[MEGA] God v.2

[Enlitx]

This is not a logically sound analogy, because atheism is not a positively defined category of belief. It's negatively defined -- the only thing that all atheists have in common is something they all lack, not something they all have. So the question then becomes, are people who lack a belief in a higher power a separate population from people who have a belief in a higher power, with regards to willingness to use violent and exploitative means to achieve their aims? I think a sociological or psychological study able to demonstrate this unequivocally would be very methodologically hard to design. For example, high socioeconomic status would be a confounding factor, because it's causally related to both low degrees of religiosity and low propensity to violent crime, joining the army, joining a gang, or most other measurable indicators you could use for 'permissive stance toward the use of brute force'. This wouldn't prove that losing one's religion makes one a less violent person.

Although a detailed study of the effects of religion would be difficult, it is not difficult to posit a general assumption. Supernatural beliefs invite irrational behavior. Violence does not always occur, but the likelihood of unfounded hatred increases. It also encourages irrational belief in other areas. The only positive thing that I can see is that people will feel comforted by their beliefs, but since the collateral damage that can come with those belief is real, I simply advocate for a logic based belief system.

See, here's the thing that kills me about these sorts of impassioned arguments from physicalists (formerly known as materialists): By choosing to be a physicalist and accepting all that this philosophically implies, you've undermined the basis for really valuing anything above anything. After all, if physicalism is true, then we're all just random, quite possibly one-time, fleeting, unbelievably insignificant accidents in a cold, indifferent, impersonal universe, that itself is ultimately bound for heat death and disappearance forever. I dunno dude, with that prospect, it's pretty hard to put on a pedestal such things as human intellect, the life of the mind, reason, advanced technology, history, peace and prosperity, or even art. It's hard to really say that anything has intrinsic value, in a world where nothing and no one has intrinsic meaning or any intrinsic purpose. If this is the case, why NOT just while away your life wallowing in your warm liquid goo of choice with your pink drink in one hand, a needle in your arm, and your hand on your genitals? Why not just off yourself right now? Or, if it's not going to ultimately matter at all if I'm wrong, and I won't even be there to see that I guessed wrong, why NOT just give in to my yearnings for a higher power and/or a transcendent reality? Under physicalism, there's really no reason why not to. Atheism has no AntiGod, who'll damn me to an eternity in a nether-realm without a single book or Internet connection, if I stray from the path of unwavering reason.

The above paragraph is my standard spiel on why I don't buy secular humanism.

You are correct, there is no ultimate value in anything. We are a random blip in a vast universe. I live in a way that maximizes my pleasure. Since I was raised to care about others, treating other people well increases my own pleasure. Although there is no ultimate and objective purpose behind it all, I find my life to be full of meaning and joy because I give it meaning and joy. I find that this leads to a very fulfilling and worthwhile existence. Everyone could live like this if they can just make the transition from a life that requires a higher purpose or higher order. It is difficult at first, but it is only difficult for a short amount of time. That is why I said people need emotional courage to make the leap.

Of course this does invite the possibility of a mass murdering society like the Nazi regime, I find that humans have too many survival/societal instincts to seriously worry that secular humanism is a threat to our survival. I seriously doubt that if everyone adopted this philosophy there would be nothing but murder, chaos, and mindless self indulgence in our society. In fact, I generally find atheists to be kind and thoughtful people. That is just my own anecdotal experience though.

'Better' is relative, and implies a purpose. Better at doing what? Better at accomplishing what? (I'm aware you've already answered this implicitly, so I'll save you having to repeat yourself, and confirm that I'm indeed asking this rhetorically.) It's clear that having no belief in a higher power or anything supernatural serves your personal purposes well. That much is clear. And I won't begrudge you this metaphysical stance -- it's your life to live, it's your choices to make. If you're happy and healthy and your life is in balance, who am I to gripe?

But please understand that your worldview does not serve anyone and everyone's needs and purposes well. Not by a long shot. In fact, for some people, it's the last thing they need.

Better in the same sense that I outlined above, if peace and intellectual progress are valued ideals. There wouldn't be time wasted on absurd notions like an invisible friend in the sky. That time could be used for productive things on earth. I have yet to find a function served by religion that could not be served by a secular function. The only thing that would necessarily be nixed is the idea that there is an ultimate purpose to it all.

Ultimately though, it comes down to what is probable. I mean, it would be nice if I really believed that unicorns ran the universe and they really cared about me, but it is highly improbable. Even if religion served some purpose, the ideas behind it are absurd in the same since that unicorn overlords are absurd. If people would say that their beliefs are unfounded, highly improbable, and ultimately exist because they really wish they were true, that would be one thing. But instead people say that they believe in these supernatural things and it is just as valid as any other viewpoint, which it isn't.

And so, that said, I'm going to politely remind everyone here one more time that no one posting in P&S is welcome to antagonize another poster for their stated beliefs, if they clearly weren't looking for debate. This rule is in the P&S guidelines now, because this forum serves a broader range of people, and is a more enjoyable experience for all, filled with more light than heat, when it's followed. If anyone feels this is unreasonable, I'm happy to ask the Senior Moderators to hear both sides, and make a judgement as to whether this is a fair rule. If they deem it unfair, I'll not only take down the rule, but turn in my modstick too -- I'll not mod a forum where this rule isn't upheld or wanted.

I have tried to be very civil about what I have said. If I have broken any rules let me know. As far I can tell, I have only addressed the ideas so far.

Life may not always be about it, but this forum is. We're not a bunch of scientists or academic philosophers. We're not a professional union or a paid think tank. We don't publish a peer-reviewed journal. We don't claim to be an authoritative source on anything besides minimally harmful psychoactive drug use. P&S is here to serve the needs of all people for whom drug use is connected to philosophical and spiritual pursuits, so that they may use the right drugs in the right dosages whilst taking the right precautions, so as to achieve THEIR PERSONAL philosophical and spiritual aims with minimal risk of harm to themselves. This includes many people who believe deeply in things supernatural. To greet such people here with "Turn pirate or walk the plank!" would not be serving our mission as part of BL.

I am cool with the function of this board, but is it not a message board so that people can discuss the ideas? People have their opinion, I have mine. Some people claim that every idea is equally valid, and I disagree. It is just another viewpoint, I have not attacked anyone nor suggested that people stop posting their ideas. I have simply offered my viewpoint on the philosophy being discussed.

Sorry you feel that way. My stance on this matter is actually something I've given quite a lot of thought to, and discussed at length with other moderators here. I'll make sure next time I live up to Enlitx's standards of ingenuity.

I probably shouldn't have stated that you were being disingenuous. What I meant was that you probably use logic and reason to make all kinds of decisions in your life but you stop as soon as it comes to supernatural beliefs. I didn't mean it as a personal attack, hope you didn't take it that way.

Thanks for your opinion, man.

No problem, dude.

