WOF: Three or four things that Are on my mind.

[Shaolin Wookie]

Your argument is flawed as you are human and imperfect. Who are you to question God you have no idea of the master plan . The word of God is corrupted and in all of your so called "LOGIC" condemn the god for the acts of man. Your MA teacher teaches you if you question his method you will learn but not as well as you could or should. There is evil in in the world even with out God or Christianity. Look at the Mayans and the Chinese and the Russians look at Lenin MaoTse Tung and others . You are confused by your own ego in thinking you are wiser than God. KC

Hahahaha.........

I am flawed and imperfect because I am human. Well, I admit I am human. Flawed and imperfect? Well, 7 million years of evolution led up to me. I'm strong. I support myself. I make a good living. I am reasonably intelligent, and I am kind.

I also do not believe in God.

I dont' condemn god for the acts of man. And I don't laud him for them either. He didn't do evil things. Men did. And he didn't do good things. Men did. I think you'd appreciate both points. But then how does God take credit?

Believers tend to make the common mistake of attributing all good things to god, for they wish to have a positive god. An evil one just doesn't make sense. Obivously, love is in our best interest. Therefore, god is love. But I could write a treatise describing an evil god, where he enjoins evil, and the main flaw in the argument would be, wouldn't you know it, "the problem of good."

Different sides of the same coin.

Actually, I find questioning a teacher to be a good thing to do. My needs are not the same as my classmate's. His needs are not mine. I learn by questioning. Sometimes I know the answer before I hear it, sometimes I have no friggin' clue. But I ask nonetheless, because asking, questioning, doubting--they're part of learning. If you've never doubted, you've never learned. Einstein made a crappy Newtonian physicist. But he was the engineer of relativity.

Ponder.

I'm not wiser than god. Nobody is.

But do you know why I'd make that statement?

[SanHeChuan]

Does the electric car really consume less oil that a traditional combustion one?

It still takes a good deal of oil to produce those batteries, unfortunately I can't find a good chart for the argument at this time. Maybe someone else will have better luck.

It's an issue of convenience.

Is it? or is it an issue of trading one pollution for another.

But necessity will dictate just how long our convenience will be tolerated.

Ok now I know some people have just not been listening.

[Shaolin Wookie]

Hi Shaolin Wookie continued,

I stated:

We tend to not explore that which we believe to be beyond reason or that which we consider unreasonable, forgetting or not understanding that there is a manner of perceiving that exists prior to discursive thinking. The consequence of this is we no longer are able to perceive clearly, that is, we perceive with preconceived notions. These preconceived notions filter reality/experience for us and therefore we only perceive what we want to or expect to perceive and not what is actually occurring.



This does not preclude one from having conditioned views that regulate what they will accept as worthy of investigation. You appear to have fixed views about this subject. These fixed views limit your ability to fully understand the topic. These fixed views affect your ability to consider information that contradicts your fixed view. This is not a quality of mind that is unique to you, it occurs with all humans. There are numerous examples available to demonstrate scientists are affected by this limitation as well. Subjects they consider closed, thinking they are fully understood, are examples of closed mindedness that affects their ability to explore beyond what they consider reasonable.

I wrote:

We are conditioned from birth to perceive in a discursive manner. Experience/Knowledge of God/Tao is a direct experience and not something easily communicated in a linear manner. In like kind, the KNOWING we obtain of God/Tao occurs in the experience itself.



This is an excellent example of my previous point. You have a fixed view and cannot understand a clearly worded example that refutes your view. My examples may be directly experienced to prove the point. I return you to the example of happiness and the orange. You will be unable to understand the experience of happiness or the taste of an orange unless you have had the experience yourself. These experiences occur in a non-discursive manner. They are communicated in a discursive manner. When a non-discursive experience is discursively described the non-discursive experience gets confused with the discursive description. The description is NOT the thing itself. A description of the experience does not GIVE you the experience. A description is merely an inadequate indication of what the direct experience is LIKE not what it IS! The fact you are apparently unable to understand this simple point demonstrates how your fixed view will not allow you to consider what you have determined to be unreasonable.

I wrote:

This is a misunderstanding of God/Tao; God/Tao exists because he has knowledge/sentience or himself! Others are NOT a necessity!



You are assuming here. You do not fully understand the qualities of mind so you cannot know this will occur. Since the mind’s function is thought, thought will occur; we just do not know how thought would be manifested. It is just as likely the mind would create qualities of thought and artificially separate them from itself as God/Tao has done. It is possible discursive thought would occur spontaneously, since this is an inherent quality of mind. Once discursive thought occurs there is subject and object and the mind is free to create its own world of separate phenomena. The only reason our dreams occur according the context of material experience is because this is the primary context experienced by the discursive mind. There is no reason to believe this is the only way we dream. It is at least possible the mind translates non-discursive experience into a discursive context in order to make the dream more understandable to the limited perception of our mind.



I would agree with you concerning sincerity and religion.

