Do we choose our beliefs? (yes and no)

[Vichar]

To me it has varied by generation. The conformism to the parents beliefs and earlier careers has been breaking down for quite some time now.

I agree. And what rebellious children do not understand is that choosing to go in the exact opposite direction from their parents is just as enslaving as following their parents' every recommendation. The truth is the truth no matter who believes in it, so should we reject the truth just because someone else speaks it? Much better to cultivate an "ear for the truth."

I cannot fail to notice you put "Love" as your religion, which is splendid. A person cannot go wrong following the trail of Love and Laughter towards the truth.

 

[Nimos]

Please explain the reasoning by which you've concluded that asking the 'why' question is irrelevant. Existence is a very complex phenomenon that is being determined (designed) by a set of allowances and limitations that certainly imply intent. We are a part of that existential phenomenon, and therefor our natures and experiences are also being determined (designed) by those same allowances and limitations, and would also, then, be part of that implied intent. By what reasoning have you concluded that seeking a resolution to this existential mystery is irrelevant? Irrelevant as opposed to what? What could be more relevant to us than what we are and why we're here? (Not how we got here, or how we developed as a species.) How can we fulfill our intended purpose if we don't know what it is?

To find some possible answers to this question means that we have to turn to art, religion, and philosophy, because these endeavors deal with possibilities, not probabilities.

To explain why we exist, we have to go back to before the big bang, to something known as the Omega creation paradox, which can be seen as a battle between conflicting energies. One we can refer to as the good energy, also known as Piva and an evil energy called Azul. Unable to settle their differences, they decided to create a judge, in form of a God, some call him Jehovah, and some used to believe it was Odin or Zeus, But his real name is actually Ballack'ur and is not the creator of everything as many people believe, but in fact he simply chooses or balance out things between Piva and Azul. So the big bang is just him settling the first big conflict between them, which is why we are here, because they wanted to experiment on us, and how we would react to good and evil, so basically we are just lab rats to them.

Do you think this is a valid explanation and if not, why? (Just want to let you know, that I think of myself as an artist, and as far as I know there are no restrictions on who can call themselves one or not.)

Or all three: "I don't now, but I theorize "X" to be true, and I live by the hope that it is. Then, we can alter our theories according the he results we get from living 'as if' they are true.

We are only stuck without a solution if we foolishly insist that our solution has to prove itself right or wrong, rather than proving itself valuable to us.

Have no issue with that, if it make sense for you to believe in God and the bible, by all means do so. But I just think one is fooling themself, if it surprises them if others don't react to claims about it being true and part of reality, regardless of them being atheists or just of another religious belief.

So im not saying that there can't come anything good out of religion, because a lot of people get joy from it. But also one have to realize that a lot of bad things come out of it as well. You simply have to listen to former believers, that are getting psychological help, trying to recover or people living in fear of hell etc. So there are more sides to this, and simply not just, makes sense to a person. I have never heard of atheists suffering from these things, due to atheisme But rather that people say that it can be rough at first having to deal with it. But that they eventually also feel free, from not having to think about these religious things. But it would be interesting to examine whether or not some atheists actually suffers due to their lack of believe in a God, so will have to examine that..

Why do you need it to be?

I assume, you mean why I need it to solve the multiverse theory? If that is the case, I personally have no need for it to do so, as im ok, with the fine tuning argument. And don't think its a good argument for a creator. To me the Universe being infinite large and purely able to exists with the given fine tuning, is not an issue for me. Sort of like asking, why does an ice crystal look the way it does and not some other way? I mean, if its the only way it can be created, then its not really fine tuned, it simply wouldn't exists if it didn't work that way, so its not really that strange, I think.

But a lot of people think that the fine tuning argument is good, so why not at least work that into the idea.

Existence is the 'evidence'. What it's not, is proof. You aren't lacking evidence, you are lacking proof.

Proof or evidence, You can't have proof without evidence can you? So what I lack is evidence for:

1. Their being an intelligent behind it.
2. Which of the thousands of Gods, we are talking about?

I would consider that a good start.

They each answer them according to their own natures and experiences. And in doing this, show us how to do the same. They show us how to develop our own existential theories, and how to live by them, to see what values result. It's not that much different than science, except that it seeks sustained value, not functional predictability.

