Religion, a false flag to hide the pains of reality

[kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman]

Religion
by god123123

First of all, it must be stated that I believe in complete religious freedom (although I dislike Islam), and therefore, do not support repressing the Christian majority in any way. I'm of course politically extremely conservative.

Deductive Reasoning and Sensual Interaction are how knowledge is aquired
All knowledge comes through first the senses, and secondly through logical processes which reason this data. That which cannot be backed up with direct evidence or solid logic should be disregarded. The way the senses can be proven as existent is convergence, you can sense an object many ways. If you can see a dog, feel a dog, smell a dog, etc, then with all these converging processes, there probably is a dog. By this convergence, you should learn to trust your senses as accurate. You reason with logical techniques using this knowledge.

None of this is present behind any faith
In stark contrast, faith is supposed to be accepted without any evidence. You just believe, you "have faith." Why would one believe there is a dog if he couldn't sense the dog? He may look closer for the dog, and try to search for the truth, but until he senses the dog or is alerted about the dog, he shouldn't believe it is there. The person who believes in religion is just as stupid as someone who sees invisible dogs.

Religion gives false answers
For many years, stuff that science now explains was explained by religious means. This gave people an answer in the past, but it was the wrong answer. I think this process will go on for eternity, with science gaining more strength. Religion may make people happy and hopeful, however:

It doesn't make you safe
People search for answers because they are suffering. But if they are suffering and give the wrong answer to ease it, then it is like dealing with the symptom and not the problem itself. And the problem with this is that pain is designed to protect an individual from legitimate threats, as a natural reaction. You may defeat the pain, but whatever caused the pain is still threatening you. Therefore, you are still in danger. And in fact you are in more danger, as the pain is supposed to serve as motivation to solve the real problem, and you have just lost this motivation. The major problems of life are never solved by those who use religion to ease their pain instead of confronting their problems.

[Dodge Viper]

Deductive Reasoning and Sensual Interaction are how knowledge is aquired
All knowledge comes through first the senses, and secondly through logical processes which reason this data.
The senses only give an illusory perception of the material world. I would first derive knowledge from intuition. When intuition is lacking, it should be cultivated through spiritual practice and solitude.

Religion is based on turning away from the senses and towards an experience of that which lies behind it. Real knowledge exists behind the mind and beyond sensory perception.

A noted Chemist once crossed words with a saint. He would not admit the existence of God, in-as-much as science has devised no means of detecting him.

The saint replied:

"So you have inexplicably failed to isolate the supreme power in your test tubes. I recommend an unheard-of experiment. Examine your thoughts unremittingly for twenty-four. Then wonder no more at Gods absence"

[Insidium]

Better yet, starve yourself for a week and take some hallucinogenic drugs while you're at it: you're sure to have a "spiritual" experience then!

[Arminius]

In any case, if there was a deity, then he would want man to use reasoning above that of superstition. If God can be confirmed through evidence and science, then so much the better; until then, belief in him is irrational and unnecessary.

[Kamandi]

First of all, it must be stated that I believe in complete religious freedom (although I dislike Islam), and therefore, do not support repressing the Christian majority in any way. I'm of course politically extremely conservative.
Okay. I hope that extends to Romany devotees of Hinduism like myself as well. :)

Deductive Reasoning and Sensual Interaction are how knowledge is aquired
All knowledge comes through first the senses, and secondly through logical processes which reason this data.
Kant disproved this long ago: while it's true that all knowledge begins with sense-perception, that doesn't mean it all comes from the senses. We have a priori knowledge as well.

That which cannot be backed up with direct evidence or solid logic should be disregarded.
Because no truth could possibly fail to transcend human understanding? Quod hubris!

The way the senses can be proven as existent is convergence, you can sense an object many ways. If you can see a dog, feel a dog, smell a dog, etc, then with all these converging processes, there probably is a dog. By this convergence, you should learn to trust your senses as accurate. You reason with logical techniques using this knowledge.
How'd we get to "proven" from "probable"? Are you suggesting that our senses can perceive everything and without fail?

None of this is present behind any faith
In stark contrast, faith is supposed to be accepted without any evidence. You just believe, you "have faith." Why would one believe there is a dog if he couldn't sense the dog? He may look closer for the dog, and try to search for the truth, but until he senses the dog or is alerted about the dog, he shouldn't believe it is there. The person who believes in religion is just as stupid as someone who sees invisible dogs.
He would be if faith regarded things within possible human experience, instead of, as it typically does, things that surpass all possible human experience.

Religion gives false answers
For many years, stuff that science now explains was explained by religious means. This gave people an answer in the past, but it was the wrong answer. I think this process will go on for eternity, with science gaining more strength. Religion may make people happy and hopeful, however:
I agree that religion shouldn't substitute for the scientific method, but that doesn't mean faith has no place where science can't tread, as in the realm of the spiritual.

People search for answers because they are suffering.
People search for answers whether they're suffering or not. It's human nature and we shall continue our search as long as questions exist; that is, forever.

But if they are suffering and give the wrong answer to ease it, then it is like dealing with the symptom and not the problem itself.
We don't know whether the answers of religion to spiritual questions are "right" or "wrong." They're not susceptible to scientific inquiry, hence faith.

The major problems of life are never solved by those who use religion to ease their pain instead of confronting their problems.
One of the major problems of life is our need to have answers to questions only religion can answer. It shouldn't be used in place of a doctor or scientist.

[Helios Panoptes]

Kant disproved this long ago: while it's true that all knowledge begins with sense-perception, that doesn't mean it all comes from the senses. We have a priori knowledge as well.

I don't think he needed to prove that there is a priori knowledge because it was commonly accepted to begin with. See Leibniz' truths of reason vs truths of fact and Hume's 'relations of ideas' for examples. What Kant's big thesis was with respect to the a priori was the synthetic a priori. For the most part, this has not fared well.

[Dodge Viper]

In any case, if there was a deity, then he would want man to use reasoning above that of superstition. If God can be confirmed through evidence and science, then so much the better; until then, belief in him is irrational and unnecessary.
So someone may have heard from various symbolic and metaphorical sources of a secret treasure underground, but until he sees firm evidence of it, the quest to dig and find it is redundant?

So much for Faith, Hope and perseverance.

You need a bearded God perched on a throne to wave down "here I am" to satisfy your validation?

[albion]

http://wordinfo.info/words/images/a-s-woden-sit-trans.gif http://www.crystalinks.com/odin.jpg
Odin is the chief divinity of the Norse pantheon, the foremost of the Aesir.

[Angler]

Well, FDR, you may be wrong on Jewish issues (and are probably a Jew yourself), but you're quite right about religion. It's all make-believe. I'd make this change, though:

Deductive and Inductive Reasoning and Sensual Interaction are how knowledge is acquired

It's true that knowledge can also be gained by reading or listening to others. But this is a form of sensory interaction, and the content your eyes or ears are receiving must then be put through the filter of reason in order to determine whether it reflects reality. The more a claim appears to run outside the bounds of reality as we've experienced it, the more carefully it should be confirmed by evidence and reason before it's believed.

