Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Temple >

Agnostic or Atheist

Page: 1 ... 2 3 4 5 6(7)8 9 10 11 12... 14

Scrambled Password Bogus Email

16:12 / 30.11.06

So before we developed a concept of gravity we were all floating in the air?

No. But neither were we 'attracted to the Earth' because of a 'force' called gravity.

And likewise, once we were 'attracted to' the Earth because of the 'force of' gravity, it was a couple of hundred years before we were subject to the curvature of space-time due to the mass of the Earth, while it in turn was subject to the curvature of space-time as a result of of our own mass, however negligible in comparison.

Who knows what'll keeping us here in 100 years? Maybe unicorns!

16:18 / 30.11.06

So before we developed a concept of gravity we were all floating in the air?
No. But neither were we 'attracted to the Earth' because of a 'force' called gravity.

So what kept us from floating in the air?

Scrambled Password Bogus Email

16:21 / 30.11.06

If we say "divinity" is "existence" then we are in effect saying nothing at all.

No..we are, in effect, saying that Divinity is Existence, ergo Existence is Divinity. Something, instead of Nothing, and how that comes to be, how One emerges from Zero, or One from the Other. 'Uni'verse. Do you see?

Call it 'nothing' if you like. 7 Pages and many, many millenia, to say nothing. Who'd have guessed?

I'd refer you back to my first post, again.

Scrambled Password Bogus Email

16:26 / 30.11.06

So what kept us from floating in the air?

Something else, of course!

Aristotle believed that there was no effect without a cause, and therefore no motion without a force. He hypothesized that everything tried to move towards their proper place in the crystalline spheres of the heavens, and that physical bodies fell toward the center of the Earth in proportion to their weight.

A whole load of other people believed the Earth was flat, apparently.

Another early explanation was that of the Indian astronomer Brahmagupta who, in his Brahmasphuta Siddhanta (628), responded to critics of the heliocentric system of Aryabhata (476-550) stating that "all heavy things are attracted towards the center of the earth" and that "all heavy things fall down to the earth by a law of nature, for it is the nature of the earth to attract and to keep things, as it is the nature of water to flow, that of fire to burn, and that of wind to set in motion... The earth is the only low thing, and seeds always return to it, in whatever direction you may throw them away, and never rise upwards from the earth."

Isaac Newton suggested gravity-as-a-force, and he, it turned out, was wrong as well.

16:27 / 30.11.06

we are, in effect, saying that Divinity is Existence, ergo Existence is Divinity.

Well, now.

To the extent you say that Divinity is essentially synonymous with Existence (or what I'd call the Universe), we both may agree on the existence of Divinity.

(If you had called it "Fred," of course, we would both agree on the existence of Fred.)

I'm perfectly happy with an essentially Spinozistic definition of Divinity.

I doubt, however, that's what most people mean by Divinity.

16:27 / 30.11.06

Your first post? I'm confused.

Scrambled Password Bogus Email

16:29 / 30.11.06

I doubt, however, that's what most people mean by Divinity.

I can hardly speak for 'most people', much as I might like to.

16:30 / 30.11.06

No..we are, in effect, saying that Divinity is Existence, ergo Existence is Divinity. Something, instead of Nothing, and how that comes to be, how One emerges from Zero, or One from the Other. 'Uni'verse. Do you see?

No, we're effectively saying nothing. If divinity and existence are one and the same (something virtually every theist will disagree with you on), there's actually no point in bothering to conceptualize "divinity" at all. It doesn't actually say anything. The Fred example above is spot on.

Something else, of course!

Um, right.

Scrambled Password Bogus Email

16:32 / 30.11.06

Sorry, Quants. Third post.

to whit:

..."Is it just me, or is it all really tedious? Why is everybody so invested in convincing each other or themselves of their own horseshit?"

Which kind of spun off into this zero-sum-game before us. Kind of...bracing, though, eh? Taste the freshness!

Scrambled Password Bogus Email

16:34 / 30.11.06

(something virtually every theist will disagree with you on)

Since 'God' means nothing to you, it would appear, since I am saying just that, that we actually agree.

Who knew?

16:36 / 30.11.06

..."Is it just me, or is it all really tedious? Why is everybody so invested in convincing each other or themselves of their own horseshit?"

Who here is trying "convince" anyone to adopt their own worldview?

Since 'God' means nothing to you, it would appear, since I am saying just that, that we actually agree.