It is completely different. Science is all about finding explanations backed up by evidence. Where do you see this in art or religion? Philosophy to me, is by far the most useful one of the three, because it can make us consider things that we might not do otherwise, so I can see some usefulness here in regards to science. But much more in the sense of self awareness and to encourage people to think more about life and stuff that are important, rather than reality shows etc. Again, Im not saying that these things are useless, but claiming that they can answer these major questions, is simply to fool oneself.

Exactly. Though it's not nearly as easy as you think to create a theory that works for you; and then to live by it. It takes persistence, imagination, and faith.

And that is perfectly fine, I would never tell anyone, that they can't or shouldn't believe in what make sense to them, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. Not sure if you have read my exchange with Vichar also in this thread? Which have a very different view on these things than I do, so I "poke" him a little about his beliefs, both to learn more about it, but also its part of the "game" to discuss these ideas. Everyone experience that with their beliefs, just watch a debate between a muslim and a christian, or an atheist and christian etc. This is basically sharing and poking at each others beliefs.
And you are correct, theories are not that easy to make up for these things, First of all they need to be new, its not easy to just add a new God now and get away with it. Then you have scientific theories, which are not easy either, because the theory have to at least potentially explain some of the issues they have, whether or not they can prove it or not.

Continue..

 

[Nimos]

They aren't. But their answers are for them, not you. You have to develop your own answers. (Or hide in ignorance.)

I don't see why you can't make the difference between these things.

Lets just take an example, we have the Universe starting with a big bang. How is that possible?

1. One group claim it is God
2. Another that it is a simulation
3. Last one, that it is a multiverse

It doesn't matter which group you belong to in regards to this question. The issue is the same for all of them. If any of them want to be correct and show the others wrong, they need to provide evidence/proof.

We as individuals can look at each of these theories and throw a % on them of how likely we think they are. And that is it, we can't do anymore at this point, until we find ways to proof or disproof them.

So if you choose option 1 and that makes sense to you, that is fine. I choose option 2, because im happy with that, because that make sense in our lives, That's great.
But it doesn't mean that any of us are correct. Because it could be option 3 that is correct. I really don't get, why you can not see this being rational? No one in is favor here, as none of them can explain anything.

I would expect you to be honest, and earnest in your quest. As evidenced by the effort you've put into it.

I would be honest regardless of being a priest or not, my point being that these people are not educated in answering these things. No one is, doesn't matter what education you take.

Of course. All I ask for is honesty, because that's all any of us have to give regarding the subject of truth.

I think the majority are honest people. Obviously some are simply in it for the money, but personally I think they believe what they do, just as other believers do. But that doesn't mean that they are right!! Im very honest about my opinion as well, it doesn't mean that Im right either, or would even claim to be. That is to be honest.

Is existence binary, or is our perception of it binary? I believe that it's our perception of it that is binary, because that's how the human brain 'thinks': by comparing and contrasting information sets. That compare/contrast mechanism causes us to perceive phenomena as this or that, here or there, me or not me, real and not real, and so on. When in truth, everything (existence) is all one big complex whole. We and 'not we' are one. Here and there are everywhere. There is no "non-existence". It's all of a whole. The truth is what is, and there is nothing else. All that's binary is the cognitive lens through which we are comprehending it.

Well my understanding of existence is that it is binary. I don't even know what the word is for being between, is there a word?

The real question is the question of value, not accuracy, because we can't know the accuracy of it. So who does this theory drive you to become? Is it the person you want to become? Are you able to assess this, honestly?

It has nothing to do with me as person, I wouldn't even consider it important. Its just a thought experiment, more than anything else.

A few years ago, as I told you earlier, I asked my self these questions as well, What is the meaning of life, and really thought I would give it a good shot.... like lets get to the bottom of this:

So I started to examine all sorts of ideas from religious people, scientists, philosophers, you name it, just to get a feel of the land in varies fields, backgrounds etc. Eventually being extremely frustrated of hearing words like "I think", "I believe" A LOT!!! you start to see a pattern obviously, that people are guessing left right and center. So I thought, that Stephen Hawking being considered one the most intelligent people on Earth at the time, would have some idea. Which eventually ended up with him also simply stating that he "thought" this and that. Basically saying that he had no clue either, and that pretty much made me stop looking for more answers, as I knew I wouldn't find them, which were not really all the surprising.

But anyway having spend a lot of time looking into it, I decided to split it into 3 categories, based on how people talk about the meaning of life.

