationally) that Hitler was a christian. I mean, he certainly acted like one. He definitely *believed* in his own righteousness completely, and manipulated his people through their christian faith. He thought he was an instrument of God in fact. Pretty typical, actually. He just got more power than most do; it's not that many other christians alive today wouldn't do the same thing if they had the opportunity. So why then, can he not be a 'real christian?' Because nobody that evil could be? That's what they'd like to believe, but I know differently because I do not live in Narrative World. It's easier to be evil if you're also religious. Look around.

***

You see my droogies, being right, as in being correct more often than one is not correct, as it turns out requires living in consensual reality enough to observe it dispassionately and draw conclusions from it. However, merely believing that one is right (and good, and just, and holy, and so on...) is more than good enough for those who are lost in the psychosis of their religion. Sure, they're wrong about just about everything, but they're ignorant of that fact too, so it's okay. Ignorance is indeed bliss to them, and a nightmare to everyone else. Because, they vote like they see the world. Ass-backwards.

I find myself wishing that the religious folk come to an agreement to ignore *all* science. Got diabetes? Pray it away! Go ahead... surely you have enough *faith* for that to work. No? Aww, too bad, so sad.

Hey, I can dream... And at least, I don't mix up my dreams with reality. That would be religiously stupid of me.

455 comments:

  1. I do not have a disagreement with science. If science is as sure as it can be I will accept that. Buying into god being a reality does not have to disagree with science. Sure science will disagree with organized religion, and so do I. Still that does not say there is no god, or anything close to it. I think your disagreement is with organized religion not if there is a god or not.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Jerry, you can hope there's a god, but to think there is one, is rather silly, no?
    All evidence points away from that result. The very fact that most of the so-called 'evidence' of the old days is today known to be false, is also very telling. Christianity's record is terrible. They're practically never right in the long run, are they?
    But of course you mean 'some vague deity,' a bare-bones type of god. I can liken that to my 'Big Brain' stuff. Sure I can HOPE it's true, but once I start to think that I know it's true, that's when I need to slow down. I know this, so I regulate myself as much as I can. I have to say that you seem to be emotionally invested in there being 'some deity' out there. Why? Sure, it's more gratifying than if not, at least to you (I'd prefer the BB, thanks) but that doesn't make it REAL, now does it?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think your disagreement is with organized religion not if there is a god or not.
    ----------
    Mostly true. I give you that, with one caveat:
    If we go to gods and deities and such, well then, of course I choose to 'believe' that my BB thing is more likely by far to be the answer. It even explains all the confusion.

    ReplyDelete
  4. If organized religion kept to itself, I wouldn't give a shit about it. I'd have zero beef with them.
    Of course, the very reason religion organizes in the first place, is to not keep to itself.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Buying into god being a reality does not have to disagree with science.
    ------------
    Believing in god being a reality goes directly against the scientific method, which does seem to be the most efficient way to order one's thoughts. Even lacking any 'hard' evidence, it's still best to analyse the situation statistically and look to the largest possible picture. Logically, the optimal 'way to think' is to be an agnostic. Even 'hard' atheism is unprovable of course, so the middle ground is the only position that makes sense in the lack of data.
    So you can hope, and wish, but once you believe, you've stepped out of the realm of logical thought.
    I do not 'believe' in the BB for instance. I hope it's the right answer, and to me it seems to be the one most likely when all factors are considered, but I could very easily be duping myself here, and I know it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I will be the first to say I do not know what god is or does or wants. There are several things in my life that point toward the probability of some type of intelligence far beyond our understanding. One of the problems of the BB idea is it might be true. So might there be a god of some type. It is for sure that the ideas of god put forth by Christianity is a myth, at least for the most part.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Consider this:

    God was invented to explain the mysteries that surrounded primitive man. Death, the weather, the sky, the sun, rain, and so on.

    So then, as science has revealed the actual explanations behind these things, what has religion done? Retreated. It had to, because well, shit, it was wrong, wasn't it? Once it started to look stupid, it had to adjust for PR reasons.

    So this means that the TREND is, that science will eventually explain ALL that was once ascribed to god. It's pretty close now, considering how short a period of time it's been at it. It may take millennia to explain most of it all, but to just decide to not accept that and jump to a conclusion now, speaks more eloquently to our impatient simian nature than it does to our intellect, doesn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  8. There are several things in my life that point toward the probability of some type of intelligence far beyond our understanding.
    -------
    Oh, me too, but I kept on staring at it, and eventually it just made a lot more sense that it was all just a huge communal dream of some sort. In such a dream, self-deception would take on a lot of power. Your very reality would seem to confirm what you're believing, just because you're believing it.

    ReplyDelete
  9. (which is precisely why I don't like to believe in things)

    ReplyDelete
  10. That is what your reality is made of, what you believe, like it or not. Seems to me you are afraid there is something that you cannot get your mind around that could control you if you let your guard down.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Jerry, if I had one thing to tell my infant son as a young man, it'd be never to fall so much in love with an idea that you hold it to be true in spite of a lack of good evidence for it. Emotions have their uses, but judging reality by them is like trying to use pretty lingerie to do calculus. Better by far to lack the emotional satisfaction but to have the intellectual kind. Because that way, while you can never be sure that you're right, you can at least be sure that you're doing everything possible not to be wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Seems to me you are afraid there is something that you cannot get your mind around that could control you if you let your guard down.
    ----------
    I had to stare at this sentence to grasp it's meaning, Jerry. It's so not even close to how I feel.
    How can I be afraid of something that I do not believe in, Jerry? If I really do not believe in god, and I don't, then what's to fear? A non-thing cannot control anything.
    However, BELIEF in a non-thing, can be used to control everything. That, I do fear. Christian dominionism scares the bejezus out of me. It's like a march of soul-less devils longing for the abyss and insisting that I'll just love it, too.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I operate on two tracks, mostly. One, science is right as it stands and it's all coincidence. Matter and energy and interactions and fields and such.
    Two, it's a communal dream experience of some sort.

    My head tells me that either one could be true. My intuitions, which I consider informed, tell me the dream is the answer. But those are feelings, Jerry.

    ReplyDelete
  14. But those are feelings, Jerry.
    Almost all of the psychologist I have studied agree emotions, and thought are inseparable. Dr Edmund Jacobson went even farther and proved both emotions, and thoughts are measured able in muscle tension so one can relax, and both though and emotion go away. It is easy to induce any emotion simply by thinking certain thoughts.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Almost all of the psychologist I have studied agree emotions, and thought are inseparable.
    ----------------------

    Beliefs are thoughts that the ego fell in love with, Jerry.

    By this I mean that the ego falls in love with a thought, feels real love (emotion)for the thought, and so is willing to ignore the fact that said thought is not likely to be true and is not well-supported. Dry facts cannot compete with juicy feelings. Beliefs are emotion-based. Emotions move us more than thoughts that lack in emotional content, even if it's the latter kind that are more often correct. When I separate emotional beliefs from rational thoughts, it's an artificial separation for the sake of illustration. Both are kinds of thoughts. Of course they are. Yet we often illogically give more creedence to emotion-laden thoughts when they compete with less 'attractive' facts than we should.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Driving along and another driver cuts me off. The usual reaction is to feel anger at the other driver, and mistakenly blame him for my anger. The truth is the anger is coming from my thoughts and is being self inflicted blaming the other driver for failure to control my own thinking.

    ReplyDelete
  17. The truth is the anger is coming from my thoughts and is being self inflicted blaming the other driver for failure to control my own thinking.
    ----------------
    Are you trying to be a buddhist?

    Okay, what I see rationally is that another driver was driving dangerously, and so he is at fault for my risk. I do strive to not let such a thing ruin my day, but to not even be irritated, is not human. It was not my fault, and it was not 'nobody's fault.' It was his fault. Since I lived, I hold no enmity. No grudges. But did it irritate me? Of course it did. He might be a great person that was momentarily distracted for all I know, so I do not let myself feel rage toward him as a person. Just irritation directed toward his silly driving at that moment. He could have killed me, after all.
    Are you trying to get elected saint? I don't tolerate competetion well, I must warn you.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Stoic, pragmatic, epicurean, and rational emotive psychotherapy with a little Buddhism. No desire for sainthood so we are safe there. I would make a poor saint anyway. Saints are supposed to know things, and the only thing I know is I am, everything else is maybe.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "There is no way to prove Jesus, god or any of the supposed supernatural stuff.."

    Well, not to prove it's real, but it's fairly easy to convince yourself that it isn't.

    Define God.

    You'll never convince yourself of the negative that you are avoiding if you simply refuse to define what you mean.

    But this is a 'framing' issue, a 'narrative' issue, isn't it?

    If you define God as all powerful and all merciful, then where is he and what is he if he refuses to use the power you believe HE has to have mercy on people who are exposed to the raw power of nature?

    Sure you can say, "It's a paradox.", and convince yourself that you really mean simply asking the question is a paradox when you first meant that God not helping when if HE existed as HE is defined ought to.

    Now by that I only mean that HE, if HE is defined as all merciful, ought to show mercy when possible, so don't give me any of the old, "Who are YOU to say what God ought to do?", because I'm not saying it, I'm saying YOUR saying it if that's how you define HIM.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Jerry:

    Unfortunately, it is only a short step from an unlikely/unsupported "belief" in some creative force or deity to acceptance of the basic warnings of all organized religions that some dire consequence will ensue if one doesn't accept its tenets. Hence, most of us here agreeing that we would have little or no issue with organized religion if they did not need to impose their beliefs upon the rest of humanity.If every "believer" (of the type you seem to be) did not feel the need to get everyone else to agree with them (which is, after all, the only way they can achieve affirmation that their beliefs are correct in this lifetime) most of these discussions, if they ever took place at all, would be few and far between and would be purely philosophical, rather than confrontational.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Harvey,
    I hear you. My experience of being born again left me with wanting to share what I had found with others as wanting them to know it was so great. I stopped myself from collaring people because I had experienced, both directly, and watching others be collared to share someone's happiness with. Later I wished I had done differently to get the first hand experience of how it went down, but overall I am glad I did not go down that road. I do not know but would guess that most that spread their ideas do so out of a sharing mode rather than the need for confirmation. The experience I had happened 40 years ago, and every since them I have always been alert to finding a way to convey the realness of that experience. I still am stumped on how to do that. I would rate the experience as one of, if not the most real thing that has every happened to me. I do understand what Observant feels about his experience but have a problem with him because he is trying to convince others that the ideas he has bought into as a result of his experience is a fact rather than a man made program about something that is real. I think this misleads people just as most ideas taught in churches in all religions are misleading. I think of a man I read about not long ago. He spent his life studying, and teaching all about religion and finally on his death bed he said, I guess it is all about how you treat your fellow man. Scraping away all the BS he finally got it.

    ReplyDelete
  22. pboy,
    Most of the teaching about god in the churches today is so bad it would not make a good soap opera. I do know what religions say about god for the most part cannot be true. Most of what the churches teach is handed down ideas that man has had through the ages. Most of it is so obviously contradictory to other ideas being taught that it takes very little thinking to void the whole mess. That is what is so harmful in most of the ideas they teach because it keeps the real experience camouflaged within their BS. The result is churches teaching false information that turns anyone who does any serious thinking off. What most churches teach today if judged by their own standards is blaspheme.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Exactly Harvey.

    What do you, Jerry, have to say about the Christian or the Muslim who is learning that atheism is the root of all the evil in this World?

    There is only one way to be a pro-active theist and that is to go out and confront 'the atheism' and 'the secularism' that seems to be the 'evil' the theist has learned it to be.

    We know that they target abortion doctors with the intention of harming them.

    This is nothing less than institutionalized bullying.

    Seems to me that all you're saying is that not all theists are like this and that you're an example of a theist who is not like this, much like Botts.

    Perhaps I ought to start attending pro-life rallies to explain that all atheists aren't 'bad'?

    How do you suppose that would 'fly'?

    ReplyDelete
  24. How do you suppose that would 'fly'?

    Like a lead balloon. We all act on programs or conditioning. Most people act enough on reality to get by ok. Some buy into false programs enough to have mental problems. Most religionist buys onto false programs concerning divinity and as a result is dangerous in some situations. I would not go to a religious rally and try to enlighten them on abortion issues, as I think it could easily be a dangerous situation. While I do consider some religionist dangerous at times I think those hooked into greed, and power the most dangerous. Many political leaders fall into this category, and they are prone to use whatever ideas that can help them in their pursuit, and religious people set themselves up for this type of usage.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Most people act enough on reality to get by ok. Some buy into false programs enough to have mental problems.
    ----------
    So some people can sort-of be said to live in a world based not on observations, but on some kind of story in their heads, that constitutes a mental problem in some cases... a story in their heads which is kinda like a narrative. And some act enough *on reality* to get by...
    (you're agreeing with me here a lot here, Jerry)

    ReplyDelete
  26. I would not go to a religious rally and try to enlighten them on abortion issues, as I think it could easily be a dangerous situation.
    --------
    You are right. And the fact that you are right, is sad, no? I mean, we have to be afraid of these so-called 'moral' people, don't we? They are in fact, dangerous. And yet we as a country still accept it, because we've been conditioned to, by the religion itself, over many hundreds of years.
    "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" And stupid us, we don't.

