just excuse me, folks, i have said it before. now does this still look like a serious discussion? really. i must ask you. timesurfer? gorski? yen? the only ones who made any sense were michaela joy, pointing out the difference between religion and spiritual concepts here in post #148, and tcm, in post #94. i realize that their thoughts are not very compatible. but they are rational thoughts, at least. floating on the wings of philosophy belonging to a previous century, gorski. or on the wings of spiritualism, timesurfer, or on the wings of eastern science, yen. is all very well. but those old condors will never fly over a reasoned answer, about our free will, imho... the ultimate question is; do we chose to believe in any god, personalized, abstracted, or spiritual.or not? i personally am an atheist. and as such i feel free of high-flying condors. and i can make my own decisions, as i see fit. just my 2 cents.
All true science is applied cosmology! Your thread as I interpreted from the beginning is not really about God at all. Why do you think I used so many smileys? For studies in Shamanism and other high level spiritual teachings can't be proved through a machine nor analization. So everyone here who has a spiritual notion to add or donate to the "cause" is eternally shutdown, invalidated and talked to in a disparagingly manner. Yen can speak with very high wisdom, whatever his true level of growth is, but I can be certain that Yen believes more than his reflections upon reality being to influence more than just having a better day. I am certain his reflections are also to aid earth in ascension to a higher level for all inhabitants, for Buddhas teachings we're not just to contemplate to but to enable others to reach a higher level of being physical behavior as well. Buddha means "enlightenment of all things" and that directly implies the return of the soul to earth and a raising up of the quality of mind the individual and group, then matters that we're seemingly unsolvable now are solvable because one has stepped out of the ego into a more permanant part of one's self - the present now So please take a stand or pic a side to reflect from, cause science, the intellectual and scholars know nothing of what buddha or any real avatar taught cause to know what they know and what I post but is ignored and ridiculed is to know through resonance and letting go predisposition and if there's one thing that the athiest and usual scientist never lack enough of it's predisposition...lol Science in it's non-existant spiritual armchair, partial empiracal study still hasn't a unified field theory or comprehensive analysis of the cosmos and never will through the artificial eyes or sensors of the machine. Like a mystic, with eye's inward to gain insight and revelation and ultimately enlightenment, and true enlightenment is not just something to think about but will change reality on a global level And with that science doesn't want another group to get credit or discover what has yet to be discovered or better said remembered. This is a competition thing and only a competition thing and competition just divides and creates rulers not a united, healed world We must think greater than ourselves but scientists TCM types won't ever acknowledge a Shamans perspective or information about how reality in how they believe it to be organized in a non-linear, non-fictional big bang model...lol But I think the one's on a spiritual path would listen to science but it's partial and the shaman knows the universe is not partial and so their must be a complete science that is as sacred as the reality it investigates, which "science" is no where near on the path of discovery by a longggggggggg wayyyyyyyyyyyyy...lol Consider too the state of mind of the athiest, usual scientist and most humans. They treat the universe as non-sacred and chaotically destructive, whereas the Shaman see's a connectedness that a machine can't discover nor prove. Most humans treat life/earth as disposable and not worth respect unless they grant it and it's inhabitants with respect but like Yen was hinting, all life has it's potential of being enlightened and thus inherent and self-exiting respect as well. One can see the similarities of how an current contemporary science treats life and it investigates is (splitting atoms for destructive purposes) and the like thereof with people being split and divided by money and greed all based on ego interaction and destructiveness towards those who look inward for comprehensive answers like the world killed their indigenous as an example I mean it looks how it is 1. Kill off and terrorize those who worship the Great Spirit 2. Invalidate their culture and way they interact and behave 3. Implement forced artificial means of exploring life and creation 4. Keep invalidating any return to the indigenous mind which is spiritual in nature and honoring of animals, nature, Great Spirit So to end it is never about the Shamans inability to acknowledge low level/imaginary scientific proofs like the fictional big bang theory or fictional theory of relativity, for the indigenous did not conquer modern society, modern science conquered the indigenous and brutally raped