 

[Enlitx]

Yeah, I find physicalism pretty unacceptably bleak. But beyond that, I am far from convinced it behooves anyone, that it's anyone's duty or responsibility, to jettison all notions supernatural, or to aggressively or obtrusively push other people to do so. I'm not convinced that physicalism is the only logical possibility that that an intelligent, thinking, educated person who's entirely honest with himself and others could possibly hold. And nor am I convinced that it's the only sensible option for an ethically-minded person who truly has the future of humanity in mind.

I agree that physicalism is not the only possible explanation that an educated person could hold. But, it is by far the most likely explanation available. It is like looking at an apple that is about to fall off of a tree. Yes, that apple could go straight up after the twig breaks, but what would an educated person guess?

There is a reason that most of the discussion about supernatural theories are based around how they make a person feel, because there is nothing to talk about how they actually might exist beyond very generous extrapolations.

Physicalism makes you feel bleak, and other theories offer more in the way of emotional reinforcement. I think that is the whole story right there.

 

[Psychedelic Gleam]

Try the one on me that you've been most impressed with. Drop me a few names that you hold dear. I've read a number of them, and even explored secular humanism for a while, and I haven't been convinced by any of them. I can only really think of one nominally secular system of morality has ever achieved lasting popularity: Confucianism. And this took hold in places that for a large part retained indigenous folk beliefs regarding the supernatural.

Well I doubt anyone I could list would be a surprise or unknown to you, though Camus has always been quite a moving and convincing character in his philosophical (and "fictional") writings, especially The Myth of Sisyphus, with his conception of a world in which meaning is found through the self in the struggle and search not the ascribed and intrinsic meaning.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

Although a detailed study of the effects of religion would be difficult, it is not difficult to posit a general assumption. Supernatural beliefs invite irrational behavior. Violence does not always occur, but the likelihood of unfounded hatred increases. It also encourages irrational belief in other areas. The only positive thing that I can see is that people will feel comforted by their beliefs, but since the collateral damage that can come with those belief is real, I simply advocate for a logic based belief system.

Well until we're in possession of some data, then, let's not treat it as any sort of substantiated link, but rather as your pet theory. You've got yours and I've got mine. We all believe in things unproven, because surprisingly little is proven.

You're in the minority in finding a logic-based belief system makes you feel fulfilled. That's great for you that you are.

You are correct, there is no ultimate value in anything. We are a random blip in a vast universe.

You surmise.

I live in a way that maximizes my pleasure. Since I was raised to care about others, treating other people well increases my own pleasure. Although there is no ultimate and objective purpose behind it all, I find my life to be full of meaning and joy because I give it meaning and joy. I find that this leads to a very fulfilling and worthwhile existence. Everyone could live like this if they can just make the transition from a life that requires a higher purpose or higher order. It is difficult at first, but it is only difficult for a short amount of time. That is why I said people need emotional courage to make the leap.

This was not my experience. I explored atheism for years, and called myself one for some time too. It didn't get gradually easier for me at all. I've always had a strong inner sense my entire life that I'm here right now for a higher mission or purpose of some sort. And I've found when I take that intuition seriously and let it guide my life, good things just tend to happen to me and the people whose lives I'm a part of. And when I dismiss this sense of mine as a accidental and meaningless fluke of firing neurons, the effect is much the opposite. Spare me any comments you may have about me being unfortunate to be born with certain genes or brain neuroarchitecture or anything similar. I've made my choice based on experience, and I need no one's pity.

Of course this does invite the possibility of a mass murdering society like the Nazi regime, I find that humans have too many survival/societal instincts to seriously worry that secular humanism is a threat to our survival. I seriously doubt that if everyone adopted this philosophy there would be nothing but murder, chaos, and mindless self indulgence in our society. In fact, I generally find atheists to be kind and thoughtful people. That is just my own anecdotal experience though.

I agree wholeheartedly that a murderous nazi-ish regime is quite far-fetched. I was thinking more along the lines of, without religion or spirituality of any kind (but no other major changes), people who were ignorant and deeply troubled within themselves would eventually just find other excuses to hate and fight, and overall levels of injustice, intolerance, and wrongdoing would be just as high as they are now. The root of the problem, to me, isn't supernatural belief. It's people with unmet needs or lacking inner peace who exploit others as an expression of this.

Better in the same sense that I outlined above, if peace and intellectual progress are valued ideals.

One can achieve peace, democracy, and intellectual process by just keeping church and state separated, and defending freedom of religion (or freedom to choose no religion). One doesn't need to be a physicalist, or to promote physicalism, to uphold and believe in these ideals.

There wouldn't be time wasted on absurd notions like an invisible friend in the sky.

I wish you wouldn't use language like this. It's insensitive and inflammatory. Don't worry, I'd get on someone's case for going on about 'godless heathen monsters' too. It's just not the spirit I'd like to foster here. Thanks.

That time could be used for productive things on earth. I have yet to find a function served by religion that could not be served by a secular function. The only thing that would necessarily be nixed is the idea that there is an ultimate purpose to it all.

And that's a vital component, to many people. It may seem minor to you, but my hunch is that most people could not reasonably be expected to adopt and stick with the worldview you advocate. This is just a hunch, from my own life experience and those of people I've known and spoken with. I could be wrong, and only time will tell, as the internet and the free exchange of ideas around the globe accelerates and penetrates ever deeper. Either way I've made my choice and I'm sticking with it.

Ultimately though, it comes down to what is probable. I mean, it would be nice if I really believed that unicorns ran the universe and they really cared about me, but it is highly improbable. Even if religion served some purpose, the ideas behind it are absurd in the same since that unicorn overlords are absurd.

What IS it with you people and unicorns? Yeesh. Many philosophers and theologians tossed around ideas about possible extensions of this phenomenal world, or master plans behind this earthly existence, that are more modest, more impersonal, much more in touch with up to date studies done in the sciences, and not reliant on crude imagery like an old dude with a beard sitting on a cloud, or an equine earthling with a psychedelic coat and and a phallic horn.

I'm aware you won't entertain these ideas either, because there is no hard data supporting them. But please give spiritual thinkers a bit of credit when it comes to taking probability into account. I'm willing to entertain really any possibility BUT there being no inherent meaning, purpose, or plan to our lives. And I even HAVE entertained that one before, for quite some time. I'm not the only one. It's not an either-or choice between believing in some cartoonish vision that's FAR out of touch with even most little kids' understanding of the phenomenal world, versus believing in nothing that isn't proven.

If people would say that their beliefs are unfounded, highly improbable, and ultimately exist because they really wish they were true, that would be one thing. But instead people say that they believe in these supernatural things and it is just as valid as any other viewpoint, which it isn't.