1. Universal meaning of life
Why are there life in the Universe to begin with? This is basically to ask whether or not God did it, or what else could be the cause for it. I personally didn't find this all that interesting in regards to getting an answer here. Because this is highly speculative.

2. Natural meaning of life
Which is basically to ask how can life form in the universe in the first place? After big bang, at some point some sort of process must have turned whatever energy or material were created here into something living. Just like why are there life on Earth, how and from where did it come..etc. This is basically what scientists are trying to figure out. So this category is what is most interesting to me.

3. Personal meaning of life
What is our meaning of life as individuals? Which is what we think is our purpose, whether one believe in God and its to follow or live up to whatever they want. So this is something that each person will have to figure out themselves. But to me, after looking at each of these categories and especially, not able to get an answer to the first one (Universal meaning), sort of made me think, about it. And ultimately, the only meaning that make sense, is simply to be happy. Even though it might sound to meaningless. But ultimately one can speculate all they want about different meanings. But I think if a person is really honest with themself, they also know that they can't really get a satisfying answer, and since they can't, at least one can try to live a happy life.

That is basically how I look at it, it might sound depressive too some, because obviously we have to be special and meaningful and what not. But if one is critical, and honest about the evidence, I really don't think anything else makes sense. Which is also why, I say that if you want to believe something, by all means do it, if that is what makes you happy. But if it causes someone else to suffer, then your approach to achieve happiness is preventing someone else from achieving it, and that to me is not acceptable.

So in the end, that is also why my own idea of how it might be, is of no importance to me personal. Because im already well aware that its nothing but an idea. And also fully aware that I make mistakes, might misunderstand things, which causes me to believe in wrong things. But again, I try the best I can to be critical of what I believe and constantly put it to the test if I think its relevant or if new information pops up. I watch a lot of debated and lectures, and by far the majority is from people that I disagree with, to let them present their case and then Ill put their arguments and potential evidence to the test, just as I do with everything else. If A say this, then I try to find someone that disagree, and then I compare them and see which of them present the best case. And then I choose which one of them, I agree with, or maybe I agree with some of what each of them are saying.

An example is the whole big bang thing, Im really not a fan of that, meaning that I think its extremely weird, but the evidence for it, is just so severe, so me denying it, would simply be ignorant of me. But I have a very difficult time, putting the whole Universe into a single point.

 

[Nimos]

Close your eyes Nimos. Open them again. OK. Soul just directed its body to open and close the eyes of its physical body. Does that serve as a starting point for for what the word "soul" means? It is not that I have not defined what a soul is, it is just that you have not accepted my definition for soul. Some properties of soul included the ability to perceive, the ability to experience, and the ability to know and be.

As for spirit, you may consider Soul to be an organization of spirit, much as a human body is made up of cells. Some properties of spirit include various levels of vibration. If it slows down enough, it can become thought. If it slows down even further, it can become energy. If it slows down even more, it appears to you as matter. You can hear spirit vibrating directly if you know how to focus your soul's attention properly at the third eye, which roughly corresponds to a spot between your eyes about an inch back. (Pineal gland)

It is not that I have not defined what spirit is, it is that you do not accept my definition for spirit. The problem is, spirit is so fundamental it is hard for me to describe it in relation to other things less complex than it. I can only provide context in relation to more complex organizations of spirit. Let me ask you, what are numbers? OK, what is the number one? You can use whatever words you want, but to someone (like my child before she was two) who doesn't understand the concept of quantity or counting, it's very hard to talk about it.

I think you might have missed my comment about demonstration. Making a definition, based on your personal belief about what a soul and spirit is, is just not good enough.

Don't get me wrong, I know that its extremely difficult to define these terms like spirit and soul, because no one have been able to demonstrate them, and they have vastly different meanings and capabilities depending on who you ask. So the very first sentence you make about opening and closing my eyes and it being caused by the Soul directing the body, you have lost me. Why on Earth should I accept that as being the soul?

What about reflexes, is that the soul as well? or people suffering from parkinson and shake etc. That is the soul going nuts or what? I fully accept that you might believe that the soul is causing all this. But we have medical scientist that can explain a lot of these things and how they work. And none of them as far as I know, say that the cause is a soul. Why don't they do that? Why spend all this time, money and energy, trying to find cures and solutions to these issues, if it is the soul?