When we read that Napoleon was defeated at Waterloo and that all reputable historians agree on this, we should be inclined to believe it -- it's a perfectly credible claim. When we read in the Bible that a boat containing two of every land animal once sailed on flood waters that covered the entire planet, then we have reason to be...er...skeptical, regardless of the number of people who believe it. Not only does the story defy common sense (the boat must have been awfully crowded), but there is no geological or archaeological evidence for such a flood. Perhaps most important, there are obvious parallels with earlier flood myths:

The similarities between the story of Noah's Ark, the Sumerian story of Ziusudra, and the Babylonian stories of Atrahasis and Utnapishtim are clearly shown by corresponding lines in various versions:

"the storm had swept...for seven days and seven nights" — Ziusudra 203
"For seven days and seven nights came the storm" — Atrahasis III,iv, 24
"Six days and seven nights the wind and storm" — Gilgamesh XI, 127
"rain fell upon the earth forty days and forty nights" — Genesis 7:12

"He offered a sacrifice" — Atrahasis III,v, 31
"And offered a sacrifice" — Gilgamesh XI, 155
"offered burnt offerings on the altar" — Genesis 8:20
"built an altar and sacrificed to the gods" — Berossus.

"The gods smelled the savor" — Atrahasis III,v,34
"The gods smelled the sweet savor" — Gilgamesh XI, 160
"And the Lord smelled the sweet savor..." — Genesis 8:21

The Hebrew flood story of Genesis 6-9 dates to at least the 5th century BC. According to the documentary hypothesis, it is a composite of two literary sources J and P that were combined by a post-exilic editor, 539-400 BC. Hans Schmid believes both the J material and the P material were products of the Babylonian exile period (6th century BC) and were directly derived from Babylonian sources (see also Panbabylonism).
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ziusudra

It is also worth noting that Jesus seems to refer to this flood as a factual event in the New Testament (Matthew 24:37-39). Thus, even the more sensible nonfundamentalist Christians have a problem with the credibility of the Gospels on their hands.

The bottom line is that it is incumbent on the person who seeks truth to investigate the claims of religion rather than uncritically swallow what is presented to him.

[Angler]

The senses only give an illusory perception of the material world.Why do you think this to be the case? If our senses didn't reflect reality, wouldn't we go around walking into walls?

I would first derive knowledge from intuition. When intuition is lacking, it should be cultivated through spiritual practice and solitude.

Religion is based on turning away from the senses and towards an experience of that which lies behind it. Real knowledge exists behind the mind and beyond sensory perception.How do you know it's real knowledge and not a figment of your imagination?

Many religious believers throughout history have searched for God(s) through practices such as prayer and meditation. The God or Gods they found invariably depended on the religious traditions in which they were brought up and/or those to which they had been exposed in some other way. In other words, the "knowledge" they found contradicted the "knowledge" found by other believers who used similar methods of spiritual enlightenment. Why do you suppose this happened?

In contrast, every sane person agrees that the earth has one moon and one sun, that 2+2=4, that mirrors are reflective, etc.

So, we find that knowledge gained through the senses and through (correct and self-consistent) reasoning processes tends to cause agreement, whereas "knowledge" gained through "spiritual" means causes widespread disagreement. So, which methods are more likely to produce true, objective knowledge?

[Vindex]

Some of the older religions contained a science to them that was covered in allegories. And today is wrapped in stagnate backwards understandings and traditions. Alot of it delt with practices that increase the amount of bio-electric current or Chi in the body, which has a evolutionary effect on a person. Since we are slow moving light and live off of light, it increases the amount of light/energy in the body which if Iam correct also speeds up vibration. The human body is like a plant. Hence the real meaning of enlightenment or to seek the light as the bodies requires it, some texts speak of people having a inner Sun.etc

Probably the most perverted and twisted book on the ancient Mystery teachings is the christian bible.

It is also the mark of foolishness when people consider the Light to be mere sentimental lunacy, that corresponds to programmed belief in the ism's of the day.

[Arminius]

So someone may have heard from various symbolic and metaphorical sources of a secret treasure underground, but until he sees firm evidence of it, the quest to dig and find it is redundant?

No, what I said was that one should continue the search, but through scientific or rational means. To believe you have the answers from ancient myths, without any actual evidence, is looney.

You need a bearded God perched on a throne to wave down "here I am" to satisfy your validation?

You might as well be Mohammed seeing an angel from God. Nowadays, instead of starting some kooky religion, they would have the person seen by mental health specialists.

So if all I got was a vision and a wave, then no. I would sooner believe that I just was seeing things.

Though on that topic, isn't that what God did on multiple occasions? "Here I am Abraham... KILL YOUR SON!" Sounds like psychosis to me. Or you can take those stories for what they are, silly myths and superstitions of an ancient people.

[Dodge Viper]

Many religious believers throughout history have searched for God(s) through practices such as prayer and meditation. The God or Gods they found invariably depended on the religious traditions in which they were brought up and/or those to which they had been exposed in some other way. In other words, the "knowledge" they found contradicted the "knowledge" found by other believers who used similar methods of spiritual enlightenment. Why do you suppose this happened?
You will find the inner experience of "God" in the various Religions is one and the same, However, the different faiths tend to mark their own expererience of God with a different label or name.

Serious devotees from all classical Religions testify to hearing and merging with a Holy sound heard directly within, the sound and the ability to merge with it crops up in the Bible, the Bhagavad Gita, the Buddhist scriptures, the Sikh quarters and many others. The Christian tradition is certainly no exception and the Christian saints knew it very well.

But the experience comes to be labelled differently within each Faith, and also the means to attain that experience. Thus we have divisions and differences forming between Religions.

In contrast, every sane person agrees that the earth has one moon and one sun, that 2+2=4, that mirrors are reflective, etc.
Yes but the sun has a different name in many languages, as does the moon. Mathematics sounds wildly different throughout various languages as does an explanation of mirrors.

[Dodge Viper]

No, what I said was that one should continue the search, but through scientific or rational means. To believe you have the answers from ancient myths, without any actual evidence, is looney.
Each man is scientifically wired with a potential to merge with God within. The myths and stories arise from that experience, often very symbolically.

Religous and devotional practices open up divine potentials within an individual, an inner scientific process formulates to enable the seeker to merge in God.

[Julian Curtis Lee]

Actually, this ephemeral "reality" is a false flag to hide the bliss of your true Divine nature, revealed through religion and religious practices. So the original post has it all backwards.

[Helios Panoptes]

You will find the inner experience of "God" in the various Religions is one and the same, However, the different faiths tend to mark their own expererience of God with a different label or name.

Serious devotees from all classical Religions testify to hearing and merging with a Holy sound heard directly within, the sound and the ability to merge with it crops up in the Bible, the Bhagavad Gita, the Buddhist scriptures, the Sikh quarters and many others. The Christian tradition is certainly no exception and the Christian saints knew it very well.

Why do you think that the consistency that holds between different people's mystical intutions is evidence of the veridicality of that cognitive process, but the consistency that holds between different people's perceptual experiences is not evidence of their veridicality? It's also fair to say that sense experiences are the more consistent and that the sample is much larger.

[Arminius]

Each man is scientifically wired with a potential to merge with God within. The myths and stories arise from that experience, often very symbolically.

Religous and devotional practices open up divine potentials within an individual, an inner scientific process formulates to enable the seeker to merge in God.

You base this assumption on what exactly? How will you go about confirming this?

[Geist]

.

Deductive Reasoning and Sensual Interaction are how knowledge is aquired
All knowledge comes through first the senses, and secondly through logical processes which reason this data.

Knowledge does not come through the senses. Sensations do. Knowledge does not pass through logical processes. The intellect dechipers, filters or configures sense data to make it legible. Data is not reasoned. It is made intelligible. Knowledge is derived from experience and retained after first experiences so that we may apply it to further experience.

That which cannot be backed up with direct evidence or solid logic should be disregarded. The way the senses can be proven as existent is convergence, you can sense an object many ways.

What of interpretation? All evidence is interpreted in disparate manners. Conceptual schemes can only attempt to articulate phenomena. There is no reason to believe, as such, that direct evidence will always be interpreted correctly.