That depends on what one considers valid grounds for accepting something as true, when it comes to things that resist definitive proof. You'll clearly only entertain a speculative idea if it meets your standard for estimated probability. But others have different criteria and approaches to this. There are some people I know for whom it would be hard for me to disbelieve ANYTHING they say, I just know them so well and have that trusting of a relationship with them. For some people, seeing is believing. I have personally witnessed a few brushes with the otherworldly, including one that was shared and witnessed by more than myself. I'm firmly convinced there is no mundane explanation.

I haven't found my entertaining of ideas that are out of this world have caused me to abandon good sense and rationality in my material life. If anything, they've been a motivation for GREATER sensibility! I know plenty of believers of all sorts who are incredibly practical people.

I have tried to be very civil about what I have said. If I have broken any rules let me know. As far I can tell, I have only addressed the ideas so far.

Your post in the thread 'You are beautiful' rubbed me the wrong way. I'd rather you didn't make posts in people's threads of highly abstract and poetic spiritual writing, telling them their writing is devoid of meaning. Leave the deeming and handling of aimless posts up to us mods -- we actually have a rule about that, and enforce it.

Please read the P&S guidelines, if you haven't done so already. Not everyone posts with the intention of letting their post torn apart for flaws. People who are just looking for comfort, company, and community, should feel free to post their far-out ideas here, and not be ridiculed or taken to task for them. As I've said before, this forum doubles as a sancturary -- a chapel where drug users fish around for higher meaning in their own various ways.

I am cool with the function of this board, but is it not a message board so that people can discuss the ideas? People have their opinion, I have mine. Some people claim that every idea is equally valid, and I disagree. It is just another viewpoint, I have not attacked anyone nor suggested that people stop posting their ideas. I have simply offered my viewpoint on the philosophy being discussed.

I never said every idea is equally as valid. I state in the rules that every idea expressed here deserves being taken seriously and treated with respect. This fosters creativity, spontaneity of expression across a gamut of opinions, and a warm and welcoming environment. It is a message board for this. It is not an arena where all ideas aired are fair game for harsh logical scrutiny, followed by a public disembowelment of the idea for an amused crowd, if the attacker finds the idea doesn't stand up. If that's the kind of forum you're looking for, please look elsewhere. We had that here. Nobody liked it, nobody stuck around long.

So just so we're clear, don't make posts just to ridicule other people's ideas

I probably shouldn't have stated that you were being disingenuous. What I meant was that you probably use logic and reason to make all kinds of decisions in your life but you stop as soon as it comes to supernatural beliefs. I didn't mean it as a personal attack, hope you didn't take it that way.

No problem. And you're correct, that's pretty much how I roll.

I agree that physicalism is not the only possible explanation that an educated person could hold. But, it is by far the most likely explanation available. It is like looking at an apple that is about to fall off of a tree. Yes, that apple could go straight up after the twig breaks, but what would an educated person guess?

I don't find it's quite that obvious a logical step.

There is a reason that most of the discussion about supernatural theories are based around how they make a person feel, because there is nothing to talk about how they actually might exist beyond very generous extrapolations.

Physicalism makes you feel bleak, and other theories offer more in the way of emotional reinforcement. I think that is the whole story right there.

No, that's not the whole story right there. That's part of it, to be sure. It's also, as I've stated above, parts intuition, firsthand experience, and conversations with other highly intelligent as well as highly spiritual people in my life.

But regardless, I find your reduction of it to this crude and offensive. I resent what I perceive as you trapping me into making shameful admissions. (I haven't forgotten you telling me last year I was unfit to be a physician, because I wouldn't ABSOLUTELY script an antipsychotic to ANY patient of mine who admitted to hearing voices.) Why do you wish to shame me? Pile another stone on when I see that virtually all the posts you've ever made have had something to do with pushing atheism, including to people who are demonstrably unreceptive to this agenda of yours. This means I have scant indication you have any other interest in this website. And then there's the fact that you've openly stated your desire to be a contrarian and iconoclast, which goes very much against the grain and the spirit of this forum, and well... I've got a problem with you, Enlitx. What did you expect?

I'm not going to puff myself up by unfairly accusing you of some violation and hitting you with an infraction. That doesn't accomplish anything. Instead, this time I'm just going to be very upfront with you and make this a conversation between two gentlemen. We have a community here, and that community has a culture and some standards of exchange. Please be respectful of this, or don't post here. If you don't have something nice to say, don't say it.

 

[33Hz]

You are correct, there is no ultimate value in anything. We are a random blip in a vast universe. I live in a way that maximizes my pleasure. Since I was raised to care about others, treating other people well increases my own pleasure. Although there is no ultimate and objective purpose behind it all, I find my life to be full of meaning and joy because I give it meaning and joy.

Like how religious/spiritual people give their life meaning and joy by believing in fairy tales? What makes you so special that you are free to assign your own meaning to life, while people that don't share the same outlook are denied this right? 8)

 

[qwe]

See, here's the thing that kills me about these sorts of impassioned arguments from physicalists (formerly known as materialists): By choosing to be a physicalist and accepting all that this philosophically implies, you've undermined the basis for really valuing anything above anything. After all, if physicalism is true, then we're all just random, quite possibly one-time, fleeting, unbelievably insignificant accidents in a cold, indifferent, impersonal universe

gotta take this pile of bullcrap!

the reason physicalism undermines *nothing* is because, let's say we have souls. i'm a physicalist and i think we have souls (NOT of course supernatural), some sort way for our brain to feel/qualia, but in a scientific-explainable-physical way

how do we feel *qualia*? it's a mystery. which means science is totally incomplete. we don't know anything beyond the big bang or parts of glial cells. our knowledge is so incomplete

as such, it is perfectly possible that there is a *natural* *physical* phenomena at work allowing us to "feel" "taste" "see" etc, and physicalism is saved-

-the qualia itself provides meaning, and the physical universe produces qualia

because if there is something non physical, what the hell is it? i understand there are so many possibilities for different branes (spacetimes) and the bulk and all this string stuff. i think we have explored too little science to be able to say "consciousness cannot be explained by science"

>>then we're all just random, quite possibly one-time, fleeting, unbelievably insignificant accidents in a cold, indifferent, impersonal universe>>

chaos is the cutting blade of order

 

[Enlitx]

Well until we're in possession of some data, then, let's not treat it as any sort of substantiated link, but rather as your pet theory. You've got yours and I've got mine. We all believe in things unproven, because surprisingly little is proven.

Although there are no hard numbers, you cannot keep going back to this "everything is equal" stance, no matter how appealing it might be. Why are people afraid of Iran with a nuclear weapon? At the very least, it is partly because they have a religious intolerance of the Jews. Why did the Catholics torture people during the Crusades? In a very large part, if not solely, because of religion. Why was abstinence preached in Africa instead of condom use, endangering millions of people? Yep, religion. There are countless examples, and new examples pop up every day. These are problems that could be abated or mitigated if the belief in a supernatural power was removed. There is no way to get around it, the belief in a supernatural power invites all kinds of problems.