Is the soul trying to fix, its broken physical vessel? or is it the soul that is broken? No, evidence are being presented here. Im not trying to be rough on you, because I would do the same with anyone claiming something like this, purely because its an amazing claim. And therefore I expect amazing evidence as well, as Carl Sagan would put it.

If you watched the video with that OBE lady, why do you think she reach the conclusion she did, being completely convinced that all of it were true? paranormal stuff, tarok cards, psychic powers, mediums, she even became a witch!! She would probably have accepted everything you told her as being true, had you met her, at that point in her life. So why did she change her opinion about it, from believing in all of it, to believing that none of it were true? Because the evidence were simply not there. She had to tell her friends that she were wrong about all of it. Which is probably not easy. She even give you an explanation for the white tunnel. The stuff you are telling here, she is giving you explanations for, that you can investigate further. That in it self should be very exciting for you, at least I would assume so. None of it means that you have to give up spirituality, she hasn't, which you will also figure out.

The problem we are having is that people who are studying true spirituality are very, very few. I estimate only about 1 in every 1 million people is truly studying spirituality. The world is never going to accept what a tiny minority believe. But what I study does indeed work with the scientific method.

Agree, there is not a lot of people studying these things, she confirm that as well. But there are some and she is one of them, so why not listen to her? It doesn't matter how many people study it, if they can figure out things. Obviously it would go faster if more did, but at least some are doing it.

I study a science, just as valid as any other science, and simply because you have never witnessed it yourself makes it no less valid.

If you say that you are studying a science, then is she wrong about what she is saying, and which of her evidence from people in this field, that she refer to, are mistaken? What part of their studies are wrong and can you demonstrate it? That I think would be of out most interest to you.

Im not saying that studying these things are not science, but your approach does not seem to follow the scientific method, when none of what you are talking about, like souls, spirits etc. are defined. There is no way on Earth, you could get that through a peer review. Or even put forward a hypothesis in the first place. Im not being unreasonable here.
But you can't approach these things, without some sort of clear definition, what terms you are about is and demonstrate them to those that are going to review it. Im sorry, Im being a bit harsh here.

The difference between what I'm saying and a story about unicorns is that, with a few months or perhaps a few years study, you can confirm for yourself that what I'm saying is true. Don't believe my eyewitness testimony? Great! I think that is the correct attitude, actually. You need only believe your own. The thing that keeps most people from becoming true seekers is their mind's unwillingness to put in sincere, focused effort into a disciplined daily practice. It is scientific, repeatable, and you can do it yourself whenever you want to.

Again, I can only refer to the video with the lady talking about it. And I think you will be surprised that she is not completely throwing away what you are saying, but her conclusions are way different, and the causes for the experiences that you describe is not a complete mystery to scientists.
Again, as I said before linking the video, I think you draw some wrong conclusions and that you could get a lot of answers to what you are experiencing from actually science done in that field.

Because based on what you have written so far, it seems to me, like you pretty much went straight for the spiritual explanations, without looking for scientific explanations. And maybe im wrong, and you just dismissed them all for whatever reason. But again, I just don't think the evidence points to the conclusions you are reaching, without you being able to present evidence for them. So again not saying you are wrong, but you give people no reason to believe what you are saying is true. Which might not be important and most likely ain't, as you have said.

I acknowledge Jesus as a true master. I don't acknowledge Christianity as a true teaching anymore because what Jesus taught and what Christianity has become are two completely different things. And Christianity is a religion, whereas what I'm practicing is a science.

Im sorry, but that makes no sense. None of what is in the bible is written by Jesus. So it could have been made up, and in fact, lots of what he is saying changes from one Gospel to another, depending on which of them you read. So to say that you acknowledge Jesus as a true master, but not Christianity. Most of, if not all of what Jesus teaches in the Gospels are written by Christians.

OK Nimos, I think we are finally communicating somewhat. If you can simply accept that I'm not telling you about a religion then we might be getting somewhere (in the conversation).

I have never really seen you, as talking about religion here, you mention God, but never find that to be all that important in regards to what you were talking about. So no issue there.

Does your mind have a tendency to want to skip over what I wrote instead of actually seeing every word? If so, that is the dark sorcery I was talking about.