If you can see a dog, feel a dog, smell a dog, etc, then with all these converging processes, there probably is a dog. By this convergence, you should learn to trust your senses as accurate. You reason with logical techniques using this knowledge.

It probably is a dog. But once man thought that his sense perception told him the sun revolved around the Earth. Science, too, makes mistakes. There is no perfect knowledge. Science is not truth. It is interpretation like all else.


In stark contrast, faith is supposed to be accepted without any evidence. You just believe, you "have faith." Why would one believe there is a dog if he couldn't sense the dog?

Faith is merely another interpretation. A mode of thought dealing with phenemona in a conceptually different manner.


He may look closer for the dog, and try to search for the truth, but until he senses the dog or is alerted about the dog, he shouldn't believe it is there. The person who believes in religion is just as stupid as someone who sees invisible dogs.



Seeing a dog is not truth. There is no truth of a dog. There is correspondence that a dog exists. That is not the essence of dog.

[Dodge Viper]

Why do you think that the consistency that holds between different people's mystical intutions is evidence of the veridicality of that cognitive process, but the consistency that holds between different people's perceptual experiences is not evidence of their veridicality? It's also fair to say that sense experiences are the more consistent and that the sample is much larger.
I was asked why these inner experiences seem to differ between various faiths, I was merely explaining the basis of these experiences and why they sometimes appear divided and seperate.

World experiences are of course "real", but then so are dreams as we dream them. But eventually we wake up. Through Religion and spiritual experiences we learn to wake up and discover the incorruptable soul nature lying beneath the physical body.

[Geist]

World experiences are of course "real", but then so are dreams as we dream them. But eventually we wake up.

Why do you consider dreams 'real' even when dreaming. One is usually aware on some level that this is a dream. Dreams are absurd enough to be interpreted as the residue of waking life. I see no reason to privilege dreams.

[Dodge Viper]

Why do you consider dreams 'real' even when dreaming. One is usually aware on some level that this is a dream. Dreams are absurd enough to be interpreted as the residue of waking life. I see no reason to privilege dreams.
I disagree, the dreamer believes the dream is real. A nightmare would be laughed at otherwise.

[Julian Curtis Lee]

Why do you consider dreams 'real' even when dreaming. One is usually aware on some level that this is a dream. Dreams are absurd enough to be interpreted as the residue of waking life.
Most people, when dreaming, are not at all aware of it as a dream, but while it's happening they are deeply emotionally engaged with it as if it's real. Most people, when dreaming, are much more emotionally engaged and enlivened by those experience than they are in the waking state, so your statement is actually not correct.

When people become a little bit aware that "this is a dream" during the dream state, this is an advancement in consciousness often called "lucid dreaming." In the same manner, it's not an uncommon experience to look at the gross, chaotic waking state and also feel "this is a dream." Not an uncommon experience at all for philosophers.
I see no reason to privilege dreams.
Dreams are already privileged because, as stated,

-- We generally feel much more alive in them, much more emotional. Things are more vividly seen and felt. With women and sex, for example, we deal with veritable "goddesses" and have more pure, ecstatic experiences. By comparison, experiences in the waking state are pale tokens. So dreams are already privileged as a higher state of awareness and feeling.

-- For an adept, one is also able accomplish things and cause effects from the dream level that no one can from the ordinary waking consciousness. In most metaphysical theory the astral plane is a "more real" plane than the gross waking plane. So things done there have a potent effect on the lower plane.

-- If feeling and awareness are the things that we most seek in life, it would follow that the things we know in the dream life are the things we really seek; the things we would define as "real life." Thus simply by our definitions of the desirable, the dream life is "more real" than waking life.

So there are three reasons to privilege dreams.

Dreams are absurd enough to be interpreted as the residue of waking life.
Actually, it's the other way around: Material life is the "residue" of the higher creative thought of the dream world. In my own dreams, references to my material life make only one element. And even these occasional references have a lot more interest and aliveness to them than what they actually reference. Seeing "my old boss," for example, is often a much more emotional experience, and he is much more intriquing, than ever in the waking life. So material life seems to be the "residue," while dreams deal in the original and primal, using material items as triggers to reference the Original. (My old boss, in the material world, was just a "reference" to something more primal that I encounter in dream.)

Meanwhile, much of my dream life does NOT reference my material life. I would say that if your dream world is nothing but references to material life, and nothing but the absurd, you are not remembering much of your dream content, especially the feeling aspect.

As to "absurdity," this is only one element of the dream experience. There is also beauty in them, and other things. If I look around at the modern world -- at our president, or the way we live -- I see far more absurdity there than in my dreams. Rapture, endless creative vision, powerful emotion -- none of this is absurd.

[Petr]

Serious devotees from all classical Religions testify to hearing and merging with a Holy sound heard directly within, the sound and the ability to merge with it crops up in the Bible, the Bhagavad Gita, the Buddhist scriptures, the Sikh quarters and many others. The Christian tradition is certainly no exception and the Christian saints knew it very well.
Christianity opposes the Oriental idea that one can make oneself Divine. To myself, all this talk of "divinity within" frankly smells heretical, to put it mildly.

Quoting G.K. Chesterton:

Only the other day I saw in an excellent weekly paper of Puritan tone this remark, that Christianity when stripped of its armour of dogma (as who should speak of a man stripped of his armour of bones), turned out to be nothing but the Quaker doctrine of the Inner Light. Now, if I were to say that Christianity came into the world specially to destroy the doctrine of the Inner Light, that would be an exaggeration. But it would be very much nearer to the truth. The last Stoics, like Marcus Aurelius, were exactly the people who did believe in the Inner Light. Their dignity, their weariness, their sad external care for others, their incurable internal care for themselves, were all due to the Inner Light, and existed only by that dismal illumination. Notice that Marcus Aurelius insists, as such introspective moralists always do, upon small things done or undone; it is because he has not hate or love enough to make a moral revolution. He gets up early in the morning, just as our own aristocrats living the Simple Life get up early in the morning; because such altruism is much easier than stopping the games of the amphitheatre or giving the English people back their land. Marcus Aurelius is the most intolerable of human types. He is an unselfish egoist. An unselfish egoist is a man who has pride without the excuse of passion. Of all conceivable forms of enlightenment the worst is what these people call the Inner Light. Of all horrible religions the most horrible is the worship of the god within. Any one who knows any body knows how it would work; any one who knows any one from the Higher Thought Centre knows how it does work. That Jones shall worship the god within him turns out ultimately to mean that Jones shall worship Jones. Let Jones worship the sun or moon, anything rather than the Inner Light; let Jones worship cats or crocodiles, if he can find any in his street, but not the god within. Christianity came into the world firstly in order to assert with violence that a man had not only to look inwards, but to look outwards, to behold with astonishment and enthusiasm a divine company and a divine captain. The only fun of being a Christian was that a man was not left alone with the Inner Light, but definitely recognized an outer light, fair as the sun, clear as the moon, terrible as an army with banners.

http://www.pagebypagebooks.com/Gilbert_K_Chesterton/Orthodoxy/The_Flag_of_the_World_p7.html

Deep down of it, pantheism is just as anti-Christian as atheism is.


Petr

[Dodge Viper]

You base this assumption on what exactly? How will you go about confirming this?
erm, personal experiences...try it for yourself

[Helios Panoptes]

Knowledge does not come through the senses. Sensations do. Knowledge does not pass through logical processes. The intellect dechipers, filters or configures sense data to make it legible. Data is not reasoned. It is made intelligible. Knowledge is derived from experience and retained after first experiences so that we may apply it to further experience.

