Deleted member 193777
Greenlighter
- Joined
- May 22, 2011
- Messages
- 10
Case closed. /lol I hate to talk about straw men, but the virgins thing postmortem is a straw man.
-
PD Moderators: Esperighanto | JackARoe |
Ayahuasca, DMT and Serpents
- Thread starter motiv311
- Start date
No more a straw man than any other religious theory about death. Pick me one that isn't a "straw man".
Presumably you're a believer?
Deleted member 193777
Greenlighter
- Joined
- May 22, 2011
- Messages
- 10
Of what? I'm not religious, and what would qualify me for belief "in" anything?
Not trying to derail a thread though... how does external perception of a being's death say anything about its internal perception and where it goes? Who says things like, my cat/mom died and now I see she's in heaven (because I was there with her)? lmao
Not trying to derail a thread though... how does external perception of a being's death say anything about its internal perception and where it goes? Who says things like, my cat/mom died and now I see she's in heaven (because I was there with her)? lmao
Belief in the Lord?
how does external perception of a being's death say anything about its internal perception and where it goes?
What "internal perception" are you talking about? The external perception is that you are dead - that's pretty accurate isn't it? Or do you think there is some kind of spirit floating upwards towards your dear Lord?
Thorns Have Roses
Bluelight Crew
1. The religious tradition you are referring to believes that the resurrection of the dead is a bodily resurrection (the big 3 Abrahamic religions all believe there will be a bodily resurrection, aside from some small heretical movements).
2. There are non-literalist interpretations of these things, that that just might be a way of saying paradise is really really pleasant but you can't even imagine it so this is how we'll put it (even some Christian denominations use sensual imagery like that even though Jesus stated that in the Kingdom of Heaven men would be as the angels are).
Is it likely no? Is it possible? Sure it is, how could either of us know? I hate discussing these kinds of subject with people who state something they couldn't possibly understand like a fact.
Knowing what happens after you die is not common sense in the slightest. That's like saying it's common sense to know what it's like to be a dog or a cat, when in reality you can just assume or guess what it may be like based on common sense. Doesn't mean you have any idea. You don't know what it is to be anything other than your current living self, just like the rest of us.
It's a total mystery, don't act like you know the secrets of death, the next life or lack of one. It's not very becoming at all.
Survived Abortion
Bluelighter
Dawkins makes his case by attacking the same old tired cliches, cliches which most people - even those who are aware of the divine nature of existence - know are complete rubbish. (Things such as christianity and mediums). We all know that those things are a bunch of bullshit. It's just that he builds his case so convincingly against them, that he diverts everyone's attention away from the elephant in the room (an elephant so huge and right up against our faces that most of us can't even see it). Thus, people walk away chuffed with themselves because someone who poses as intelligent has reinforced their delusional beliefs that there is nothing about life except a meat and bone existence of separate objects.
The ironic thing about it is that - whilst campaigning against beliefs in theological frameworks, Dawkins himself is believing in a construct: a world of entirely independent material 'things', a creationless universe devoid of any holistic logic whatsoever. And his die-hard followers, who claim to not believe in anything, are as much a bunch of suckers as the bible-bashing christians who believe in a demented father 'god' and an egomaniacal saviour.
That's right. Dawkins is the ultimate reductionist. Clever people already know this. Dawkins himself knows this. He just enjoys being a reductionist. But in his heart I believe he has a wholistic framework he's not revealing to us. Perhaps his ego is unaware but I doubt it. He just sees the reductionist case as one he can make convincingly and one where people have bestowed power to him. So he continues the charade...
Interesting you should mention that, at the lecture in question a catholic chick got up and pretty much said verbatim your last paragraph, although in a much more "Religion rocks" kind of way. The thing that surprised me most about seeing Dawkins in person and with a Q and A type setting, is how aware he actually is of this and how willing he is to discuss anything in a calm and intelligent matter.
There was a much more interesting question from a guy studying political science or something, saying he agreed with Dawkins ideas but didn't agree with how he goes about spreading them. Again Dawkins was almost appreciative of the criticism and was very level headed and totally fair in his response.
Why not try and base your beliefs on evidence tho? Is there any evidence that when you die you actually survive your own death in some bizarre "spirit" form?
Knowing what happens after you die is not common sense in the slightest
It is. When you step on a bug it dies. It stops moving, stops breathing and it's corpse begins to rot. Or do you think the insects "spirit" lives on in insect heaven? Doesn't it strike you as unlikely?