I don't skip over what you read. And I don't get annoyed or angry with you. I just don't have any particular reason to be invested in it, because you lost me very early on, in regards to soul and spirit. I just don't accept these definitions you are making, without a demonstration of them actually existing, because I cant relate to them, not knowing, what they are suppose to be.

Again its like me saying, that I sort of feel this energy, when im around other people. What do I mean energy? Without me clearly demonstrating to you what I mean with energy, it could be anything. It is so generic, that anyone can sort relate to energy, even though it makes no sense, if you stop up and think about what im actually saying.

I keep referring to the Tao Te Ching. It's not a long work

I went and heard it as an audiobook and its interesting. Not any huge issues with it. But didn't think it was anything special either, to be honest. Some of it made little sense, and some of it were rather logic. But I did not find it annoying, but rather interesting written.

I don't hope you take what I wrote here as an assault. But I really think that rules in regards to claims ought to be treated equally. And again, I think Carl Sagan said it best:

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"

 

[We Never Know]

I propose how we build our beliefs is up to us to some extent. That is we can build around standards that make us truth seekers.

(1) We can choose to build on clarity and clear proofs and not on shaky grounds.
(2) We can learn how to reason properly and become aware of our ways of thinking that lead us away from truth.
(3) We can funnel our seeking knowledge to reliable sources of information, if we attain skills to recognize who and what is a reliable source of information.
(4) We can asses who provides proofs and insights, and who is best in providing clear insights and proofs.
(5) We can use doubt to asses properly what we don't know at the same time not let us not build on what we should know and believe in with certainty.

That said, most people don't choose a lot of their beliefs, because they have not trained themselves to hold on to truth and leave falsehood and not mix the two. When you believe falsehood as much as truth, then you are a confused person, your faith on clarity is as strong as what is on ambiguity, and what you should be certain is true is built on what even might be what you should be certain of is false.

If we are truthful to ourselves, and this is hugest factor, we can asses what we really know and what we don't. But if we let our caprice choose what is true based on what it wants to be true, then we have no way of distinguishing falsehood from truth by those standards. We choose on whims.

And when you choose this way, yes, you don't chose to follow truth nor choose to follow falsehood, you simply chose to not be strong in pursuit of truth, which leads you to let go of holding on to truth, and in that case, your belief formations will seem chaotic as you don't build them on strong foundations.

So it's not that we choose to believe a particular belief, but we chose the factors on how to build knowledge. God is of course always there, and if we choose to not try to observe him, that's on us. If we throw out all spiritual vision, philosophy, knowledge of one self, out the window, and just want physical evidence, we might not find God.

So these are choices we make. And it's always a choice when presented with evidence and proofs to accept the evidence or proof or be stubborn. Stubbornness in face of proofs is also a choice.

To answer your title of the thread...

IMO "no, to start but "yes" as we age.
We are taught beliefs when we are young but as we age we are free to choose our beliefs or disbelief's.

Some stick to the beliefs they were taught growing up while others grow up and find their own way.

 

[Vichar]

I think you might have missed my comment about demonstration. Making a definition, based on your personal belief about what a soul and spirit is, is just not good enough.

Don't get me wrong, I know that its extremely difficult to define these terms like spirit and soul, because no one have been able to demonstrate them, and they have vastly different meanings and capabilities depending on who you ask. So the very first sentence you make about opening and closing my eyes and it being caused by the Soul directing the body, you have lost me. Why on Earth should I accept that as being the soul?

The point of the demonstration is that it was something you chose to do, not that the act of opening and closing eyes should be considered distinct or special in any way. In all of this, you don't really address the point I'm trying to make, which is that you are having an experience. If I cloned you exactly, cell for cell, would that body act as you do? Even if it did, would you be having its experience? Or would there now be two experiences happening? Even being able to ask these questions would give hints about my definition for soul.

I don't hope you take what I wrote here as an assault. But I really think that rules in regards to claims ought to be treated equally. And again, I think Carl Sagan said it best:
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"

No offense taken. I rather enjoy Carl Sagan's work.

I think you've pretty much very precisely given your opinion on the subject. After hearing your reaction to the audiobook version of the Tao Te Ching, there seems to be no further need for explanations on my part. It was never incumbent upon me to prove or provide evidence of anything to you. I know I'm really repeating myself here, but you are the only one who can provide such evidence for yourself.

 

[Nimos]

If I cloned you exactly, cell for cell, would that body act as you do? Even if it did, would you be having its experience? Or would there now be two experiences happening? Even being able to ask these questions would give hints about my definition for soul.