I am not discussing organized religion here, but direct experience of God/Tao. Religion serves a purpose in society; if it didn’t it would not exist, however organized religions commonly create limited, flawed and sometimes foolish views of God/Tao.

Organized religion serves a social and emotional purpose for those who need it, but it creates a limiting and confining context for those who choose to transcend the narrow aspects of the social and emotional context. Religions are one means societies use to cultivate social cohesion. Social cohesion is generally a benefit to individuals and that is why cohesive structures occur, however these same structures force individuals to conform to artificial structures that limit human experience and creativity. All societies require common behavior codes in order to provide social cohesion; one consequence of this is it creates a sense of “us and them” which encourages conflict.

Most of the major religions do have indications of the principles I have discussed, but they are hidden within the teaching and are not easily discerned. The majority of adherents participate in the social aspects conforming to rituals and behaviors on a superficial level, but never explore the deeper meanings.



I appreciate your sincere interest, but sincerity is not a substitute for comprehensive understanding. You may have been investigating for 20 years, but your search does not appear to have produced satisfactory results. Your posts appear to reflect resentment, hostility and frustration. Perhaps I am misunderstanding the tone of your posts or, if I am correct, perhaps your attitude is due to the lack of satisfaction with your current belief system. In other words, perhaps you have an inner desire or impetus to want to believe/understand, but have not found a satisfactory means to come to an understanding of God/Tao. I will leave it to you to clarify your position if you so desire.

At any rate I appreciate your continued participation in our discussion.

I'll write a reply on this issue on Saturday, when I have time. Until then, I guess I ought to say--I do resent the brainwashing, and the hegemony. But in the struggle for truth, I learned a lot. I have no other resentment and hostility towards religion, except for closeminded kinds. Spirituality? Don't know...tried it, and it didn't fit. Many people considered me a mystic for a long time. But I never did. In fact, many of my closest friends and family don't know I'm an atheist. Some do. I don't cloak my thoughts. Some people just don't want to see their friend or son become "one of those people." All they know is when the subject of religion is broached, I can speak far more fluently with a well-informed sense of history, politics, and spirituality. (KFM...that's anothers story). My uncle is a minister. For years we had discussions. He figured me for a non-conformist. But I was an atheist, according to usual definitions. Me? I'm nothing. And nothing else. He was surprised to discover I was an atheist, and had been so for years. Now he gives me smug smiles, and prods me into arguments he constantly loses.

Yes, I think the Bible is a joke. I pick on bad books. But I promise you. I'm just as hard on Danielle Steel and Harry Potter.

[Shaolin Wookie]

And the Bronte sisters.

[kwaichang]

People typically do not believe in those things they cannot explain KC

[SanHeChuan]

People typically do not believe in those things they cannot explain KC

People typically make stuff up to explain the things they can not understand.

[fa_jing]

--And, in order for "I" or self-identity to function or even exist, there must exist a separation between the operative and the operation.--


So, the I that perceives itself is not the same as the I being perceived?

In the introduction to Sartre's "Being and Nothingness" he defines the "I" as that which to exist and to perceive itself are one and the same. Trippy, ain't it?

Anyway, I see strange connections in life. More than meets the eye.

Anybody here read Goedel Escher Bach? Unfortunately I haven't had time yet.

Also funny how some of the modern philosophy parallels elements of Eastern Philosophy, both South and East Asian.

[fa_jing]

So, who here can tell me how Chris Angel Mindfreak does the tricks? Anybody?

[Crushing Fist]

I haven't read this entire thread carefully but can't resist philosophy, so I'll just make a few brief comments.

I'll be staying away from the "God" debate, save to say I am an atheist who is acutely aware of the current limits of human knowledge.

HAHA....there's a reason our minds to perceive things in linear fashions concerning cause and effect, dude.

It goes the way with this world that causes beget effects.

This can only lead to the question of what was the original cause? If "all" effects need a cause we find the central paradox of existence very quickly. This seems to leave us either inventing a cause to fill that blank, or accepting "infinty" which, lets be honest, amounts to little more than just saying, "I don't know". In this case, I prefer to skip to the end.

Am I?

This question answers itself. A more dificult question would be:

"Is anything else?"

According to this thesis, General and special relativity would never have arisen. People constantly question the existence of things, and their non-existence. Consider the technological revolution of the past century. The world does not even look like a former shade of itself anymore. Seventeenth century time-travellers would never recognize New York City....

You are pointing to the exception in order to disprove the rule. Most of the time, most people do not question existence or non-existence, and the genius that has brought us this far can in no way be considered the norm.

If I'm born alone in a black cave, fed through some kind of nanotechnological feeding device (don't ask), and have a sense perception inhibitor of another nanotechnological sort, and am never able to feel, touch, taste, smell, see, or hear anything outside of myself, or even of myself, I will never develop any kind of identity. For all I know I could be running through a forest, hitting every tree on the way there, but I'll never know it. I have no input. Hence, there is no development.