Surely, Strawson, Sellars, Austin, et al. did not die completely in vain.

[Dodge Viper]

Christianity opposes the Oriental idea that one can make oneself Divine. To myself, all this talk of "divinity within" frankly smells heretical, to put it mildly.
The Church may oppose it, but Christ doesnt.

"Even greater things than these you shall do"

"I am not your Master, for you have drunk, you have become intoxicated from the bubbling spring that I have measured out"

"The kingdom of heaven is within you"

St Teresa of Avila:

"Meditation is the road that leads to Heaven"

"on entering the inner mansion a great sound is witnessed, of that which is beyond explanation"

[Helios Panoptes]

I was asked why these inner experiences seem to differ between various faiths, I was merely explaining the basis of these experiences and why they sometimes appear divided and seperate.

Sorry, I did not follow you. With that said, why do you think that mystical intution is a more reliable process than sense perception? I infer that you believe with from your description of the latter as illusory.

World experiences are of course "real", but then so are dreams as we dream them. But eventually we wake up. Through Religion and spiritual experiences we learn to wake up and discover the incorruptable soul nature lying beneath the physical body.

That is equivocation. Dreams are 'real' in the sense that we do in fact experience them, but the objects of your dreams are images that are not connected to material reality(or at least not directly; you might dream about things you experienced while awake), whereas waking perception places you into contact with external objects.

[Petr]

The Church may oppose it, but Christ doesnt.
I do. Christians shouldn't flee from the materialist challenge into fuzzy mysticism, let alone into heretical self-divinization.

C.S. Lewis wrote that humans have a "natural tendency" towards pantheism - he thought that it would be the last and greatest opponent that true Christianity would have to face (atheism being just simplistic philosophy for over-confident schoolboys).

CS Lewis on Pantheism - from his book Miracles


Men are reluctant to pass over from the notion of an abstract and negative
deity to the living God. I do not wonder. Here lies the deepest tap-root of
Pantheism and of the objection to traditional imagery. It was hated not, at
bottom, because it pictured Him as a man but because it pictured Him as
king, or even as warrior. The Pantheist's God does nothing, demands
nothing. He is there if you wish for Him, like a book on a shelf. He will
not pursue you. There is no danger that at any time heaven and earth should
flee away at His glance. If He were the truth, then we could really say
that all the Christian images-of kingship were a historical accident of
which our religion ought to be cleansed. It is with a shock that we
discover them to be indispensable. You have had a shock like that before,
in connection with smaller matters --when the line pulls at your hand, when
something breathes beside you in the darkness. So here; the shock comes at
the precise moment when the thrill of life is communicated to us along the
clue we have been following. It is always shocking to meet life where we
thought we were alone. "Look out! " we cry, "it's alive." And therefore
this is the very point at which so many draw back--I would have done so
myself if I could--and proceed no further with Christianity. An "impersonal
God" -well and good. A subjective God of beauty, truth and goodness, inside
our own heads --better still. A formless life-force surging through us, a
vast power which we can tap --best of all. But God Himself, alive, pulling
at the other end of the cord, perhaps approaching at an infinite speed, the
hunter, king, husband-that is quite another matter. There comes a moment
when the children who have been playing at burglars hush suddenly: was that
a real footstep in the hall? There comes a moment when people who have been
dabbling in religion ("Man's search for God"!) suddenly draw back.
Supposing we really found Him? We never meant it to come to that! Worse
still, supposing He had found us?

Petr

[Petr]

"I am not your Master, for you have drunk, you have become intoxicated from the bubbling spring that I have measured out"
And what apocryphal rubbish is this?


Petr

[Dodge Viper]

Petr, please make a post without hiding behind articles. I will not read them, nor will you attain any credibility in doing so.

[Angler]

You will find the inner experience of "God" in the various Religions is one and the same, However, the different faiths tend to mark their own expererience of God with a different label or name.

Serious devotees from all classical Religions testify to hearing and merging with a Holy sound heard directly within, the sound and the ability to merge with it crops up in the Bible, the Bhagavad Gita, the Buddhist scriptures, the Sikh quarters and many others. The Christian tradition is certainly no exception and the Christian saints knew it very well.

But the experience comes to be labelled differently within each Faith, and also the means to attain that experience. Thus we have divisions and differences forming between Religions.Such feelings/experiences do not say anything about any God, nor is there any reason to believe they come from a God in the first place. They might be nothing more than the result of a flood of endorphins in the brain (the "warm fuzzies"). As Insidium mentioned, psychedelic drug use can cause similar experiences of apparent religious insight. There's every reason to believe that religious experiences are "all in your head" and no reason to believe otherwise.

Yes but the sun has a different name in many languages, as does the moon. Mathematics sounds wildly different throughout various languages as does an explanation of mirrors.The language doesn't matter -- the concepts being described are the same regardless. ALL scientists agree that common earthly matter is made up of atoms, that the earth revolves around the sun, that light consists of photons, etc. In contrast, Islam doesn't become equivalent to Christianity if it's described in English instead of Arabic.

The fact that scientists agree on all the basics, while religious folks disagree on all the basics, says a lot about the relative truthfulness of science versus religion.

[Arminius]

You base this assumption on what exactly? How will you go about confirming this?


erm, personal experiences...try it for yourself

Do you mean that you had these experiences or that when you have them that will confirm your assumption?

I would ask you to examine if these experiences are genuine, but I am sure you will jump to your assumption anyway.

[Petr]

Petr, please make a post without hiding behind articles. I will not read them, nor will you attain any credibility in doing so.
My own opinions about pantheism would be even considerably less polite than these pieces.

Materialistic "rationalism" and irrationalism (heretical mysticism) have always been waging war on orthodox Christianity in their own ways - it's permanent two-front warfare for the defenders of the true Faith.


Petr

[Dodge Viper]

My own opinions about pantheism would be even considerably less polite than these pieces.
Well please speak up, lets hear what Petr actually has to say, rather than CS Lewis

[Helios Panoptes]

Hmm, neo-Gnosticism vs. the Orthodoxy. Who will prevail? :popcorn:

I will bet on the latter...better track record.

[Angler]

My own opinions about pantheism would be even considerably less polite than these pieces.
Hopefully they'll be better reasoned.

The Pantheist's God does nothing, demands
nothing. He is there if you wish for Him, like a book on a shelf. He will
not pursue you. There is no danger that at any time heaven and earth should
flee away at His glance. If He were the truth, then we could really say
that all the Christian images-of kingship were a historical accident of
which our religion ought to be cleansed. It is with a shock that we
discover them to be indispensable. You have had a shock like that before,
in connection with smaller matters --when the line pulls at your hand, when
something breathes beside you in the darkness. So here; the shock comes at
the precise moment when the thrill of life is communicated to us along the
clue we have been following. It is always shocking to meet life where we
thought we were alone. "Look out! " we cry, "it's alive." And therefore
this is the very point at which so many draw back--I would have done so
myself if I could--and proceed no further with Christianity. An "impersonal
God" -well and good. A subjective God of beauty, truth and goodness, inside
our own heads --better still. A formless life-force surging through us, a
vast power which we can tap --best of all. But God Himself, alive, pulling
at the other end of the cord, perhaps approaching at an infinite speed, the
hunter, king, husband-that is quite another matter. There comes a moment
when the children who have been playing at burglars hush suddenly: was that
a real footstep in the hall? There comes a moment when people who have been
dabbling in religion ("Man's search for God"!) suddenly draw back.
Supposing we really found Him? We never meant it to come to that! Worse
still, supposing He had found us?
All of this begs the question of God's existence (fallacy #1) and uses argument from consequences (fallacy #2). "Pantheism can't be true because it gives us the kind of God we don't want!"