Even if you were able to get everyone to hold a peaceful and unobstrutive religious ideology, there would still be the issue of time being better spent. And that is if you could get most people to do that, which seems highly unlikely at this point.

You're in the minority in finding a logic-based belief system makes you feel fulfilled. That's great for you that you are.

I believe I am in the minority because of tradition and culture. If you look at Europe it is clearly trending towards atheism in a big way. Most of the groundbreaking scientific advents have only been around for less than two hundred years. Religion has been around for thousands of years. Give it time, and I don't think I will be in the minority.

This was not my experience. I explored atheism for years, and called myself one for some time too. It didn't get gradually easier for me at all. I've always had a strong inner sense my entire life that I'm here right now for a higher mission or purpose of some sort. And I've found when I take that intuition seriously and let it guide my life, good things just tend to happen to me and the people whose lives I'm a part of. And when I dismiss this sense of mine as a accidental and meaningless fluke of firing neurons, the effect is much the opposite. Spare me any comments you may have about me being unfortunate to be born with certain genes or brain neuroarchitecture or anything similar. I've made my choice based on experience, and I need no one's pity.

So you are saying that your belief in religion is largely driven by the emotional reinforcement you receive? That is what I have been saying too.

I agree wholeheartedly that a murderous nazi-ish regime is quite far-fetched. I was thinking more along the lines of, without religion or spirituality of any kind (but no other major changes), people who were ignorant and deeply troubled within themselves would eventually just find other excuses to hate and fight, and overall levels of injustice, intolerance, and wrongdoing would be just as high as they are now. The root of the problem, to me, isn't supernatural belief. It's people with unmet needs or lacking inner peace who exploit others as an expression of this.

People still might find a reason to fight, but I can't think of a scenario where the people of Africa would be denied life saving condoms because of anything other than religion. At some point you are going to have to concede that religion brings problems that would otherwise be avoided. Since I believe that people can find the same happiness without religion, I find that these problems are unacceptable.

One can achieve peace, democracy, and intellectual process by just keeping church and state separated, and defending freedom of religion (or freedom to choose no religion). One doesn't need to be a physicalist, or to promote physicalism, to uphold and believe in these ideals.

Yes, but religious thinking still creeps into our leaders even if there is no obvious violation of the separation of church and state. Look at the Texas schoolboard fiasco, the condom issue in Africa, etc... There are problems with religion that won't be solved until there is no religion.

I wish you wouldn't use language like this. It's insensitive and inflammatory. Don't worry, I'd get on someone's case for going on about 'godless heathen monsters' too. It's just not the spirit I'd like to foster here. Thanks.

Ok, sorry about that one. Replace absurd with highly improbable.

And that's a vital component, to many people. It may seem minor to you, but my hunch is that most people could not reasonably be expected to adopt and stick with the worldview you advocate. This is just a hunch, from my own life experience and those of people I've known and spoken with. I could be wrong, and only time will tell, as the internet and the free exchange of ideas around the globe accelerates and penetrates ever deeper. Either way I've made my choice and I'm sticking with it.

I think that people could believe in something different. It is simply a matter of tradition and society. Our society has had religion ingrained for so long that it will be a slow process to pull it out, but it is already happening all over the globe, and I don't see any signs of it slowing down.

What IS it with you people and unicorns? Yeesh. Many philosophers and theologians tossed around ideas about possible extensions of this phenomenal world, or master plans behind this earthly existence, that are more modest, more impersonal, much more in touch with up to date studies done in the sciences, and not reliant on crude imagery like an old dude with a beard sitting on a cloud, or an equine earthling with a psychedelic coat and and a phallic horn.

I'm aware you won't entertain these ideas either, because there is no hard data supporting them. But please give spiritual thinkers a bit of credit when it comes to taking probability into account. I'm willing to entertain really any possibility BUT there being no inherent meaning, purpose, or plan to our lives. And I even HAVE entertained that one before, for quite some time. I'm not the only one. It's not an either-or choice between believing in some cartoonish vision that's FAR out of touch with even most little kids' understanding of the phenomenal world, versus believing in nothing that isn't proven.

People like me use unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters because we want to point out just what it is you guys are believing in. Most people believe in a god that looks like us because that isn't hard to imagine, it is familiar to us. The same goes for an abstract notion of god. There is nothing in this imagery that makes us feel ridiculous yet it still fills that emotional need I have talked about. The problem is, a pink unicorn and an abstract god have just as much evidence. Either one is just as valid as the other. So what we are saying is that if you believe in the abstract supernatural power, you are essentially believing in unicorns and the like, you just choose to dress it up in comfortable clothing. It is certainly not more "reasonable" to believe in an abstract god instead of a pink unicorn overlord, both have the exact same amount of credible evidence at their backing.

That depends on what one considers valid grounds for accepting something as true, when it comes to things that resist definitive proof. You'll clearly only entertain a speculative idea if it meets your standard for estimated probability. But others have different criteria and approaches to this. There are some people I know for whom it would be hard for me to disbelieve ANYTHING they say, I just know them so well and have that trusting of a relationship with them. For some people, seeing is believing. I have personally witnessed a few brushes with the otherworldly, including one that was shared and witnessed by more than myself. I'm firmly convinced there is no mundane explanation.

I haven't found my entertaining of ideas that are out of this world have caused me to abandon good sense and rationality in my material life. If anything, they've been a motivation for GREATER sensibility! I know plenty of believers of all sorts who are incredibly practical people.

I am just asking that people use the same type of judgment used in most other areas of life when it comes to the supernatural. It is rather frustrating to try and have a meaningful discussion about a higher consciousness when there is absolutely no standard to go by. All of a sudden all of the deductive reasoning tools and intelligence one has accumulated goes out the window, because people don't want to step on other people's toes with regard to religion. Churches used to enforce this cognitive dissonance with penalty of death for heretics, and now it has lessened into a social taboo. Either way, it is a mechanism that has evolved to protect ideas that would normally be thrown to the wayside long ago. This is what I mean by religion being ingrained into society and taking a long time to die out. There used to be much stiffer penalties for criticizing religion, and now they are lessening. In the future, it won't be taboo to question religion the same way one would question the claim that the sky is falling.

Your post in the thread 'You are beautiful' rubbed me the wrong way. I'd rather you didn't make posts in people's threads of highly abstract and poetic spiritual writing, telling them their writing is devoid of meaning. Leave the deeming and handling of aimless posts up to us mods -- we actually have a rule about that, and enforce it.

Well, I will bite my tongue about that specific post. What exactly would you consider aimless?

Please read the P&S guidelines, if you haven't done so already. Not everyone posts with the intention of letting their post torn apart for flaws. People who are just looking for comfort, company, and community, should feel free to post their far-out ideas here, and not be ridiculed or taken to task for them. As I've said before, this forum doubles as a sancturary -- a chapel where drug users fish around for higher meaning in their own various ways.