    ReplyDelete
  27. What do you, Jerry, have to say about the Christian or the Muslim who is learning that atheism is the root of all the evil in this World?

    If I had to choose if I wanted to live around atheist or religionist, easy choice. I would rather live with the atheist. Seems to me that atheist are much more advanced in evolution concerning their thinking. All the countries that are religious are f**ked up, seriously f**ked up. Doesn't seem to matter if the religion is Judaism, Muslim or Christian. It seems to me that religion shows where we are in evolution, and if religion was not the culprit it would be something else as evolution is the main factor, not what the symptom is. Religion is a symptom, not the main game.

    ReplyDelete
  28. (you're agreeing with me here a lot here, Jerry

    I agree with much of what you say most of the time.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I had a situation, years ago, that brought me to a decision on how to handle opposition on a religious issue. I went to visit a Baptist church in Houston TX. I went through a period where I visited many churches out of curiosity. When the preach stated his sermon it became clear that several of the members of there church had painted the building in the last week. It was a small wooden building, and it looked nice with the new paint job. The preach went on, and on about how this act was of no value, and the people who did it would receive no favors from god for giving of themselves in doing the act. It really got hard to listen to this preach run down his congregation. I knew I was either going to stand up and say something or leave. I decided the people came to hear their preach, and must go along with this type of thinking or they would not be there. I decided to leave. I was aware at the time it could be a little dangerous saying what I thought. Today I doubt if I would leave without shooting off my mouth but doubt if I will get in that position as I do not visit churches any longer. I have been considering going to a few charismatic churches to scope out the members that have been into the charismatic movement over a period of time to see how their lives reflect the belief system they endorse.

    ReplyDelete
  30. "But, Brian, Harry is waiting for irrefutable proof that such a thing could happen!"

    I have no idea what you're talking about.

    "Even if she didn't want it, if she didn't do anything to abort it, expecting full well to eventually have it, and it miscarriages, it's not morally anything to do with her."

    Um. Yeah?

    I feel like this was a debate about an aspect of abortion and now we're just... I don't even know.

    The only clear thing I got was peeb's view. There's no nuance in any behavior when it comes to abortion. It is ethically black and white.

    I suspected it. But now I know. Congrats pb you're a fundy.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Harry called pboy a fundy.

    Oh No you Dih'nt!

    Peeb, you take that shit from him?

    ReplyDelete
  32. I have to say though, that to *believe* that science is right as it stands now and that there is no possibility whatsoever of there being what might be called a 'spiritual' component to reality, is still believing in something without definite evidence for it, no? Since there's no real way to be sure there isn't SOMETHING more 'to it' than what we think we see.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I think that Harry calling me a fundy is punishment enough for Harry.

    ReplyDelete
  34. BUZZKILL TIME!

    Since there's no real way to be sure there isn't SOMETHING more 'to it' than what we think we see.

    Sorry B couldn't resist.
    Within any reasonable criteria for objective proof we can discount the existence of any spiritual elements. Since no evidence exists within the limits of our ability to measure (nontrivial) we have to conclude that either no such things exist or the effects are so negligible as to be of no consequence. That does not make science a belief. If such time ever occurs that something other than old texts, ignorance, fallible human perceptions, or cognitive biases points to spiritualism, then we'd have to reassess.

    You don't have to have faith in science - just objective proof of the transparency and rigor of the methods.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Jerry:
    "I have been considering going to a few charismatic churches to scope out the members that have been into the charismatic movement over a period of time to see how their lives reflect the belief system they endorse.

    March 16, 2011 5:18 PM"

    As a non-believer (and a Jewish one, at that) I find it hard to understand the disconnect between my understanding of the message of Jesus and his disciples regarding how peolple should "bear witness" to the "good news" and how most fundamentalists (at least in my experience) actually behave in this regard. I thought that the core message was to demonstrate these ideas by living example (i.e. loving one's neighbor and obeying the ten commandmnets), rather than by coercion, threats of eternal damnation, ostracism of those who don't or won't "get the message", and/or pogroms/inquisitions. As stated, I have been forced to the conclusion that most proselytizers care little for my eternal soul; rather, they seem to be much more interested in their own heavenly reward and, often, get some vicarious pleasure from thinking that they "have it right" and we don't. If only believers were content to worship in private or in those public, non tax-supported settings in which the rest of us can choose to ignore/avoid/turn off the radio/not buy or read the book/etc. without incurring their further attention.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Since no evidence exists within the limits of our ability to measure (nontrivial) we have to conclude that either no such things exist or the effects are so negligible as to be of no consequence.
    -----------
    Agreed of course, except that in a communal dream, the whole point of tha dream would be that all the dreamers are having the dream BECAUSE they want to believe that it is not a dream but reality. So of course, in the dream, we'd all be dreaming that it is NOT a dream, and finding evidence that it's not a dream, and seeing no indications that it IS a dream, beyond the most subtle, which are generally discounted.

    ReplyDelete
  37. And you don't see a problem with this, Brian?

    We have dreams. Sometimes we can wake up and tell someone else, I had a dream, and 'this' is what was happening in that dream.

    So, are you saying that our regular sleeping dreams are some kind of reflection of the Big Brain dream?

    We're dreaming reality and in that reality we sleep and dream and sometimes recall those dreams?

    Life is but a dream? Is that what you're saying?


    Seems to me that if this were so, the World would be full of the monsters, witches, gods etc. that we love to scare each other with, and not the reality which can be observed critically and repeatedly to be 'the same for everyone'.

    Your 'theory'(saying that 'cos you insist it's not a belief), is pretty much the same as Jerry thinking that reality conforms to his belief, isn't it?

    You're just reframing it, giving it a different narrative, but it's like Buddhism with different jargon, isn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  38. Your 'theory'(saying that 'cos you insist it's not a belief), is pretty much the same as Jerry thinking that reality conforms to his belief, isn't it?

    So what are you saying, that your reality is exactly like mine? I said everyone has a different reality, so you are either have the same reality as me or you have a different one. Which is it? Or perhaps you are the one who know the one reality that is unchangeable.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Within any reasonable criteria for objective proof we can discount the existence of any spiritual elements. Since no evidence exists within the limits of our ability to measure (nontrivial) we have to conclude that either no such things exist or the effects are so negligible as to be of no consequence.

    Of course there is no science way of measuring love. So it does not exist? How about empathy, or any type of helping hand that does not have a science measured reward? There are so many instances of spiritual actions between people that have nothing to do with science measurment.

    ReplyDelete
  40. There is only one reality Jerry.

    It's electro-magnetic. We cannot think without electro-magnetic processes happening in our brains. We cannot hear or feel or smell anything that is not to do with electro-magnetism.

    Is love real? Define love.

    Is empathy real? Define empathy.

    I think you are confusing feelings with 'things' spiritual here.

    ReplyDelete
  41. So you are claiming to know the ultimate reality? No reality outside of what you know and can prove? I believe you do not now anything about spiritual realty according to your statements. Of course if you now nothing about it, it must not exist or you would know, right?

    ReplyDelete
  42. Of course there is no science way of measuring love. So it does not exist? How about empathy, or any type of helping hand that does not have a science measured reward? There are so many instances of spiritual actions between people that have nothing to do with science measurment.

    ----------------------------
    We can observe indirect evidence that people act on love or behave in an empathetic manner (both concepts which humans invented to describe actions). In fact these would better be described as behaviors that we have labeled rather than entities that elicit behaviors. But there is a huge stretch to impart supernatural explanations to these things. The existence of empathy and human love (and all other emotions) in no way provides any evidence for plains of existence beyond what we can study through science. Love, whatever else it is, is also a neurochemical reaction. It's still really nice.

    ReplyDelete
  43. "In fact [love & empathy] would better be described as behaviors that we have labeled rather than entities that elicit behaviors>"

    Yes yes yes, a thousand times yes!

    ReplyDelete
  44. Hey, you said there is no such thing now you are saying that it is real but... You cannot have it both ways. Is love real or not? Is empathy real or not? It seems to me you are ducking the obvious. Most people agree that is love, empathy, and such that makes life worth, and you are saying that it is not real because? There is no way that I am saying it is supernatural or one needs a god to have love, empathy etc. But you seem to be denying it except as a definition, and if so there IS something it is defining. It is hard for me to understand how you can say it is nice, and then refuse to accept it is being real. Maybe it is that science cannot deal with it makes it a no go in your mind. While it is true that it does not prove there is a god of any type but it points away from science being anything close describing reality. Just concrete reality, and then science is not able to explain much. I have to wonder how you deal with math?

    ReplyDelete
  45. pboy,
    So you are claiming to know the ultimate reality? No reality outside of what you know and can prove? I believe you do not now anything about spiritual realty according to your statements. Of course if you know nothing about it, it must not exist or you would know, right?

    ReplyDelete
  46. Hmmm, How do I do with math - pretty well since I always take care to read the problem and not jump to conclusions. I heartily recommend it. As for having it both ways - not at all. As I said in my post, love and empathy are behaviors that we have given names. The behaviors existed long before we named them and granted them mystical properties. Most people have no problem believing that observed behaviors exist. No one is saying they don't exist. What I am saying again is that there is nothing about the 'how of such behaviors' that is not explainable through science. How can I enjoy some of these behaviors knowing that they are neurochemical? Simple - evolution has provided me with many positive physiological feed back mechanisms that make it worthwhile.

    I never changed my position in the slightest. My original statement was that spiritualism (as to mean gods, etc.) has no evidence to support it. That is still true. The fact that empathy, an actually observed and reproducible behavior (and therefore testable through science), is not comparable to spiritualism, still is true.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Empathy and love are spiritual qualities. Deny it if you must.

    ReplyDelete
  48. The recurring argument that things like love and empathy somehow show how little science can tell us about reality is really false. It's false because it is predicated on the falsehood that these things are something they are not. Again, these are behaviors, explainable by science, that have been granted mystical properties in our minds and through social conventions. Once granted these properties they are invoked as proof against the power of science. The only problem of course is that the mystical properties are fabricated to begin with. Feelings of love don't sprout from the ether anymore today than 10,000 years ago. The same neurochemicals are at work and all the hoping in the world won't ever change that.

    ReplyDelete
  49. You may have the same position but why did you change the word spiritual to spiritualism?

    ReplyDelete
  50. So if they are something that are not, how can you say they exist at all? My guess is you are a slave to your understanding or mind. Not much if any difference between that an the fudys buying into a god, and believing in something that does not exist....

    ReplyDelete
  51. How does you deal with time? Is it no more than a definition? There is no time in life because life only exist in the now. There is no life outside of the now moment, so that must, according to what I understand in the way you think, just be a definition.

    ReplyDelete
  52. No-one is saying that there is no such thing as love Jerry.

    I asked you to define it so we could clear up any misunderstanding, but I'm supposing that you'd likely define love as a spiritual thing?

    But I'm thinking that you're playing a little word game with the word 'thing'.

    A bike is a 'thing'. Riding a bike is 'not a thing'. 'Riding a bike' is not a 'spiritual thing' either, right?

    You're playing the same word game with 'existence' or 'to exist' too.

    People love whatever/whoever they love and that's the meaning of saying love 'exists', love exists as an option.

    But by playing with the meaning of these words, 'thing' and 'exists' and similar words you are just avoiding any explanation by pretending to not understand short answers and you know that a step by step answer ruling out any possible misunderstanding would take pages and, in the end you can still just ignore it.

    Yes Jerry, I'm 100% sure that we are not about to be surprised by any phenomena that isn't electro-magnetic in nature.

    There may well be stuff that happens below the electro-magnetic 'horizon', as Brian is fond of pointing out that when we inspect atoms we notice that there's hardly anything 'there' and when we inspect protons we notice that too.

    But the down to the electro-magnetic horizon is the 'world' we live in and is the 'world' that affects us and which we affect.

    Below that, the words 'solid', 'liquid' and 'gas' is meaningless.

    Our bodies are controlled by our brains to a great extent, but our brains are also controlled by our bodies too and this is how feeling 'in love' becomes physical, what with adrenaline and endorphins and such being released on account of loving and our brains being affected in turn by those chemicals.

    Now I know that you're not completely ignorant of these things, Jerry, it just seems like you're willing to add you're 'spiritual element' by ignoring simple, obvious, real explanations

    I don't need to know everything to know that love is a completely natural process.

    I also don't need to know everything to understand that your response is likely to be, "No it isn't."