You misunderstand my meaning when I say God means nothing to me.

16:36 / 30.11.06

New definitons!

Theist: The separate Self is an illusion. There is only God.
Atheist: God is a delusion. There is only Self and the Ten Thousand Things.
Agnostic: What's going on? Nutrient

Old definitions!

atheist (plural atheists)
-A person who does not have a belief that one or more deities or gods exist (weak atheism).
-A person who believes that no god exists (strong atheism).
-A person who feels convinced that all references to gods are rooted in fiction and/or ancient superstition.

agnosticism
-The view that the existence of any god is unknown at present.
-The view that any god's existence is unknowable.
-The view that theism is incoherent (see ignosticism.)

theist (plural theists)
-One who believes in the existence of a God; especially, one who believes in a personal God.
-One who discriminates based on religion.

Scrambled Password Bogus Email

16:43 / 30.11.06

You misunderstand my meaning when I say God means nothing to me.

%OIC%

Scrambled Password Bogus Email

16:44 / 30.11.06

there's actually no point in bothering to conceptualize "divinity" at all.

You think? Gee, I wonder where I heard that before...

Scrambled Password Bogus Email

16:51 / 30.11.06

Who here is trying "convince" anyone to adopt their own worldview?

It was more the "tedious" part, tbh. I got a bit gonzo with the mouse, however.

Re: the gravity thing...can you not see that before gravity was invented as a concept, it couldn't possibly be keeping us from floating away?

I mean, you don't tend to get sick because of your humors anymore, but in the not so distant past you did. You 'really' did!

16:53 / 30.11.06

there's actually no point in bothering to conceptualize "divinity" at all.
You think? Gee, I wonder where I heard that before...

This discussion is occurring in the context of a planet populated by several billion people who specifically conceptualize divinity as a "being" existing independently of - and in fact deliberately creating - the universe and ourselves. Any consideration of atheism and theism that avoids this central fact is going to go nowhere.

16:55 / 30.11.06

I mean, you don't tend to get sick because of your humors anymore, but in the not so distant past you did. You 'really' did!

No, we "really" didn't. We simply believed we did. And our current model may also prove to be inaccurate. That doesn't mean the actual reason we get ill changes.

17:00 / 30.11.06

Nutrient- you're asserting (or assuming) consensual reality is all that exists, who cares would disagree with that and assert (correct me if I'm wrong who cares) that there is an independently existing physical world that our understanding only approximates.

"we cannot in fact be sure beyond doubt about the nature of reality. We can, however, seek to obtain some form of consensus, with others, of what is real. We can use this to practically guide us, on the assumption it seems to approximate some kind of valid reality. Consensus reality therefore refers to the agreed-upon concepts of reality which people in the world, or a culture or group, believe are real (or treat as real), usually based upon their common experiences as they believe them to be." (from Nutrient's link to 'Consensual Reality' in wikipedia)

'it seems to approximate some kind of valid reality', Nutrient you seem to be saying it *is* reality.

Scrambled Password Bogus Email

17:02 / 30.11.06

Yes. Perhaps we could address the issue of why exoteric teachings differ so greatly from esoteric texts from the same doctrines. Talk about room for confusion.

It's almost like camouflage. Like a deliberate diversionary tactic. Without the 'rosetta stones' or 'soma' or whatever, the so-called wisdom is mostly buried in a load of hard to fathom, outdated dogmatic jibberish.

Why might that be?

Scrambled Password Bogus Email

17:04 / 30.11.06

That in response to who cares before Quantum (about the planet population)

Have to go for the night. Anon.

Scrambled Password Bogus Email

17:20 / 30.11.06

That doesn't mean the actual reason we get ill changes

In shamanic practice, a completely holistic view of illness is conceptualised. That dis-ease has a spiritual, emotional and physical component, inseperable and yet also essential to consider in this fashion. Who can say? It has cured allopathically 'uncurable' cancer though...the process involves a whole load of demonic encounter, emotional rollercoaster and physical mayhem. End of dis-ease. I know some survivors.

But it would be just nonsensical to suggest that demons, like, actual, y'know, real demons cause illness. How backwards. In spite of having to encounter them, and getting better.

You seem to have a very rigid notion of what 'real' is. What constitutes 'really' real, and what is...well, not real.

I've met no less than two fully qualified doctors (GP's) and a surgeon as a result of mingling in these circles.

Do you know how much time, out of the 7 or so years it takes to qualify to practice medicine in this country, a GP has to spend studying nutrition?