I think we can reach a compromise here. I will only comment on posts that have already generated discussions with opposing viewpoints. That sound good?

I don't find it's quite that obvious a logical step.

Why? Nearly all of the evidence would suggest the apple would fall, but there is a very small chance that it could go up. I find this exactly like the supernatural. Nearly all of the evidence would suggest that there is nothing out there, but there is the slight chance that something is. What are the key differences? You even admitted that the supernatural can't be examined with the same scientific scrutiny and logic that one would apply elsewhere, so aren't you essentially saying that the evidence suggests there isn't a supernatural power, so normal evidence can't be used?

No, that's not the whole story right there. That's part of it, to be sure. It's also, as I've stated above, parts intuition, firsthand experience, and conversations with other highly intelligent as well as highly spiritual people in my life.

I would argue that intuition is just an extension of your emotional state. And since evidence (beyond anecdotal) wasn't on your list, I find it hard to believe that anything other than emotion had any real impact on your decision. From all your posts I have read, it seems pretty clear that it is your emotional state that drives your belief. You find belief fulfilling, so you choose belief.

But regardless, I find your reduction of it to this crude and offensive. I resent what I perceive as you trapping me into making shameful admissions. (I haven't forgotten you telling me last year I was unfit to be a physician, because I wouldn't ABSOLUTELY script an antipsychotic to ANY patient of mine who admitted to hearing voices.) Why do you wish to shame me? Pile another stone on when I see that virtually all the posts you've ever made have had something to do with pushing atheism, including to people who are demonstrably unreceptive to this agenda of yours. This means I have scant indication you have any other interest in this website. And then there's the fact that you've openly stated your desire to be a contrarian and iconoclast, which goes very much against the grain and the spirit of this forum, and well... I've got a problem with you, Enlitx. What did you expect?

I'm not going to puff myself up by unfairly accusing you of some violation and hitting you with an infraction. That doesn't accomplish anything. Instead, this time I'm just going to be very upfront with you and make this a conversation between two gentlemen. We have a community here, and that community has a culture and some standards of exchange. Please be respectful of this, or don't post here. If you don't have something nice to say, don't say it.

[/QUOTE]

It is not crude, I just think that it is pretty clear that you are choosing belief because of the way it makes you feel. It is the primary reason most people choose to believe in the supernatural. Being raised in a society that values religion will make almost everyone form some sort of emotional attachment to religious belief, and it is usually why people become so emotionally heated when their religion is challenged. It is also why fMRI scans have demonstrated that religious belief is strongly tied to emotional areas of the brain, and less so to critical thinking areas.

I stand by my statement that someone who hears voices needs to be treated. Even if medication isn't offered, there must be some type of therapy. It is not just me either, ask the AMA. I am not trying to shame you, I am simply discussing ideas. How is saying that your religious beliefs are driven by emotion trying to shame you? I would guess that nearly everyone believes because of emotional reasons, I am not trying to shame the whole world. I think you need to take a step back and stop taking this so personally. That is what I hate about religious discussions, since it is usually tied to emotional parts of a person's psychological make up, it is hard to have frank discussions without eliciting undue emotional responses.

You made a snarky comment about how you don't live up to my standards. I let it go because I know we are debating ideas and things can get heated. I am not taking what you say personally, it is an internet message board, that would be unproductive. Just relax dude.

Like I said, I will remove all language that you perceive as inflammatory, such as "absurd". I will only jump in on discussions that have already generated opposing viewpoints. That sound good?

And really, I am usually pretty busy. Today was my first day off in two weeks, I start grad school very shortly, you won't have to put up with me forever . I promise you though, I am not just jumping in here to stir up trouble and troll, I hope that is evident by the substance in my posts.

 

[Enlitx]

Like how a religious/spiritual people give their life meaning and joy by believing in fairy tales? What makes you so special that you are free to assign your own meaning to life, while people that don't share the same outlook are denied this right? 8)

Huh? Where did I ever talk about denying the right to believe in something? I simply advocated for one belief over the other. I must have missed the post where I suggested we set up a totalitarian government that denies people religious freedom.

 

[Enlitx]

gotta take this pile of bullcrap!

I am waiting for MDAO to pounce on you like he pounced on me for being disrespectful.

 

[qwe]

I agree that physicalism is not the only possible explanation that an educated person could hold. But, it is by far the most likely explanation available. It is like looking at an apple that is about to fall off of a tree. Yes, that apple could go straight up after the twig breaks, but what would an educated person guess?

There is a reason that most of the discussion about supernatural theories are based around how they make a person feel, because there is nothing to talk about how they actually might exist beyond very generous extrapolations.

Physicalism makes you feel bleak, and other theories offer more in the way of emotional reinforcement. I think that is the whole story right there.

like i said in my totally awesome post above, science is totally incomplete

so physicalism does NOT have to make you bleak

there could be branes/spacetimes where yoda's are doing lightsaber battles, colliding branes causing orgasms lasting three times the time this universe will last, and all physical

anything magical.... physical can mimic. in fact, the magic act the true mimic!

 

[qwe]

I am waiting for MDAO to pounce on you like he pounced on me for being disrespectful.

well, you're assuming i wasn't referring to the idea/belief structure and not the person (aka, it wasn't an ad-hom at all. the only guilty thing i did was use a bad word... bullcrap... which isnt even that bad)

being a level 6 meme warrior, i am able to call meme viruses "bullcrap". like the pope is bullcrap

 

[Enlitx]

well, you're assuming i wasn't referring to the idea/belief structure and not the person (aka, it wasn't an ad-hom at all. the only guilty thing i did was use a bad word... bullcrap... which isnt even that bad)

being a level 8 meme warrior, i am able to call meme viruses "bullcrap". like the pope is bullcrap

I never attacked anyone either, it was very clear that I was calling an idea absurd, yet I was not spared the rod. Although I suspect MDAO may have a special dislike for me. %)

 

[qwe]

did i rod you? you must be the pope then!

 

[Enlitx]

did i rod you? you must be the pope then!

Are you MDAO?

 

[qwe]

sorry i misread. a lot of sedatives and GABA-ergics are in my brain atm, making opie w/d barely bearable

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

Although there are no hard numbers, you cannot keep going back to this "everything is equal" stance, no matter how appealing it might be. Why are people afraid of Iran with a nuclear weapon? At the very least, it is partly because they have a religious intolerance of the Jews. Why did the Catholics torture people during the Crusades? In a very large part, if not solely, because of religion. Why was abstinence preached in Africa instead of condom use, endangering millions of people? Yep, religion. There are countless examples, and new examples pop up every day. These are problems that could be abated or mitigated if the belief in a supernatural power was removed. There is no way to get around it, the belief in a supernatural power invites all kinds of problems.

Even if you were able to get everyone to hold a peaceful and unobstrutive religious ideology, there would still be the issue of time being better spent. And that is if you could get most people to do that, which seems highly unlikely at this point.