    ReplyDelete
  53. People love whatever/whoever they love and that's the meaning of saying love 'exists', love exists as an option

    Love my be an option to any person, but love itself is something, not just an option. Just because you don't like the idea because it seems to be beyond you understanding I can't help that. You also say we do not have free choice, but you seem to understand we have a free choice if we love someone or not. A human mind is a wonderful thing but it is very limited. If you insist that only the things you can understand totally defines your reality so be it. However you might give some consideration to the FACT the human mind is finite. Now you deny spiritual reality exist because of the limitation of your mind. Sounds like Observant with his absolute knowing.

    ReplyDelete
  54. "Just because you don't like the idea because it seems to be beyond you understanding I can't help that."

    The notion of love is not beyond my understanding at all. It's several linked ideas, love for a sibling or parent, love for a partner, love of life or things. The word is sufficiently mixed up so that people can play this 'spirituality' game with it, so what?

    Telling me that I don't understand is just you trying to take the 'upper hand' here.


    "You also say we do not have free choice, but you seem to understand we have a free choice if we love someone or not."

    Well, you could have went the other way and complained that we DON'T get to choose who we fall in love with just as easily.

    Just because we are presented with options doesn't mean we really have a choice over and above what we are programmed to choose.

    I think the closest we come to having free choice is when we don't have a reason for choosing what we chose and as we learn, choosing one particular option after much consideration, isn't exactly 'freely choosing', is it?

    Plus, I think you're just diverting me from the 'love' thing onto the 'free will' thing.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Empathy and love are spiritual qualities. Deny it if you must.

    A very fundimentalist statement - it could have come strait out of the Bible since it's more of an edict that an argument. But perceptions often do that to people.

    -----------------------------
    So if they are something that are not, how can you say they exist at all? My guess is you are a slave to your understanding or mind. Not much if any difference between that an the fudys buying into a god, and believing in something that does not exist....

    Well, I guess you told me. There is all the difference in the world and not recognizing the difference is not my problem. If you chose to persist in the notion that your perceptions are the same thing as reality, that's fine but it doesn't make it correct.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Empathy and love are spiritual qualities. Deny it if you must.

    "A very fundamentalist statement - it could have come strait out of the Bible since it's more of an edict that an argument. But perceptions often do that to people".

    I suppose because it sounds like a fundamentalist statement that automatically makes it wrong. Maybe because it can be associated with the bible makes it wrong. Sure it is an edict, but no more than most of the statements that god does not exist. What do you know or think you know that did not come from a perception? Like saying oh that's the way humans think, as though there is another way available.

    "Well, I guess you told me. There is all the difference in the world and not recognizing the difference is not my problem. If you chose to persist in the notion that your perceptions are the same thing as reality, that's fine but it doesn't make it correct."

    And what reality do you go with that is outside of your perceptions? Sounds like you are on there same road as pboy. If you don't buy it, it does not exist. You reality is the only true one, and all others are right but only if they agree with you. The difference between that type of thinking and the fundamentalist way of thinking is what?

    ReplyDelete
  57. The notion of love is not beyond my understanding at all. It's several linked ideas, love for a sibling or parent, love for a partner, love of life or things. The word is sufficiently mixed up so that people can play this 'spirituality' game with it, so what?

    So you see the only use for spirituality is to play a game. I do not disagree with the notion of love not being beyond your understanding. What I am saying all along is you cannot put love under the science microscope and find it's source or what it is or how to measure it. Science in this case as many others, can describe something, and at least some of the influences but as far as knowing the subject at a deeper level is totally lost. If you are buying into science as the absolute that has all the answers that would be worse than any religionist. Even though the religionist may have many ideas that are wrong at least they have become open to a level of life that you refuse to acknowledge even exist. Science is limited to man's understanding. Nothing wrong with that until one puts it on an absolute level . Science is mundane, spiritual is not mundane. Love can be experienced at the mundane level of existence, however it is spiritual. You do not have to believe in gravity in order for it to exert its influence. Science is all about what man has discovered. It is dependent on man's ability to understand so it cannot go beyond the evolution status of man at any given time. Spiritual reality on the other hand is a leader that beacons man to transcend his mundane ability.

    ReplyDelete
  58. "So you see the only use for spirituality is to play a game."

    Not at all, I'm saying that you need to play word games to define or defend spirituality.

    "I do not disagree with the notion of love not being beyond your understanding. What I am saying all along is you cannot put love under the science microscope and find it's source or what it is or how to measure it."

    Sure we can. Not me personally, of course, but taking the different kinds of 'love' separately, we can.

    "Science in this case as many others, can describe something, and at least some of the influences but as far as knowing the subject at a deeper level is totally lost."

    No it's not.

    "If you are buying into science as the absolute that has all the answers that would be worse than any religionist."

    Science is knowledge, that's all. Your love of the 'spiritual' is reproducible under laboratory conditions with chemicals or strong magnets.

    Science is simply understanding how things work and you seem to be willing to abandon this in the face of us understanding how it works.

    Unbelievable.

    It's unbelievable because ignorance of understanding isn't a licence to claim that your unreasonable version of spirituality has any meaning.

    If you're saying that scientists could never figure out the ins and outs of what's going on in your head when you say you love someone/something then I think that you're being unreasonable because I don't think that you really know yourself!

    As in, "I love my wife and if I'm asked why, I give a convenient answer which might depend on how I feel at the moment."

    Yea, figure out that one, Oh, scientists!

    Or, another way, love is a 'gut feeling', "science" will never figure why I have gut feelings or what they are, checkmate science!

    ReplyDelete
  59. The difference between that type of thinking and the fundamentalist way of thinking is what?

    ----------------
    Uhh, that would be the support of neuroanatomy and neurophysiology on one hand and an iron age philosophy on the other.

    My statements about emotions being describable by science is based upon scientific investigations not my personal superstitions. That should be more than sufficient to distance 'that kind of thinking' from superstition.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Science is knowledge, that's all. Your love of the 'spiritual' is reproducible under laboratory conditions with chemicals or strong magnets.


    Hardly. I may be ignorant but you top me in that dept on this subject. First you say it is not real then you say it can be reproduced. Your imagination is working over time, reproducing something that does not exist. I had no idea things could be reproduced that don't exist. I guess according to you science will be able to either produce god or better yet reproduce a god that does not exist. Do not think I am totally ignorant what science has done probing the brain. I suppose if they probed a pigs brain he would squeal that would prove pigs squealing is not real. Fooled again, I have raised hogs, and I thought their squeals were real. You are right about one thing, science produces knowledge. Knowledge yes, wisdom, no.

    ReplyDelete
  61. "Hardly. I may be ignorant but you top me in that dept on this subject. First you say it is not real then you say it can be reproduced."

    Not true. All I'm saying is that love is a process and not a thing.

    How can love be a thing? Can you not imagine me loving you today and not tomorrow?

    Truth is that if scientists found a 'force' outside of the electro-magnetic on that we might interact through, then half of the 'spiritualists' would insist that they were right while the other half would insist that that is not 'the' one they were talking about.

    But we haven't and we're not going to. Know why? 'Cos we're lookin' and it's not there.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Is science an opiate? I have heard of religion as being the opiate of the masses, perhaps science is the opiate of the part of the masses that religion did not get. After all the human mind is capable total knowledge of this universe. Or did I miss something? Humility anyone?

    ReplyDelete
  63. But what do you have for us Jerry?

    A bunch of religions which concern themselves with collecting money from and influencing the politics of their flocks?

    Not a great record.

    And where's the doctrine of science as some kind of religion?

    This pitiful 'tu quoque' is a stretch at best, because scientific discoveries tend to laugh in the face of religious, or any, doctrine.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Jerry, Love Is My Religion . It's glorious, but just an emotion.

    ReplyDelete
  65. And, yes, I have been praying a lot lately ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  66. Jerry said (March 17, 2011 6:49 PM)

    "So what are you saying, that your reality is exactly like mine? I said everyone has a different reality, so you are either have the same reality as me or you have a different one. Which is it? Or perhaps you are the one who know the one reality that is unchangeable."

    Everyone experiences the same reality. The difference is in the individual subjective perceptions thereof, and the way each of us reacts to those perceptions.

    Reality is the stage. You are just one of the players, with a unique perspective.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Everyone experiences the same reality. The difference is in the individual subjective perceptions thereof, and the way each of us reacts to those perceptions.
    ----------------
    Precisely.

    There is a reality we all agree upon that is real, where for instance if you kill someone you go to jail. The world of consequences, if you will.

    We may all see it in different ways, but we have to agree with others that what we're perceiving is what they're perceiving, even if we see it from a different viewpoint, and we generally do. In the case of that murder, perhaps from your viewpoint it wasn't even a murder, and you might see and feel and perceive jail differently than someone else would, but what you can't do, is imagine that you're not in jail and then NOT BE. It can't be that different. Facts are still facts, even if seen as slightly different from different eyes. Your 'red' may not be my 'red' but when I point it out to you, strangely we both call it 'red.'

    ReplyDelete
  68. Furthermore it becomes clear upon reflection that even though we may *see* things in different manners, what we're all seeing is the same thing. If I see a liquid pouring from someone's arm and I perceive it as *my* version of *red* and you see it too and it's *your* version of red, we both have the same reaction. (Blood!) The underlying reality is identical; it's our perceptions of it that differ.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Pboy might note here that when I say that I choose to dwell in factual reality, I mean it. Because none of what I just said is necessarily true, if this is a Big Brain-like scenario. There, heck, sure, love would be as 'real' as anything.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Really you guys aren’t saying anything different from what the Jews said in Jesus day… They said give us a sign and then we will believe. They too wanted some kind of visible testable reality based proof that He was who he said he was.

    Jesus said no sign would be given… It is his plan of redemption so he gets to call the shots on how people receive it.
    He knew full well that faith would be a challenge for mankind but not impossible for the humble at heart.
    It is the sin of pride that resist the faith of most men ” those of you on this blogg included ” The Greeks seeked wisdom and the Jews seeked a sign … So the Gospel of Christ was of no effect in the hearts of them and you because Christ is excisable only thru faith.

    Glad to see I had such a profound affect on you Jerry for you to use me as a reference so often.
    Your “ Born again experience is a doctrine of CHRISTIANITY only” and it hails from the antiquated thinking of both the old and new testament writers. Just food for thought.

    ReplyDelete
  71. I had never thought about the perception as opposed to reality. It appears on the surface that to say the perception is the difference and the reality behind the perception is the same. Let us take the jail house trip. Two men get thrown into jail. One is paranoid about what might happen to him, and is very uptight. The other feels ok with the situation so when he goes into the bull pen he is smiling, and friendly. Both are in the same bull pen with the same other prisoners, Though we can say the physical surroundings are the same reality, but one being friendly experiences a very different experience which is reality while the other, being afraid shows weakness and some of the other prisoners start physically picking on him, and that is his reality. I do not feel at this time I am ready to say the reality they are experiencing is the same and only the perception is different. Now it could be said that their reality is different because of the different approaches, however different approaches are common place with all people yet we do get treated differently according to what we bring to the situation. I see no way that when we are treated differently regardless of the physical reality that it can all be only a difference of perception. We all treat peoples different according to their extrinsic value, so it would seem that their experience of reality is changed according to how they are treated regardless of the physical reality. In one way because of the difference we experience with the same physical reality, because of whom we are, the point becomes moot, and our reality of what we actually experience in life, and we do have different realities. Only on the physical plain is it the same. I will have to give this some more thought.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Jerry said,

    "...Both are in the same bull pen with the same other prisoners, Though we can say the physical surroundings are the same reality, but one being friendly experiences a very different experience which is reality while the other, being afraid shows weakness and some of the other prisoners start physically picking on him, and that is his reality."

    You confirm what I said earlier: the difference is a matter of perception. What does the prison guard see and experience? He can spot the fearful prisoner making of himself a target of abuse, and he can see the other prisoner strutting in as if he owns the place. Same story, only the personal perceptions and reactions to the situation are different.

    ReplyDelete
  73. It is the sin of pride that resist the faith of most men
    ----------------
    Ironic how you s\peak of pride when that's christianity's precise problem, their 'root of all evil.' The very idea that we can KNOW about this place from one old book, is sheer pride. You keep yourselves ignorant through the pride of thinking that you know enough already. You've believed the mere words of men because they made you feel good, but the reason that it makes you feel so good, is that it appeals to your pride.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Same story, only the personal perceptions and reactions to the situation are different.

    Are not these reactions reality even though they may be caused by perceptions?

    ReplyDelete
  75. By the way I was talking about the prisoners experience not the guards.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Observent, even if god is real, you're following a false one.
    No way it's your version, dude. While we technically cannot disprove your god nor any gods, we can disprove your version, on the grounds of sheer hypocrisy.
    No real 'creator of all things' would be so fucking SHALLOW. So like unto man, if you will. And not even a good man. Your version admits pride, jealousy, anger, rage, and smites about the place with impunity, killing the innocent along with the guilty. And Jesus is inconsistent. Good most of the time, with very human lapses. And you've even got another version of jesus, in revelations, who is just like his father, an asshole.
    Christianity, especially your kind, is more like a soap opera than a religion. There's nothing of the divine about it. And no spirituality. It forbids spirituality and substitutes obedience and egotism.
    You follow a false god. I'll say it agian. False. If you want to know who you're erally worshipping, look in the mirror. It's all about you.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Mike, your god even gambles. With satan. Using people's lives as chips.