You don't know what it is to be anything other than your current living self, just like the rest of us.
Except there is this phenomeon known as death. Which is the cessation of life. I'm happy to accept this concept. Why do you believe that you somehow survive your own death?
It's a total mystery
No mystery whatsoever. You take your dog to be put to sleep and it dies. You carry it home in a bag and take it to the crematorium. Nothing mysterious about it as far as I can see. What do you find mysterious about it? It's sad but I can't see anything mysterious about it. Certainly nothing so mysterious as to make me believe there are several billion people floating around the clouds in "spirit" form who have all survived their own death.
Last edited:
Except if there was some evidence showing the existence of God then Dawkins would admit he was wrong. Whereas a religious person never would because it's a matter of faith not evidence.
psychomimetic
Bluelighter
^Exactly, I often hear people arguing that atheism and science are just another kind of religion, which is totally wrong. Science is proven, and atheism is rooted in logic and realism. Religion is pure fantasy with no reason whatsoever to follow it except that it may make you feel better or feel less insignificant in the universe. Science helps us explain the universe, religion reduces the universe to something that the minds of man fabricated as nice stories.
I'm with Ismene on this one, it's pretty ridiculous to think that life can continue after death. I mean, it's common sense in the same way that the existence or non-existence of unicorns on pluto is common sense. Can any of us prove that pluto is free of magical beings? No. But does anyone believe it? No. Because it makes no sense, it's a total fantasy. It would be nice if god and heaven existed, but they don't.
Sure I don't have proof, but the burden of proof falls upon the person claiming that magic is real. I am simply saying that existence is as it is, while others are claiming it to be some kind of mythical unexplainable thing. That's why I think all drug experiences can be chalked down to the brain, I don't believe in gods, devils, unicorns, gnomes, elves or magical otherworldly serpants. Occams razor is a good rule, and what I see here is people being really high, not people experiencing magic.
Plus, I feel like adding religion cheapens the reality of drug experiences, which can demonstrate to us exactly how amazing the brain is and exactly what it is capable of producing. I'm happier knowing that the DMT elves are hallucinations then I would be believing in alternate fantasy realities.
When a human dies, we can watch their organs stop functioning. We can take their corpse and observe it decay. We know that thought and consciousness in general come from the brain, and we know the brain stops working when you die. So it is logical to follow up and assume that consciousness ends at death.
Ismene's example of bug heaven is also a good one. So is Dawkin's example of ancient religions- none of us really believe that the earth is on a turtle's back, that a giant serpent will devour the world at the end of time, that Zeus is the king of gods. What makes ancient Greek religion nothing more than fantasies? Why is Ovid's Metamorphoses not considered truth, even though there's no proof that it isn't true? It's because it's common sense that they are myths, not truths.
One last edit- I think religion is fascinating and I read a lot of books on theology, especially from polytheistic religions. I can see the value in these books and at the same time dismiss their talk of metaphysics as fairy tales. So I'm not here speaking bad about all religious philosophy, or against people here or anywhere who follow religions, but more against the metaphysical ideas about existence that religion encourages.
For real last edit this time- Debates about religion pretty much never go anywhere and this probably isn't the best place to have one. I can see this thread getting massively derailed in the near future. It would be an interesting thread to have though- "Are hallucinations from psychedelics real or all in your head" or something like that. Or just a thread about psychedelics and religion in general, could be interesting.
I'm with Ismene on this one, it's pretty ridiculous to think that life can continue after death. I mean, it's common sense in the same way that the existence or non-existence of unicorns on pluto is common sense. Can any of us prove that pluto is free of magical beings? No. But does anyone believe it? No. Because it makes no sense, it's a total fantasy. It would be nice if god and heaven existed, but they don't.
Sure I don't have proof, but the burden of proof falls upon the person claiming that magic is real. I am simply saying that existence is as it is, while others are claiming it to be some kind of mythical unexplainable thing. That's why I think all drug experiences can be chalked down to the brain, I don't believe in gods, devils, unicorns, gnomes, elves or magical otherworldly serpants. Occams razor is a good rule, and what I see here is people being really high, not people experiencing magic.
Plus, I feel like adding religion cheapens the reality of drug experiences, which can demonstrate to us exactly how amazing the brain is and exactly what it is capable of producing. I'm happier knowing that the DMT elves are hallucinations then I would be believing in alternate fantasy realities.