[Julian Curtis Lee]

Such feelings/experiences do not say anything about any God, nor is there any reason to believe they come from a God in the first place.
If I define God as a primordial bliss, then my experience of primordial bliss is my experience of God as I define Him. If you define God as a loose brick, then when you see a loose brick you are experiencing your God. If you have no God ideas or concepts, it's just due to lack of creativity and imagination. (By the way, "creativity and imagination" are another good definition of God. So if I find that I have creativity and imagination, then I am experiencing God personally with myself, by that definition).

I find arguments about the existence of God, here on Phora, to be incredibly lame and lacking in imagination. Not to mention erudition.
Christianity opposes the Oriental idea that one can make oneself Divine.
No, only you and your hackneyed "cultural christianity" oppose it. What's this business in the Bible about "becoming Sons of God"? ("To as many as believed upon Him...). What's this business about "greater things than these shall you do." (Christ talking to his disciples about his miracles.)
To myself, all this talk of "divinity within" frankly smells heretical, to put it mildly.
What does "the kingdom of heaven is within you" mean?

What did it mean when God made us "in his own image"? (Genesis)

To deny the divinity of the human soul is the heretical thing. And it stinks. (To put it very mildly.) Your Christianity is a hollow shell and and an un-hallowed anti-spirituality corporation. Thus it dies.

[Angler]

If I define God as a primordial bliss, then my experience of primordial bliss is my experience of God as I define Him. If you define God as a loose brick, then when you see a loose brick you are experiencing your God. If you have no God ideas or concepts, it's just do to lack of creativity and imagination.In that case, I define God as myself. Now, worship me, all of you! :D

[kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman]

What would a Science vs Religion thread be, if Petr wasn't involved in it? lol.

[Dodge Viper]

My own opinions about pantheism would be even considerably less polite than these pieces.

Materialistic "rationalism" and irrationalism (heretical mysticism) have always been waging war on orthodox Christianity in their own ways - it's permanent two-front warfare for the defenders of the true Faith.


Petr
Christianity wages war on itself. You divide and segregate, you ignore vital scripture, and settle for small-time Sunday Church service with pomp and ritual.

Why are you allergic to Mysticism when the history books are marked with mystical saints?

[Angler]

Are you a Christian, Nick? Any particular denomination? Just curious.

[Dodge Viper]

Are you a Christian, Nick? Any particular denomination? Just curious.
Well, this may sound corny, but I love Christ.

However, that isnt always qualification for Christianity these days.

No particular denomination, no.

[Petr]

Why are you allergic to Mysticism when the history books are marked with mystical saints?
a) As a Protestant, I have no use for Catholic saints like Theresa of Avila and their brand of mysticism.

b) Too many pantheistic mystics are singing the Luciferian siren song "ye shall be like gods."

c) Mysticism tends to lead to mush-minded ecumenical tolerance when what Christendom today really needs is an iron dose of intolerance (of evil and false doctrines) instead.

d) Consistent pantheism erases the difference between good and evil, between man and God.


Petr

[Dodge Viper]

a) As a Protestant, I have no use for Catholic saints like Theresa of Avila and their brand of mysticism.

b) Too many pantheistic mystics are singing the Luciferian siren song "ye shall be like gods."

c) Mysticism tends to lead to mush-minded ecumenical tolerance when what Christendom today really needs is an iron dose of intolerance (of evil and false doctrines) instead.

d) consistent pantheism erases differences between good and evil, between man and God.


Petr
What were Christs views on Protestants?

And what were his views on Catholics?

Why did Christ counsel his followers to give up home and posessions, family ties, and worldly commitments?

Was it purely to secure a heavenly after-life?

Or was he leading his followers into something here and now?

Why did he praise Chastity, renunciation and solitude?

Why did he have disciples?

Does a Master not raise a Disciple up to his own level?

Did his Disciples not carry on his miracles and exhibit his Divine nature?

[Dodge Viper]

a) As a Protestant, I have no use for Catholic saints like Theresa of Avila and their brand of mysticism.
So your telling me that because you are a "protestant" you must reject a lady who sat for hours on end praying to Christ, praying to God and ultimately beholding the form of Christ before her?.

All because of a petty denomination?

I might just shed a tear tonight contemplating the sorry world of "Christianity"

[Petr]

I might just shed a tear tonight contemplating the sorry world of "Christianity"
There are already too many feminine men in today's Christendom, ruled by emotionalism and sentimentalism (natural breeding ground for cheap mysticism).


Petr

[Dodge Viper]

There are already too many feminine men in today's Christendom, ruled by emotionalism and sentimentalism (natural breeding ground for cheap mysticism).


Petr
What, no article referencing a link between human emotion amd mysticism?

You are slacking Petr.

It was an expression, I wouldnt shed a tear for you, except through laughter.

[shanemac]

http://wordinfo.info/words/images/a-s-woden-sit-trans.gif http://www.crystalinks.com/odin.jpg
Odin is the chief divinity of the Norse pantheon, the foremost of the Aesir.

Now this is a god I can get down with. This God gon' kick yo' ass if you don't believe in him.

The christian god just sits up there on those fluffy white clouds, listening to boring harp-music having gay sex with Michelangelo and growing his beard.

http://www.success.co.il/knowledge/images/Pillar2-Supernatural-GodCreates-Man-Sistine-Chapel.jpg

[Julian Curtis Lee]

There are already too many feminine men in today's Christendom, ruled by emotionalism and sentimentalism (natural breeding ground for cheap mysticism).
What a stupid insult that is. Mystics are not feminine men. It takes a lot of male energy to become a male mystic. You are blowing smoke. You can't even touch mysticism if you're not already twice the man of the average dolt. Feminine men in Christianity (and they dominate) are that way precisely because they are not qualified for mysticism. And why do you focus on "cheap mysticism" over the real thing?

And without an emotional approach to religion, one is making a half-assed approach to it. If you're not sentimental about Christ, then you're a "Christian" made of wood. Jesus said: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength." (Mark 12:28-30) Can you say "heart"? Can you say "soul"?

Never mind Christian mysticism. Even as men, those who are emotionally moribund are only half-men.

Protestantism is practically dead today and their churches are full old people exactly because: 1) Protestants have no real understanding of the direct and personal approach to God, and 2) They have no clue about the inner territory; they don't know what to do with "the Kingdom of heaven is within you." It's only the mystic who takes that statement of Christ's to heart; only the mystic who comes to understand what it means.

You can have your dead mental Christianity. It ain't going anywhere, either on the material or the spiritual planes. The plain words of Christ are either meaningless or daunting to you. So you take shelter, as an avoidance mechanism, in invented theology and distracting historical factoids.

[Helios Panoptes]

Protestantism is practically dead today and their churches are full old people

Well, to be honest, church does strike me as the province of the elderly.

[Hippias]

Well, to be honest, church does strike me as the province of the elderly.

The congregations of "emergent" churches are comprised almost wholly of teens and twentysomethings. They are protestant churches.

[Helios Panoptes]

The congregations of "emergent" churches are comprised almost wholly of teens and twentysomethings. They are protestant churches.