    The very idea that you are right about god, is a laugh.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Are not these reactions reality even though they may be caused by perceptions?
    --------------
    If someone has an inaccurate perception of reality, then reacts because of it, of course said reaction (being real!) is visible to others and can be agreed-upon, so it is definitely 'reality.' However, so what? The guards in that scenario, being detached, can see both people's reactions, and can laugh at whichever one they perceive to be irrational, but both reactions definitely happened, no matter how the guards might perceive them as irrational or not.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Observant,
    Christianity took the name of Christianity, stole it if you will. Of course there is no copyright on the name, but if there were Christians could be sued for using the name. Christianity follows Paul, not Jesus. It is almost a totally bogus religion if one is dealing with spiritual reality. I know the main point about when Jesus was dealing with Peter and said upon this rock... The rock he was talking about was the faith Peter had, not Peter himself, he knew as featured in an another story that Peter was hardly a rock. I know man has tried to put himself in the position of authority, claiming Jesus sponsored the church which is wishful thinking (if you care to call it thinking at all) If Jesus wanted to start a church he would have done so knowing that his boys, was not mature enough to do so. At the end of a few years he is still asking his boys who he was. Hardly an advanced question even for a child today.

    ReplyDelete
  80. The story was about the prisoners only, had the nothing to do with the guards.

    ReplyDelete
  81. reality according to Webster, one definition is; something that exists independently of all other things and which all other things derive.

    If we use this definition, agreement between atheist, and believers has no ground for conciliation that I can see. I do not see this planet being forever so if it passes away in the future it is transitorily, and under that circumstance would not represent reality as an unchangeable thing. Of course if permanence was not an issue, and reality is in a constant state of flux......... So is reality static or not?

    ReplyDelete
  82. The basic underlying nature of reality is constant change. Of course it is.
    It's when people can't change with reality, that there are problems.

    There is literally nothing in reality that is truly static. 'Static' can only exist temporarily.
    Christianity believes that reality is static. That is why it is stagnant.

    ReplyDelete
  83. reality according to Webster, one definition is; something that exists independently of all other things and which all other things derive.
    ------------
    Then webster is wrong. What is 'all other things' Jerry? There *are* no other things, but reality. Even a fantasy is created by a real being, always.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or may be thought to be.

    That's the meaning of reality, in general.

    The meaning you gave is what we mean when we say something like, "The reality of the matter is.."

    ReplyDelete
  85. "a strong positive emotion of regard and affection; "his love for his work"; "children need a lot of love"

    This is one of ten definitions for the word love.

    This idea of yours, Jerry, that love is this mysterious 'thing' that is beyond the ken of science is total bullshit.

    It's just very badly defined and very subjective, it IS after all an emotion.

    I kind of agree with you that spirituality is like love, in that it too is based entirely in one's emotions.

    How passionately you defend it against science(knowledge) and sneer at those who deny there is any power behind the word.

    Spirit means breath, and the ancients believed that life was intimately connected with breath. If a person isn't breathing, that person is not alive, that's fair enough.

    But of course as the word life was expanded to include fish and plants, spirit became a 'metaphor' and not necessarilly literally breath.

    It's therefore very ill defined and seems to be a question of emotion, gut-feeling, feeling in your heart kind of thing exactly like love, in fact.

    More than you, Jerry, want to admit actually.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Jerry said,
    Christianity took the name of Christianity, stole it if you will. Of course there is no copyright on the name, but if there were Christians could be sued for using the name. Christianity follows Paul, not Jesus. It is almost a totally bogus religion if one is dealing with spiritual reality. I know the main point about when Jesus was dealing with Peter and said upon this rock... The rock he was talking about was the faith Peter had, not Peter himself, he knew as featured in an another story that Peter was hardly a rock. I know man has tried to put himself in the position of authority, claiming Jesus sponsored the church which is wishful thinking (if you care to call it thinking at all) If Jesus wanted to start a church he would have done so knowing that his boys, was not mature enough to do so. At the end of a few years he is still asking his boys who he was. Hardly an advanced question even for a child today.
    ----------------------------------------------------

    Jerry you actually have no idea what you are talking about.
    The disciples of Jesus that followed his teachings were branded by the name Christians by the unbelievers of that day… Christ > CHRISTians was a label given to then as a form of mockery.

    Paul followed Jesus Christ… Hence the name CHRISTIANS.

    You have no idea what spiritual reality is, One must be acquainted with the Spirit of God before he can define the concept.
    Your spiritual experience you claimed to have had was nothing more than a delusion on your part. One can not receive the Spirit of God and deny Jesus Christ and His work as proclaimed in the teachings of his word as you have done on numerous occasions. It’s called rejection Jerry.

    No, the rock was not Peters faith. The rock was Jesus Himself… He established the church himself for his cause, which was to take the Gospel into all the world and preach to all of mankind.
    He asked his disciples who do men say he is, and after they told him he asked Peter who do you say I am, and Peter said thou art the Christ… Then Jesus said blessed art thou Simon bar Jonah for “get this now Jerry” FLESH and BLOOD meaning “MAN” did not reveal this unto him but GOD almighty did.

    Then he said thou art Peter ….This is where Jesus changed Simons name to Peter. Then Jesus said upon THIS rock… Jesus was the rock that formed out of the side of the mountain with out hands… see old testament for details. His was proclaiming to Peter the establishment of His church that was established upon himself for he was and is the CHIEF CORNER STONE. In those days when a man built a building then always started with a Corner stone first…. Jesus is the corner stone is His spiritual building which is His new testament church.

    The question is obviously so advanced that you can’t comprehend it JERRY.

    ReplyDelete
  87. It is the sin of pride that resist the faith of most men ” those of you on this blogg included ” The Greeks seeked wisdom and the Jews seeked a sign … So the Gospel of Christ was of no effect in the hearts of them and you because Christ is excisable only thru faith.

    ------------------------
    I think this passage hits the nail on the head as to why many of us get so riled about Christianity. I think it is exactly a statement of what the Christians expect of us.

    Do not seek wisdom and do not look for evidence because that is a sin. The sin of pride. Or is t the sin of 'wisdom and evidence will show that this is all a house of cards so don't do it." I think it is telling that one of the 7 deadly sins wasn't ignorance.

    Yes ignore wisdom and evidence and put your faith in perceptions which can be manipulated and controlled.

    Who is more prideful - one who knows they don't have all the answers and continues to seek them or one who thinks the full story of Man ended 2000 years ago?

    If wisdom, one of the greatest virtues we seek, and evidence (signs) our greatest tool for detecting reality are enemies of Christianity, then what does that tell us?

    ReplyDelete
  88. Paul followed Paul not Jesus. Paul never set at Jesus' feet like the boys did so his ideas came from, guess who, Paul. Did it every seem strange to you that 12 men set at Jesus' feet for years, and listened but later you follow Paul? The only information he has about Jesus and his teaching was from stories he heard from others. So if you and you fellow Christians that are following Paul is satisfied with hearsay, so be it. If Paul got his information from god after his experience of being born again that would put him on the same level as any other person that has been born again. Of course you had that opportunity when you were born again, bit instead of relying on the spirit to lead you chose to buy into the book of hearsay. Or could it be that you are really a sick person that wants to be in an exclusive few that know what others have hidden from them. I am not into comparing people but Botts is the only spirit filled person I have ever heard on this bog.

    ReplyDelete
  89. I have a question concerning perception, and reality as it has been talked about on this blog,I am not sure I am understanding the reality mentioned. It seems at this time what I am hearing is, reality is only real if it can be validated by science. So if that is it, it would be a scientific reality. Is that correct?

    ReplyDelete
  90. This pride/humility thing bothers me because it gives you license to use religion/spirituality as the Holy 'thing' which gets offended/allows you to be offended.

    A proud person is offended if he is slighted by anyone and a person who is proud of their religion/religious understanding/spirituality/spiritual understanding is offended FOR those things.

    You ask us where our humility is, but you are really asking why we're not humble like yourself towards religion/spirituality.

    But that is a con. You exalt something which you cannot even define to the point where others cannot simply deny it's objective existence.

    I understand that this is how you FEEL(subjective existence) but your pride in this is showing when you demand that we are expected to defer to your feelings.

    It's a two step process. You are likely going to say that you don't expect me to believe in it, just to have respect FOR it. If I agree then I'm half way to believing it, aren't I?

    Oh yea, and Mike is just being an asshole, obviously Peter was 'the rock', it explains this very clearly. Peter = petra = rock.

    Even I, who don't believe that these characters and events actually happened, can hardly believe that Peter sat around thinking, "Well, Jesus told me I'm 'the rock', so that must mean that Jesus is 'the rock'!"

    Preacher types just make up any old bullshit 'cos it's not what the words say, it's whatever meaning you can ascribe to the words to win your point, that counts!

    ReplyDelete
  91. I was listening to a televangelist rambling on about Jesus' blood. He got to the point that he was quoting Jesus talking about eating his flesh and drinking his blood, then emphasizing that he really really meant his meat and bones and blood.

    The televangelist wasn't about to be put off his narrative that the 'blood and flesh' is metaphorical, no.

    "Jesus isn't here for us to share in his flesh and blood, is he? THEREFORE, that can't have been what he was talking about!"

    Well, Jesus was talking jibberish. That's all. Meaningless 'mysterious' drivel.

    Eat my flesh, drink my blood and (later erased) suck my cock!

    ReplyDelete
  92. It is the sin of pride that resist the faith of most men
    -----
    I have to get back to this, not that observant will care...
    Pliny said it better than I did. You have it exactly backwards, Mike. It's pride that makes you believe that you're right, with no evidence. It's pride that makes you think that your story is true just because you love it so much. You're literally stapled to your religion with pride. If you weren't so easily manipulated by it you'd have had the sense to ASK MORE QUESTIONS and not passively accept what you're told like some stupid drone. And look at you, telling others who are ADULTS your child's story and trying to guilt them into accepting it. What a putz your religion has made of you. You're not a man, since you lack the balls to question yourself. You may own guns and work out and do karate, but you're a pussy at heart. Seriously, I have more courage in my little finger than you do. You're too scared by your terrifying god myth to rebel and BE A MAN. You've decided to stay a baby.

    Oh and btw, if 'Christ is excisable only thru faith' then apparently faith cuts christ right out of your heart... Because 'excisable' means 'can be cut out' like with a scalpel. Dolt. You can't even speak the language, and here you are trying to 'school' us. Now, what would that be? Could it be PRIDE?????? Hmmm... could be.....

    ReplyDelete
  93. Jerry - your question is a good one (reality) and deserving of a good response. I actually penned one yesterday but Goggle ate it and I couldn't get it back. I'm reconstructing it later

    ReplyDelete
  94. reality is only real if it can be validated by science. So if that is it, it would be a scientific reality. Is that correct?
    -------
    Well, what is science? Is science 'just looking around?' Sure it is. Observation is science, when coupled with drawing conclusions from the observations. So yes, certainly, if it is real, science should be able to describe it.
    Also, even the existence of a spiritual world should be revealed to scientific study, but it is not. This doesn't speak well for it. In order for science to be missing it, why, god would have to be deviously hiding it from us when we're serious about studying it, and that makes god a liar, no? (Not that it would be out of character for him, come to think of it)
    Now if we're talking the BB thingy, the reason we'd be missing it, is that we have difficulty all believing it, so it tends to only show us things which seem to disprove it and not prove it...
    A bit lame, I know, which is why I'm not 100% sold on my pet idea yet.

    ReplyDelete
  95. I think it is telling that one of the 7 deadly sins wasn't ignorance.
    ----------
    I never even thought of that before. Wow. That IS telling. They had it figured out right from the start. Keep 'em dumb, and they'll keep coming back for more.
    And wouldn't it have been GREAT if it was one of the seven deadly sins? It certainly needed to be.
    Of course, then they'd have just re-defined 'ignorance' to mean 'unfaithful,' wouldn't they? I mean, that's their gig.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Probably the reason ignorance was not a deadly sin, it would say that everyone constantly lives in sin for all their life. Babies most of all. Nothing serious. Of course Christians try to get the idea we live in constant sin anyway. Fits their program.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Ignorance is when a person believes that they do not have to know. That belief is sufficient. Babies can't ask questions, but as soon as they can, we start to program them like us, and if we're ignorant, we strive to make them ignorant, too, in the same way. If we could actually answer their questions honestly, and say 'I don't know' when we don't, it'd go a long way toward healing this sick world.