Not one second. Not a single exam. Not a single lesson, even. Not, as the saying goes, a sausage.

According to the allopathic paradigm of 'real' medicine nutrition has absolutely nothing to do with dis-ease or recovery or treatment of sickness. Nish.

Humors. Nutrition. Spirits.

What is this 'actual' cause that you know so much and yet so little of?

Scrambled Password Bogus Email

17:20 / 30.11.06

I really do have to go now :-)

17:29 / 30.11.06

You seem to have a very rigid notion of what 'real' is.

No less rigid than your own. Neither of us is going to offer a YouTube video of ourselves jumping off a tall building to demonstrate that "reality" is flexible on what happens when the human body slams into the ground.

17:38 / 30.11.06

Quoting you back at yourself, Nutrient;
It's almost like camouflage. Like a deliberate diversionary tactic. Without the 'rosetta stones' or 'soma' or whatever, the so-called wisdom is mostly buried in a load of hard to fathom, outdated dogmatic jibberish.

I'm having trouble fathoming your arguments, that quote neatly describes your posting style to me. You seem to assume that your view (that reality is consensual, there is no objective reality) is actually objectively true and people who disagree are wrong. I hope I'm misunderstanding you, otherwise you can see why I might be confused.

Scrambled Password Bogus Email

17:38 / 30.11.06

Haha! Got delayed!!

Nutrient- you're asserting (or assuming) consensual reality is all that exists, who cares would disagree with that and assert (correct me if I'm wrong who cares) that there is an independently existing physical world that our understanding only approximates.

Hoom. Not really. I'd say that the possibility that those 'two' inter-relate and are wrapped around each other in an impossible to tell where one begins and the other ends kind of fashion is, ahem, distinct.

I have no problem with the idea of cause and effect. It's poetic. It makes sense. It has beauty, truth, the whole nine-yards.

It's just, the older I get, the harder I find it discerning which is which. Post hoc ergo propter hoc? I wonder...

UG has a lot to say about this, in spite of possibly being 'wrong'. Knowledge limits experience. I believe it was who cares hirslef who cited the example of angels to UFO's.

We are incapable of experiencing anything that lies outside of our already existing knowledge, or the knowledge of our time.

Tonal. Castaneda/Don Juan also had a lot to say about that.

It is, as Quantum has so ably pointed out, well-trodden, even tired old ground.

Scrambled Password Bogus Email

17:50 / 30.11.06

Nowhere have I said 'There is no objective reality'.

Objective Reality, here, may as well be a substitute for 'God'. who cares seems to worship it, anyway.

If such a thing exists, how, as experiencing subjects with a specific set of perceptual apparatus, can we identify it independent of our experience? How can we possibly posit it's 'independence' when everything we know about it is a result of our subjective experience of it?

It, at least as much as God, must be 'unknowable', that's if it really exists at all.

Interesting how these Idols can slip in there, no?

For it to be 'independent' and 'objective', you'd have to very absolutely believe in a 'self' for it to be 'independent' from...we know the self is a phantom, right?

The example of jumping off a building and Youtube is confusing the issue. Nobody is saying "All reality is consensual. Man, let's bust out of the Dreeeeaaaammm!" Only that the subject/object illusion is a necessary fiction of experience. Reality is a single, unitary event, without division, whether dying falling off a building or being bludgeoned with a cricket bat. One Non Thing.

Being.

Sorry Quantum, we all know how boring this is.

17:51 / 30.11.06

We are incapable of experiencing anything that lies outside of our already existing knowledge, or the knowledge of our time.

If this was true, there would be no discovery, no learning, no theorizing, no propositions, no imagination and no growth. We can experience things without understanding them.

17:56 / 30.11.06

Nowhere have I said 'There is no objective reality'.

So this gets us back to the issue of whether divinity exists in objective reality in the same fashion as carrots. This is something many if not most theists assert to be true.

Objective Reality, here, may as well be a substitute for 'God'. who cares seems to worship it, anyway.

What makes you think that?

If such a thing exists, how, as experiencing subjects with a specific set of perceptual apparatus, can we identify it independent of our experience?

Discovery and the scientific method both indicate that we can identify aspects of reality independent of our experience. Very few people would suggest that carrots do not exist, for example.

For it to be 'independent' and 'objective', you'd have to very absolutely believe in a 'self' for it to be 'independent' from...we know the self is a phantom, right?