Why would asking that question require the need for your definition? We have been cloning animals for a rather long time already.

Lets try to go about this a bit more "scientific" and you explain to me how your idea of a soul fits in.

So the process of cloning have been done on lots of different animals over the years, Which works by taking the material from an adult cell and placing it into the nucleus of an egg, that have had its own genetic material removed.

Which have been fairly successful in general, however an issue with cloning, is that the each time you reclone, the success chance drops and it becomes more and more difficult to successfully clone animals.

Eventually it was discovered that from the original cell you would have epigenetic abnormalities. If you don't know what epigenetics is, its basically what affects the expression of genes and not the genes themselves. Anyway, due to these abnormalities it will be harder and harder to successfully clone something. So lets say you would be able to clone a mouse 6 times before things went to hell.

What they then did were to use a chemical that inhibits this epigenetic process, which allows them to clone pretty much an unlimited amount of mice, without any issues and which are perfectly capable of reproducing etc.

If this chemical turns out to work on other animals as well, like cattle etc. We would be able to clone these as well.

1. This method allow us to create clones of the same animals, growing up, living and reproducing, are we creating animal souls here?

2. This process of cloning, might be effective on other animals as well, so cattle, pigs etc. So if we continue to improve our method in this field, and forget about moral issues for a second. What would prevent us from cloning humans as well, since we are made up by the same basic material as all other animals. Is its not reasonable to assume that we can clone humans as well if we wanted to. And if so, would these humans have a soul as well?

3. Given that these mice and other animals do not behave in the exact same way, even though they are clones. Could that suggest that they are not driven by a soul, but rather something else?

4. So in general with all these souls existing or flying around, not sure where they are suppose to be and who or what create them. But assuming that humans go nuts with cloning ourselves left, right and center. So imagine the gloves are off, we are just mass producing humans, like a factory. Could we then potentially run out of souls? And if not, whatever that is creating souls, are they just going to step up production as well?

5. Given that even cloned mice do not behave the same, how would that relate to your question about cloning a human cell from cell. Because the soul must enter a human before its an adult, correct, otherwise, one would be able to demonstrate at which exact time a soul enters the body?

You say that you approach this from a scientific point of view and it is perfectly aligned with the scientific method. Then none of these questions I have asked here in relationship to what you are saying, is unreasonable. Because if I didn't ask them, another one would at some point. Furthermore, the whole process of cloning, is perfectly explainable through natural processes without knowing or using your definition of a soul. Therefore you would have to take that into account as well, and ask yourself, why your definition is required?

I think you've pretty much very precisely given your opinion on the subject. After hearing your reaction to the audiobook version of the Tao Te Ching, there seems to be no further need for explanations on my part. It was never incumbent upon me to prove or provide evidence of anything to you. I know I'm really repeating myself here, but you are the only one who can provide such evidence for yourself.

Im not sure, what reaction you were hoping for with the Tao Te Ching, lots of stuff like this have been written. You could probably hand pick stuff out of the bible into something similar.

Like "Love thy neighbour", "Turn the other cheek" etc. and just remove all the inbetween stories. I honestly think you could make a book very similar to that of the Tao Te Ching, if someone cared to do it.

To me, I think its a general wrong approach people have, when they say that only themself can provide evidence for a claim. To me the fundamental approach or golden rule, whatever you want to call it, is whoever make the claim, is also obligated to provide the evidence, if they want or expect anyone to take them seriously. Don't see this as being aimed at you.

Because if you have followed along with my discussion with PureX, I made a suggestion that maybe everything is made up by existence itself. Because it is binary, so either we exist or we don't and since we do, the very thing that makes up everything, could be existences it self. And everything we measure and observe in our Universe is purely what existences is capable of.

And since its, existence it self, whatever that might be. It would not logically need a creator or a beginning. It is simply a state. And there are two possibilities as I see it, when it comes to existing, Either something do exist or it doesn't.

So exactly like, Im telling you. I would expect anyone else to say the same thing to me. I make the claim, that this might be how it could work, so I provide the evidence. It is not unreasonable for anyone to demand that from me.

However I already know that I can't proof it, and I don't claim that it is true either. I simply put it forward as an idea or thought experiment, of how things could fit together. So to me, its perfectly acceptable for people to look at the idea and think, nonsense. Or ask questions, like how is that possible, if this and that etc.? And when I say I have no clue, they just dismiss it, that is what I would expect from most people.