You're spinning your wheels at this point with me, because I stand by what I said before. Religion is used as a convenient excuse to fight over issues that are for the most part quite related to material problems in this world. So long as those and other similar problems persist, then religious or not, people will get violent over them.

I believe I am in the minority because of tradition and culture. If you look at Europe it is clearly trending towards atheism in a big way. Most of the groundbreaking scientific advents have only been around for less than two hundred years. Religion has been around for thousands of years. Give it time, and I don't think I will be in the minority.

Like I said, time will tell. From surveys I've read about belief in Europe, like the Eurobarometer Survey, it seems to follow the rule of thirds -- 1/3 believe in God, 1/3 believe in some other form of higher power or life force, and 1/3 believe in neither. My interpretation of this data is that when people are given free access to quality education, information, a free press, and complete freedom to believe as they choose, beliefs run the whole gamut, based on people's life experiences and temperments.

People still might find a reason to fight, but I can't think of a scenario where the people of Africa would be denied life saving condoms because of anything other than religion.

Really? I can think of plenty. Corruption leading to skimming away of the African nation's condom funds, for one. Trade blockades used as a weapon of war, for another. Labor strikes at the nation's only condom factory would do it. So would a covert plan by the government to increase the population; Japan, a developed and rather secular country, saw the birth control pill go unapproved for sale for decades, just due to vested economic interests in it remaining unavailable.

At some point you are going to have to concede that religion brings problems that would otherwise be avoided.

No, I won't, because I just don't see the causation. Sorry.

Yes, but religious thinking still creeps into our leaders even if there is no obvious violation of the separation of church and state. Look at the Texas schoolboard fiasco, the condom issue in Africa, etc... There are problems with religion that won't be solved until there is no religion.

Cry me a river. Legal battles in the US, a fairly functional and transparent democracy, over church-state issues, tend to uphold the separation of church and state consistently, even in a general population composed mostly of believers. Politicians who make remarks in political speeches that favor one belief system over another get called on it, and the people who call them out on it don't get their doors kicked in. I fail to see the problem.

Ok, sorry about that one. Replace absurd with highly improbable.

I was referring to your use of the phrase 'imaginary friend', actually. Please don't use this expression here.

I think that people could believe in something different. It is simply a matter of tradition and society. Our society has had religion ingrained for so long that it will be a slow process to pull it out, but it is already happening all over the globe, and I don't see any signs of it slowing down.

Again, time will tell. Religion could be ebbing for the time being, only to reemerge in new forms a few generations from now. Also, don't make the mistake of lumping everyone who doesn't affiliate with any religion with your belief system. Plenty of people continue to be personally spiritual, and it's just the ORGANIZED part of organized religion they don't cotton to.

People like me use unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters because we want to point out just what it is you guys are believing in. Most people believe in a god that looks like us because that isn't hard to imagine, it is familiar to us. The same goes for an abstract notion of god. There is nothing in this imagery that makes us feel ridiculous yet it still fills that emotional need I have talked about. The problem is, a pink unicorn and an abstract god have just as much evidence. Either one is just as valid as the other. So what we are saying is that if you believe in the abstract supernatural power, you are essentially believing in unicorns and the like, you just choose to dress it up in comfortable clothing. It is certainly not more "reasonable" to believe in an abstract god instead of a pink unicorn overlord, both have the exact same amount of credible evidence at their backing.

I was asking rhetorically, dude.

I am just asking that people use the same type of judgment used in most other areas of life when it comes to the supernatural.

No can do, compadre. I just don't see the merit, or the fun, in limiting oneself to what's supported by hard evidence when we're talking about realms that are by definition beyond what science can measure and test, and might possibly buck our entire notions of what's logical and probable.

It is rather frustrating to try and have a meaningful discussion about a higher consciousness when there is absolutely no standard to go by. All of a sudden all of the deductive reasoning tools and intelligence one has accumulated goes out the window, because people don't want to step on other people's toes with regard to religion.

And I find it frustrating to have a meaningful discussion about otherworldly phenomena where one is not free to imagine and speculate and dream and scheme to their heart's content. I find it frustrating to be bound by rules of only entertaining what I can logically show to be probably, at the expense of entertaining the possible. I spend most of my waking life in the material world making decisions chiefly based on what's logically sound and likely. When I'm dealing in speculative realms beyond the material world, I want a break from all that!

In the future, it won't be taboo to question religion the same way one would question the claim that the sky is falling.

It'll depend on the setting and company. Time will tell. Please don't be a maverick here.

Well, I will bite my tongue about that specific post. What exactly would you consider aimless?

Read the P&S guideline about inane posts.

I think we can reach a compromise here. I will only comment on posts that have already generated discussions with opposing viewpoints. That sound good?

That sounds awesome.

Why? Nearly all of the evidence would suggest the apple would fall, but there is a very small chance that it could go up. I find this exactly like the supernatural. Nearly all of the evidence would suggest that there is nothing out there, but there is the slight chance that something is. What are the key differences?

Heh, you picked a bad example, because the paranormal phenomenon my wife and I witnessed involved a stationary object moving deliberately up in the air. I've been there that one rare time an object floated up (then gently horizontally, then gently down to a new spot), rather than falling down or staying in its place, so your analogy sure won't prove the nonexistence of the supernatural by me.

You even admitted that the supernatural can't be examined with the same scientific scrutiny and logic that one would apply elsewhere, so aren't you essentially saying that the evidence suggests there isn't a supernatural power, so normal evidence can't be used?

Bah! Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I would argue that intuition is just an extension of your emotional state.

That's not entirely correct. It involves more thought pathways than just this.

And since evidence (beyond anecdotal) wasn't on your list, I find it hard to believe that anything other than emotion had any real impact on your decision. From all your posts I have read, it seems pretty clear that it is your emotional state that drives your belief. You find belief fulfilling, so you choose belief.

Yes, I do find it fulfilling. But I don't think you have a good appreciation of all the things I've experienced that have led me (or any other thoughtful or intellectually curious non-nonbeliever) to where I stand. Your wording is a crude reduction that does not do justice to the spiritual and philosophical viewpoints I've been expressing on BL for years.

Like I said to azzazza in another thread, sometimes reduction, simplification, and modeling are good and useful mental tools. But they have to be (and usually are) done with a goal in mind to be helpful. When you seek to reduce my metaphysical viewpoint to, "He entertains the supernatural for emotional comfort", I won't deny that that's part of the story, but I have to wonder what goal of yours would be served by making this reduction, and the possibilities that spring to mind immediately aren't goals that I applaud.

It is not crude

Yes, it is. As the recipient of the remark, I'll let you know how it came across. That's not your place to judge.