Very few people would agree.

The example of jumping off a building and Youtube is confusing the issue. Nobody is saying "All reality is consensual. Man, let's bust out of the Dreeeeaaaammm!" Only that the subject/object illusion is a necessary fiction of experience. Reality is a single, unitary event, without division, whether dying falling off a building or being bludgeoned with a cricket bat. One Non Thing.

None of which is helpful in a discussion of divinity unless we are using "divinity" as a synonym for "existence" - which ultimately says as little as claiming that "bliggins" is another word for "carrot." It doesn't actually say anything.

If you're really bored and not just posturing, why continue?

Scrambled Password Bogus Email

17:59 / 30.11.06

It's like picking a scab. You know you shouldn't, but it's so more-ish.

18:10 / 30.11.06

I'd say that the possibility that those 'two' inter-relate and are wrapped around each other in an impossible to tell where one begins and the other ends kind of fashion is, ahem, distinct.

Distinct from what? How exactly do they wrap around each other? Are you saying we can't distinguish between consensual reality and actual reality, or are you saying that the idea of objective reality is of varying relevance, or are you saying the subject/object distinction is false and so the subjective/objective reality distinction is meaningless? What are you saying?

We are incapable of experiencing anything that lies outside of our already existing knowledge, or the knowledge of our time.

Then how do you explain learning new things, discovering new things and inventing new things?
Tonal/Nagual you say? Golly. If you could be clearer I think that would help us all, do you mean the scientific rational atheist paradigm is trapped in the perspective of the Tonal and cannot deal with non-ordinary reality? That the real world consists of both what we can conceive and the ineffable other which our rational brains cannot grasp? I'm trying to understand you dude, help me out with a bit more clarity.

18:14 / 30.11.06

Nutrient - you don't seem to agree that "gods" exist as actual autonomous beings in the same way horses do but unicorns don't. Your take on divinity instead seems to be that it is "being" more or less. Can you explain the utility you find in using the word "divinity" for this state rather than the word "being?"

18:18 / 30.11.06

If such a thing exists, how, as experiencing subjects with a specific set of perceptual apparatus, can we identify it independent of our experience? How can we possibly posit it's 'independence' when everything we know about it is a result of our subjective experience of it?

Kant described it as Noumenal reality, noumena being the causes of phenomena we can never directly experience. You're right, it is boring, see you later. Good luck who cares, have fun Evil Scientist.

19:53 / 30.11.06

Sorry Quantum, we all know how boring this is.

See it's comments like that Nutrient that do you no favours at all.

Perhaps try to, oh I don't know, get over it?

Scrambled Password Bogus Email

08:19 / 01.12.06

Favours, dear chap?

Why, I honest to goodness was hoping to extend one myself to the venerable Dr. Quantum, creating, perhaps, a brief space in which the learned fellow could retire gracefully for a moment to, I don't know, have a cigar and a brandy while we retraced some very basic advaita vedanta and first-year astrophysics, which can, nevertheless, prove slightly tricky for newcomers.

If you recall, the first time all the toys ended up on the floor this way, in the midst of the previous sulk, before he returned having announced his departure and intention not to, it was precisely because the poor fellow was bored to tears by us, apparently, having to refer to 'tired old ground' in order to explain ourselves. The poor excitable fellow has some sort of allergy, or impatience disorder or something...Who knows? While we all get on with a discussion, which has its lugubrious moments, sure, and then its little flashes of adrenaline, he seems to get all...antsy, and hot under the collar. It's a mystery.

Anyway, since who cares would like to discuss the knowability of 'the objective Universe', and the difference between carrots, Unicorns, grief, joy, thoughts, ideas, the value of shares and the relative 'reality' of each, I was more than a little wary that our hawkish moderator would...well, do what he's gone right ahead and done.

I was hoping we might avoid that, that he might engage with a few of the points himself, as tangential to the main discussion as they may appear to be, since it would make my life a little easier, or, failing that, notice which way we were sliding and pause for a breather...maybe that's what he's done, and will be back some time soon?

I'll do my best to scavenge some time together to respond to a few of the points raised upthread today...

In the meantime:

Lovely

Scrambled Password Bogus Email

08:21 / 01.12.06

I'm having trouble fathoming your arguments, that quote neatly describes your posting style to me.

This really made me laugh, btw! When you're not being tetchy, you're really funny, Q!

Page: 1 ... 2 3 4 5 6(7)8 9 10 11 12... 14