1a2bcio8

Haha, awesome

I'd like to differentiate between the idea of "life" and what the word actually refers to. The reality of life or that which actually comes before any ideas/language. Ideas/language (thinking) are like a secondary layer over a primary layer (reality). In others words, language and what it refers to are separate. If we were to never think about what we experienced (reality), there would be for us no such thing as meaning, rather we would simply have an experience that went no further than itself - reality doesn't refer to anything else like ideas/language. It would be without meaning. Thoughts seem less real to me than what the thoughts refer to. I think I would prefer to follow the nature of that which comes before thoughts (reality) which certainly seems without meaning. Humans tend to construct meaning for the experience. This makes sense in certain contexts but for reality as it fundamentally stands, it doesn't. I think so, anyway

I'm totally with you on the capacity of human beings to comprehend. That's why I previously mentioned our being limited and why this is worth allowing for some modesty in our views. We are much smaller than the rest of existence, and despite posessing what seems to be the most complex form of organisation currently known about (the human nervous system), we cannot fit the rest of the universe into ourselves (to reuse that quote I love, "universe non simultaneously apprehended"). Our thinking is very general, inescapably including only certain aspects of what we are considering and ignoring others. We can only deal with so much information at one time. I think we can say that we comprehend our ideas but I don't believe that our ideas comprehend existence to a great extent. But I'm still sticking with existence as a constant within which everything just changes. I think Alan is on the money with his ideas about time I really reckon that it's supposed to be satirical. I personally wouldn't take it too seriously... Ah yeah, and this is a good point as well. Why does there have to be meaning to life? Does life have to refer to something besides itself? Surely the meaning of life, is life; and as self referential, doesn't really have meaning. Life for the sake of life, existence for the sake of existence, rather than life and existence for the sake of something else such as a God. To be doing something for the future is not to be grounded in reality, it is to be grounded in thought. The future is only in thought, it does not have a reality. And if thought was a better activity than the action of engaging in the rest of reality, we would all simply lie down and dream about this or that. But we don't because thoughtless activity such as riding our bikes or eating food is so much more rewarding. It seems to me the philosophy where we act in the moment for the moment, rather than act in the moment for some later moment (heaven, etc.) is infinitely more rewarding. Unless, of course, heaven exists

I shall respond at a point that is not bedtime but I will say that the scientist (philosopher/psychologist) I think you are refering to is William James. He wrote, amongest many others, an interesting book on, "the varieties of religious experience". He was a pragmatist, holding the conviction that if somebodies belief made them happy and caused no harm to anybody else, then it was quite irrelavent if it missed the reality mark. I somewhat subscribe to this idea in a relative sense but I think ultimately that knowing the proper truths about existence will lead to the prefered states of being. Anyway, enough of the babble before bed as I want to actually sleep and not hear in my head conversations about God and universe

Awesome.

This is a very interesting point in the sense that, in terms of natural selection, we've removed ourselves from the type of environmental effects that allow for certain gene types to become dominant. In the developed countries at least, we're not really at threat from much with which a dominant gene can prosper from. We've also overiden a lot of instinctual behavioural traits in a way that changes rapidly over time through cultures meaning that not one trait is really beneficial in any sense for long enough to become dominant. What constitues a good mate is a lot more relative over time and space. Consider how much what has been considered an attractive body type has changed throughout just the last one hundred years in western culture. Our evolution, in a slightly differing sense, is now in our own hands with the ideas we have and technology we develop. Of course, I don't entirely subscribe to the idea evolution as a form of mutational pot luck. We certainly seem to be heading in a direction of higher complexity, which might be explained by some kind of prior 'intent', although I certainly don't mean the type of intent that a human might have but a variation of. It would be nice

I think we need to distinguish between matter within the universe and, the universe as a whole/existence. I may be wrong but I don't think physicists talk of existence contracting and expanding but rather that matter (planets, etc.), within existence (or space), is contracting and expanding. We could only know of the entirity of existence contracting and expanding if we knew of some observable border surrounding existence that showed space to be contracting and expanding. We can only measure space relative to observable events such as matter. I don't think that any such border is known about though and it brings up all sorts of confusing problems to do with what is that which exists outside of existence? For instance, to vanish means that there must still be something present (some kind of existence) to display the fact that we have vanished. We can't be left with no existence because, confusingly, there is no such thing as no existence. It is an abstract idea that we have created. Everything is existence so existence is all there can be. This thread is addictive. I'm spending too much time in here

Infinity in the sense that I best know doesn't mean either very big or very small but means before units. Humans looks onto their existence and break it down into units. A cat, a rug, a wheel, etc. but before they do that, it is infinite, non-finite or afinite. Existence is numberless until we assign it numbers. When Blake saw "Infinity in a grain of sand", he saw its true (existing) nature which was numberless and with additional importance, without conception. All is existence and all is the same existence in a very numberless sense. I would say that if religion hasn't offered you any understanding yet, it may be because you haven't practiced any of it rather than simply just reading or hearing about it. In this sense, it is similar to saying that snowboarding hasn't offered me any fun yet although I've only ever read or heard about it. Mystical practices do place you at risk from alienation in a certain sense but paradoxically allign you with others on a more fundamental and massively more rewarding level. What goals did you have in mind though? I'm slightly unsure about your last statement.

Yep, it makes the question a lot easier to solve (dispell even). How the hell do we go about trying to answer the creation of existence?!? Well, either create a separate superbeing (god as an entity not a realisation) or suggest it randomly came from nothing. Both are massively more complicated/confusing than the idea that our useful way of dealing with existence (creating a certain concept of time) has been used in the wrong place. Time is an appropriate way for organising ourselves with the changes in an ever-present but is not appropriate in considering the fundamental nature of existence. It's like trying to knit a jumper with two monkey spanners. You're not going to end up with something that fits.

I'd really like to hear about what argument is the basis for theists deciding the universe hasn't just always been. That existence has always been makes the most sense to me. It seems especially real when we begin to realise time as a construct. We tend to think of the experience of time as the movement along a line which posesses a beginning, a middle and an end. Yet this is a fairly modern conception of time which arose at the beginning of the Industrial era in association with the philosophies of progression. There have been a collection of differing concepts of time which even include a circular form. With this linear conception of time underlying our reasoning though, we naturally look for a beginning or start point. However, it is actually possible to view existence as a constant present, with everything manifesting from the same moment. Rather than each moment, a kind of new one like the difference between 1 and 2 or 5 and 6. This is because we are always experiencing the same existence depsite any changes within that same existence. Think about this in the sense that there is no such thing as a past or future except as an idea about those things. I can think about the past or the future but never live them - they remain only thoughts in the present. The way we map/model (time) changes in the same existence seems to have considerably confused us. This is realisable if we manage to drop the relative conception of time that we are currently all using. It is doable because I have done it, although it is not a constant for me and I often perceive in those linear (line) terms. Oh yeah, and what's very interesting and worth considering is that philosophies always form the foundations of any conceptual endevaour. Often unidentified, philosophical foundations contribute to the structure and the type of empirical questions that scientists ask. Thus a philosophy of time which is useful for considering one aspect of our existence, is not neccesarily very useful for studying a differing aspect, such as the founding nature of existence.

When we talk of the universe expanding, we are only talking about matter (like solar systems, galaxies, etc.). In terms of space, nobody knows about a limit to that. In other words, the expanding universe just refers to the movement of galaxies away from one another into a space for which we know of no limit.

Confusingly, because there's no such thing as nothing

Again, claimed by many Buddhists as myth, by others as real. A Zen master would probably punch you in the face for even asking One chap said that it was written into the pali canon as a means of encouraging people to behave better and that the Buddha never really said anything of reincarnation. He actually prefered to avoid speculation, regardless of how interesting it might be. The Pali Canon was written hundreds of years after the death of the Buddha, his teachings having been passed via verbal passage. I suspect this is why the bible was a collection of stories in the sense that they would better passed and absorbed by an illiterate populace. But the point is this leaves plenty of room for people to add their own bits into the Buddhas teachings. Anyway, reincarnation as a myth may symbolise the differing levels of suffering we can move between, in this life, as a consequence of our behaviour. Basically a version of the wheel of karma where we move up and down between heaven and hell. Until hopefully we step off the wheel of karma (or into the midle) where we are no longer affected by the temporary pleasures and sufferings that everyone else typically experiences

This reminds me of Buddhism when they say "kill the Buddha" at the point where somebody is beginning to idolize "the enlightened one". To get hung up on the image of the Buddha is to miss the point of Buddhism. Likewise to get hung up on an image of God or Jesus is to miss the point of what those 'things' are trying to indicate. Jesus clearly understood that becoming fixated on religion or people/symbols of authority would be a hinderance to what he taught. This also reminds me of the idea that idolization leads to the looking at the finger that points at the moon rather than looking at the moon that the finger points to. The moon is intended and is much more rewarding.

Unfortunately Buddhism has been used as an excuse for violence. In that seeming need humans sometimes have to fight with the "other" (religion, political group and so on), even Buddhism whose peaceful intent is much more clearly stated than in other religions has still lead to territorial violence in South(?) Aisa. But yeah, Christianity certainly trumps Buddhism in the sense of needless violence. 'tis good to hear there's no negativity in the discussion. I try my best not to impose my ideas but just put it out there and also to actually listen to what somebody else has to say, and as a consequence potentially revise my own ideas. I often fail at both and don't wish to frustrate others on that basis

Yeah I know a bit about this. This was true until Luther and some other chap wrote that people could be in communion with god less the church. Previously the church of that time said that God could only be reached through them and when associated with the release of money. However, this is somewhat later than the Jesus and the creation of the old and new testament. I don't doubt that bible and other religions have been and will continue to be used for personal gain (wealth, power, etc.), but this doesn't have to negate their original or fundamental intention. Of course, I may be talking shit No, the points I'm trying to indicate aren't simply ideas for how to live, they are something else. Something to be experienced but once experienced, lived through. It's difficult to say more than that other than it offers peace, joy and love. They are open to realising though. You just have to take the time and patience. The trouble is that my words don't indicate anything in the common sense that we use language. What I discuss can only be known through actual direct experience. Anything else is wrong. But yeah, in actual fact, we don't really need religion. These experiences are open to us regardless of the presence or absence of religion. But usually the religions have best described these experiences so as to help us attain them. Or in systems like Buddhism, there exists a practice structure to follow in order to attain these experiences. Interestingly and in opposition to the misunderstood meaning of faith we commonly see used in Christianity, Buddhism doesn't ever ask for that type of faith. It asks you to try and see for yourself. Fairly in line with the scientific, western mind, methinks. edit: I hope there's no animosity in this discussion by the way?

You are right, I wouldn't take you on your word. But I wouldn't outrule it either, simply because what I have the most evidence for is my capacity to get things wrong. I make mistakes ALL the time. I see everybody else getting things wrong as well. We are limited in our sense to understand. So, as certain as i can be, Mr Spagehtti Monster isn't actually around but given also the consideration that I don't much know what's going on and I make mistakes all the time, I can't say for certain. There's too much evidence for my being too limited to make certain statements for me to outrule anything. Accepting modesty for such a thing insures me against easily outruling other potentials. If you'd said to a chap six hundred years ago than in the future there will be objects made of metal flying in the sky carrying people, he would have laughed at you. In fact, the individual who first thought of unobservable life (bacteria, etc.) was laughed at, shamed and had his career ended by the medical establishment. You don't ahve to act on something unlikely but there's nothing wrong with keeping it at an unlikely rather than a definitely not. It helps me avoid dogmatism and affirm a modesty which is clearly the case with being human. Be certain and you're thinking of yourself as something you are not. The fact is you are human. As I mentioned above, it is true that a lot of religion isn't suitable for now but again this doesn't mean that aspects (the most important bits in fact) are not still relavent. There is something true of all humans and existence, regardless of time and place, that can be Your last statement puts us on the same page edit: I should say, I do think it worthy to try and offer the idea that God isn't a bearded chap and the idea doesn't come with much support. I just suggest that it be done with a modesty in accord with, as a human, not being able to be completely certain about much beyond the fact that we exist

Out of interest, who are the people trying to control everyone? You're following some cynical assumptions that as far as I'm aware, there is no evidence for? Also, I am not doubting that elements of the bible are unpleasant although there are many moral codes that I would subscribe to. There are elements of a myth/religion that are apropriate only to a certain time and place. This doesn't neccesarily remove the core of what I think religion to be about - and the bible to be about. And this core is not philosophical, it is perceptual and ultimately a way of being and living - not about ideas. It is fairly inescapable that when somebody comes to communicate about absolutely anything, that the way in which they do so will be dependent on the time and place in which they do it. A Native American from 200 years ago will talk and 'spin' communication in a way that relates to how he or she thinks. The way in which such a person might talk about a mountain will differ to the way I would talk about a mountain. Likewise, when the bible was written, despite at its core representing fundamentals about the nature of the human existence, its form was spun and added to by the culture of that time. This leads to the inclusion of ideas and practices that are suitable to that time and place but not neccesairly to another time and place. The bible contains absoulte (mystical) AND relative (certain practices/ceremonies/stories) parts. In essence, those relative parts may need to be changed/updated. Myth and story telling has always been a popular means of communicating something other than a story within itself. Almost all fictional literature attempts to mean something beyond simpley the story. The best fictional work allows us to take a part away, integrate it and use it within our life. It enrichens us. The bible is little different in this sense, as are many other religious texts. Academic study of these texts strongly suggests the same core throughout with a cultural layer on top, so to speak. Religion arises through people coming to perceive certain non-conceptual (not ideas) truths about the nature of existence.

Okay but consider the idea that the bible is a form of myth. A story that helps one become attuned to their environment. Take the bible in a literal sense and I'm with you as far as my philosophical uncertainty goes . But do we have to take it literally? I guess though that you are arguing against those who do take it in a literal sense but this doesn't mean you have to assume it is intended as a literal piece. In actual fact, the tree of knowledge represents the dualism I have been talking about. It is a symbol for the state that man now finds himself in. The foundation of knowledge is dualistic. To "know" is to inescapably break the world up into parts (dog, water, carrots, whatever). Thus done we find good and evil. Or thus done, we make up a view of the world in terms of good and evil. Prior to this world view we were innocent (or instinctual). At this point the tree of life (immortality) is now hiden from us. This is symbolic of the dualism where we see in terms of life and death. Heaven and God are really when we learn to discard with the consequences of eating from the tree of knowledge (dualism). They are not literal but metaphysical things beyond our potential perceptions whilst living but are ways of 'seeing'. They are further symbols, like the tree of life and the tree of knowledge. Coincidently in the book I've just started reading by Erich Fromm he states that in both the New Testament and the Old that attempts were made to avoid this type of idolatry where symbols were made literal. Warnings were laid out in the stories of Abraham and Moses that it is to miss the point to take the symbolism and worship it like an idol.

The assumption was in reference to the comedy piece that Chris posted up. It said that religion should give the rest of us our world back because religion was ruining it. I think you should you consider the approach you have with your own stance. I would say there is definitely a type of blind faith that you display regarding this conception of God being wrong. Although experience and reason for me dictates the unlikelihood of God meaning a bearded chap, I try to recognise how limited I am, in the sense of reason and experience, and that despite how convincing or unconvincing something is to me that doesn't mean I can't get it completely wrong. You seem fairly certain that there is no God. You can't prove this though and so your statements ultimately rest on a 'similar' faith to the individual who is certain of his existence. Atheism in its certainty = just another faith (of this ilk).

Maybe he's in on the joke.

Hmmm, I agree that those three religions allow for certain 'subscribers' to act out in undesirable ways 'under' the names of those religions but surmizing the religions as through and through, this or that on the basis of what's probably a minority seems to me a bit unfair. Similar in the way that if I have several negative experiences with black people, it's unfair to talk of all black people completely on the basis of those few experiences. Also, to blame those religions for the world's ills is definitely unfair. No doubt they play a role but the rest of us, with our selfish philosophies that ignore the plights of others (and, ironically, in a sense ourselves) and the rest of nature are equally as bad in similar or other respects. Atheists and Agnostics need to take a long hard look at themselves and their contributions to the current problems we face. That doesn't stop it being funny in places. I recognise that chap's voice from Radio 4 right Chris?

beigemaster, a slightly late reply but one none the less: My system of thought/experience is not pantheistic although this isn't an entirely distant aproximation. Rather than God being in all 'things', God is the perception/realisation of existence prior to things, revealing a fundamental nature. This nature shows dualism, thought of/experienced as a fundamental nature, to be a delusion. Although that's not to say that a dualistic perception doesn't carry with it some truth, only we typically allow it to engulf our perception, experiencing all in dualistic terms. Transcension of dualism means immortality because the life/death dichotomy is realised to be a false one. No 'thing' was ever born, so no 'thing' ever dies, rather existence of which the false things all are, just continues as a shifting process. Unfrotunately, and to take from Erich Fromm whom I was reading today, people have turned the realisation/perception of God into an idol, projecting the qualities that are applicable to themselves into other things such as "God" and "Heaven". I would say with science, that despite it posessing many factors which deam it uncertain (induction only goes so far and models can only generalise - "universe non-simulataneously aprehended" to quote Bucky Fuller) there is a more important point to raise. This is that the two systems (religion and science) actually exist in different realms; each can only properly say so much about our situation. When religion becomes cosmological (not that it actually needs to) it is talking about things which are open to scientific enquiry and as a (I think) sounder method to this kind of knowledge, should listen to science. When somebody talks of a religious experience of some sort, science should probably stay quiet because its tools and methods are not applicable to such statements or experiences (at least not presently). Ironically (and already mentioned above), scientists often end up unconsciously adopting religious traits when often, but not always, in opposition to religion. They trash the attitudes of religious people whilst being the same with their system. Dogmatism, blind faith, idolatry, even supersitition all arise in science or with the practitioners of. At that point science becomes less like science, moving into an arena it probably shouldn't do; in terms of its actual worth to the human condition. I would refer people to the philosopher, Mary Midgley regarding this topic, if interested.

Ultimately, I'm unsure it matters what you try and reduce the event down to. It's definitely a dangerous and unfortunate game (from science) that we try to reduce everything down to a physical basis. Despite the fact that everything may arise from a 'physical' base, we do not always experience it as such. When I perceive differently, I do not percieve a different physicalism. My perception is not physically different, yet it is different, whatever that might mean. Regardless, it is unimportant if my different perception means this or that. That would be to miss the point, because if my perception means something else, I am away from my perception and the perception itself is what is important - not if we label it physical, spiritual or whatever. What is worthy in this sense is the perception within itself. Does it feel right? Does it make you feel content? Etc. Unless we are talking about causing to harm to others it doesn't much matter. In terms of the validity of a perception, well, what makes the one you have now valid? Usually we have a feeling next to it which says it is 'right'. This might be because we are used to it or because it is what everyone else appears to have. However, there is some guiding feeling indicating to us (which I admit could always be wrong). If we start seeing miniature teddy bears doing the waltz in a treehouse several inches from our face (as I did), we would probably get a feeling that this is not very real. When people practice meditation they begin (or seem) to disolve their mind of thoughts and ideas (which seems to reduce the impact of social influences on our perception) and as a consequence they begin to experience their existence absent of social influence. Meditators usually become less reflexive to social norms. Or to put it differently, less susceptable to the relative fears, anxieties and hates that are relative to a given society/culture. They are stripping away the social filters and coming to percieve what the world is like before social influences impinge on our sense and distort the world. There is a whole host of psychological study supporting the idea that perceptions are altered through social influence. Ultimately, this difference carries with it a much grander sense of realness or validity over the others. Apparantly it is like wiping the (social) dust away from our glasses. It could of course be another delussion but the best thing to do is actually experience for it yourself and come to our own conclusion on that basis.

Okay, furry muff. And I'm sorry my descriptions aren't better. I think my style has been unconsciously influenced by what I read and I often whinge to myself about those styles. There are various ways of coming to perceive/realise what I describe. This can actually happen spontaneously, regardless of religion or some kind of practice. Most commonly though, there are a variety of meditation practices that will lead to these types of experience. However, these commonly involve a lot of commitment and effort. My experience so far indicates that yoga and buddhist methods are very effective. Although I will state that I do not entirely subscribe to either of these systems. Another method is flotation tanks which were utilized by Dr. John Lilly. This guy tried to reduce mystical/religious experiences into scientific/computer terms and has written a number of books all about it. Flotation tanks are supposed to get you 'there' a lot faster because you don't have to learn to ignore so much outside stimulus as with normal meditation/yoga but the flotation tank instead cuts you off from light, sound and to a certain degree, gravity and kinesthetic (bodily) sensations. I've personally never tried a flotation tank but will hopefully build one, one day. Finally, drugs can offer, albeit in a much less stable fashion, these types of experience. I wouldn't recommend these unless you are of a very stable mind and even then they come with some risks. I admit this last approach despite the fact for some people it will probably invalidate the rest of my argument. However, I will mention that the point of these practices is to achieve perceptions that rid us of the problems of being human. This can definitely happen with drugs but it's short lived, unstable and less predictable. In fact, the mention of drugs goes some way to grounding the philosophy I put forward, away from metaphysical entities such as that bearded chap in the clouds. The drugs I would recommend in this sense, providing you approach them with a medatitive and contemplative state of mind, are cannabis, LSD, 2CB and mushrooms. All of these will lead to shifts in perception. Some of them will feel less real to your normal perception but some of them will make the previous perception you held seem less real and even deluded. If you want more specific details about specific books, schools of yoga/buddhism etc. because you are seriously interested, then message me