The "emerging church conversation” is a controversial[1] 21st century Christian movement whose participants seek to engage postmodern people, especially the unchurched and post-churched. To accomplish this, "emerging Christians" or "emergents" seek to deconstruct and reconstruct Christian beliefs, standards, and methods to fit in the postmodern mold. Proponents of this movement call it a "conversation" to emphasize its developing and decentralized nature. The predominantly young participants in this movement prefer narrative presentations drawn from their own experiences and biblical narratives over propositional, Bible exposition. Emergent methodology includes frequent use of new technologies such as multimedia and the Internet. Their acceptance of diversity and reliance on open dialogue rather than the dogmatic proclamation found in historic Christianity leads emergents to diverse beliefs and moral expressions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerging_church_movement

Yes, that makes sense.

[Kamandi]

I don't think he needed to prove that there is a priori knowledge because it was commonly accepted to begin with.
It was believed to be abstracted from sense experience, a la Locke and Hume, and not independent of sense experience. Of course, Leibnitz was a rationalist.

[Helios Panoptes]

It was believed to be abstracted from sense experience, a la Locke and Hume, and not independent of sense experience. Of course, Leibnitz was a rationalist.

Hume's conception of 'relations of ideas' does make them independent of sense experience:

ALL the objects of human reason or enquiry may naturally be divided into two kinds, to wit, Relations of Ideas, and Matters of Fact. Of the first kind are the sciences of Geometry, Algebra, and Arithmetic; and in short, every affirmation which is either intuitively or demonstratively certain. That the square of the hypothenuse is equal to the square of the two sides, is a proposition which expresses a relation between these figures. That three times five is equal to the half of thirty, expresses a relation between these numbers. Propositions of this kind are discoverable by the mere operation of thought, without dependence on what is anywhere existent in the universe. Though there never were a circle or triangle in nature, the truths demonstrated by Euclid would for ever retain their certainty and evidence.

Enquiry, Section IV, Part I

[Ahknaton]

FDR123123, your use of the term "false flag" is inappropriate in this instance. A "false flag" operation is an attack (or other hostility) that is carried out in such a way as to make it look as if the attacker is someone else. Christianity would only be "false flag" if Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, but was actually the devil (or something).

[Dodge Viper]

And what apocryphal rubbish is this?
I see you have abandoned this thread, but I should explain where the qoute arises.

Jesus' words are recorded in the noncanonical Gospel of Thomas, verse 13:

"Compare me to someone and tell me whom I am like"
"Simon Peter said to him, 'You are like a righteous angel'
"Matthew said to him 'You are like a wise philosopher'
"Thomas said to him, 'Master, my mouth is wholly incapable of saying whom you are like"

Jesus replied:

"I am not your Master, for you have drunk, you have become intoxicated from the bubbling spring which I have measured out"

Elsewhere in the Gospel of Thomas (verse 108), Jesus declares:

"He who will drink from my mouth will become like me, I myself shall become he, and the things that are hidden shall be revealed to him"

[Felix the Cat]

The congregations of "emergent" churches are comprised almost wholly of teens and twentysomethings. They are protestant churches.
These people often attend church just long enough to get their children accepted by christian schools, whereupon they mysteriously lose their faith

[Kamandi]

Hume's conception of 'relations of ideas' does make them independent of sense experience:

True, but that's because he considered "relations of ideas" to be what Kant later called "analytic propositions"; ie, statements about definitions.

[Helios Panoptes]

True, but that's because he considered "relations of ideas" to be what Kant later called "analytic propositions"; ie, statements about definitions.

Yes, that is right. I think this is basically the correct view, though. If there are synthetic a priori truths at all, they're significantly more marginal than indicated by Kant and cannot be used to do heavy philosophical work. I.e., if a thing is red all over, then it cannot be green all over. I am not even convinced that this oft-cited example is synthetic, though it probably is according to Kant's somewhat vague cleaving of the semantic distinction.

[Kamandi]

Space and time are synthetic a prioris according to Kant and they seem pretty important to philosphy.

[Helios Panoptes]

Space and time are synthetic a prioris according to Kant and they seem pretty important to philosphy.

Obviously, but my intent was to disagree. Hilbert axiomatized Euclidean geometry, thereby formalizing it and allowing it to be abstracted from Kantian notions about its role in spatial perception. Basically, the conventionalist picture has supplanted the Kantian one. There are, after all, other self-consistent geometrical systems, of which Kant was not aware. The issue has been reduced to questions about what sort of geometry describes the physical world in different contexts(a posteriori). It is not a matter of any geometry being intrinsic to perception.

[Kamandi]

It was demonstrated some time ago that Kant's argument could be extended to cover non-Euclidean geometries as well. For example, whether the parallel postulate is accepted or not, space is always outside of "us."

And, in fact, whether Riemannian or not, we still cannot "destroy" space in our imaginations.

[Helios Panoptes]

It was demonstrated some time ago that Kant's argument could be extended to cover non-Euclidean geometries as well. For example, whether the parallel postulate is accepted or not, space is always outside of "us."

And, in fact, whether Riemannian or not, we still cannot "destroy" space in our imaginations.

The Kantian point was about Euclidian geometry being intrinsic to perception, which happened to be untrue, as there are various geometries. The rejoinder is that some notion of space is intrinsic to perception. I am uncertain of this point. It could simply be rather that space is a feature of the external world, which we perceive, rather than a framework which makes that world intelligible. It is rather like the problem of the external world itself. External objects, too, are always 'external to us' and experience is consistent with their independent existence or lack thereof. To wit, experience is consistent with a skeptical hypothesis such as there being no such external objects.

[Kamandi]

The Kantian point was about Euclidian geometry being intrinsic to perception, which happened to be untrue, as there are various geometries.

In the Transcendental Analytic, Kant did indeed make the (false) deduction that Euclidean geometry IS intrinsic to thought, but it's somewhat independent from the arguments in the Transcendental Aesthetic, like the one below.

The rejoinder is that some notion of space is intrinsic to perception. I am uncertain of this point. It could simply be rather that space is a feature of the external world, which we perceive, rather than a framework which makes that world intelligible.
It's impossible to think without implied reference to space and time, as Kant pointed out in the TAesthetic. They're thus universal and therefore a priori.

It is rather like the problem of the external world itself. External objects, too, are always 'external to us' and experience is consistent with their independent existence or lack thereof. To wit, experience is consistent with a skeptical hypothesis such as there being no such external objects.
Kick a rock. :)

[Helios Panoptes]

It's impossible to think without implied reference to space and time, as Kant pointed out in the TAesthetic. They're thus universal and therefore a priori.

Really? When I think about, for example, a red surface, I cannot think of a red surface that is not extended. However, when I exercise conceptual thought, I do not seem to think about anything in space or time. I might ponder a mathematical equation without creating mental images of the variables, and there is nothing about it in space, nor am I thinking about time. While it is true that time is passing, I needn't be conscious of this. Thus, it is incorrect to say that there can be no thought without notions of space and time. There is no perception without a spatial element(or more precisely, no sight or touch). I do not dispute this, but similarly, there is no perception without there being objects of perception. I am less convinced about the temporal element. While time is always passing(obviously), it does not seem as integral to perception as the spatial aspect. We are often only dimly aware of the passing of time, sometimes perhaps not at all, whereas whenever we see objects, we are aware of their extension.

Kick a rock.

If only it were that simple. :)

[Kamandi]

Really? When I think about, for example, a red surface, I cannot think of a red surface that is not extended. However, when I exercise conceptual thought, I do not seem to think about anything in space or time.
But, in fact, you're implictly thinking IN time, because, as Kant pointed out (and, sadly, I didn't) time is the "form of the inner sense"; ie, thoughts are extended in time in some way.
I might ponder a mathematical equation without creating mental images of the variables, and there is nothing about it in space, nor am I thinking about time. While it is true that time is passing, I needn't be conscious of this.
Whether you're "conscious" of it or not, you know that at one point, there was no thought and then, some time later, there was a thought - otherwise, there'd be no thought at all. Thoughts, like everything else, occur "in time" in some sense.