I just think that it is pretty clear that you are choosing belief because of the way it makes you feel. It is the primary reason most people choose to believe in the supernatural. Being raised in a society that values religion will make almost everyone form some sort of emotional attachment to religious belief, and it is usually why people become so emotionally heated when their religion is challenged. It is also why fMRI scans have demonstrated that religious belief is strongly tied to emotional areas of the brain, and less so to critical thinking areas.

Just like art and music appreciation. And there's nothing wrong with this. What's unreasonable about wanting a place in the greater picture that's significant and inherently meaning-driven? People don't like their musical tastes criticized either, and tend to respond emotionally to that too. Most people don't choose the music they like based on a rational assessment of who's important, influential, or technically proficient; they choose it because they like it, and it speaks to them and moves them. So long as we have no idea as to the answers to the big questions, the world beyond ours is an open canvas for human yearnings and imagination. Yes, the supernatural and paranormal most certainly warrant a different conversational approach than mundane material phenomena.

I stand by my statement that someone who hears voices needs to be treated. Even if medication isn't offered, there must be some type of therapy. It is not just me either, ask the AMA.

I'll do that.

I am not trying to shame you, I am simply discussing ideas. How is saying that your religious beliefs are driven by emotion trying to shame you? I would guess that nearly everyone believes because of emotional reasons, I am not trying to shame the whole world. I think you need to take a step back and stop taking this so personally.

Well, your comments were not exactly flattering or respectful of my stance. But it's in my nature to give people the benefit of the doubt, so you say you weren't aiming to get my goat, I believe you. But you did succeed in doing just this, and I'm not the only one who has taken umbrage to the way you've worded things. I just thought you ought to know this for future reference.

I'm a pretty patient man who really tries hard to meet all kinds of viewpoints and opinions halfway, and tries to understand where people are coming from. I'm not dogmatic or conservative at all -- like I've said, I live right on the theist side of the border with agnosticism -- the only option I won't entertain is that this is all. there. is. Everything else I'll entertain. I have friends and chatting companions among of every shade of belief, here, and I've made very few enemies here. But you, and only really you Enlitx, give me a very hard time about just that one thing. I take it personally because this is personal, and I find your approach to me and others on the matter unduly cold and callous.

That is what I hate about religious discussions, since it is usually tied to emotional parts of a person's psychological make up, it is hard to have frank discussions without eliciting undue emotional responses.

Hence the rule for respect for all expressions of belief. This is just not a subject that can be argued about dispassionately. I find it mind boggling that you've expected some of the gems you've spouted about 'imaginary friends' and whatnot to be taken well.

You made a snarky comment about how you don't live up to my standards. I let it go because I know we are debating ideas and things can get heated. I am not taking what you say personally, it is an internet message board, that would be unproductive. Just relax dude.

This is much more than just an internet message board to many people who frequent it, myself included. Sorry, but I'm a passionate guy, and you happen to be picking a bone with me over a subject I'm incredibly passionate about. One of my most cherished principles is that of compassion above all -- even logic and sensibility work in service of compassion and are subordinate to it in my world. It hits my rawest nerve to see people forsake compassion in the interests of being logically flawless, concise, or even funny.

I promise you though, I am not just jumping in here to stir up trouble and troll, I hope that is evident by the substance in my posts.

It was not always entirely evident, no. But again, I'll take you at your word.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree, Enlitx.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

Well I doubt anyone I could list would be a surprise or unknown to you, though Camus has always been quite a moving and convincing character in his philosophical (and "fictional") writings, especially The Myth of Sisyphus, with his conception of a world in which meaning is found through the self in the struggle and search not the ascribed and intrinsic meaning.

I'll have a look. Thanks.

 

[Alcohol120]

In reply to the OP;

I think it's amusing how you hate when people push religion on you, yet you're outright saying there is no god and criticizing people for believing there is. You say humanity suffers from conflicting religious views, and that people should accept your way of thinking, but maybe you're the one who needs to look at things differently? You offer questions of "where has god been?" yet if you looked at things from a different angle you may want to ask "where have we gotten ourselves?"

 

[33Hz]

Huh? Where did I ever talk about denying the right to believe in something? I simply advocated for one belief over the other. I must have missed the post where I suggested we set up a totalitarian government that denies people religious freedom.

lol, fair enough.

I was pretty smashed when I wrote that. Probably best to just ignore everything I wrote.

 

[Enlitx]

You're spinning your wheels at this point with me, because I stand by what I said before. Religion is used as a convenient excuse to fight over issues that are for the most part quite related to material problems in this world. So long as those and other similar problems persist, then religious or not, people will get violent over them.

I mentioned issues besides war. How about the church imprisoning Galileo and hindering science? How about Turner being chemically castrated because he was gay? The list is endless, religion does have inherent costs.

Like I said, time will tell. From surveys I've read about belief in Europe, like the Eurobarometer Survey, it seems to follow the rule of thirds -- 1/3 believe in God, 1/3 believe in some other form of higher power or life force, and 1/3 believe in neither. My interpretation of this data is that when people are given free access to quality education, information, a free press, and complete freedom to believe as they choose, beliefs run the whole gamut, based on people's life experiences and temperments.

Time will tell, but it is trending in a certain direction.

Really? I can think of plenty. Corruption leading to skimming away of the African nation's condom funds, for one. Trade blockades used as a weapon of war, for another. Labor strikes at the nation's only condom factory would do it. So would a covert plan by the government to increase the population; Japan, a developed and rather secular country, saw the birth control pill go unapproved for sale for decades, just due to vested economic interests in it remaining unavailable.

I am talking about that specific president making that specific decision at that point in time. It was the fault of religion and no other.

No, I won't, because I just don't see the causation. Sorry.

Then you are trying very hard to not see it. Sure, not everything I listed was solely caused by religion, but some of it was most assuredly the result of religion.

Cry me a river. Legal battles in the US, a fairly functional and transparent democracy, over church-state issues, tend to uphold the separation of church and state consistently, even in a general population composed mostly of believers. Politicians who make remarks in political speeches that favor one belief system over another get called on it, and the people who call them out on it don't get their doors kicked in. I fail to see the problem.

Do me a favor, if you are going to sit there and bemoan how I treat people, lead by example. Don't make snide comments to me and then demand that I treat others with the utmost respect. I am trying very hard to accommodate you, try to be an adult about this.

I was referring to your use of the phrase 'imaginary friend', actually. Please don't use this expression here.

Alright.

No can do, compadre. I just don't see the merit, or the fun, in limiting oneself to what's supported by hard evidence when we're talking about realms that are by definition beyond what science can measure and test, and might possibly buck our entire notions of what's logical and probable.

Ok, so then admit that these ideas are the result of your own personal desires and not on equal footing as other, more empirically sound theories. You can't have your cake and eat it too. On one hand, you are saying that every theory is equally as valid and should be treated with the same amount of deference, and on the other hand you are saying that you don't approach these ideas with the same amount of integrity because it wouldn't be fun. Pick one.

