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

This is incontrovertible proof that God is evil. God does not live by his own golden

I just think the truth has value in itself. What you can perceive, what you believe, or what you'd like to be true doesn't really matter because it can't help you. Only the truth really matters.
 
I totally agree. Which is why I don't trust the spiritual assessment of reality. It is too good to be true. The contradictions are irreconcilable for me.
 
swilow said:
Yeah, I've had that experience a few times and dearly cherish them. But I don't experience those things when sober so I think its a function of the drug.
Click to expand...

My mother describes a similar experience when she has the communion in church. This is one example which could lend credence to the possibility that the drugs only trigger certain biological mechanisms and allow for what I call the "God response". There are many accounts of saints and such having spontaneous white light experiences. Of course they then apply their knowledge of Christianity to it and assume that is the source of it. I think the same thing would happen in another culture where the recipient would apply their local religious teachings to the experience. That's what happened to my brother.

As far as I understand it, yoga, Buddhism, Hinduism etc. are designed to in fact induce these white light experiences without the aid of drugs. Psychedelics just allow immediate access. Temporary enlightenment, if you will.
 
I believe the love/bliss state, that comes from opiates for instance, comes about from tapping into the higher self and being raised to a higher level of consciousness. You might not have any visions, but you get access to the emotional quality of it. This also fades with repeated use.
 
Ninae said:
I believe the love/bliss state, that comes from opiates for instance, comes about from tapping into the higher self and being raised to a higher level of consciousness. You might not have any visions, but you get access to the emotional quality of it. This also fades with repeated use.
Click to expand...

yeah, but you do realize it's all just neurochemistry, right?
 
Endorphins regulate how much of the energy of your higher self is let into your body. The ego only opens the channels wide when things are going great for your survival, otherwise it pinches it in. But opiates over-ride that whole mechanism, which is also some of the problem. There's no motivation for making improvements.
 
Gnostic Bishop said:
This is incontrovertible proof that God is evil. God doesnot live by his own golden rule.

God kills when he could just as easily cure. This isirrefutable.

This is a clear violation of the golden rule. The golden ruleas articulated by Jesus.

God then is clearly evil.

Do you agree with Jesus that anyone who breaks the goldenrule is evil?

Regards
DL
Click to expand...
Damn dude, that is a great point! I don't believe any of that bible stuff, but if I did...god violates the golden rule.
 
Ninae said:
A blind person could say "There are no colours that I can see". That doesn't mean there aren't any colours.
Click to expand...
in a way it does. in a very real sense colors aren't colors until they're seen.

alasdair
 
well being an atheist is pretty smooth because you don't constantly feel like your life is run by some weird demons and entities and shit
 
^Yeah but you're gonna go to hell.
 
ark9 said:
9420121852537.jpeg
Click to expand...

yup.

if anything I thought this forum would be different here. ok, off to bed i think. tc.

i still love all of you.., sorry.

-jeah
 
Ninae said:
A blind person could say "There are no colours that I can see". That doesn't mean there aren't any colours.
Click to expand...

alasdairm said:
in a way it does. in a very real sense colors aren't colors until they're seen.
Click to expand...

I don't think it is coherent, in any sense, to say that x is not identical with x unless P; surely the proposition that everything is identical with itself is unconditionally true. Perhaps what you meant to say is that there are various wavelengths of light and there are sensory perceptions of these wavelengths, these are distinct phenomena, and only the latter can properly be described as 'colours'. I think this view is relatively uncontroversial, but it is important to note that on this view, upon being perceived the wavelengths don't become colours, the colours are the perceptions themselves, which occur in the mind of the organism that perceives the wavelength. If this is accepted, then it would be appropriate to say that colours might not exist if there were no organisms which could perceive wavelengths. (I say might because we have not established whether or not colours can be exemplified in any other way.) However, it does not, in any way, license one to say that the existence of blind persons legislates the ontological accuracy of their subjective assertion that there are no colours, though it may serve as an epistemic justification for such an assertion. The much weaker proposition which might be justified is the claim that there are no colours in the minds of blind people, or, more conservatively, there are no colours in the minds of blind people which exist by virtue of them having perceived wavelengths of light.

I hope that I have not misrepresented what you meant to say, I did try to interpret you as charitably as possible, but if I have misconstrued what you meant then I would appreciate clarification. Though, I will anticipate the response that they (light wavelengths and colours) are the same thing identified by different properties, this is a perfectly reasonable view, but it doesn't justify claiming that there is a sense in which there are two distinct objects. Such a line of argument would commit one to the view that there is a sense in which the same man is not identical to himself if he is identified by his voice instead of his physical appearance.
 
Last edited:
swilow said:
^Yeah but you're gonna go to hell.
Click to expand...
well hell as portrayed in southpark looks allright tbh
alasdairm said:
in a way it does. in a very real sense colors aren't colors until they're seen.

alasdair
Click to expand...
well not really because certain colours correspond to certain wavelenghts of electromagnetic radiation. in that way they have a physical reality to them and are not purely subjective
 
Red is not red, its a certain wave length of electromagnetic radiation that our brain interprets as red. Another brain or eye ball may not. I agree with Ali, colour is subjective experience of objective data. It doesn't represent objective reality beyond our own.

And you're definitely still burning for eternity. ;)
 
rmikhail said:
LOL did I insult your waifu by mistake?

But since you cared enough to go through my post history and quote mine what I said in a completely different thread, would you mind explaining what exactly is poetic about that? Darkness and silence for all eternity seems like the worst possible version of hell, don't you think?

On the other hand, you have some middle-aged loser with 50k posts typing without caps yet still making the effort to insert punctuation and trying to sound clever when 1) he's absolutely fucking wrong, as the guys above me point out and 2) he knew full well what the metaphor in question was supposed to mean.
Click to expand...

Yeah and your 150 posts are either you contradicting yourself or bullying people. I dunno you but you seem like a mean, ignorant, failed-bully asshole. I thought kaden's post was funny, it demonstrates how full of shit you are.
 
swilow said:
Red is not red, its a certain wave length of electromagnetic radiation that our brain interprets as red. Another brain or eye ball may not. I agree with Ali, colour is subjective experience of objective data. It doesn't represent objective reality beyond our own.
Click to expand...

It seems to me that on this view, red is red, it just so happens that red is not to be identified with the wavelength of electromagnetic radiation. Rather, red is the sense experience we have when we look at a certain wavelength of electromagnetic radiation. It is logically incoherent to say that something could fail to be identical with itself.
 
Why not just have one thread for name-calling theist/atheist arguments instead of letting nearly every thread be derailed by that?

It's not about colour. That was just an example of things that can be outside of a your range perception but still exist. A better example would be forms of light not detectable to the human eye, or you could think of any number of phenomena. So not being able to perceive something with your senses doesn't say anything about its existence either way.

Now I'm sure someone will use the logic that something doesn't exist until it's been verified by science, but the things that have been discovered by science always existed just waiting to be discovered.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top