For example, when you begin pondering the equation, you're thinking of something that you're weren't thinking of before. That "before and after" implies the concept of time.

Thus, it is incorrect to say that there can be no thought without notions of space and time.
I disagree, for the reasons stated by Kant (in a different format) above. Every thought presupposes some notion of space and time. Thoughts, like everything else, are extended; they have a beginning, middle and end, although the precise dimensions are probably not clear to us.

[Helios Panoptes]

But, in fact, you're implictly thinking IN time, because, as Kant pointed out (and, sadly, I didn't) time is the "form of the inner sense"; ie, thoughts are extended in time in some way.

Well, there is implied reference to time at any point at which we speak of change, so the same is true of mental states. That is, if something changes, some time has elapsed. In this case, one was in brain state 1 at time slice 1 and brain state 2 at slice 2. We're not really getting anywhere, though. On the one hand, time might be somehow in the external world, whereas in the other it might be somehow imposed upon the world by an observer. It seems prima facie to be unresolvable. You have made the point that time, unlike other things in the world, seems to be something we are ineluctably under the influence at all times. So, whereas you can close your eyes and avoid ordinary external objects, you cannot do so to avoid the passing of time. However, this does not, in fact, resolve the issue. Once again, the realist explanation handles the matter adequately. Time could very well be in the world, per se, and because we are also worldly things, it happens that time is constantly acting on us, so whenever we look for it, it is always there to be found, and we realize it was acting on us, even when our attention wasn't directed towards it.

Another point I'd like to make is that we should distinguish between time subjectively and objectively. Whereas we have different ideas about how much time has passed over an interval, there is also an objective time that has passed over the interval. This is why, for example, when someone takes a psychedelic drug that greatly distorts one's sense of time, when he returns to normal, he finds that as much time has passed as a good clock has measured, not as much as he subjectively experienced. I am led to believe, then that time is in some sense objective and external to the observer because of its remarkable uniformity.

Hope you don't mind, but I'm going to truncate my reply here. I do sometimes like to atomically break posts up into responses to individual points, but I feel that the paragraph format worked better for this post.

[Petyr Baelish]

...

b) Too many pantheistic mystics are singing the Luciferian siren song "ye shall be like gods."
...
Petr

The psalmist and Jesus Christ must both have been "Luciferians":

I said, 'You are "gods";
you are all sons of the Most High.'
Psalm 82:6.

Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'?
John 10:34


If you can't be bothered to learn anything about relevant subjects, at least master the fairy-tales you base your life on, ignorant cretin.

[Petr]

If you can't be bothered to learn anything about relevant subjects, at least master the fairy-tales you base your life on, ignorant cretin.
It's blatant eisegesis to read pantheistic self-deification into those verses, you rotten degenerate. (Mystics are notorious for the way they twist the Scriptures wildly out of context.)


82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

82:7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.


Petr

[Dodge Viper]

It's blatant eisegesis to read pantheistic self-deification into those verses, you rotten degenerate. (Mystics are notorious for the way they twist the Scriptures wildly out of context.)
Petr, how can God and all that is associated not be mystical?

82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
This is a reference to the Divine nature of the Human soul. The human soul is perfectly alligned with God, but its nature is obscured by materialism, desire and a lack of religous practice.

82:7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes. Those who lack religous ideals, and those who lack spiritual practice, failing to lift the veil obscuring their hidden soul nature will indeed "die like men".

[Petr]

Petr, how can God and all that is associated not be mystical?
There is good and bad kind of mysticism.

It is just plain blasphemy to say that a created being can be or become equal to God (the true allmighty God of the Bible, Creator of heaven and earth). I have actually called it a great egalitarian heresy.

"...failing to lift the veil obscuring their hidden soul nature..."

This is more Gnosticism than Christianity - in the orthodox Christian scheme, it's not ignorance that is man's real problem but willful disobedience. Not the lack of esoteric knowledge (gnosis) but sinful perversion of will.


Petr

[Dodge Viper]

There is good and bad kind of mysticism.

It is just plain blasphemy to say that a created being can be or become equal to God (the true allmighty God of the Bible, Creator of heaven and earth). I have actually called it a great egalitarian heresy.

"...failing to lift the veil obscuring their hidden soul nature..."

This is more Gnosticism than Christianity - in the orthodox Christian scheme, it's not ignorance that is man's real problem but willful disobedience. Not the lack of esoteric knowledge (gnosis) but sinful perversion of will.


Petr
Yes, its incorrect to state a being could become equal to God. That is completely invalid. God is God, he has no equals. but to deny the human soul as a reflection of God and as a reflection of his nature is also very wrong.

We all must ascend to God eventually, thus we have the potential to be near him and exprerince him. For this to be correct we must have a Divine potential within us.

[Kamandi]

Well, there is implied reference to time at any point at which we speak of change, so the same is true of mental states. That is, if something changes, some time has elapsed. In this case, one was in brain state 1 at time slice 1 and brain state 2 at slice 2. We're not really getting anywhere, though.
^^ That's Kant's point. Time and space are a priori because it's impossible to cognize without reference to them.

On the one hand, time might be somehow in the external world, whereas in the other it might be somehow imposed upon the world by an observer. It seems prima facie to be unresolvable.
Kant agrees: he tells us that space and time as "noumena"; ie, things in themselves, are unknowable. Only our "phenomenal" perception of them can be understood.

You have made the point that time, unlike other things in the world, seems to be something we are ineluctably under the influence at all times. So, whereas you can close your eyes and avoid ordinary external objects, you cannot do so to avoid the passing of time. However, this does not, in fact, resolve the issue.
Kant wasn't suggesting that we can in fact resolve the issue. In fact, he was saying just the opposite.

Once again, the realist explanation handles the matter adequately. Time could very well be in the world, per se, and because we are also worldly things, it happens that time is constantly acting on us, so whenever we look for it, it is always there to be found, and we realize it was acting on us, even when our attention wasn't directed towards it.
The problem is, it would be impossible for humans to cognize without space and time "in this world or out of it." They're simply preconditions of all thought regardless of the reality or unreality of space-time.

Another point I'd like to make is that we should distinguish between time subjectively and objectively. Whereas we have different ideas about how much time has passed over an interval, there is also an objective time that has passed over the interval.
Kant points out that we have no direct intuition of time and postulates the existence of a "schemata" of time on that basis.

[Helios Panoptes]

^^ That's Kant's point. Time and space are a priori because it's impossible to cognize without reference to them.

You've distorted my post by breaking it up as you have. For example, the part that you've quoted here does not stand independent from what follows. I wasn't saying that it is a priori. I wasn't agreeing with Kant.... I was saying that the fact that change(as in fluid thought) implies time does not indicate that time is a priori.

Anyway, I will probably reply again later more comprehensively, though I find the style of this discussion terribly ill-suited to the subject matter. This format is okay for disputing facts, but it does not work for posts that are attempting to build relatively long, cohesive arguments, in which case responses to individual sentences are unproductive. I would say that it misses the forest for the trees, but it's more like it misses the forest for the flying pink unicorns, if you catch my drift.

[Starr]

Such feelings/experiences do not say anything about any God, nor is there any reason to believe they come from a God in the first place. They might be nothing more than the result of a flood of endorphins in the brain (the "warm fuzzies"). As Insidium mentioned, psychedelic drug use can cause similar experiences of apparent religious insight. There's every reason to believe that religious experiences are "all in your head" and no reason to believe otherwise.
.