and destroyed their culture and connection to nature hence their relationship Great Spirit Which makes me wonder why science makes machines that always produce partial information and never can acknowledge the Shamans information to add to an investigation of the universe So the true violent, aggressive and destructive parties have been defined and it's not the indigenous nor their participants/resonators in an different perspective in how life is organized! So more scientists playing victim, that ship has sailed, but if the supremely ignorant here want to keep attacking and invalidating any spiritual teachings then like the global indigenous genocide here too will the atheists rule and dominate and thus consequently be limited and partial in their understanding/proofs while all along blaming spiritual endevours as interfering with trying to posses an comprehensive analysis of the cosmos Sad when two of similar in nature of understandings are at odds even in slightest way. Odds being an temporary thing of course, since we are one and non-different in our absolute nature. I guess the non-believer would create division amongst those with similar standards of being and of course the atheist always benefits with one religion being at odds with another so their lack of unified field theory goes unnoticed ...lol "As was in the beginning, so shall be in the end" but that is a topic science can't understand since the beginning happens via eternity not a fictional big bang theory, thus all of life whether an fallen from spirituality earth or a whole Galaxy is always at the effect of how it is, not the partial "observations" of science The world is flat till someone can convince it isn't, and until then if you think otherwise "off with their heads" cause the corporate, gov't based religious nut jobs only want to rule and own the cosmos not share it on planets where everyone is respected and given the acknowledgment that nothing is outside one's self and the individual is self-existing and sovereign unto themselves in God (The universal synchronicity based all encompassing unifying comprehensive source of all of life) But in the world without an unified field theory, it needs distractions, sacrifices and scapegoats so in the meanwhile they get to "administrate" life on earth with no actual bases to govern other than their in "charge" and therefore what they do is "justified" and "acceptable" all based on temporary understandings, "laws" and theories...lol My last post in this stupid thread that has no original ideas and is an unmoderated-bash zone towards those with spiritual endevours or those who think different than the "norm" that science sells, markets and plays "carrot on a stick" with the masses regarding their souls and information God charges no fee to be or to know the present and shame on those who know better but act in an selfish, inhumane sadistic manner as the sciences, gov'ts and religions do which within the historical cycle are one group and separate/opposite from the Shaman perspective and way of living in harmony with life not ruling it or needing to create sacrifices to be one worthy of universal love and connectedness which all deserves and inherits freely, always You reap what you sow
@Nodnar: I respect and admire your position. And I too hold organized religion in low regard, simply because of what its purpose was / is. Organized religion has done more harm than good in this world, and, it has stood in the way of many scientific advances. But because a person feels (the key word being feels, not "can prove") that there must be something more to our existence then living and dying like an amoeba in a petri dish, does NOT qualify them for mental health care, nor does it make them or their belief system worthy of insult. And for those who want to sit there and tell others "You're wrong and your beliefs don't make any sense because they can not be quantified by experiment or explained away by logic",You have demonstrated your own ignorance by trampling something that should be (at the very least) respected. Respect each other. Show tolerance. And when things get out of hand, do what must be done to protect the weak and the innocent. :Miki.
No-one !!! As for your spiritual side, it sort of depends what you mean by that phrase. If you mean a sense of wonder and awe at nature and the universe, then there is plenty one can find in science also. Some of the best “spiritual” science teachers are Carl Sagan and Neil deGrasse Tyson. For me, watching Sagan’s Cosmos series is a spiritual experience. Others might find their spiritual sustenance in taking nature hikes, looking at the stars, playing sports, viewing art, listening to music, reading literature, enjoying the beauty of nature or what have you. Any of those are completely compatible with humanism. Skeptic or naturalist humanists like me or many here will reject any supernatural element to reality, so they won’t view any supernatural sort of “spirituality” as either useful or necessary. The natural world is wonderful and awesome enough. Of course, it could be that you have some other notion of what spirituality amounts to, and then you’ll have to try to describe what you’re after.
As far as my understanding of enlightenment goes, an enlightened person is a wise person who always seems to give the right advice, guidance and counselling to those who approach him. S/He should have a very good knowledge of humanity, human belief systems, Nature and the universe. Most people twist and turn arguments to suit their individual prejudices and beliefs of which they are most protective. But an enlightened person will always strive to improve his/ her understanding based on what other people are saying and he must have a full-proof theory on spirituality. Above all an enlightened person is a tolerant person who understands why other people act in the way that they do and an enlightened person is one who has understood that self-hood is a brain process that expires at death, and that human life is like that of any 'animal' in that it has to play according to the rules of the species/nature.
Well, your statement is unqualified. Let me elucidate you: Nazis had a belief system. Can we afford to tolerate the intolerant? Or can we not proselytise to the proselytising lot, those folk who never sleep and never stop proselytising? Personally, I feel free to throw down the gauntlet... Just my 2 free wills...
As I've said earlier in other thread that just because science cannot explain something does not mean we are justified in making up stuff to fill the gaps in our spiritual knowledge. The scientific method is not perfect, but it is the best we have. Methodological naturalism has a long and well-documented history of superior outcomes in terms of understanding the true nature of the real world. Dualism and other approaches relying on the assumption of a non-physical entity we cannot investigate except through thought and intuition or feeling has a long and well-documented history of failure in terms of understanding the true nature of the real world. We only know what constitutes four percent of the universe. That does not mean someone’s god/ spiritual master created the other 96 percent. While choosing the latter may have some benefits in psychological terms, it is important to recognize it fails if our goal is to understand reality rather than merely cope with it. Science cannot adequately explain time. Just talk to 10 physicists about the nature of time and you’ll get five or six widely divergent answers, none of which anyone with less than four semesters of upper division mathematics can hope to understand. That does not mean time is some mysterious entity existing outside our universe, it merely means our knowledge is incomplete. What is dark energy? Science cannot explain why the universe is accelerating. That does not mean we need a supernatural explanation, it means we need more data. Have you not ever read anything on quantum mechanics? The universe is a very strange place, and there is no guarantee it will make sense to us when we figure it out or fully understand its vastness. In fact, there is no guarantee we will ever figure things out. The universe does not care about us, and our limited senses and intellect may not be adequate to fully answer all the questions.
@sid_16 By definition, it would seem that a Humanist who did not allow careful/thoughtful consideration of the varied ideas of all humans, including those that describe having experienced what you call the supernatural, and even those who do not embrace the Humanist's Ideology would by definition not be a Humanist .. Wouldn't you say? Of course, it could be that you have some other notion of what Humanism amounts to, and then you’ll have to try to describe what you’re after. If I was one who wanted to define my relationship to Humanism , which I do not, I relate to the Existential humanist most closely ..
This thread is actually as it is. People are identified with their ego if awareness is lacking. So what happens? An individual who is misidentified 'judges' about the 'other’s' misidentification. An ego addresses another. That what is reality; their One life is not seen. One who is aware of the present sees through 'another's' ego, by not re-acting. This 'no-reaction' itself is recognized by an ego as another ego reaction, though. It knows nothing else but ego. Or in other words: When identified with ego any action of another ‘individual’ is assigned to an ego, ‘the other’s ego’. Tolerance is the first and most important thing one needs to cultivate to make the first step to go after the ego. To show respect itself (object) is an action of ego, though. Respect is shown when one gives to the other enough room that the other can be. The thread is serious in that way that the topic actually is ‘the most serious’ in one’s life. What I write are experiences and no theory to be understood. In this regard it is not right or wrong. The intent to want to know it better is the intent of your ego which has no reference to the reality. No ego ever has this reference. The fact that you can assign ‘better’ to it is evidence that it is objectified own reality already. Your idea of Hegel’s idea of reality. Hegel’s Philosophy fits better to your idea of reality than your idea of that what I write. But that has nothing to do with ‘reality’. These are definitions / ideas of enlightenment. Definitions have nothing to do with enlightenment. ‘Enlightenment’ cannot be understood since it requires a change in consciousness. One cannot fight against darkness (lack of enlightenment, misidentification). To get rid of darkness one must bring light into it. Means: The light of consciousness, which is your Self, must be brought into the present, there where it can shine. Enlightenment, to awake, or salvation are three similar terms. They describe the same and only important process of consciousness. Enlightenment cannot be put into definition / theory. It can only be experienced. Words can point to enlightenment, but do not describe it. Kant did not get the term which comes originally from Sanskrit : Bodhi. He just defined and described: Kant’s idea of enlightenment.
The problem here is- you people are going with a gut feeling with no testable hypothesis and no evidence to back your claim. Can you set up a falsifiable experiment and we may have something to talk about. As it stands, your argument is nothing more than “That’s the way I feel therefore I believe it is true.” AC Grayling best defined humanism in the modern sense of the term is the view that whatever your ethical system, it derives from your best understanding of human nature and the human condition in the real world.
And what of the values of those who would impose their values onto everyone else, with a lot of violence?
But people have been and are getting away with doing the same thing all the time 'in the name of science'. If you set up an experiment to measure the mother's love for the child, you may indeed find there is a track record of care, yet not understand one iota of that love. You could even categorize that love as a biological function for the convenience of the cultured and dry intellect. But where it comes to meaning and understanding, such a mind will be inadequate and remain baffled. To say that verifiable experiments have anything to do with understanding of life is, to be fair, quite ludicrous. Even if , for example, you understood relativity perfectly with the scientific knowledge available today, you would understand your knowledge is one purely of relationship, not of actually knowing the energy or 'being' behind/through it. The reason I say people are getting away with things in the name of science is that now science is like the new religion. Most people believe in it rather than understand it. As if we have hords of scientists walking around When you understand it to a comprehensive degree you understand what you're doing is the building of models, but that in most cases you can't actually/directly experience the realities that are being investigated. In other words, that there is an experiential divide. That models or simulations of reality can be very useful is a moot point. Whether or not reality can be experienced directly, well I would say models won't be telling you anything about something that can only be experienced. Also, don't minimize 'gut feeling'; without it you will be utterly lost in life. You can't control life to the extent where you could afford your gut to be silenced. Most of the things in life we truly value highest, they cannot be verified in a lab. Also, it seems that even though we are always told we are 'mere animals' (as if there is something 'mere' about that!) and are merely 'biologically inclined', yet somehow we can grasp certain great, abstract verities or realities that we are then, somehow, not worthy to ponder philosophically or truly grasp/know spiritually/mystically. All the while forgetting the viewpoint that the universe has resulted in us, and is actively existing as us. So we can't say in one breath that us humans can't truly experience cosmic and/or spiritual things directly, that the universe is so vast and in comparison we are just biologically tainted with limited understanding, and then say that it is actually the universe that became us and is experiencing itself through us. I'd say it would be wise to give the universe a bit more credit for existing as us. That many people have not explored their own consciousness and keep it occupied with shallow pursuits (and yes, filling it scientific data can be a form of that), well that is no yardstick for universal/spiritual experience existing or not. Certain ancient gnosis would make a lot of sense if consciousness is actually intimately tied in with the 'stuff' of the universe (matter doesn't seem like a good term as it tends to, yes, disappear, when analyzed to its seeming constituents) and that the existence of biological life is the individualization of that universal consciousness. And that, perhaps, all the practices that have lived amongst humans for ages, such as meditation, use of hallucinogens, shamanic practices, etc., are ways to tap into the universal consciousness. Furthermore I think most people wouldn't talk about such 'possibilities' idly, like a fancy, if indeed they did not experience things that made such views develop. I would not in particular put up organized religion as a road to awareness, certainly not any more so than I would science. But organized religion has to be understood for what it is too, an indirect account of someone else's (purportedly) mystical and/or spiritual experiences which are usually grossly misrepresented and put in front of the cart of authoritarian morality. The individual with a calling to exploration of consciousness, it has never been a mass thing and it certainly is not something for 'followers' as you stick your own neck out and be your own total person. But to shoot down a shaman of old, or a yogi, or any other consciousness explorer because the religious people have been rather bad and blind for centuries, it is ludicrous.
I wanted to let this thread go, but you made a reasoned response which I want to reply to. Actually, a brain specialist could probably hook some electrodes to the head and measure where the brain is most active when the mother sees her child. A chemicist could measure certain chemicals being released etc. The meaning of this can also be quite rationally explained, in that it prevents the child from being harmed and allows it to survive until it can defend itself. It's actually a quite simple process if you take an objective stance. Of course, if you are in the position of the mother or empathically feeling what she feels because you can observe her reactions and you know how it feels from experience, you have this overwhelming feeling and your mind is so baffled by it that you go out and seek some "deeper" meaning. That's the exact effect that could be desired so that you strive to experience it as often as you can, which allows our species to survive. If we hadn't developed complex thinking, it would have stopped at that and we would happily reproduce without seeking meaning in everything. And noone made any such claims. Science is not explaining why things are, it's explaining how things are and were. Science is not a religion. You cannot "believe" in it. You can practice it. Science is the easiest thing to understand: 1) Observation 2) Hypothesis 3) Verification. That's it. A little bit of logic mixed in ("Are all X = Y?" -> "Find one X that isn't" -> new knowledge) and you are doing science. You are basically dismissing anything that you cannot observe or "feel" with your own body, am I seeing this right? Personally, I accept the fact that I'm unable to pick up a single atom or electron and rub it between my fingers and feel it. That doesn't mean I view electron microscopes as a magic device I believe in. I view the theory behind them as completely rational and tested because people following the scientific method have made them. If you stop at what your body sensors can experience, you won't come far in science. And when you think about what we have developed so far, we as a single human cannot possibly comprehend it all. If I were to dive into each field of science and tried to understand it from the ground up, my lifetime would not suffice the slightest. That's why science is so important. It's laying the bread crumbs through a huge maze of theories so that wherever you are, you can verify that what you are doing has merit because you are building on something that has been verified before. Sometimes experiments force you to track back and remove bread crumbs and lay a new path. That doesn't mean science has failed, it means it worked. If you started building the Large Hadron Collider in 1800 and told people you want to accelerate little invisible particles and collide them, you'd have some seriously strange looks upon you. Today, we are actively supporting such things and it's strange to noone. Now you are starting to make untestable claims. It's the same reasoning that lead to the belief that the Earth is the center of the universe and that the Sun revolves around it. To make such a claim you'd have to prove somehow that no other life in the universe is existing which you cannot currently. Edit: And even if you could, it wouldn't prove that the Universe exists "to make us". I view this as a highly arrogant stance that no resonable human can take. I believe (yes, it's nothing more than that so you don't have to put any value to it) that humans - with their evolved ability of complex thinking, yet their inevitable death ahead of them - have developed a striving to be more than mere biological mass born out of a dividing cell lump, decomposing after death into a rotting pulp. Some are so afraid to not exist anymore, that they develop huge thought models where their "energy" is part of the Universe, that it lives on and is reborn, that there is a creator watching over them etc.pp. They simply cannot accept that their existence might just be a tiny accident happening somewhere in the Universe. Philosophy doesn't stop at scientists BTW. Many scientists, while seeking the objective truth, are also seeking the meaning of it, i.e. they're highly philosophical and even religious. They understand, though, that religion must not interfere with the scientific method. Noone is shooting anyone down. It seems just that, when challenged in their beliefs, most people get all rallied up because objectively, they have no proof. Sorry for the large pic and it's only adressing hardcore Catholics which I don't necessarily think are here. It's just another thought.
When one does not tolerate the intolerant, who is left to be tolerant? The Nazis could only exist, because of a misidentification of being. The mechanism is always the same. To raise an individual's ego to god. Means: People who suffered from ego in a lesser degree stopped people who were totally affected. In this regard one should not forget that some people who fought against the Nazis themselves suffered from the same sickness (Stalin). The sickness itself hasn't been cured, it just had to be brought to a level where no new war is born. The sickness manifests nowadays in other ways. The dealing with nature and their resources and violence of some nations. I write about a radical change in consciousness, otherwise the sickness 'ego' will ever come back just wearing different clothes. Sid_16 : You will encounter that science will never get you a satisfying answer. It is the attribute of mind who does not allow it. The attribute to want to objectify any-thing. Hence I asked you to do own 'experiments' / experiences. Your life has parallels to mine. It reflects my age from 12 to 30 where my talent of Chemistry was 'my god'. The 'mystery' of time is in you, because it is you who creates time. One 'only' needs a simple tool of science: Observation. To be observer 'relocates' your consciousness that a processes with which one usually is fully identified can be observed before appropriation takes effect. And one should not forget, by doing that one tries to 'research' a mechanism which works thousands of years unrecognized. This 'research' also reveals the reality as it is. An objectifying mind is the cause for ignorance not the weapon to resolve it. If you feel comfortable with this idea you can have it.
Ok Yen sir, I got what you said but it will take many years to reach your age and I think my skeptic and young mind won't accept it now or simple I can't grasp the 'spiritual ideas' of this forum. One last note that science, which is based on objective observation and gathering and correlating empirical data, spiritualism tends to build a world view based largely on subjective information about the world that has been garnered from both personal thoughts and visions, and the revelations of shaman, seers, channelers, prophets,avatars and messiahs. P.S- Won't it be better to name 'My Spiritual Life Forum' instead of My Digital Life Forum?
Parapher wrote; Your responses consistently demonstrate the arrogance that only ignorance provides. Instead of repeating factually incorrect claims of one or another fallacy, it would be better to actually try to understand the positions you avoid. Your strategy certainly appears gratuitously combative with the intent to prolong the debate (on spirituality rather than if god is omniscient then human is free) for its own sake rather than promote, defend, or critique any particular post/idea/logic or point of view in this thread. By the way you sound like Dr Deepak Chopra in your entire post.
Sid_16. You are funny I like you. My posts are not written to change somebody's 'way of life'. Some is just a part of my life. You will go your way and your way is fine. To think 'spiritual' does not mean never to use the objective mind again. It just has another weight. I still can mod BIOSES, to program a little, to do my PC stuff and to develop complex organic synthesis in my job. Most think 'spiritual' people have lost any sight on logic matters, that's not the case. Concerning this I want to add: With 'radical' change in consciousness I have meant: This change must happen voluntarily in each individual. Enforced change will never happen. And this I have meant with tolerance, this tolerance we never must lose. One can point to the better, the change in consciousness must happen in each individual alone. Somebody said: Change yourself, the world will follow. It took me years to get what these wise words are meaning.
lol...I get it now this thread is a romantic comedy A couple, one being an atheist and the other an Shaman try to understand each other but it is very hard! The atheist doesn't believe he/she can use his own body and mind to interpret and reveal what can't be discovered by partial, non-comprehensive science and the Shaman feels like their being limited by partial science so it's real funny romantic comedy...lol In fact the athiest denies the body being the tool that higher wisdom and universal understandings and discoveries can even come from. The body must use an machine to interpret stuff and if the machine only receives partial cosmic information then that is ok and all we or everyone can have! So to clarify, there is no way the athiest/scientist will use his body and mind to tune into the universe. Forget about it And on the other side of the coin, there is no way the Shaman will be limited by what science doesn't have which is a unified field theory hence the Shaman wants more than partial interpretation, understandings, he/she want's how the cosmos really works in totality even if that discovery can't be proved by a machine or way humans currently think!? This is real simple now, cause both sides see each other as intolerant and or limiting each other! No one here from either sides are cooperating each others either limited science or the Shamans perspective of knowing from within, so the debate or convo is over unless one will listen to the other which will never happen... But I think it's real simple what is going on through consideration of how each party interprets things The atheist see's life not coming from a present state of mind or origins of life, but from the past via their big bang theory The Shaman see's life based on eternity or the soul so to fall into the linear projection that life is coming from the past and going to the future never includes the present where the Shaman lives, perceives and experiences life being of now centered origins So we're done here Thank you everyone for participating and have a nice day Please close thread...lol