    This is of course mental masturbation here, since let's face it, religion RELIES on ignroance to survive, period. So they're not gonna be outlawing it anytime soon. No, instead they will continue to find ways to actually re-inforce it in their followers. By calling it 'faith' they can actually tell the flock to be good little morons in a way that they will even like.

    ReplyDelete
  98. I am curious if the atheist who are quite vocal about the objections to religion would be the majority or the minority of atheist? Also, Do those who are vocal do so in an attempt to change things or is it mainly a way to get together with other atheist? People like to get together and I am, not seeing a church (perish the thought) or any other formal get together place for sharing

    ReplyDelete
  99. The way I us ignorance is simply the lack of knowing. A baby would know less than anyone else. If evolution is real then we are all condemned to always be ignorant to some degree.

    ReplyDelete
  100. I'm more talking about 'ignorant for who you are' as in, if you're a capable adult, don't have the belief structure of a baby, based in stories and fantasies instead of observational data. If you're intelligent enough to formulate a question, don't be afraid to ask it, about anything whatsoever. Anyone tells you you're bad for asking it, has an agenda of their own, trying to keep you stupid.
    When I was a little boy, I knew very little, but anything I didn't know, I asked about repeatedly. It mattered to me. So was that an ignorant attitude? I was ignorant, but my attitude was not.
    It seems to me that those who are truly (and often abysmally) ignorant, are the people that BELIEVE that they do not have to KNOW. Once you believe that, you're fucked as far as ever seeing reality for what it is. You'll only be able to see your fantasy world. In worst case scenarios, these people not only believe that they do not have to know; they have come to believe that to know, to be intelligent, is actually in itself a bad thing, even a sin. They spurn intellect and embrace stupidity as if it were their lover. And it's usually a lifetime commitment.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Observant's god hates smart people. People who ask serious questions, his god damns to hell. Observant's god only wants people that are sheep-like. He even says so. You can't question him. Not allowed. You'll burn forever for that. That's a sin, dontcha know. Oh, and it's pride, to question god. Somehow, that's pride.

    Well mike, I'll take hell. Seriously. Betcha didn't expect that. Because if your god as you describe him is actually real and true, he's pure unadulterated evil, and so heaven must be hell and hell heaven. You switched them on me.

    Or someone switched them on you, is closer to the truth.

    And you're still a pussy, dude. Grow a pair. Have some pride, lol. Stop being a good little sheep! ASK QUESTIONS.
    (Hint: They don't have the answers, btw)

    ReplyDelete
  102. I'd rather be bad, than baaaa-aaaa-aaad.
    Get it, mike?

    ReplyDelete
  103. I am curious if the atheist who are quite vocal about the objections to religion would be the majority or the minority of atheist?
    ------------------
    How should I know?

    All I know is me. As for myself, recall that I used to be a christian and my family still is. When I 'woke up' and realized it was all malarkey, I also realized that my whole family was ignorant. (boy, how!)
    Later on, I realized that their religion was the REASON for their ignorance. Now I see religion as a societal cancer, the worst thing in the world practically, yet most people cannot see this. It's like knowing a huge secret and nobody will believe you. So I keep saying it. Others know it too, but we're very few. Even many atheists tend to 'tolerate' religion, because they do not realize that religion does not want to tolerate them.

    Ironic how christians are all afraid of the devil when their faith is so much more evil than the devil ever could even wish to be.
    Unless he's the one in charge? That would make some sense.

    ReplyDelete
  104. As an amystic my objections to religion are pretty straight forward. These objections are targeted at those who insist on using religion as a weapon, not those who seek inner truths. I don't personally think they'll find it there but that's not my business. I think the big differences are that the information age does allow people of similar views to find others of their kind about and the Church can't burn us at the stake anymore. Those are two good things.

    1) I don't really care what anybody believes per se' But when they insist on inserting those beliefs into the political process, then they are fair game. You can't cry foul when you take your religion into the voting booth. At that point it's just another PAC.

    2) I object to pseudoscience used to defend faith-based structures. Answers in genesis is a great example. Pseudoscience is nonsense to those with scientific backgrounds but distracting or manipulative to those without one.

    3) I object to statements that attempt to equate faith-based assertions with evidence-based ones. Strong support for models of reality that are rigorously based in reproducible evidence is nothing at all like fundimentalism. That's like equating a jury that listened to all the evidence and carefully weighed the facts prior to making a decision to a lynch mob. It's a common tactic but really nothing more than a slightly more adult way of saying 'I know what you are but what am I?"

    4) I object to the use of false logic in support of confirmation bias. Starting with false assumptions it is often possible to use logic to sound convincing. Logic based on false assumptions is still false logic.

    5) I object to prideful ignorance. By that I mean consciously ignoring education and facts that are inconvenient to established beliefs.

    6) I object to systems of belief that try to isolate their members from opposing views or demonize anyone who disagrees.

    7) I object to any practices which deliberately seek to subjugate, undervalue or demean the innocent.

    8) I object to systems of belief whose adherents insist that they alone are moral.

    Again, I wouldn't bother with these things (other than 7) were it not for that segment of the faithful who insist on trying to control our laws and educational systems.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Pliny,

    Those eight points... would make an excellent 'creed' to follow. In stark contrast to the existing ones, I mean.

    ReplyDelete
  106. I have this hypothesis...

    I think that almost all human ignorance can be ultimately traced to religion.

    Even in the case of an ignorant atheist, their values came down from, ultimately, religious people. The lack of feeling a need to know things, is a religious thing. Survival dictates that we learn about our environment; only religion reverses that dictum and tells us that to not know, is best. So after centuries, millennia of this, with most of society involved until very recently (most people were religious in the past due to it being so embedded in society) it has come down to one hell of a lot of people that just can't seem to see any benefit in learning about the world.
    Even the nonreligious ignorant people today, are ignorant due to the religion dominating the past.

    ReplyDelete
  107. Even the question 'why is our society so materialistic' can be answered with 'religion.'
    Christianity offers no depth. No real spirituality. Just rote learning from a book, and interpreting that. You don't think about things deeply. You don't think about life deeply. Your values are off-kilter because they were instilled by coercion and not love. A system that TEACHES NO EMPATHY. Being selfish is natural in such circumstances.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Religion doesn't only fear knowledge.
    It also fears change.

    So by it's very nature, it tends to preserve the past and deny the future.

    It is our 'brakes' on the path to eventual enlightenment and world peace, more than any other factor.

    I've said this before, and I'll say it again: If christianity had the power to accomplish it, we'd all be back in the dark ages right now. They'd gladly make the trade. Because, when in history did they have more unchecked power and the people less?

    (I think that's what they're going for now, still, in fact)

    ReplyDelete
  109. Coexist?

    This is the type of thing that REALLY PISSES ME OFF.

    Listen to this excerpt:
    “[A]s I was driving up here today, I saw that bumper sticker that absolutely incenses me. It’s not the Obama bumper sticker. But it’s the bumper sticker that says, ‘Co-exist.’ And it has all the little religious symbols on it. And the reason why I get upset, and every time I see one of those bumper stickers, I look at the person inside that is driving. Because that person represents something that would give away our country. Would give away who we are, our rights and freedoms and liberties because they are afraid to stand up and confront that which is the antithesis, anathema of who we are. The liberties that we want to enjoy.”

    Religion and politics, is like HCL and ammonium hydroxide. Try mixing them sometime.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Apparently being christ-like and a decent person and loving thy neighbor is the 'antithesis, anathema of who we are.'

    Looks like getting along with others is 'against our religion.'

    ReplyDelete
  111. Brian said,



    Oh and btw, if 'Christ is excisable only thru faith' then apparently faith cuts christ right out of your heart... Because 'excisable' means 'can be cut out' like with a scalpel. Dolt. You can't even speak the language, and here you are trying to 'school' us. Now, what would that be? Could it be PRIDE?????? Hmmm... could be.....


    I have to tell you Brian you are one shallow piece of work. It is your ego and pride that insists on insults.
    I’m not trying to school anyone here, just a friendly conversation. If my comments offend you to the point of anger and rage then I will stop posting… farewell.

    ReplyDelete
  112. And here all along I thought you posted here because you were a masochist.

    Your willful, blissful, pernicious ignorance drives me crazy, mike. And you practically celebrate it! Why not just fix that, instead of running away? I mean, you must know you're ignorant. Don't you? When Pliny talks (and makes incredible sense!) do you even understand him at all? I think likely not.
    Too much bother to get a dictionary, I bet. Or to go to dict.com. Easier to just pretend that you're as smart as he is, in your mind, so you feel adequate. Better still to make fun of his intellect and vocabulary in your head, isn't it? Yeah, I bet that feels good.
    Is it that hard to see it when you *are* it? Can't you see what you've let yourself become? A warning? A 'cautionary tale?'
    Sad.
    I'm not calling you ignorant here to make myself feel better you know. It's really painfully obvious. You SCREAM it.
    Heck, I even bet you'd agree with Alan West about the 'coexist' sticker, don't you? You have no mind of your own, mike. You aren't a real man anymore.
    Baaaa-aaaa.

    ReplyDelete
  113. The question is obviously so advanced that you can’t comprehend it JERRY.
    ----
    Ego. You have decided to just believe that you're smart, to save the trouble of actually becoming smart. And so why not believe that you're REALLY smart while you're at it? So darn smart that people just can't grasp you.

    Nope. It's the other choice. Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings. We understand you just fine. In fact, much better than you understand yourself. That is why we, being outside observers who haven't abdicated their minds to a religion, can so clearly see how very wrong you are about virtually everything.

    ReplyDelete
  114. It is your ego and pride that insists on insults.
    ------
    It is my very real sense of decency and empathy and caring for people, ALL people, coupled with me being able to see what you are and what you do in the world, that causes me to get so angry at you that I tell you the truth about yourself, unvarnished. To you, that is indeed an insult. But it's still true. So deal with it. It's who you are.
    Oh, I used to care about you too, but you've made it obvious that you're totally happy being a force for negativity in the world, a 'hater' and not a 'lover,' a 'divider' and not a 'uniter,' and so, what use are you? None that I can see. So I don't waste energy on you anymore. I just tell you the truth about yourself, no holds barred. It's all I can do anymore. It takes too much energy to be nice to a religious asshole whose entire belief system tells him that being an asshole is a good thing that god will love him for.

    ReplyDelete
  115. Incidentally, you trying to explain yourself by telling jerry that he just can't comprehend the question, in fact your entire conversation with jerry, was you trying to 'teach' him what, in your mind, is right. You were trying to school him, Mike. As you've done to me and others here all the time. So stop the lying, mike. You try to 'school' people in your religion all the time. Vehemently. You tell them they don't understand what you understand (when they do, but they disagree.) All the time.
    I've seen it.
    I know it's a hard habit to break, being a christian and all, but the lies just don't work here. They make you look pathetic. You shouldn't lie for god, mike. It makes him look desperate, having liars on his team and all.

    ReplyDelete
  116. Oh, and while I'm at it...

    Your inadequate usage and comprehension of the english language is RELEVANT here.

    Because, everything you believe you've found in one book.

    And your reading skills are practically remedial. I can tell, from your writing skills.

    So there's that.

    One book you've read, but *how well* did you read it?

    ReplyDelete
  117. To my readers. I apologise for my ranting.

    I'm sorry that I lost control. Mike is not the only problem here. I pay a lot of attention to politics and I see people like him all the time, organized, very motivated, doing their best to drag us back to the effing stone age, and I lose my patience and take it out on him as a representative of that idiocy. I honestly don't know what to do about it. I should have chosen more logical, less offensive words in telling him about his very real and hugely noticeable flaws, thereby sounding like less of an asshole myself.
    Of course, I've done that before, haven't I? And gotten nowhere... which is why I lose patience with the whole deal.

    ReplyDelete
  118. Christianity teaches that man is imperfect, sinful.

    We cannot get away from our sinful nature.

    I think that, in many believer's minds, this means 'so why even try?'

    They seem content in just knowing that they're sinners and god loves them anyway. Oh sure they'll repent on their death bed or something, since technically ya hafta, but hey, whatever. It's all cool.

    I do wish they'd at least strive to emulate some of Jesus' good examples though, instead of twisting them to fit their already skewed views. Imagine if they were known for being truthful and honest, never lying, always being nice to people no matter who they were... caring for the poor and downtrodden rather than mostly giving that ego-based lip service... caring not only for the unborn, but even more for the already-born. No matter their religion. Or lack thereof.
    Wow.. imagine that. And then imagine how many MORE people would want to be (or remain) a christian.

    ReplyDelete
  119. Ooh! Here's a good one!

    What if christians were known the world over, for being open-minded!

    Seriously, wouldn't that be weird?

    ReplyDelete
  120. What if Christina were known the world over, for being open-minded!

    You into that salvia again? Good people I can buy, but open minded, your imagination is on steroids.

    ReplyDelete
  121. You into that salvia again?
    -----------
    No, but great idea! Thanks...