The conclusion that an experience like mentioned is all in your head because certain drugs can produce the same effects would seem to be the most rational but, of course there are other beliefs about that as well:

http://deoxy.org/psyguide.htm

[kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman]

Christianity would only be "false flag" if Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, but was actually the devil (or something).
The point is that it gives people answers that are incorrect so that they stop looking for the real answers.

[kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman]

I have now reached the conclusion that one of the main causes of open borders is religious leaders who support it. I ponder the possibility that corporations have infiltrated Organized Jewry, Catholicism, and every other religion/community which is promoting open borders. Is religion being used as the opium of the masses by big business to create a global economy? Have Judaism and Catholicism and anything else that promotes open borders been hijacked?

[DissidentMan]

Deductive Reasoning and Sensual Interaction are how knowledge is aquired
All knowledge comes through first the senses, and secondly through logical processes which reason this data. That which cannot be backed up with direct evidence or solid logic should be disregarded. The way the senses can be proven as existent is convergence, you can sense an object many ways. If you can see a dog, feel a dog, smell a dog, etc, then with all these converging processes, there probably is a dog. By this convergence, you should learn to trust your senses as accurate. You reason with logical techniques using this knowledge.

This implies that there is no other type of knowing besides the sensory. I concede that from an Occam's razor POV its reasonable but if you believe if very strongly enough you might be cutting yourself off from other types of knowledge. It's sort of like a deep sea invertabrate declaring that the ocean is all there is. On one hand, its parsimonious and reasonable, on the other hand, the invertabrate won't ever bother to investigate the possibility of its being wrong.

None of this is present behind any faith
In stark contrast, faith is supposed to be accepted without any evidence. You just believe, you "have faith." Why would one believe there is a dog if he couldn't sense the dog? He may look closer for the dog, and try to search for the truth, but until he senses the dog or is alerted about the dog, he shouldn't believe it is there. The person who believes in religion is just as stupid as someone who sees invisible dogs.

Generally religious faith is born out of argument from authority and personal experience. Buddha declares that there is karma, the following meditational aborbptions and so on. At first the BUddha's words are taken on faith as the believers accept that he knows more than they, but methods are given by which adherents may test his words for themselves.

Religion gives false answers
For many years, stuff that science now explains was explained by religious means. This gave people an answer in the past, but it was the wrong answer. I think this process will go on for eternity, with science gaining more strength. Religion may make people happy and hopeful, however:

The best that science can say is that religion gives scientifically unfalsifiable answers. Scientifically unfalsifiable != false.


People search for answers because they are suffering. But if they are suffering and give the wrong answer to ease it, then it is like dealing with the symptom and not the problem itself. And the problem with this is that pain is designed to protect an individual from legitimate threats, as a natural reaction. You may defeat the pain, but whatever caused the pain is still threatening you. Therefore, you are still in danger. And in fact you are in more danger, as the pain is supposed to serve as motivation to solve the real problem, and you have just lost this motivation. The major problems of life are never solved by those who use religion to ease their pain instead of confronting their problems.
Buddha maintained that the root of all suffering was ignorance. Science can only categorise and systematise sensory knowledge, and is itself purely intellectual, hence as knowledge goes it is very limited. Think any scientific thought. Hold some equation in your mind. Ponder gravity, whater. These thoughts are only useful in predicting and manufacturing sensory experiences. You know when an object dropped from a building will hit the ground, so now you know at what time you have to be present on the ground to experience catching the object. You'll solve a few problems this way but eventually you'll find that knowing when the object will fall won't help you, because you can't consistently manufacture the experiences of good health, of satiation etc, no matter how much science you've got. That's the primary motivation for religion. Even if, as you maintain, religion is all false, then you've still got little to lose by investigating it, and if religion is right, you've got a lot to lose by denying it, as with Pascal's wager.

[kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman]

Buddhism and Confucianism are very cerebral religions in contrast to western religions and Islam. Buddhism stemmed from Hinduism, another mythical type religion, but I think it differentiated itself. Confucianism is just a bunch of principles of right and wrong, and not truly a religion. I don't like the mythological side of religion, but some of the "right and wrong" religion teaches is good.


Buddha maintained that the root of all suffering was ignorance.
Ignorance causes diversity and tolerance of Islam.

[kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman]

I have finally come to the conclusion that instead of religion, a good society would have a secular code of ethnics and morality. It would take all the good values from religions and stuff and add things, but not preech belief in crazy stuff.

[Julian Curtis Lee]

Any code of ethics descends from religion, which is something inside of man, not outside. Religion is an aspect of the consciousness of man. You can't "get rid of religion" any better than you can get rid of man's brain.

On the original thread title:

"Reality" is personal and subjective, and constantly changing too. It is only religion that allows one to comprehend that. It's also religion, and religion only, that opens the door to how that "reality" is changed, upgraded, improved. "Reality" always becomes more and more hellish for the irreligious.

Religion shows us that the true "false flag" is the ephemeral "reality," and leads us to true Reality, which is unchanging and satisfactory.

Therefore the subject heading of this thread is patently nonsensical.

[kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman]

The idea of religion explaining "why" is stupid but its ethics of "how" are good. Science should explain why, and ethics just tell you what to do.

Religion explained "why" in the past but now science should replace it.

[Julian Curtis Lee]

Science without ethics and religion a headless beast.

[Sandee]

Science without ethics and religion a headless beast.

My personal opinion is that Religion gives us general pointers on how to conduct ourselves and live a righteous life. These are religious rules for man by man (divinely inspired or otherwise) during his earthly existence. There's a lot to learn from Religion (compassion, forgiveness, past human errors, etc) but it takes more than just Religion to make a person a better individual in the spiritual sense. I view Religion as a core foundation (grounded) and Spirituality as the evolving (subtle) essence. Spirituality to me is not stagnant and is the building blocks that you add to this core foundation (Religion). We've all got something to bring to Religion.

It's sad to see certain Religious leaders who're so anti-science. It's also sad to see certain scientists who're so close-minded when it comes to exploring Spiritual 'Science'. Science isn't good or bad but it's how we use it. Atomic wars are a possible threat. Biological warfares too. So, a person should avoid throwing off responsibility on organizations (vague impersonal denominations like 'the church', the 'religion', the 'state', 'Science'). They should take personal responsibility for themselves and just be good examples and hope others are moved by them and decide to follow their examples. You can reach out to others but never force your opinions on them. This is one big similarity I find between certain scientists and religious leaders. Many scientists are quick to reject spiritual theories. Many religious leaders sometimes deny scientific facts or truths. What happened to balanced open views? :)

[Macrobius]

I have finally come to the conclusion that instead of religion, a good society would have a secular code of ethnics and morality. It would take all the good values from religions and stuff and add things, but not preech belief in crazy stuff.

So that whole 'Crucify him! Crucify him!' think was just a mistake after all? 'On further consideration, we regret caring so much. It would have been better for us not to mix religion with the politics of Roman Palestine.' Michael Dukakis lost the presidency for less than that, dude.

[KneeOfJustice]

I think you should all see the movie "Zeitgeist". Don't worry, it's in English lol. Everyone that I've referred it to have come back thanking me whether it changed their beliefs or not.

But movies aside, I say religion was not only created as a false flag to hide the pains of reality, but I believe it was a business investment. The world had it's elites back then as it does today. They sought to keep the masses in their place and make some money at the same time. Religion was probably the most shrewd business investment ever formulated. I find it kind of funny, I find it kind of sad. That people willingly ruin their one opportunity in this world in hopes that they might move on to an eternity of kissing a god's ass. Better bring some chapstick guys, cause an eternity's a long time.
:deadhorse: