I posted some more German I found particularly hard to translate or to learn. It had figures of speech and cultural references (to the third stanza) that I found challenging to decipher. Some specifically Bavarian dialect. /deleted
Okay, let me point something out, while idolatry of this sort exists everywhere, everywhere there is a higher reason. The Hindu culture consists of many traditions and texts. The Vedas, The Bhagavad Gita, etc.. I just want to share with you a more direct experience of Hindu religion, I'm sure this is also sub-categorized Vedantic.
The Essence of the Bhagavad Gita (Explained by Paramhansa Yogananda) As remembered by his disciple Swami Kriyananda
(2:47) Action is a duty, but let not your ego crave the fruits of action. Be not attached to either action or inaction.
(2:52) When your perception pierces the dark mists of delusion, you will become indifferent to everything you have heard about this world and the next.
(2:57) He who, under all circumstances, is without attachment, and is neither elated by goodness nor depressed by evil, is a man of established wisdom.
(4:25) Some yogis there are who make sacrifices to the devas (deities); others see sacrifice (yagya) as an offering of the self into the cosmic fire of Spirit.
(4:34) Understand this: By surrender, by questioning, and by service, those who have realized the truth will convey their wisdom to you.
(6:29) United to the Supreme Self by the practice of yoga, he beholds his Self in all beings, and all beings in that one Self.
(7:3) Among thousands of men, scarcely one strives for spiritual perfection; and among those blessed ones who seek Me, scarcely one perceives me as I am.
(9:3) Men who lack faith (and even interest) in this dharma, (seeking their fulfillment elsewhere) do not attain Me, O Scorcher of Foes (Arjuna)! Again and again they take the path of samsara (delusion) and mortality.
Sound familiar? It is a constant theme in this book (The Essence of the Bhagavad Gita) that Krishna's words to Arjuna are remarkably similar to those of Christ. The author does appear to lose grips with reason on many subjects however. I've simply quoted the translation of the Gita -/+ a few bracketed comments.
The rats of Karni Mata may be related to 4:25 making sacrifices to the devas. It's a big book and I only dug so deep for this exercise. These are generally considered minor acts of the spiritually naive. Similar to Christianity's rites. A hierarchy of importance is given by Peter: "And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues." (1 Cor 12:8-10) These minor acts signify some kind of desire for repentance and they are not discouraged. The weight of divine wisdom is considered too much for them. They will reject it, not because of sufficient reason, except to say psychological(spiritual) instability. They are egotistically invested in the fruits of action and inaction (desire and fear). They evaluate truth based on how it makes them feel, not it's reality. Religion is like a smorgasbord for the mind, if you want refuge for your ego it's not hard to find in religion, but if you want higher wisdom its got that too.
Silly beliefs aren't just the domain of religion. Most philosophers employ the phrase "naive realism" to refer to the irrational beliefs held by the vast majority of lay-people. Wikipedia relates with the following 5 beliefs held by naive realists:
1.There exists a world of material objects. 2.Statements about these objects can be known to be true through sense-experience. 3.These objects exist not only when they are being perceived but also when they are not perceived. The objects of perception are largely perception-independent. 4.These objects are also able to retain properties of the types we perceive them as having, even when they are not being perceived. Their properties are perception-independent. 5.By means of our senses, we perceive the world directly, and pretty much as it is. In the main, our claims to have knowledge of it are justified."[2]
TL;DR at large to everyone. I jest! I read it all.
There are a few pivotal points which the debate on this thread seems to swivel; A) The definition of "marriage", B) The religious meaning or purpose of "marriage", C) The constitutional rights of individuals, D) Moral valuations of paraphilic orientations.
Definitions in general have a colloquial meaning which differs from their professional use. This may be especially true as it pertains to law. If one looks up the legal definition of a "Verbal threat" for example; one may find that it includes hearsay. Therefor it is not surprising to find a dual-use of language between the legal definition and the more colloquial usage.
It is my view, of which I have no personal attachment, that there is virtually no scriptural basis for a marriage "sanctuary". All references to marriage in the Bible are precluded by an air of disapproval. "It is better for a man not to touch a woman" Peter insists, "But if they cannot contain" he concedes, "then they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion." (1 Cor 7:1,8-9) He then insists that "The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife." (1 Cor 7:4)
In other words, the Bible seems to indicate that marriage is a compromise with "passion". That it is best for a man or woman to be a solitary individual. As a matter of fact, in the "apocrypha" Jesus is quoted as saying "Many are standing at the door, but it is the solitary who will enter the bridal chamber." (Thomas: 75) The imagery of the "bridal chamber" here is to King Solomon's iconography of the divine wisdom Sophia, who alone Solomon would dedicated his heart to. Further sketching out that Christianity is more about reason and truth than it is about egotistical refuge.
Of course this says nothing of the constitutional rights of individuals, unless one sees a reason for conforming one's behavior to the idealism of the Biblical authors, one is likely to pursue whatever most satisfies them. Nor would it be profitable to force anyone to live by such a doctrine without due respect for the doctrine. I wish not to debate consitutional rights myself, but will simply say that if I imagine us to have free-will, it is little more than a will free from social obligation. Without that basic freedom there isn't much freedom to speak of.
As to moral valuations of paraphilic orientations, I would not attempt to justify or cast doubt on the moral character of one of them purely because one was or was not born with said quality. Predilections say nothing of moral character; valuations of morality must invariably supervene on global epistemic certainty or else they are purely subjective fabulations. To establish the rudiments of an 'objective' morality and avoid all the fallacies of whimsy is a difficult task, but we are the much worse without it. Biblically speaking; God dictates moral obligations by their functional anatomy. If it serves no biologically purposive function it is vain and deviant. One may argue that self-satisfaction has a calming effect which may avert serious illness caused by stress, however it is not clear whether this is habit-forming and will result in greater need for gratification later.
Another point of contention, at least for me, is how much of our outward behavior has an effect on cultural norms and mores. I feel a responsibility as an individual to contribute constructively to society, and I do not feel that on the functional/causative level, I am really doing anything independently or with no consequence to anyone else. Even as I stand outside smoking I provide myself as a character model to countless children and adults.
IMHO, the stereotype threat works by making the person self-conscious, others have shown that concerns about self-esteem whether optimistic or pessimistic inhibit performance (Crocker, Twenge). Which contradicts the earlier musings of Dr. Spock and Friends who felt that "self-love" was the key to success. According to Twenge this is why we now live in an ego-centric culture with the more recent human distribution being dubbed "Generation Me". She also hypothesizes it is the reason for rising mental illness. Drawing from popular culture, she illustrates the unprecedented narcissism of the current society. For example; in one episode of the RealityTV show "My Super Sweet 16" the young girl having the birthday party insists on having her parade floats drive past the emergency entrance for a hospital, when local authorities deny her request she becomes irritated and whiney. Despite having it explained to her that emergency vehicles need to use the street to deliver people in need of urgent medical care, the 16-year-old insists they can wait because She is having a party. All of this she links to the 1960s and the decay of our role-based society in favour of aimless self-seeking. See: The Narcissism Epidemic: Living in the Age of Entitlement by Jean Twenge.
I believe it was Thomas Negel who said "Don't think of a black cat" referring to the explicit association between the words and the concepts. An association so ingrained that it is virtually impossible to not think of a black cat when told not to.
In theory the book is closed on this hypothesis, the monkey should be inclined to A due to implied associations. If it were able to speak it would say "I don't know why, I just like this one better." People can't even overcome negative associations with race when it is a consciously willed act, and while believing they are not racist.. (See: Harvard IAT/Mahzarin Banaji) You can test your own implicit prejudice here: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/takeatest.html
Ted, You have ignored my points in order to question my character and my motives, which is called "Shooting the Messenger". Margaritae ante porcos.
In the same way Socrates was led to his death and Jesus was cruficied. Giordano Bruno was immolated when he dared to speak words of offense.
"In the beginning the patriot is a SCARCE man, feared, hated and scorn, but in time when his cause succeeds, the timid join him for then it costs NOTHING to be a patriot." - Mark Twain
You can't affect change while conforming to group norms. The group will destroy your opinion and bury it beneath a pile of egotistical ramblings. Generally they will not grasp the meaning because they are too busy comparing themselves and taking offense. It is only when the fact-undeniable, gains acceptance among a majority of intellectuals that the leity jumps on the bandwagon. That time is coming, and I know I won't reap any of the rewards. I don't want to say it is or isn't about ego, because, since egotism carries such an air of disapproval, to claim to not be an egotist would for all appearances mean not being an egotist. At least from the perspective of egotists. So it's quite futile.
At this point, I concede victory to you and the mob. That is what tickles our fancy, isn't it? Winning. Success. Pride. Belonging.
You know, New York City's crime and internal strife went way down after 9/11. Give the people an external threat that they can rally against and you unite the people. Because people want an "Us vs Them" battle. That is the only way to assure themselves of their own goodness. In time they will go back to fighting among themselves. I've tried to bring a message of peace to put an end to this, but the people didn't want it to end. Instead, they made an enemy out of me. But the seed has been planted and the harvest is near.
Anway, I said I'm going, and I will go. You can have your precious space where the lot of you can pat each others backs and talk about how good we are as our species destroys itself. Or argue about what kind of material a bust is sculpted from, maybe another million spins around the sun debating trivialities is what we need.
I'm out, you can find a way to contact me if you want what I can give you. Otherwise, good frikkin' luck!
Because Quinn says it so nicely, I'm going to quote from Chapter 5: The Infinite, but I strongly recommend reading the whole book. I think this is probably my last comment for a long time, if not forever. Enjoy:
"In order to properly understand the totality, the student has to learn how to think non-dualistically. By this, I do not mean he has to cease using dualistic concepts altogether and enter a kind of non-dualistic realm, which is impossible for the human mind to do in any case. Rather, he has to learn how to stop seeking the Truth within a dualistic framework and instead skilfully manipulate dualistic concepts in a manner that generates a proper understanding of non-duality.
In my experience, this is a very rare skill indeed. The main problem is that most people have a strong vested interest in a particular dualistic belief. An obvious example is the Christian concept of God. Christians generally conceive of God as "other" - that is, as something separate from their own selves. They like to create this duality because (a) it enables them to preserve the illusion of their own egos, and (b) it enables them to think of God in an emotional manner; they can conceive of him as a kind of comfortable and secure presence in which their egos can find refuge. Any attempt to think non-dualistically would only undermine this dynamic. In effect, the Christian would have to dismantle his entire world-view, which is unlikely to happen, especially if he has spent many years establishing a lifestyle and an identity around it.
Christians are not the only ones at fault. Nearly all religious people are culpable, as too are most atheists and agnostics. The average atheist/agnostic is often just as rigid and content in his worldview as the Christian is, and fundamentally just as insane. Instead of worshipping God, he worships something just as unreal - scientific truth. The leading scientists have become his high priests, the scientific journals and books have become his bible, scientific materialism has become his religion.
Like a devoted disciple, he regurgitates the words of the high priests and chants the mantras of scientific materialism ("Ultimate Truth is unknowable", "everything is uncertain", "scientific knowledge is the only valid knowledge there is", "matter is the final reality", etc) as though they were the gospel truth. He himself has no idea whether these things are actually true; he simply takes them on blind faith. They have become the tenets of his new religion. And yet, just to compound the madness, he loves nothing better than to turn around and laugh at the Christians for being mindless sheep!
For the average atheist/agnostic, it is enough to reject the irrationality of supernatural religion. That is all that really matters to him. It is the extent of his drive towards truth. As long as he can contrast himself with the religious lunatics he sees around him and pretend that he is a rational human being, he is content. To push reason any further than this would be, for him, a sign of madness. Thus, he shrinks away from the realm of higher reasoning in the same way that a fundamentalist Christian shrinks away from the theories of science.
I will explore this issue in more detail later in the book, but for now I simply want to stress that in order to understand the wisdom of the Infinite, the student needs to learn how to go beyond both the religious and atheistic/agnostic mindsets. Both mindsets are locked within a limited branch of duality and need to be transcended. The belief in God and the belief in scientific materialism spring from the same well of egotism, and although the theist and the atheist love to castigate each other for their foolishness, in reality they are both as foolish as each other. "
"Do you realize you are juggling with some advanced concepts in neurology, genetics, psychology...all discovered and conceptualized through scientific method, only to try to salvage your broken beliefs ?"
You know what, that might have been true if I ever had any beliefs to be broken. But I've been "atheist" pretty much ever since I can remember. I attended a Faith Lutheran church when I was a kid, but I honestly can't remember very much about it, I remember I got an organge stuck in my copy of the Bible and basically threw it out and quit going to church. That's how much I cared about it. I was doing it to make my parents and my community happy, but I didn't care for it at all.
When I started to take an interest in these subjects around age 21 I was a hardline atheist. Pat and Paul Churchland were my idols and on my facebook page under "Religion" I wrote "Eliminativist". I had plenty of arguments with "Theists" over about a 5 year period before changing my own mind.
So, if any of my beliefs have been broken, it is actually my belief in Eliminativism, not God. But things changed and there was a while there I didn't talk to anyone because I actually didn't know anything myself. I used to know, or thought I did, but I changed. It was primarily my study of Epistemology followed up by a reading of David Quinn's Wisdom of the Infinite that caused the changes to occur and to gain an appreciation for Religion, though Quinn and his compatriots Dan Rowden and Kevin Solway who make up the Menoftheinfinite youtube channel do not like religion very much at all. One of the things that attracted me to them was their "atheism" and anti-religious monologues. Their videos "The Importance of Atheism" and "What does Atheism indicate?" as well as "Religious Depravity" and "Certainty vs Certitude" all appealed to my hate for religion. Depsite their attitudes and my revelling in them, I learned from Quinn something else and I began debating the matter with them on their forum.
The Wisdom of the Infinite by David Quinn A guide to intellectually comprehending the nature of Reality http://members.optushome.com.au/davidquinn000/Wisdom/WisdomContents.htm
Notice how Person B feeds off the statements of Person A. A starts with a claim, but is forced by B into the position of defending his ego and not his claim. Regardless of how much A tries to defend himself, his opinion or to draw attention to B's tactics, B can always find a way to draw more ammo from the statement.
Sure, whatever ted. Don't read my comments but perform pscyhoanalysis on me anyway. That's very virtuous of you. I'm going to stop defending myself because that is where a lot of the problems arise. It goes something like this:
You say some asinine shit about religion and theists I try to correct you You attack my ego I defend my ego You use my defense as more ammo to continue attacking my ego.
When I say; I am not here for attention, because if I wanted attention I would satisfy my friends and family, but I am garnering negative attention by sticking my neck out for truth.
You spin this around to; I am looking for negative attention.
You aren't listening to what I have been saying, but that doesn't mean others haven't. Most of the time people who are interested in what I have to say aren't loud-mouthed bigots, they are quiet thinkers who only occasionally express their gratitude. Like I have said multiple times, they don't have to express any gratitude, and you don't have to express any disapproval, nor does it matter one way or the other because I'm not doing this for either. I am doing it because I love truth and can't tolerate lies and falsehoods, in me or in anyone. Part of sticking my neck out is just so I can be decapitated when I am wrong. But insults and pseudo-pscyhoanalysis from someone who doesn't bother to read what I wrote is not going to provide me with the motive to stop. I know that to be purified I need to stand in the light of truth where I can be judged. Your judgement is one, but not everything. When I implied that I didn't think there was excess nutrients in waste, Splint Chesthair corrected me, I accept such correction, that is part of it. But first I need to be shown with reason and evidence or at least persuaded by something more than insult and armchair psychology. I need truth, and no other.
The Essence of the Bhagavad Gita (Explained by Paramhansa Yogananda) As remembered by his disciple Swami Kriyananda
(2:47) Action is a duty, but let not your ego crave the fruits of action. Be not attached to either action or inaction.
(2:52) When your perception pierces the dark mists of delusion, you will become indifferent to everything you have heard about this world and the next.
(2:57) He who, under all circumstances, is without attachment, and is neither elated by goodness nor depressed by evil, is a man of established wisdom.
(4:25) Some yogis there are who make sacrifices to the devas (deities); others see sacrifice (yagya) as an offering of the self into the cosmic fire of Spirit.
(4:34) Understand this: By surrender, by questioning, and by service, those who have realized the truth will convey their wisdom to you.
(6:29) United to the Supreme Self by the practice of yoga, he beholds his Self in all beings, and all beings in that one Self.
(7:3) Among thousands of men, scarcely one strives for spiritual perfection; and among those blessed ones who seek Me, scarcely one perceives me as I am.
(9:3) Men who lack faith (and even interest) in this dharma, (seeking their fulfillment elsewhere) do not attain Me, O Scorcher of Foes (Arjuna)! Again and again they take the path of samsara (delusion) and mortality.
Sound familiar? It is a constant theme in this book (The Essence of the Bhagavad Gita) that Krishna's words to Arjuna are remarkably similar to those of Christ. The author does appear to lose grips with reason on many subjects however. I've simply quoted the translation of the Gita -/+ a few bracketed comments.
The rats of Karni Mata may be related to 4:25 making sacrifices to the devas. It's a big book and I only dug so deep for this exercise. These are generally considered minor acts of the spiritually naive. Similar to Christianity's rites. A hierarchy of importance is given by Peter: "And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues." (1 Cor 12:8-10) These minor acts signify some kind of desire for repentance and they are not discouraged. The weight of divine wisdom is considered too much for them. They will reject it, not because of sufficient reason, except to say psychological(spiritual) instability. They are egotistically invested in the fruits of action and inaction (desire and fear). They evaluate truth based on how it makes them feel, not it's reality. Religion is like a smorgasbord for the mind, if you want refuge for your ego it's not hard to find in religion, but if you want higher wisdom its got that too.
Om purnamadah!
Scientific realism differs from naive realism.
1.There exists a world of material objects.
2.Statements about these objects can be known to be true through sense-experience.
3.These objects exist not only when they are being perceived but also when they are not perceived. The objects of perception are largely perception-independent.
4.These objects are also able to retain properties of the types we perceive them as having, even when they are not being perceived. Their properties are perception-independent.
5.By means of our senses, we perceive the world directly, and pretty much as it is. In the main, our claims to have knowledge of it are justified."[2]
There are a few pivotal points which the debate on this thread seems to swivel; A) The definition of "marriage", B) The religious meaning or purpose of "marriage", C) The constitutional rights of individuals, D) Moral valuations of paraphilic orientations.
Definitions in general have a colloquial meaning which differs from their professional use. This may be especially true as it pertains to law. If one looks up the legal definition of a "Verbal threat" for example; one may find that it includes hearsay. Therefor it is not surprising to find a dual-use of language between the legal definition and the more colloquial usage.
It is my view, of which I have no personal attachment, that there is virtually no scriptural basis for a marriage "sanctuary". All references to marriage in the Bible are precluded by an air of disapproval. "It is better for a man not to touch a woman" Peter insists, "But if they cannot contain" he concedes, "then they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion." (1 Cor 7:1,8-9) He then insists that "The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife." (1 Cor 7:4)
In other words, the Bible seems to indicate that marriage is a compromise with "passion". That it is best for a man or woman to be a solitary individual. As a matter of fact, in the "apocrypha" Jesus is quoted as saying "Many are standing at the door, but it is the solitary who will enter the bridal chamber." (Thomas: 75) The imagery of the "bridal chamber" here is to King Solomon's iconography of the divine wisdom Sophia, who alone Solomon would dedicated his heart to. Further sketching out that Christianity is more about reason and truth than it is about egotistical refuge.
Of course this says nothing of the constitutional rights of individuals, unless one sees a reason for conforming one's behavior to the idealism of the Biblical authors, one is likely to pursue whatever most satisfies them. Nor would it be profitable to force anyone to live by such a doctrine without due respect for the doctrine. I wish not to debate consitutional rights myself, but will simply say that if I imagine us to have free-will, it is little more than a will free from social obligation. Without that basic freedom there isn't much freedom to speak of.
As to moral valuations of paraphilic orientations, I would not attempt to justify or cast doubt on the moral character of one of them purely because one was or was not born with said quality. Predilections say nothing of moral character; valuations of morality must invariably supervene on global epistemic certainty or else they are purely subjective fabulations. To establish the rudiments of an 'objective' morality and avoid all the fallacies of whimsy is a difficult task, but we are the much worse without it. Biblically speaking; God dictates moral obligations by their functional anatomy. If it serves no biologically purposive function it is vain and deviant. One may argue that self-satisfaction has a calming effect which may avert serious illness caused by stress, however it is not clear whether this is habit-forming and will result in greater need for gratification later.
Another point of contention, at least for me, is how much of our outward behavior has an effect on cultural norms and mores. I feel a responsibility as an individual to contribute constructively to society, and I do not feel that on the functional/causative level, I am really doing anything independently or with no consequence to anyone else. Even as I stand outside smoking I provide myself as a character model to countless children and adults.
In theory the book is closed on this hypothesis, the monkey should be inclined to A due to implied associations. If it were able to speak it would say "I don't know why, I just like this one better." People can't even overcome negative associations with race when it is a consciously willed act, and while believing they are not racist.. (See: Harvard IAT/Mahzarin Banaji) You can test your own implicit prejudice here: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/takeatest.html
In the same way Socrates was led to his death and Jesus was cruficied. Giordano Bruno was immolated when he dared to speak words of offense.
"In the beginning the patriot is a SCARCE man, feared, hated and scorn, but in time when his cause succeeds, the timid join him for then it costs NOTHING to be a patriot." - Mark Twain
You can't affect change while conforming to group norms. The group will destroy your opinion and bury it beneath a pile of egotistical ramblings. Generally they will not grasp the meaning because they are too busy comparing themselves and taking offense. It is only when the fact-undeniable, gains acceptance among a majority of intellectuals that the leity jumps on the bandwagon. That time is coming, and I know I won't reap any of the rewards. I don't want to say it is or isn't about ego, because, since egotism carries such an air of disapproval, to claim to not be an egotist would for all appearances mean not being an egotist. At least from the perspective of egotists. So it's quite futile.
At this point, I concede victory to you and the mob. That is what tickles our fancy, isn't it? Winning. Success. Pride. Belonging.
You know, New York City's crime and internal strife went way down after 9/11. Give the people an external threat that they can rally against and you unite the people. Because people want an "Us vs Them" battle. That is the only way to assure themselves of their own goodness. In time they will go back to fighting among themselves. I've tried to bring a message of peace to put an end to this, but the people didn't want it to end. Instead, they made an enemy out of me. But the seed has been planted and the harvest is near.
Anway, I said I'm going, and I will go. You can have your precious space where the lot of you can pat each others backs and talk about how good we are as our species destroys itself. Or argue about what kind of material a bust is sculpted from, maybe another million spins around the sun debating trivialities is what we need.
I'm out, you can find a way to contact me if you want what I can give you. Otherwise, good frikkin' luck!
"In order to properly understand the totality, the student has to learn how to think non-dualistically. By this, I do not mean he has to cease using dualistic concepts altogether and enter a kind of non-dualistic realm, which is impossible for the human mind to do in any case. Rather, he has to learn how to stop seeking the Truth within a dualistic framework and instead skilfully manipulate dualistic concepts in a manner that generates a proper understanding of non-duality.
In my experience, this is a very rare skill indeed. The main problem is that most people have a strong vested interest in a particular dualistic belief. An obvious example is the Christian concept of God. Christians generally conceive of God as "other" - that is, as something separate from their own selves. They like to create this duality because (a) it enables them to preserve the illusion of their own egos, and (b) it enables them to think of God in an emotional manner; they can conceive of him as a kind of comfortable and secure presence in which their egos can find refuge. Any attempt to think non-dualistically would only undermine this dynamic. In effect, the Christian would have to dismantle his entire world-view, which is unlikely to happen, especially if he has spent many years establishing a lifestyle and an identity around it.
Christians are not the only ones at fault. Nearly all religious people are culpable, as too are most atheists and agnostics. The average atheist/agnostic is often just as rigid and content in his worldview as the Christian is, and fundamentally just as insane. Instead of worshipping God, he worships something just as unreal - scientific truth. The leading scientists have become his high priests, the scientific journals and books have become his bible, scientific materialism has become his religion.
Like a devoted disciple, he regurgitates the words of the high priests and chants the mantras of scientific materialism ("Ultimate Truth is unknowable", "everything is uncertain", "scientific knowledge is the only valid knowledge there is", "matter is the final reality", etc) as though they were the gospel truth. He himself has no idea whether these things are actually true; he simply takes them on blind faith. They have become the tenets of his new religion. And yet, just to compound the madness, he loves nothing better than to turn around and laugh at the Christians for being mindless sheep!
For the average atheist/agnostic, it is enough to reject the irrationality of supernatural religion. That is all that really matters to him. It is the extent of his drive towards truth. As long as he can contrast himself with the religious lunatics he sees around him and pretend that he is a rational human being, he is content. To push reason any further than this would be, for him, a sign of madness. Thus, he shrinks away from the realm of higher reasoning in the same way that a fundamentalist Christian shrinks away from the theories of science.
I will explore this issue in more detail later in the book, but for now I simply want to stress that in order to understand the wisdom of the Infinite, the student needs to learn how to go beyond both the religious and atheistic/agnostic mindsets. Both mindsets are locked within a limited branch of duality and need to be transcended. The belief in God and the belief in scientific materialism spring from the same well of egotism, and although the theist and the atheist love to castigate each other for their foolishness, in reality they are both as foolish as each other. "
As-Salamu Alaykum
"Do you realize you are juggling with some advanced concepts in neurology, genetics, psychology...all discovered and conceptualized through scientific method, only to try to salvage your broken beliefs ?"
You know what, that might have been true if I ever had any beliefs to be broken. But I've been "atheist" pretty much ever since I can remember. I attended a Faith Lutheran church when I was a kid, but I honestly can't remember very much about it, I remember I got an organge stuck in my copy of the Bible and basically threw it out and quit going to church. That's how much I cared about it. I was doing it to make my parents and my community happy, but I didn't care for it at all.
When I started to take an interest in these subjects around age 21 I was a hardline atheist. Pat and Paul Churchland were my idols and on my facebook page under "Religion" I wrote "Eliminativist". I had plenty of arguments with "Theists" over about a 5 year period before changing my own mind.
So, if any of my beliefs have been broken, it is actually my belief in Eliminativism, not God. But things changed and there was a while there I didn't talk to anyone because I actually didn't know anything myself. I used to know, or thought I did, but I changed. It was primarily my study of Epistemology followed up by a reading of David Quinn's Wisdom of the Infinite that caused the changes to occur and to gain an appreciation for Religion, though Quinn and his compatriots Dan Rowden and Kevin Solway who make up the Menoftheinfinite youtube channel do not like religion very much at all. One of the things that attracted me to them was their "atheism" and anti-religious monologues. Their videos "The Importance of Atheism" and "What does Atheism indicate?" as well as "Religious Depravity" and "Certainty vs Certitude" all appealed to my hate for religion. Depsite their attitudes and my revelling in them, I learned from Quinn something else and I began debating the matter with them on their forum.
The Wisdom of the Infinite
by
David Quinn
A guide to intellectually comprehending the nature of Reality
http://members.optushome.com.au/davidquinn000/Wisdom/WisdomContents.htm
A: Theory in science has a different meaning from its colloquial usage.
B: Who says?
A: Well, I'm saying it, but it is the opinion of the entire scientific establishment.
B: You must be some specially selected genius to be able to speak for the scientific establishment!
A: Well, no, I've just read a lot of material on scientific terminology.
B: I haven't read any such material, I think you are making it up.
A: I'm not making it up, look here is a list of resources I used : [Insert paper], [Insert book], etc...
B: What is the point in telling me about the books you've read? You don't think I read books too?
A: I am telling you about those books to make my point.
B: What that you are special?
A: No, that the scientific use of "theory" is different from it's colloquial usage.
B: Why are you using such large words? Are you trying to be impressive with words like "Colloquial".
A: No, I'm just using the words that the people in those books used.
B: So what, you fancy yourself some kind of expert?
A: No, not really, but can you please pay attention to my points and stop attacking me.
B: Now you are getting upset, see that's what you always do.
Etc..
Sure, whatever ted. Don't read my comments but perform pscyhoanalysis on me anyway. That's very virtuous of you. I'm going to stop defending myself because that is where a lot of the problems arise. It goes something like this:
You say some asinine shit about religion and theists
I try to correct you
You attack my ego
I defend my ego
You use my defense as more ammo to continue attacking my ego.
When I say; I am not here for attention, because if I wanted attention I would satisfy my friends and family, but I am garnering negative attention by sticking my neck out for truth.
You spin this around to; I am looking for negative attention.
You aren't listening to what I have been saying, but that doesn't mean others haven't. Most of the time people who are interested in what I have to say aren't loud-mouthed bigots, they are quiet thinkers who only occasionally express their gratitude. Like I have said multiple times, they don't have to express any gratitude, and you don't have to express any disapproval, nor does it matter one way or the other because I'm not doing this for either. I am doing it because I love truth and can't tolerate lies and falsehoods, in me or in anyone. Part of sticking my neck out is just so I can be decapitated when I am wrong. But insults and pseudo-pscyhoanalysis from someone who doesn't bother to read what I wrote is not going to provide me with the motive to stop. I know that to be purified I need to stand in the light of truth where I can be judged. Your judgement is one, but not everything. When I implied that I didn't think there was excess nutrients in waste, Splint Chesthair corrected me, I accept such correction, that is part of it. But first I need to be shown with reason and evidence or at least persuaded by something more than insult and armchair psychology. I need truth, and no other.
Read what I last wrote to Jessss.
No, you are right. I guess I hadn't thought about my comment much. There would be excess nutrients in waste.
I don't think I'll ever kill to save my own life.
A man is not completely born until he is dead.
- BENJAMIN FRANKLIN