    ReplyDelete
  122. I tried posting this couple of days ago in response to Jerry’s question about whether science is the same kind of opiate for the mind as some have claimed is true of religion.

    No, Jerry science is no opiate. One of the things that frustrates a lot of people is this notion that science and spiritualism are simply opposing viewpoints. They aren’t at all. Spiritualism is a viewpoint while science is a methodology designed to overcome the limitations of our points of view. That’s very different. Science is a way of observing that works hard to eliminate or reduce the effects of bias. It is a way to reliably formulate questions derived form those observations and building models of reality that can be tested again and again. The goal being to formulate more precise and accurate models of reality. Science does not suggest that reality is relative (well, other than relativity and quantum effects, ;)) but that our understanding at a given moment is relative. Scientific models assume that they are approximations of absolute reality. That’s the uncertainty that the God’s of the gaps apologists use to argue the incompleteness of science. One of the many things that they ignore or don’t know is that range of uncertainties has shrunken dramatically in the last 50 years. As the models improve, science helps us understand where to look for the missing pieces. In the time of Newton and Descarte, the range of uncertainties was large enough to encompass the metaphysical or spiritual realms. In our time that is no longer the case. The range of possibilities for further refinement in our actual reproducible knowledge does not point to any missing elements that cannot be explained by natural means. That’s huge.

    ReplyDelete
  123. At no time or with our expanding ability to test the most granular of details, have we encountered any missing energy, or required the addition of any x factor to explain the process that are taking place.

    This is what has lead many people like myself to stop looking for spiritual explanations for natural events.

    it is this overwhelming preponderance of reproducible evidence, not pride or bias, that leads us to these conclusions. Scientists do not ask us to take these things on faith. They are compelled to present the data, and demonstrate how it fits into the more and more precise and accurate models we have of reality. If they fail that test, their theories are rejected. From what I can tell, that’s about as far away from religion as one can get.

    ReplyDelete
  124. Nicely said, Pliny.

    I'd shorten that to just say that whereas religion proceeds on faith and to question that is prohibited, the central core tenet of science is the very opposite, to always question everything, especially one's own biases and beliefs.
    The difference is the questioning, the freedom to always question, and the freedom to be wrong, and then learn from it and be 'more right' next time. Science self-corrects, because that's how it was designed. Religion is static or mostly so; science is the very definition of dynamic.

    ReplyDelete
  125. Nicely said, Pliny.

    I'd shorten that to just say that whereas religion proceeds on faith and to question that is prohibited, the central core tenet of science is the very opposite, to always question everything, especially one's own biases and beliefs.
    The difference is the questioning, the freedom to always question, and the freedom to be wrong, and then learn from it and be 'more right' next time. Science self-corrects, because that's how it was designed. Religion is static or mostly so; science is the very definition of dynamic.

    ReplyDelete
  126. Also, where religion tells one what to believe, science shows one what it has found to be most likely true, and asks us to keep on checking it to make sure it's true. To always refine the 'truth.' To always get more accurate. So when science finds that it's 'truth' is suddenly proven to be false, not a problem, science adjusts without kicking and screaming about it. By it's nature, science always keeps getting closer to the truth. And by it's nature religion makes zero progress toward any goal. Religion just sits there. It just 'is.'

    ReplyDelete
  127. "I do wish they'd at least strive to emulate some of Jesus' good examples though, instead of twisting them to fit their already skewed views. Imagine if they were known for being truthful and honest, never lying, always being nice to people no matter who they were... caring for the poor and downtrodden rather than mostly giving that ego-based lip service... caring not only for the unborn, but even more for the already-born. No matter their religion. Or lack thereof.
    Wow.. imagine that. And then imagine how many MORE people would want to be (or remain) a christian.

    March 21, 2011 12:23 AM"

    Exactly the point, Brian!!
    Unless I am totally misinformed, Christians are called upon to demonstrate what Christ (is supposed to have) taught by living example (witnessing). Those that do are distressingly few and far between. Most of them, and the fundies seem to be in the forefront of this misrepresentation of the very teachings they claim to love, behave just the oppite; they are proud, not humble, and they certainly do not love their neighbors as they do themselves!!

    ReplyDelete
  128. I always like to differentiate between 'thought' and 'belief.'

    I think most readers get what I mean by that. I like to simplify it by just saying that 'a belief is a thought that the ego fell in love with.'

    I think that it helps to think of these things in this way.

    All beliefs are unsupported. Sure they might be right, but they're unsupported by data. They're based in feelings, emotions. Faith, for instance.

    All thougths are based in observational data or statistical probabilities or other real-world factors that can in some way, be tested. Then we do. We test them, or we should. We should always question our own thoughts, since we can look around at other human beings and note that they're more often wrong than they're right, but they almost always *believe* that they're right at the time.

    So given my distinction between thoughts and beliefs, we can note that whereas religion is entirely based on beliefs, science is based in thought. Because beliefs are not updateable and thoughts are.
    Science is not a belief system, although that is the BELIEF of many people. Science is a thought-system. I don't believe in science; I *think* it's the best system possible given our fallacious nature. That's me testing science, and that's science passing my test. I can see the results. Science gets results. What does religion get?
    Your money, that's what.

    Now, some people who don't really know science but 'have faith' in it, are just believing in science. (A better bet than just believing in a religion, but still not the right thing to do) So in their case, it's like their religion, albeit it doesn't treat with subjects that religions do like the afterlife or sin or whatever.
    Nobody should just believe in anything. Even science. People need to learn to test themselves, if they ever want to have any glimmer of truth in their lives. People need to lose the ego-based fear of being wrong and embrace it when they are, for it brings with it the opportunity for growth and learning. Being wrong, as it turns out, is not a bad thing.

    ReplyDelete
  129. I do like what you wrote, but I have no problem with science. I think science has the most foolproof setup to validate the conclusions. Having to prove cold hard facts to an extremely high degree of scrutiny. So while I have no problem with what science knows, I fail to see why one would think there is not the possibility, even probability, of there being much more that science can proves at least at this time, and maybe never. The way I am hearing the talk about science it sounds like a provable god of some sort. However the question I had was, is you reality reduced to only things that can be proven by science? I am trying to deal with the idea if perception, and reality, so I first need to know what is realty to your thinking, totally provable by science or.......As far as I know science has not proven there is a spiritual reality, so does that make it nonexistent?

    ReplyDelete
  130. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  131. Re: Pliny's discussion of the methodology of science, and how it's more of a process of building models that approximate "absolute reality"--

    I got into a discussion a while back on "Debunking Christianity" with a guy who calls himself Rob R, when he made a claim that Newton's physics had been 'proved wrong' (his wording). I pointed out to him repeatedly that there was nothing "wrong" with Newton's laws of motion; just that Newton's take was an earlier approximation (and a very good approximation, given the investigative tools available to him in the late 17th-early 18th century!) that wasn't as precise at extremes of velocity as newer (Einsteinian Relativity) models are.

    He was invested (being a Christian who follows "open theism", a position that basically tries to absorb into Christianity what is known to be true scientifically without denying the Bible, and I pointed out that THAT is a fairly confused position to hold in the first place!) in his opinion that Newton was 'proved false', as a way to show that science is an enterprise that essentially is composed of making blind guesses and clinging to them irrationally until having its nose rubbed in the faslsity of the earlier paradigm by a more precise guess.

    I told him he was an idiot.

    ReplyDelete
  132. is you reality reduced to only things that can be proven by science?
    -----------------
    Not really. I mean, emotions are what 'make us happy' right? Love... I find love to be very important. Empathy, or 'other-love' even more so.

    However, do I consider all things including god or gods? Of course I do, and have done so for many years. One always considers it. Unfortunately I then reject it for uttrer lack of evidence 'pro' and tons of indications 'contra.' I consider my BB scenario, and I consider what science has to tell us, and I realize that if the BB is true then it must agree with scientific findings about reality, explain them more fully even. (note here how badly religion fails at this)
    So even my BB must 'agree' with science for it to be true.
    (I can see ways that it does, too, but that doesn't prove it true, just that it's viable.)
    In my life when I make a decision I always try to be informed to the maximum amount possible for me. Then I attempt to calculate odds of it being the right decision. Seriously, I think in odds. Ask my wife. I base these on experience coupled with research, if you will. So I try to have a 'science mind-set' even if I'm not a scientist actually doing science. I also try things out, experiment... see what works, what doesn't, and then discard that which doesn't. As to pixies, fairies, gods, and demons, they're nice stories. And understandable considering our stage of development when we thought them up. However they fall into the category of 'that which doesn't work' and I don't think about them further, unless I'm arguing with a christian of course.

    Why? How do you live?

    ReplyDelete
  133. I told him he was an idiot.
    ----------
    And so he is.

    ReplyDelete
  134. Hey Jerry, if you just try to minimize 'beliefs' in your life by always questioning them (stepping outside yourself as much as possible) and deciding whether they are likely to be true or not, and always only thinking 'thoughts' then guess what? You have a scientific mindset. You're living your life 'according' to science, as best as you can manage. And so I do.
    Remember always that science is just a word, and a word that has been unfairly demonized for centuries, by guess who? It's actually a very neutral word, simply meaning (more or less) 'formulating questions, testing them by observing carefully, and then drawing conclusions from what you observe. And then, testing the conclusions, of course.' So living one's life by that 'maxim' doesn't sound like such a bad way to live.

    ReplyDelete
  135. "I do wish they'd at least strive to emulate some of Jesus' good examples though, instead of twisting them to fit their already skewed views. Imagine if they were known for being truthful and honest, never lying, always being nice to people no matter who they were... caring for the poor and downtrodden rather than mostly giving that ego-based lip service... caring not only for the unborn, but even more for the already-born. No matter their religion. Or lack thereof.
    Wow.. imagine that. And then imagine how many MORE people would want to be (or remain) a christian.

    ReplyDelete
  136. As far as I know science has not proven there is a spiritual reality, so does that make it nonexistent?
    ----------
    No, but it does make it unlikely to exist, and if it does exist then for some strange reason, we can't seem to find any evidence of it nor any evidence (or even indications) of any effects due to it, that aren't MUCH better explained through human psychology. So what, is it 'lying' to us, 'hiding' from us, or is it just not real? I pick "C." If a spiritual reality sticks it's head up though and we can see it or test it, I'll be happy to change my mind.

    ReplyDelete
  137. Sorry about the post, It belongs to someone else and I thought I pasted my comment with it, but obviously I did not.

    ReplyDelete
  138. "I do wish they'd at least strive to emulate some of Jesus' good examples though, instead of twisting them to fit their already skewed views. Imagine if they were known for being truthful and honest, never lying, always being nice to people no matter who they were... caring for the poor and downtrodden rather than mostly giving that ego-based lip service... caring not only for the unborn, but even more for the already-born. No matter their religion. Or lack thereof. Wow.. imagine that.

    I think this is a fair picture of Botts. Botts said it was the spiritual experience that lead him to being and thinking this way. And it is obvious that the author of this has to be having spiritual insights to know these truths. I do not think loving these values, or the values their selves come from a science provable reality.

    ReplyDelete
  139. I agree that some, even many christians do live by example and not by proclaimation. Botts seems to be one such.
    They're very rare though, when you consider how many do not.
    So yes, I paint with a broad brush, but I've mentioned that before. It's easier to just say 'christians' than 'false christians' or whatever.
    Pkus, IMHO, even botts and those other christians would do well to have fewer beliefs and more thoughts. For instance, botts can see the evil done by christians, but he can't connect it to the bible. I see the connection. He does not. Due to his belief, not his eyes.

    ReplyDelete
  140. I do not think loving these values, or the values their selves come from a science provable reality.
    -----------
    Then why do I love them too?

    Jerry, it's the next step in our evolution, to be nice to others. We have to, in order to survive as a world. I see, *scientifically,* logically, and rationally, that being truly empathetic to all others, is the right path. Not only that, but a person gets more gratification from other-love than self-love. It just feels better. It IS better.
    Fifty thousand years ago, the optimal way to survive, was to be vicious and mean and formidable. We haven't all shed that 'old psychology' even yet, jerry. It's in our bones. In our DNA. We all decend from mean assholes, or they wouldn't have lived to reproduce. Heck, we all descend from cannibals, if you go far back enough. However, like the bees did, we need to now learn that to get along with others is an even better survival strategy now, whereas it was not in the past. We're social creatures so we already know how to love ourselves and our children etc. It's a simple matter to include the rest of the world in those feelings, extending them to all mankind, even to all life on the planet. Absolutely no spiritual reality or god required, jerry. None at all. We came up with 'being nice' all on our own. It's a 'survival-plus-factor' after all. Along with the 'rise of reason' we realized that the optimal state of being in the world for ALL people, is empathetic other-love toward all mankind. And of course religion fights it tooth and nail, like Alan West hating that bumper sticker.

    ReplyDelete
  141. Y'ever think of bees, jerry?

    They evolved from solitary wasps. So insects that were totally evolved to be solitary, somehow 'realized' that to get together, means better survival. Now of course they didn't realize anything, nature selected them because they had the better 'strategy.' The few wasps that lived nearby each other, thereby guarding all the broods all the time, eventually moved into a common nest, making their odds even better. As they further evolved, influenced now by their social structures as well as by nature, they eventually became what we know today as bees.
    So even the lowly bees, can 'see' the value of getting along.

    ReplyDelete
  142. Now let's go at it from the other side.

    We're rational beings with imaginations. Let's 'imagine world peace.'

    What the hell would that look like?

    I can imagine all people getting along, loving each other, and making incredibly fast progress due to that. I can visualize that.

    So what?

    Well, if I an imagine it, I can 'work backwards' from it, to where we are today. Then I can 'see' what needs to be done.

    Universal empathy is step one. In order for that to ever happen, we need to shut up the religions, marginalize them somehow, or they'll keep us 'dumb and on the farm' forever.

    ReplyDelete
  143. Too bad that in order for a christian to imagine world peace, they have to go against their programming, which clearly says that jesus will return and the world will end and we will be judged. So instead of imagining and working toward world peace, they imagine and work towards THAT.

    ReplyDelete
  144. The very best people among us, have already transcended any 'holiness' that god supposedly posesses. I mean, by comparison to say the dalhi lama, god is a huge prick. Where god smites, the dalhi lama talks of love and peace.
    And the very worst people among us, have already trancended the devil. The devil sins openly and obviously, whereas people sin and make it look so good that they're lionized for it, by the very people they hurt!

    ReplyDelete
  145. You know, I used to post a variety of this 'conundrum' all the time, thinking in my naivete that it would drill into the christian mind with it's sheer logic and make an impression. Those were the days when I actually thought christians could be 'reached' by logic.
    Stupid me.
    Anyhow, this is it:

    Satan is the Father of Lies, the Greatest Liar of them all. Plus, he isn't stupid. I would assume an order of intellect far beyond a mere man. So one would imagine that spotting satan's lies is not an easy thing. Now logically, if satan wanted to influence large numbers of humans, which he of course does, he'd start a religion, or influence an already-existing one, wouldn't he?
    Get where I'm going here? Yeah, it would follow logically that satan has had input in church dogma. So your job, parishoners, is to figure out which parts were put in there by satan.
    Also, satan would be whispering into the clergy's ears at the pulpit as well. So be careful to 'judge' your clergy very carefully *by the words of Jesus* and also your church, and make sure that you're not un-knowingly following the devil instead of god.

    ReplyDelete
  146. Jerry, y'ever look to the actions, the deeds, the 'works,' of the very people that so loudly proclaim that all morality descends from god?

    It becomes obvious that they're all wet.

    ReplyDelete
  147. So be careful to 'judge' your clergy very carefully *by the words of Jesus* and also your church,
    ---------
    I meant to say 'and also judge your church (by the words of jesus)'
    So if your pastor advocates against say, gays or muslims or minorities, you know that it's satan speaking, so get the 'hell' out of there!

    ReplyDelete
  148. Jerry - your question is 'if I understand correctly', whether people like me look only to science for answers to the big questions of reality. I suppose the answer is yes and no. Do I think that science, not theology does a far better job of approximating what reality looks like - yes I do. Do I think that science has all the answers. No I never have felt that way. But science does provide the boundaries that are pretty good at defining the limits of experiences. can science tell me exactly why I prefer the Princess Bride to Heaven's Gate or why the French loved Jerry Lewis? Of course not But it does limit my investigation of that quandary to the electrocemical realm. Within those broad limits vast amounts of human experience, perception and emotions can occur.

    ReplyDelete
  149. At this time it looks to me like THE REALITY is a moot point. At the philosophic level I think THE REALITY must exist, but there seems to be no way to know what it is. We can accept the facts found by science as being real, but only a flexible ever changing reality that science seems to know. Ever thing we know on this planet will pass away someday, and I would surly expect THE REALITY to be absolute. So to say there is a difference between my perception of reality, and reality for all practical purpose is irrelevant. I say irrelevant only for those willing to accept an ever changing reality, and be willing to accept new facts as being facts, and change what one perceives as being real to align with the new facts.

    ReplyDelete
  150. Taking your prisoner/guard/rest of prison population example into account, Jerry, here is where I think we're talking past each other.

    Your example gives us points to ponder about each of the protagonist's "reality" of the situation he finds himself in.


    Other examples of this kind of thinking would be a lost in the desert scenario, lost on an island, lost in the woods, each being a different "reality" for you(or me), yes?

    The desert has been there for a long time, but you were never lost in it, or at least you aren't now.

    But this is solipsism, imagining that reality has everything to do with you.

    The prisoner example brings other people into the mix, confusing things a bit, but you're just saying that "reality" for the prisoner in question has to do with his attitude in a society he has no choice to be in.

    Simply because society is made up of the people in it, doesn't make society "reality", in the sense that we mean it.

    ReplyDelete
  151. Seems to me Jerry, we have to identify spirituality with love because it is so badly defined and we have to define reality with society which although it is always the people who are, in aggregate 'society', those same people are always changing by getting older, dying, being born, laws changing, attitudes changing, situations changing, definitions changing.

    But we can't say that there is a God(or gods) because there is love and there is society.

    Seems to me that reality is that we're a bunch of largely hairless, tailless monkeys getting ready to eat, sleep or entertain ourselves 'til that fateful day when it ends for us.

    Wanna pray or meditate to examine your own motives?

    That's your own business and I wish you luck in finding peace with yourself.

    But if you're saying that love and spirituality are connected, then you are saying that spirituality is emotional.

    And if you're saying that reality is social circumstance, then you are saying that reality is society and that since society is composed of emotional people then reality is likewise emotional.

    ReplyDelete
  152. Ever thing we know on this planet will pass away someday, and I would surly expect THE REALITY to be absolute.
    -----------------
    Really? Why would you expect that? What data is the expectation based upon?

    I mean, that actually surprised me. In my mind I apparently literally assume that reality almost literally IS change. (never really thought about it before, hence the 'apparently')
    Why can't the ultimate reality not be static? Being static is not something that is really 'natural' in this universe, so I would think that whatever reality it is based upon, is dynamic, and constantly changes and is even perhaps evolving toward something itself. To me, that is also more 'gratifying' than the idea of a static unchanging basis to reality. It's more exciting, no? Not that that matters in my decision to think about reality as dynamic and not static.
    It seems to me that your assumption that the ultimate reality must be unchanging is based in your previous belief structure, where you believed (believe still?) in a single creator god that is eternal and unchanging.

    ReplyDelete
  153. Do I think that science has all the answers. No I never have felt that way.
    ---------------
    That is another popular false christian meme. Of course science doesn't have all the answers, but christians like to believe that we atheists believe that it does.
    If science had all the answers, science would die that very day. There'd be nothing left for it to do.

    ReplyDelete
  154. In my opinion, science hasn't even hit the 'halfway point' in 'having all the answers. It seems to me that there are more mysteries out there than mysteries that science has solved already. Oh sure it seems like we've made tremendous progress and we have, but we're still 'toddlers' in my opinion.

    We humans are sooo fucking impatient. Must be due to our ephemerally short lifespans. People think that science can never answer 'ultimate questions' but by it's nature, science always progresses, always builds upon it's storehouse of knowledge, and so we really have no way of knowing whether one day it will indeed be able to tackle questions like 'what is the ultimate nature of this universe.' I think someday it will.

    ReplyDelete
  155. Jerry, perhaps you mean that you'd imagine the ultimate reality to *be eternal/*???

    Perhaps it is, and still changes all the time. Or perhaps it will come to an end someday. If it comes to an end, it would seem logical that such things happen, and so perhaps universes pop into and out of existence all the time. Perhaps they're like a life-form on a level that we cannot yet comprehend.

    After all, if you try to trace back to the dawn of life on this earth, you cannot find a point where life 'begins.' What I mean is, in the 'soup' of our primitive oceans, even before there were cells, there were chemicals (proteins, amino acids) that ACTED ALIVE. They grew more complex, they evolved, they combined and got more complex, and they eventually formed the first organelles and cells, but they were by their nature technically alive themselves in a way. Or they acted like it. So maybe all matter is in some sense, alive. Or partaking of the nature of life. Or similar to what we think of as 'alive.' Who knows? We don't. Yet.

    ReplyDelete
  156. Symbiotic relationships between cells eventually became more complex cells in which the former junior partners were now 'organelles,' actual 'organs' within the new cells. Then complex cells formed similar associations, and we have the first primitive multicellular life. So we each are a pile of billions of separate 'animals' 'holding hands' and sticking together, each of which contains even smaller 'animals.' And each of these things is both a part of the larger whole that is us, and is also to varying degrees 'independent' and a complete animal in and of itself.

    ReplyDelete
  157. Jerry, if I invoke the big brain thing, all of these things fall into place and start to make sense. Which is why I don't discard it. Of course, I am also aware that making more sense to me is not a criteria for the answer to the Ultimate Question. Religions 'make sense' to the religious, after all, and they're wrong. So I do not discard the current scientific paradigm for the big brain, either. I am constantly comparing the two as to how well they 'satisfy' at making sense of this place. So far, a tie.

    ReplyDelete
  158. After all, in a mind, it is possible to have infinities, since you only have to imagine they're real. So the universe can be infinite in scope, never ending, as hard as that is to imagine, because in a dream of such a place you'd never come to it's boundries. Imagine if everything is just 'mental' and space and time are illusions. A dream with no body required, since the only reason we think a body is required is because that's how it is in the dream. All we are then, are mental 'viewpoints' with no bodies existing in a mind Which IS All There Is. The "Universal Mind" if you will.
    A very twisty thing to imagine. But if you can imagine it, every other thing in the world suddenly leaps into clarity.

    ReplyDelete
  159. Oh, btw, the reason that I say that 'it's a tie' between say, the pboy/pliny view of things, and my pet BB stuff, is not that they both are equally emotionally satisfying to me. They're not, obviously. I am drawn more to the BB. However, because I recognize so clearly how we deceive ourselves, I take that into account, and it becomes a tie. I can't rule out that I'm lying to myself here.

    ReplyDelete
  160. Jerry, perhaps you mean that you'd imagine the ultimate reality to *be eternal/*???

    I am satisfied that we have finite minds. It would seem impossible to grasp eternal, eternity, or infinity with a finite mind. The only serious thoughts I have had about eternal is the now. The eternal now moment. There is no life or any existence that is outside the now moment. I do not speculate about what life might be like, if there is any more to life that what we experience here as human beings. I have found that speculating about the future is usually a waste of time, and when the future unfolds what was speculated about is very different than anything imagined. I am most satisfied with life when I stay now. One of the things that always puzzled me about people hooked into organized religion. The talk about eternal life, and how bad they want it. They often pervert their lives to satisfied some idea about how they might get eternal life. Never do I hear these same people flush out what would an eternal life be like. I think any person that would sign on for an eternal life without knowing what they were getting into is a fool. I do not think if there is a god that offers eternal life would ask anyone to sign on without knowing what they were buying into. As far as the Christians go, if I were one, and bought into the god of their bible, I would turn the eternal trip down based on what the bible claims god to be like. I will leave the speculation to the Christians. I do not have the gray matter to deal with the ultimate reality so I think it would be a waste of my time to think much about it.

    ReplyDelete
  161. I can't rule out that I'm lying to myself here.

    While I do appreciate your concern with not being able to be sure, do not let it paralyze you to the point that you give any part of your idea up until you see the false of it, partial or total. The human mind is not to be trusted to always give us the truth, not because the mind is not trustworthy, but because of our conditioning, and natural ignorance. I would guess there has been numerous people that have rejected their own ideas only to see them discovered by someone else. As Joseph Campbell would say, follow your bliss. I personally would like to see you give up screwing with the Christians, and apply you outstanding mind to reaching into ideas of the future for man to strive for, and give up worrying about the problems that Christianity presents. Trying to enlighten a Christian is like trying to push the river, good luck. My fantasy is you would be happier, and would be a greater force for your ideals.

    ReplyDelete
  162. Funny you should say that, Jerry. I've been thinking along the same lines for a while now. Yesterday's tirade with (at) observant left me feeling spent. And it wasn't appropriate, either. I can't let things I can't change get the better of me like that.
    As to the BB stuff, oh no, I won't be giving up on that unless something even more inclusive comes along.
    You know, one of the reasons that I 'like' it so much is how I came to give it creedence. I mean, I didn't so much as see the idea out there (even though I did see variations on it) as I asked myself 'well Brian, whatever reality really is, it is most likely something so utterly different from the lines we're going along that it would appear preposterous at first glance' and then I started to really think about what might fit such a criterion and came up with 'it's all a dream.' Plus, as I've said, it simplifies everything, explains literally everything, even makes all of science's findings make more sense, and solves all of science's mysteries at the same time.