So again any claim in my opinion should be treated the same, yours equally to mine.

 

[PureX]

So im not saying that there can't come anything good out of religion, because a lot of people get joy from it. But also one have to realize that a lot of bad things come out of it as well.

Anytime humans interact there will be problems. Religion, politics, economics, you name the endeavor, and I will show you many examples of man's inhumanity to man. Also, keep in mind that the vast majority of theists are not 'evangelical'. They do not believe that anyone else needs to buy into their theistic views.

You can't have proof without evidence can you?

But you can have evidence without proof. And in fact, that's what we humans have to work with most of the time.

1. Their being an intelligent behind it.
2. Which of the thousands of Gods, we are talking about?

I would consider that a good start.

Existence is so complex (perhaps even infinitely so) that the most intelligent beings that we know of cannot figure it out. So it would be logical to assume that whatever the source of existence it, it is likely to be at least as intelligent as that which it is responsible for causing to happen.

Science is all about finding explanations backed up by evidence.

The same is true of philosophy, and most religions. The difference is that science seeks physical evidence, while philosophy seeks logically reasoned evidence, and religion seeks circumstantial evidence.

Where do you see this in art...?

Art is a special case. It creates it's own evidence through direct interaction.

Philosophy to me, is by far the most useful one of the three, because it can make us consider things that we might not do otherwise, so I can see some usefulness here in regards to science. But much more in the sense of self awareness and to encourage people to think more about life and stuff that are important, rather than reality shows etc. Again, Im not saying that these things are useless, but claiming that they can answer these major questions, is simply to fool oneself.

I think art is by far the best way to explore "truth". But I do enjoy philosophical debate, and have much respect for the very real help that religions offer people when nothing and no one else is.

Lets just take an example, we have the Universe starting with a big bang. How is that possible?

... If any of them want to be correct and show the others wrong, they need to provide evidence/proof.

No one can provide you with proof. They can only provide you with the evidence that they found convincing, and then you have to decide for yourself if it constitutes "proof", or not. So if you are demanding that they provide you with proof, you are demanding the impossible. They can only provide their evidence, and how they reasoned that evidence to be convincing. Only you can determine "proof".

I, personally, see no reason to care about "proof" at all, since as a limited non-omniscient human, I can't have 'proof positive'. And 'proof un-positive' is, well, silly. So all I'm really interested in is the evidence, the reasoning behind it, and the real life results of presuming it to be the truth.

We as individuals can look at each of these theories and throw a % on them of how likely we think they are. And that is it, we can't do anymore at this point, until we find ways to proof or disproof them.

We can adopt one of them, and live 'as if' it were true, and then see how that increases or decreases the value of our existential experience.

So if you choose option 1 and that makes sense to you, that is fine. I choose option 2, because im happy with that, because that make sense in our lives, That's great.
But it doesn't mean that any of us are correct. Because it could be option 3 that is correct. I really don't get, why you can not see this being rational? No one in is favor here, as none of them can explain anything.

Of the options you listed, none are exclusive of another. So one could easily adopt all of them, simultaneously. But again, for me, this isn't important. What's important are the results one gets from adopting one or more of these existential paradigms, or some other. For me, the point is the value gained, not the amount of evidence or the reasoned "proof".

A few years ago, as I told you earlier, I asked my self these questions as well, What is the meaning of life, and really thought I would give it a good shot.... like lets get to the bottom of this:

So I started to examine all sorts of ideas from religious people, scientists, philosophers, you name it, just to get a feel of the land in varies fields, backgrounds etc. Eventually being extremely frustrated of hearing words like "I think", "I believe" A LOT!!! you start to see a pattern obviously, that people are guessing left right and center. So I thought, that Stephen Hawking being considered one the most intelligent people on Earth at the time, would have some idea. Which eventually ended up with him also simply stating that he "thought" this and that. Basically saying that he had no clue either, and that pretty much made me stop looking for more answers, as I knew I wouldn't find them, which were not really all the surprising.

But anyway having spend a lot of time looking into it, I decided to split it into 3 categories, based on how people talk about the meaning of life.