This is pretty demonstrative of the tyranny of cause and effect.

This seems correct, but it is as untestable as God and not really a useful arguement. It does, however, lead to the obvious problem (one brought up by Plato, whom I can only imagine your above scenario is derived from) of the limitations of our input. The only connection to the "outside" is through our senses, and only so far as they can be trusted can we have "reality". What we know of everything "out there" can never be more than a shadow cast on the wall. However, take all those shadows away, and what is left? We can't know. It leads us to the same place as the prime mover question, just taking another road there.

[kwaichang]

Since most athiests believe there is no God but cant prove it , I am curious how do they , the athiests, explain our universe or our being here, if in reality we are here and the I that is within us all, the believers and the non-believers, where did it come from and after death where does it go ? BTW my ego does not allow me to question God I do not try to imagine I am that intelligent. KC

[DPL]

Since most athiests believe there is no God but cant prove it...

It's a religious argument. Nobody can prove anything. The atheists can't prove anything, the Christians can't prove anything, the agnostics can't prove anything, and the scientists can't prove anything.

That's why it will never end, and also why it's interesting to read.

Right now I'm judging the score as Shaolin Wookie and Scott R. Brown tied on core points, with SB slightly ahead on concept because he's taking into account both linear and non-linear thought and SW seems to want to treat non-linear as invalid somehow, which seems a bit odd given the fairly obvious binary qualities of humanity and human perception.

Keep it up guys - fun to read...

[DPL]

And the Bronte sisters.

But SW gets bonus points for calling out the Bronte sisters. How in the h*** did they end up being respected, 'classic' authors...?

[SevenStar]

I dont' condemn god for the acts of man. And I don't laud him for them either. He didn't do evil things. Men did. And he didn't do good things. Men did. I think you'd appreciate both points. But then how does God take credit?

the same way your teacher takes credit for your martial skill or lack thereof - it came from him.

Believers tend to make the common mistake of attributing all good things to god, for they wish to have a positive god. An evil one just doesn't make sense. Obivously, love is in our best interest. Therefore, god is love. But I could write a treatise describing an evil god, where he enjoins evil, and the main flaw in the argument would be, wouldn't you know it, "the problem of good."

and thus, you have satan. they are yin and yang. God is given credit for bad things as well, just not ungodly things. shaolin do - god's credit. murdering sin the - satan's idea, although it may be a great idea in the eyes of many.

[Shaolin Wookie]

So, who here can tell me how Chris Angel Mindfreak does the tricks? Anybody?

I know and can do several of them. The smaller ones are easy. The levitation is tough. When it's in a small room, and he's levitating onto an object (chair, ledge), he does the most common form of the trick, which is to angle his body away, then he slips his leg out of a false leg casing built into his pants, out through a small slit near the knee, then just steps up (which is hard to do in this manner, but he's in great shape). Seen it done by a dude at UGA who didn't care about the secrecy of it.

Now, as for the big illusions: being hit by a car, the fire extinguisher one....hell, you just have to give it to the man....he's good.

I do think some are just camera tricks, though.

[Shaolin Wookie]

Since most athiests believe there is no God but cant prove it , I am curious how do they , the athiests, explain our universe or our being here, if in reality we are here and the I that is within us all, the believers and the non-believers, where did it come from and after death where does it go ? BTW my ego does not allow me to question God I do not try to imagine I am that intelligent. KC

Well, biologically speaking, we're not that unique. Self identity is shared by many species. In the light of natural selection, it is our intelligence and intellection that allows us to survive. We're just the most cunning of all the species, outside of dolphins and penguins, of course.

The most profound thing I ever saw was a scientific study of a chimpanzee who was given a full length mirror. They set several different species of monkeys and apes in front of it, and all of them thought it was a window with another monkey or ape behind it. They then marked the animals with paint in another room, then returned the animals to the mirror room, to see if they recognized themselves. None of the species did. But then they brought out a chimp. They set the chimp in front of it, and you actually saw the process of self-recognition develop. It was absolutely amazing. They then took the chimp out of the room, marked him with paint without letting him see they were doing it, then took him back to the mirror and set him in front of it. Immediately he saw his reflection, reached up to his head, and began grooming the paint out of it. He didn't see glass and another chimp. He saw himself. And he saw a strange substance on his head which wasn't there before.

Absolutely friggin' mindblowing, eh?

Self-recognition in "lower" species. And you got to see him develop it so quickly and acutely.

It takes certain brain configs. to develop self-recognition and point-of-projection awareness. A snail doesn't need it. Neither does a bacterium.

And this leads us to the origin of life on earth: bacteria. The same things that spark fungi, plant growth, and life cultures. They are the most likely candidate for having fostered life on earth.

I would also correct your definition of an atheist. He/she is not someone who believes there is no god. He/she is someone who has no belief whatsoever in god. It's a minor shift in syntax, but it carries a different meaning. A-thiesm=without theism...not disbelief in theism. Hence, we are all atheists at birth.