When a human dies, we can watch their organs stop functioning. We can take their corpse and observe it decay. We know that thought and consciousness in general come from the brain, and we know the brain stops working when you die. So it is logical to follow up and assume that consciousness ends at death.
Ismene's example of bug heaven is also a good one. So is Dawkin's example of ancient religions- none of us really believe that the earth is on a turtle's back, that a giant serpent will devour the world at the end of time, that Zeus is the king of gods. What makes ancient Greek religion nothing more than fantasies? Why is Ovid's Metamorphoses not considered truth, even though there's no proof that it isn't true? It's because it's common sense that they are myths, not truths.
One last edit- I think religion is fascinating and I read a lot of books on theology, especially from polytheistic religions. I can see the value in these books and at the same time dismiss their talk of metaphysics as fairy tales. So I'm not here speaking bad about all religious philosophy, or against people here or anywhere who follow religions, but more against the metaphysical ideas about existence that religion encourages.
For real last edit this time- Debates about religion pretty much never go anywhere and this probably isn't the best place to have one. I can see this thread getting massively derailed in the near future. It would be an interesting thread to have though- "Are hallucinations from psychedelics real or all in your head" or something like that. Or just a thread about psychedelics and religion in general, could be interesting.
Last edited:
Thorns Have Roses
Bluelight Crew
^I don't think man and myth are separable, or that it is desirable to separate them even if it were possible. Identity and meaning, ontological security not to mention morality are very important, and are among the realms of the human experience that the purely rationalistic approach is not yet able to address adequately (haha, going with your assumption that rationalism and religion are contradictory, a sentiment which sensible theists and religious persons should disagree with).
I disagree man. I think the nature of what's after death is a far more complicated matter than that of Unicorns. We created unicorns, we know they're not real, same as Santa or Homer Simpson. At least not in this time, although I haven't come across any evidence that ancient unicorns once roamed the Earth
I don't think we have a full understanding of the nature of being in a scientific manner to make these assumptions, it may sound like I'm coming off as a fanatic douche and so be it, but I am a person of science and reason, I just think there are certain things science has a basic understanding of.
The nature of our own existence is one of them, in my humble opinion.
I think if we turned our inquisitive nature inwards on understanding ourselves in a more fundamental way, then I believe science would be able to give us more solid evidence to suggest one way or the other. In order to do this correctly, I think we should be logically, and evenhandedly studying psychedelic compounds. Not studying psychedelics is a crime against humanity.
I don't necessarily think that the study of them will lead to us realising anything in particular, like "Oh my god man, God is real, he's in another dimension" or some shit like that, but I think at least some of what would be found would be findings significant enough that have some affect on the current scientific perception of reality. For example the nature of consciousnesses, of which we still do not fully understand.
It seems crazy to me not to want to fill these gaps in scientific knowledge, I mean the fact that Science exists in the first place, and we are able to have this conversation about it is because of our species consciousness. (Using computers and internet no less, which we also created using our minds along with everything else man made on the planet)
Last edited:
psychomimetic
Bluelighter
I disagree man. I think the nature of what's after death is a far more complicated matter than that of Unicorns. We created unicorns, we know they're not real, same as Santa or Homer Simpson. At least not in this time, although I haven't come across any evidence that ancient unicorns once roamed the Earth
Seems to me that we created the concept of life after death as well, as a way of explaining the mysteries of the universe. But now we have science, which can show us the truth of the universe's mysteries, and holding on to the ancient superstitions is counter productive in my mind. Religion is a creation of man, just like unicorns.
A better example might be the one I used at the end with Greek mythology, or Bertrand Russell's teapot example, which I think is a great argument regarding religion and burden of proof- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot
Nah, you come off as a well spoken (well typed?) reasonable dude, no fanaticism or douchebaggery involved.
Science of course can't explain a lot of things, but my faith lies more in the scientific method and currently accepted ways of looking at the world through a scientific lens. I don't believe in things that have no evidence for them whatsoever. And I also think Occam's razor is a good rule- it requires no jump in reasoning, no otherworldly beings, for us to make the conclusion that consciousness ends at death. It requires a huge leap of faith to believe that life continues after every biological part of the body has died.
Science cannot fully explain the mysteries of the universe, but every day we are unlocking more and more clues, it's a great time to be alive in that sense, and I think that science has a much more reasonable way of looking at things then religion. And I think that all scientific techniques must leave one with the conclusion that there is no god and there is no afterlife. To believe in the afterlife, for me, would be to reject many of the most important scientific principles, including the scientific method and occam's razor, as well as to reject logic.