    ReplyDelete
  163. It is the one single only way of thinking about reality that not only explains everything, but doesn't conflict with established science in the least. Science is still real, still totally valid. Plus, it even explains the oddness at the quantum level, the 'quantum strangeness' of things like entanglement and strange results like those of the Double-Slit experiment. It explains why there is a role for the observer in all of that. Because there plainly is.

    ReplyDelete
  164. I was thinking about the double slit experiment and I believe that the photon is interfering with itself.

    As the photon hits one slit, it's magnetic portion hits both slits and diverts it in 'predictable ways'.

    It's possible. Another possibility is that there isn't a single photon at all, that it is impossible to make a light that consistently lights up a target with one photon at a time.

    Could be that the single visible light photon is interacting with infra-red light photons.

    ReplyDelete
  165. Sounds good but I'm fairly sure they've thought of all those things, pboy. And eliminated them.

    ReplyDelete
  166. Plus they know they're only shooting one single photon at a time.

    And what wbout the observer effect, where it seems that the very fact that the particle is observed is what 'collapses' it into a particle from a waveform?

    How could just the fact that someone's watching do anything?

    ReplyDelete
  167. And entanglement. You take two particles and 'twin them' so that they have corresponding (opposite) spins, then you take one particle and move it a million miles away from it's twin, and then change the spin on the one that is still in the original lab, and the spin of the other, very distant particle *changes at the exact same time.* Zero time lag. INstantaneous. Violates lightspeed limits for transfer of any known information. People say that somehow we make them into one particle, but that doesn't explain to me how it can do that over AN distance.
    Pliny? Are you around? I'd like your take on this stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  168. By the way, wanna know what is the original yan and yang duality?
    Matter and energy. Force and form. And it's all one thing, as einstein discovered. Two things that are one.

    ReplyDelete
  169. We know that there is one photon, and we know that it not only travels through both slits at once, but that it also travels through all possible paths to the target, and what decides which one it seems to follow is pure statistics. Odds. All particles are like this. The laws of probability direct them. And they're in more than one place at a time, unless we look. Oh, and they modified the experiment and put sensors over the two slits so they could see if it is really going through both slits, and when they turned the sensors on, the pattern mostly went away. Now here's the freaky part: They decided to try re-designing the sensor to record the information of whether the photon went through it's slit or not, but to then 'dump' that information before *anyone could see it.* What do you think happened? When nobody could SEE the result, and even though the sensor still recorded it's info, the interference pattern returned. So it was the act of observation of the photons that changed their state from waveform to particle. Because when nobody could see the result, it went back to the pattern. Even though the measurement was still taken!

    ReplyDelete
  170. If we can influence even the tiniest particle of 'matter' by merely observing it, even by passive knowledge of it's state or location, then we are somehow integrated informationally into this reality. We're plugged into it.

    It's a dream, dude. Only thing that makes sense.

    ReplyDelete
  171. Funny,

    I was just thinking about the consequences of recognizing the contradiction of nothing.

    Ima suspicioning more and more that math is simply the most helpful qualitative language we've had in our evolutionary history.

    It is super easy to conflate the concepts of 'empty sets' and 'what is not.'

    ReplyDelete
  172. "And entanglement. You take two particles and 'twin them' so that they have corresponding (opposite) spins, then you take one particle and move it a million miles away from it's twin, and then change the spin on the one that is still in the original lab, and the spin of the other, very distant particle *changes at the exact same time.* "

    I'm very suspicious of this, of course.

    How do they know this? What KIND of particle are we talking about here?

    Has there EVER been two labs a million miles apart?

    ReplyDelete
  173. Jerry, I hope you haven't simply abandoned your line of reasoning which seems to explain spirituality to you.

    It occurred to me that if you imagine societies as realities, this is the reason people feel that there are different realities going on around them all the time, which they may or may not be involved in but are nevertheless subjected to.

    Your reality is composed of nothing more than the people you interact with and so a telemarketer, for example, could be seen as someone who is part of your reality, in which case you'd be likely to listen to, or, as an intruder from another 'reality', almost from another dimension, to be dismissed, shunned.

    So, in your worldview, you see the World a a myriad of sometimes overlapping realities and perhaps 'spirituality' is, from your perspective, closer to what 'reality' means to us.

    Just a thought.

    ReplyDelete
  174. "Seems to me Jerry, we have to identify spirituality with love because it is so badly defined and we have to define reality with society which although it is always the people who are, in aggregate 'society', those same people are always changing by getting older, dying, being born, laws changing, attitudes changing, situations changing, definitions changing."


    The love you speak of seems to be an emotion. Emotions are by products of thoughts we have. The emotion associated with love in many, perhaps most, instances is connected to the reproduction instinct. Love itself is not an emotion, although one if the results of experiencing love is to feel the emotion. Although I pay attention to emotions as indicators I do not trust my reading of them to make very important decisions. I went through a training course learning to facilitate gestalt therapy. The psychologist running the institute were totally into emotions, and how a person felt, and they considered thinking with the mind as mind fucking. I did enjoy gestalt both as a vacillator, and I doing the work. However after living in house situation with the other students I was really disappointed in the results people were getting. I am not saying that some therapists do not have good results using emotions as a guide, but for me I much prefer the intellectual approach although gestalt does come in handy once in a while.

    "But we can't say that there is a God(or gods) because there is love and there is society."

    I am not sure how you are using the word society, but we do agree about this not saying there is or is not a god.

    "But if you're saying that love and spirituality are connected, then you are saying that spirituality is emotional.
    if you're saying that reality is social circumstance, then you are saying that reality is society and that since society is composed of emotional people then reality is likewise emotional."

    I can connect spiritual and love without getting into emotions. Emotion is a by product of a thought. If you have certain type of thoughts about some object the emotion will be there. Or you can have other types of thoughts about same object, and a different emotion will be there simply because the thought is different. Thoughts are the cause of emotion, and there are those who claim that the two cannot be separated. If the only love you are aware of is your emotions you have my condolences. I mean that sincerely, not as some put down.

    ReplyDelete
  175. As far as trusting emotion or thought perhaps this will give you some insight how my mind works. About 40 years ago I had a question come to mind. The question was did I or did I not believe there is a god. After thinking on that a while I came to the conclusion there was no god. I had not thought of religion at all for several years. Within several days I experienced being born again. To say I was surprised would be a serious understatement. One thing I noticed right away. Christianity says a person must accept Jesus as his/her savior to be born again. That is false. I accepted the experience as being real, and what this proved to me was I had experienced being born again. It did not prove there was a god, it did not prove eternal life was real, it did not prove Jesus was who Christianity says he is, and it no way proved the bible is the word of god, it proved nothing to me except I had the experience of being born again. In other words I do not go riding off onto the sunset simply because I had a thought or emotion that lights me up. I will enjoy the moment but then comes the hard part, getting validation for the thought. Usually it turns into a dry run. The being born again experience did not turn into a dry run. I still do not know there is a god or that Jesus even lived. I do know I have been, and am being transformed. I am not sure into what but my guess is a spiritual being. Although I lean toward the possibility of there being something after this life I do not know that to be true any more than you or anyone else does. Frankly I do not much care about it one way or another. If it is, fine, if not, who cares.

    ReplyDelete
  176. As far as trusting emotion or thought perhaps this will give you some insight how my mind works. About 40 years ago I had a question come to mind. The question was did I or did I not believe there is a god. After thinking on that a while I came to the conclusion there was no god. I had not thought of religion at all for several years. Within several days I experienced being born again. To say I was surprised would be a serious understatement. One thing I noticed right away. Christianity says a person must accept Jesus as his/her savior to be born again. That is false. I accepted the experience as being real, and what this proved to me was I had experienced being born again. It did not prove there was a god, it did not prove eternal life was real, it did not prove Jesus was who Christianity says he is, and it no way proved the bible is the word of god, it proved nothing to me except I had the experience of being born again. In other words I do not go riding off onto the sunset simply because I had a thought or emotion that lights me up. I will enjoy the moment but then comes the hard part, getting validation for the thought. Usually it turns into a dry run. The being born again experience did not turn into a dry run. I still do not know there is a god or that Jesus even lived. I do know I have been, and am being transformed. I am not sure into what but my guess is a spiritual being. Although I lean toward the possibility of there being something after this life I do not know that to be true any more than you or anyone else does. Frankly I do not much care about it one way or another. If it is, fine, if not, who cares.

    ReplyDelete
  177. I said a million miles apart because it could be light-years apare. They've determined that it works over ANY DISTANCE. No matter how large. And they've done it miles apart and can see there's zero time lapse.
    This is the ind of stuff that initially drove me toward the BB ideas.

    ReplyDelete
  178. "I'm very suspicious of this, of course.

    How do they know this? What KIND of particle are we talking about here?

    Has there EVER been two labs a million miles apart?"

    Since I agree with this, peeb is no longer a fundy. Welcome back.

    ReplyDelete
  179. "How so?"

    Brian, I'm not sure precisely to which part you're referring.

    I got a chance to talk to my favorite philosopher today about these musings. He said I was looking at it backwards. I was presupposing some kind of connection humanity had with reality that gave rise to a three or four of something.

    He re-reminded me that we impose math and it only has representational content, like the words I'm typing. It doesn't matter one whit whether quantities actually exist or not if one is considering how it arose from reality, like colors or smells... cause it didn't!

    I said, "Your point is well taken," then told him I still thought it would be cool to classify numbers as adjectives.

    ReplyDelete
  180. Read about the experiment. If you don't believe the results, research a few other sources. They're all pretty much in agreement. Heck, I read it all from Brian Greene, a quantum physics researcher and author, so it's from the horse's mouth. In fact, your reactions of incredulity, are precisely WHY everyone talks about 'quantum strangeness' and how it's COUNTERINTUITIVE. However, it's also REAL.

    ReplyDelete
  181. You guyys didn't know about the weird parts? About the double-slit and quantum-eraser experiments and entanglement?

    Hell. No wonder you all think I'm so all wet.

    ReplyDelete
  182. I was reading the talk page Bri, I'll get back to the main page then.

    ReplyDelete
  183. paper

    Interestingly enough these effects seem to allow faster-than-light communication as well.

    Also...
    It would seem that photons emitted from a single source do not 'care' how far/long they travel since they 'feel' no time passing themselves. So it is possible to change the spin of one entangled photon after it's twin is already measured but not recorded, and the one that is already measured will, when later recorded, match it's twin's spin. In other words, if I'm getting this right (pliny? HELP!) it appears that you can change the spin of a photon *in the past* if you change it's twin's spin *in the present.*

    ReplyDelete
  184. I honestly thought that you fine readers here already were familiar with this stuff. Now it makes a lot more sense to me why you dismiss my big brain scenario out of hand.
    Hell, I wouldn't have ever thought of it myself if I hadn't read about these experimental results first.

    ReplyDelete
  185. He re-reminded me that we impose math and it only has representational content, like the words I'm typing. It doesn't matter one whit whether quantities actually exist or not if one is considering how it arose from reality, like colors or smells... cause it didn't!
    ------------------
    Not sure I get this. I mean, while the actual number is a symbol, it is a symbol that depicts a (potential) quantity of objects. as in, say a flower species has six stamens. That's a number, but if it were not 'real' we wouldn't use it as an indicating feature of said species. What do you mean?
    Plus, a color is not real; it is how we perceive various wavelengths of light, no? So it exists only in our heads, in a way. The light is not colored or tinted at all. It's waves are just hitting our eyes at a certain 'speed.'

    ReplyDelete
  186. Is it that the numbers do not themselves exist in reality but the quantities they represent do? So while we have flowers with six stamens, we do not have flowers with the arabic numeral (or binary code) for six proudly displayed?

    ReplyDelete
  187. Light is real, color is our perception of it, yes. But the second clause admits of the first.

    Ask yourself, where does quantity come from?

    First point, if you have 'two' rocks, they're rocks, who says they're two, or calls them granite, marble etc. They are imposed categories right?

    Second point, if nothing is not, what follows? Quantity becomes quality, because everything is attached.

    Third point, categories are useful, calling them absolute is... speculative.

    ReplyDelete
  188. "If so, what import is that, harry?"

    If quantity is a false concept then it would be nice to know, but beyond that, beyond brain candy... unless someone has a more useful construct I would have to agree with you.

    Except of course putting it out for discourse which I think is helpful for us as social creatures.

    ReplyDelete
  189. On that I agree. It is an interesting point, one that I had not considered, and I can see it is valid. Hmmm.
    Too bad we can't solve the mysteries of the universe with it or something.

    ReplyDelete
  190. Yes, I see it now. All numbers are artifices imposed upon reality and are not real things in and of themselves, and this includes the number 'zero.' So 'nothing' has no meaning other than an absence of things *in that category.* If the category happens to be 'the set of all things' it still doesn't matter. It's a category. Not a thing.
    Again, hard to see a use for this beyond edification.

    ReplyDelete