And I find it frustrating to have a meaningful discussion about otherworldly phenomena where one is not free to imagine and speculate and dream and scheme to their heart's content. I find it frustrating to be bound by rules of only entertaining what I can logically show to be probably, at the expense of entertaining the possible. I spend most of my waking life in the material world making decisions chiefly based on what's logically sound and likely. When I'm dealing in speculative realms beyond the material world, I want a break from all that!

I have no problem with people speculating about these things. I find it fun to think about far out ideas like god, the matrix, etc... My problem is that when someone says, "Ya, thats a neat idea, too bad it is probably just a fantasy", you jump in and call foul. You are trying to have it both ways, something has to give. If you noticed, I jump in when people ascribe to these unlikely philosophies as if they were truth, and I simply point out how unlikely it would be. Beyond that, I have no problem speculating about these things, I just think it counter productive for people to hold these beliefs as a likely representation of reality.

Heh, you picked a bad example, because the paranormal phenomenon my wife and I witnessed involved a stationary object moving deliberately up in the air. I've been there that one rare time an object floated up (then gently horizontally, then gently down to a new spot), rather than falling down or staying in its place, so your analogy sure won't prove the nonexistence of the supernatural by me.

And people witness UFOs, aliens, gods, demons, etc... Much of the time they witness things that are mutually exclusive, and that is why something more than anecdotal evidence is necessary. Otherwise we would still regard seizures to be the work of demons. But ya, I get it, you believe in supernatural stuff.

Bah! Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Since when do you care about evidence? Can we use evidence as a standard now? Are we going to use logic and deduction or are they out the window completely?

That's not entirely correct. It involves more thought pathways than just this.

Indeed, it was a quick simplification, and for the purposes of this thread irrelevant.

Yes, I do find it fulfilling. But I don't think you have a good appreciation of all the things I've experienced that have led me (or any other thoughtful or intellectually curious non-nonbeliever) to where I stand. Your wording is a crude reduction that does not do justice to the spiritual and philosophical viewpoints I've been expressing on BL for years.

Like I said to azzazza in another thread, sometimes reduction, simplification, and modeling are good and useful mental tools. But they have to be (and usually are) done with a goal in mind to be helpful. When you seek to reduce my metaphysical viewpoint to, "He entertains the supernatural for emotional comfort", I won't deny that that's part of the story, but I have to wonder what goal of yours would be served by making this reduction, and the possibilities that spring to mind immediately aren't goals that I applaud.

Of course it is simplified, but everything you have said thus far suggests emotions are the primary reason for your belief. I simply hold the view that any serious philosophies or worldviews should be based on empirical evidence, as emotions have historically led to dangerous/wrong/improbable worldviews. My intention is simply to have a discussion and pass the time, and in doing so I analyze ideas the same way I analyze everything. There is no deeper and sinister motives behind my behavior. Either way, I was never seeking your approval for my "goals", nor do I see any need for you to bring them it. It appears to me you are trying to paint me as someone with low character as to further your own point of view. No need to go there, we can keep this civil.

Yes, it is. As the recipient of the remark, I'll let you know how it came across. That's not your place to judge.

You seem to be especially touchy when it comes to my remarks, just relax and stop taking it so personally.

Just like art and music appreciation. And there's nothing wrong with this. What's unreasonable about wanting a place in the greater picture that's significant and inherently meaning-driven? People don't like their musical tastes criticized either, and tend to respond emotionally to that too. Most people don't choose the music they like based on a rational assessment of who's important, influential, or technically proficient; they choose it because they like it, and it speaks to them and moves them. So long as we have no idea as to the answers to the big questions, the world beyond ours is an open canvas for human yearnings and imagination. Yes, the supernatural and paranormal most certainly warrant a different conversational approach than mundane material phenomena.

Nothing wrong with wanting a higher purpose, but be honest enough to admit that this desire is the primary reason for such beliefs. And don't act shocked and offended when others simply point out this fact, and are willing to show that beyond individual emotional desire, there isn't much substance as to the likelihood of such claims.

Well, your comments were not exactly flattering or respectful of my stance. But it's in my nature to give people the benefit of the doubt, so you say you weren't aiming to get my goat, I believe you. But you did succeed in doing just this, and I'm not the only one who has taken umbrage to the way you've worded things. I just thought you ought to know this for future reference.

I'm a pretty patient man who really tries hard to meet all kinds of viewpoints and opinions halfway, and tries to understand where people are coming from. I'm not dogmatic or conservative at all -- like I've said, I live right on the theist side of the border with agnosticism -- the only option I won't entertain is that this is all. there. is. Everything else I'll entertain. I have friends and chatting companions among of every shade of belief, here, and I've made very few enemies here. But you, and only really you Enlitx, give me a very hard time about just that one thing. I take it personally because this is personal, and I find your approach to me and others on the matter unduly cold and callous.

My goal was never to piss people off. I have been quite mild in my criticism of belief or my discussion of ideas. I have purposely held back any remarks that would be deemed as unduly offensive. I slipped with the imaginary friend remark, but really, I see worse stuff all the time on this board. I think you simply have a problem with me, and I am asking that you take a step back and stop making everything a personal affront on your character.

You have admitted that you will not entertain the idea that this is all there is. All that I am asking is that you admit you are doing this for emotional reasons, otherwise why would you completely write off the idea that this is all there is? I am fine with conceding that it is your right to believe in such things, all that I am asking is that you grant me the same right to believe that such a worldview is very likely untrue based on what we know.

I have already agreed to only comment on threads that have already generated debate. Most of my comments will just be a request for explanation or asking people to think more precisely about what they believe. For example, if someone believes in a higher consciousness, what exactly are they talking about and how exactly would they envision it to work. That generates good discussion, and I don't see foresee any problems with it. I will refrain from simply saying something isn't true, and instead try to develop the specifics of an idea.

Hence the rule for respect for all expressions of belief. This is just not a subject that can be argued about dispassionately. I find it mind boggling that you've expected some of the gems you've spouted about 'imaginary friends' and whatnot to be taken well.

I am candid, I will admit that. I have already stated how I will go about things in the future, hopefully it will alleviate any problems.

This is much more than just an internet message board to many people who frequent it, myself included. Sorry, but I'm a passionate guy, and you happen to be picking a bone with me over a subject I'm incredibly passionate about. One of my most cherished principles is that of compassion above all -- even logic and sensibility work in service of compassion and are subordinate to it in my world. It hits my rawest nerve to see people forsake compassion in the interests of being logically flawless, concise, or even funny.



It was not always entirely evident, no. But again, I'll take you at your word.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree, Enlitx.

I get that you are passionate about this subject. I have agreed to some compromises that will hopefully ease the tension. I would ask that you allow me to be passionate about my beliefs if you are able to be passionate about yours. If you can adamantly argue that there is more to this life than the next, let me be passionate about my belief system.