• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: Xorkoth | Madness

What aspects of the atheist religion do you like/dislike?

According to popular philosophy, everything is a belief (incapable of being proved, absolutely) except for existence.
Basically, all we know is that something is happening. We don't know what it is, or what it means.

Belief is a mental representation, treated in various academic disciplines, especially philosophy and psychology, of a sentient being's attitude toward the likelihood or truth of something.
Click to expand...

There are varying degrees of belief.
Although, these days, I'm not sure whether I believe more in this life or in God.
I know there is *something* beyond this life, because I've tasted it.

Near-death experiences are absolutely extra-ordinary.
When you transition from a dream into your waking life, the illusion of the dream shatters.
You can look back and realize that your unconscious experiences are illogical (by waking standards).
Similarly, when you transition from life to death, life (by comparison) appears to be flimsy and illusory.

To transition consciously from a snail to a man would be overwhelming.
Transitioning from man to God, more so.

I believe in what I experience, and my near death experiences are - by far - my most profound experiences.
I'll put it this way: I believe that *something* extraordinary (and largely undocumented) happens when we die, as much as I believe anything.
And it is obvious to me, having had these experiences, that others throughout history (including Biblical contributors) have (had the same experiences) also.
 
Last edited:
I think Japanese cultural norms and language covers these experiences more accurately than western ideas.

Our philosophy was always kind of shit in my opinion. It is easy to feel disillusioned from it.

I think therefore I am expands for me into I am and therefore some other thing is, apart from me. This is because I am somehow without knowledge of a second thing but then I am.

This could possibly an illusion of something being folded, but then what is it folded against? There must be something other than myself even if it is not necessarily separate, for even the illusion of separation, there must be something, possibly a nothingness or time, between that thing and myself.
 
I lived in Tokyo for over three years.
A lot of Westerners romanticize Japanese culture, but it's far from perfect.
Modern Japanese culture is a bit of a mess, honestly. Probably more so than most Western countries.
Life in Japan is not what you'd expect, if you've never lived there before.
There's a lot of blatant racism and sexism in Tokyo.

I get what you mean, generally, but I'm not sure what you mean by the word language.
The Japanese language was adapted from (ancient) Chinese dialects.
Rather than specifically saying Japanese, you should just say Eastern.

I don't think you can rightly say that Eastern philosophy is "better" (although people do say this).
Nor do I think you can rightly say that Western philosophy is "kind of shit".
It's, probably, easy to experience disillusionment towards either.

I think therefore I am expands for me into I am and therefore some other thing is, apart from me. This is because I am somehow without knowledge of a second thing but then I am.

This could possibly an illusion of something being folded, but then what is it folded against? There must be something other than myself even if it is not necessarily separate, for even the illusion of separation, there must be something, possibly a nothingness or time, between that thing and myself.
Click to expand...

You're projecting what we know about our world onto the infinite/divine/unknown.

We observe change, in our world. Something once alive, has become dead.
So we conclude that for one thing to exist, something else must exist.
But - theoretically - if there is no time, there is no death (or change).

It is very difficult to wrap your head around, but it's entirely possible that there is only existence (and nothing else).
If God is everything - and God experiences everything - then God is existence.
There cannot be something, outside of everything.

Regardless of whether or not there is something beyond existence, we cannot assume it.
There doesn't HAVE TO BE something else. The only indisputable thing (without the aid of your assumptions) is existence.
 
Descartes began without knowing even existence. How could you not know something and then know it?
 
At no point during anybody's life do they ever wonder whether or not *something* is happening; it is impossible.

Descartes (fuck me, I'm actually discussing entry-level academic philosophy) may have questioned whether or not he knew that he existed.
But, he concluded that - in order to question it - he must have existed in the first place. Because, otherwise, he couldn't have questioned it.
Non-existence is paradoxical.

How could you not know something and then know it?
Click to expand...

This question is insane. I don't even understand it.
Why can't you not know something, and then know it?
What model are you basing this on: I mean, I assume you weren't born with all of your adult knowledge?

...

Stop typing.
Think about it.
 
Did you ever stop to think like Descartes? How do he know anything other than Descartes existed?

Entry level "stuff" if the root of things, if they have any importance, that is the most important part to understand. Revisit them.
 
It's boring. The fact that Descartes even gets credit for this is insane.
It's so incredibly obvious, to me. It sounds profound, but it's not.
Everybody knows that they exist. it goes without saying.
 
ForEverAfter said:
According to popular philosophy, everything is a belief (incapable of being proved, absolutely) except for existence.
Basically, all we know is that something is happening. We don't know what it is, or what it means.



There are varying degrees of belief.
Although, these days, I'm not sure whether I believe more in this life or in God.
I know there is *something* beyond this life, because I've tasted it.

Near-death experiences are absolutely extra-ordinary.
When you transition from a dream into your waking life, the illusion of the dream shatters.
You can look back and realize that your unconscious experiences are illogical (by waking standards).
Similarly, when you transition from life to death, life (by comparison) appears to be flimsy and illusory.

To transition consciously from a snail to a man would be overwhelming.
Transitioning from man to God, more so.

I believe in what I experience, and my near death experiences are - by far - my most profound experiences.
I'll put it this way: I believe that *something* extraordinary (and largely undocumented) happens when we die, as much as I believe anything.
And it is obvious to me, having had these experiences, that others throughout history (including Biblical contributors) have (had the same experiences) also.
Click to expand...

Sorry for quoting whole thing, only mobile capability. This is probably off-topic and I apologize if this is contrary to suggested rules of this sub-forum. I was just wondering, ForEverAfter, how one may go about attempting to experience a near-death experience or perhaps the presence of what they perceive as God? (However you'd go about describing these experiences you've had)

I ask because I initially came across your postings from years back with the "Junk Mail" postings, and they were astonishingly good writings, very honest and an amazing/unique perspective. I gathered that you have tons of experiences with psychedelics aside from all the meth use, but it seems you have had massive insights with both. Has it just been through experimentation with these things that you've had a taste of what happens when we die or has it been solely from other things such as development of spirituality through prayer/meditation/whatever has given you these things. Thanks, this is probably better-suited for private message but can't seem to find that function on BlueLight for some reason. :/
 
ForEverAfter said:
It's boring. The fact that Descartes even gets credit for this is insane.
It's so incredibly obvious, to me. It sounds profound, but it's not.
Everybody knows that they exist. it goes without saying.
Click to expand...
Philosophy searches for truth and yet nobody who uses philosophy beginning with truthful premise; they always make assumptions first.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top