It seems to me that believing in life after death must also contain in it some rejection of the idea that consciousness comes from the brain, because we can watch the brain die and yet people still believe that the functions of the brain continue after death, which makes no sense to me.
I think that we should definitely study psychedelics much more, to get a better understanding of our own consciousness, which I think will lead us to a better understanding of the external universe, so I agree with you there.
I do want to fill the gaps in scientific knowledge, but I don't want to fill them with fantasy, I want to fill them with more scientific knowledge. And I believe that the cosmos are infinitely large and thus I don't think that the gaps will ever be filled. Every scientific discovery unlocks new questions to be asked, and I feel like it cheapens the discoveries to fill the gaps with information that doesn't make sense. Our consciousness is amazing and complex, but I see it purely as chance, not as amazing by design. And I think it's more incredible, more fascinating, to believe that consciousness originates from billions of years of complex chemical and physical processes then it is to just explain everything away with a deity.
"I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing then to have answers that might be wrong."- Richard Feynman- this is a pretty interesting interview ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YltEym9H0x4&feature=related ), he starts talking about what we've been talking of at the 2 minute mark or so. He's arguing for agnosticism it seems, but he's also arguing for a rejection of ideas that don't fit into a logical, scientific picture of existence. He refers to religion as too provincial, bringing up the point that it is all man made explanations for a seemingly mysterious and meaningless universe. And I agree.
And I also think this, my favorite speech ever, is relevant ("thousands of confident religions...")- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wupToqz1e2g
"Our imagined self importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark."
I think that, given the vastness of the cosmos, there is no reason to believe that we humans are special, there is no evidence that any of this came from god and there is no logical or scientific reason to believe in life after death. I think consciousness comes directly from biological organs, and I don't see any reason that the functions of the brain would continue after the brain has died and decayed to dust. It just strikes me as a bit of a cop out to make faith based assumptions on the universe with no proof. Which I think is why Russell's teapot is such a good example.
I think morality is perfectly accessible from various standpoints of rationalism, but I also think that compassion and human emotion are valid reasons for morality, I think a lot of our morality is within our neuro chemistry. I know of no religion that adequately deals with moralistic questions, questions of identity and ontological security. Beyond that, I don't think we should take false beliefs simply because it makes the universe more explainable and makes us feel better or even act better. I think it's better to not know then to simply accept ideas that make no sense whatsoever.
I don't think all religious beliefs necessarily contradict science and logic, but I think ideas of life after death and tangible (humanoid in many cases) gods clearly do contradict reason. I see faith in life after death, religion and in gods that create and destroy the universe to be a bit of a cop out.
Why do you think that atheism cannot address morality, identity and meaning as well as religion can? Morality seems easy enough to figure out to me. I see no meaning to existence and beyond that I see no reason that existence needs a meaning. To insist on meaning is to humanize the external world. Natural processes do not have any meaning applicable to the human mind. I think we create our own meanings through self definition while existing withing a world that simply is.
I agree with you that myth and man are inseperable, but at the same time I reject that those myths are literally true. Like I said earlier, religion fascinates me and I love reading about theology (just started on the Ramayana). I can see the value within these ancient texts but I can also reject wholeheartedly any ideas of god it puts forth. I can take the morality without the faith in other words, pick and choose what seems right to me just as if I was reading any other work of philosophy, which is essentially what I see religion as being.
Woah wa we woah wall of text. Don't usually type so much, this is an interesting subject though.
tl;dr- Ismene sums up what I'm getting at nicely in the next post. It's the leaps of faith that religion demands that I have a problem with. Similarly to me not believing that DMT gnomes are actually really real.
Last edited:
True, but why does that mean you have to survive your own death? I'm struggling to see what benefit nature sees in this. If you can survive in the "spirit" form why has nature gone to the trouble of creating flesh and blood bodies? I think the consciousness is a consequence of the flesh and blood - once the flesh and blood goes so does the consciousness. That makes sense doesn't it?
Survived Abortion
Bluelighter
I'm putting this in NSFW tags, because it's a long-ish post in response to @psychomimetic's post. This is to keep the thread tidy so that it stays on topic for the readers who can't be bothered to read huge amounts of off-topic text to keep up. It might also be an idea if a couple of the above posters did the same thing.
NSFW:
Last edited:
This man appears capable of having a heated argument with his own imagination. Perhaps this is the mindset you need to believe in God and the afterlife.