1. Universal meaning of life
Why are there life in the Universe to begin with? This is basically to ask whether or not God did it, or what else could be the cause for it. I personally didn't find this all that interesting in regards to getting an answer here. Because this is highly speculative.

2. Natural meaning of life
Which is basically to ask how can life form in the universe in the first place? After big bang, at some point some sort of process must have turned whatever energy or material were created here into something living. Just like why are there life on Earth, how and from where did it come..etc. This is basically what scientists are trying to figure out. So this category is what is most interesting to me.

3. Personal meaning of life
What is our meaning of life as individuals? Which is what we think is our purpose, whether one believe in God and its to follow or live up to whatever they want. So this is something that each person will have to figure out themselves. But to me, after looking at each of these categories and especially, not able to get an answer to the first one (Universal meaning), sort of made me think, about it. And ultimately, the only meaning that make sense, is simply to be happy. Even though it might sound to meaningless. But ultimately one can speculate all they want about different meanings. But I think if a person is really honest with themself, they also know that they can't really get a satisfying answer, and since they can't, at least one can try to live a happy life.

That is basically how I look at it, it might sound depressive too some, because obviously we have to be special and meaningful and what not. But if one is critical, and honest about the evidence, I really don't think anything else makes sense. Which is also why, I say that if you want to believe something, by all means do it, if that is what makes you happy. But if it causes someone else to suffer, then your approach to achieve happiness is preventing someone else from achieving it, and that to me is not acceptable.

So in the end, that is also why my own idea of how it might be, is of no importance to me personal. Because im already well aware that its nothing but an idea. And also fully aware that I make mistakes, might misunderstand things, which causes me to believe in wrong things. But again, I try the best I can to be critical of what I believe and constantly put it to the test if I think its relevant or if new information pops up. I watch a lot of debated and lectures, and by far the majority is from people that I disagree with, to let them present their case and then Ill put their arguments and potential evidence to the test, just as I do with everything else. If A say this, then I try to find someone that disagree, and then I compare them and see which of them present the best case. And then I choose which one of them, I agree with, or maybe I agree with some of what each of them are saying.

An example is the whole big bang thing, Im really not a fan of that, meaning that I think its extremely weird, but the evidence for it, is just so severe, so me denying it, would simply be ignorant of me. But I have a very difficult time, putting the whole Universe into a single point.

Do you think this is a valid explanation and if not, why? (Just want to let you know, that I think of myself as an artist, and as far as I know there are no restrictions on who can call themselves one or not.)

Any reasoned hypothesis is as valid as any other. And since none of them are provable, their validity depends on the value they provide.

Have no issue with that, if it make sense for you to believe in God and the bible, by all means do so. But I just think one is fooling themself, if it surprises them if others don't react to claims about it being true and part of reality, regardless of them being atheists or just of another religious belief.

People are mostly lousy communicators, and lousy listeners, too. So there are many reasons why one man's truth paradigm doesn't transfer to another; "insufficient evidence" is only one of many.

 

[Vichar]

Im not sure, what reaction you were hoping for with the Tao Te Ching, lots of stuff like this have been written. You could probably hand pick stuff out of the bible into something similar.

You keep talking like I'm trying to publish scientific results and some burden of proof is upon me. You completely miss my motivations for taking so much of my time to try and type out explanations about my beliefs to you. I'm going to be as frank as I can now. The fact that you cannot distinguish between the contents of the Bible and the Tao Te Ching just means you're not ready for that advanced spiritual material. If I told you that Calculus II was a prerequisite for Differential Equations in college, you probably wouldn't even blink at it. So I hope you won't be offended if I tell you point blank: the reason you had no reaction to the Tao Te Ching is because it requires a certain level of spiritual attainment to feel an affinity for it. You've made it really clear you don't believe in things like spiritual affinity, so there should be no problem hearing something that is just my opinion, right? Frankly, my claims are only exceptional to you. Even within this thread, there are posters who don't seem to think I'm simply nuts.

You already have your religion, and if I may put a name to it, your religion is called "skepticism." Skepticism as a religion is very good at protecting you from charlatans but it is also very good at protecting you from God. It is a very common religion, to be quite honest. Maybe 65% of the people I talk to use exactly the same arguments as you have, more or less. I have heard them all. (Another 30% are making arguments for their own religion, while the next 4% nod and smile kindly while thinking to themselves that I'm am some kind of unusual idiot. Curiously, the final remainder agrees with me exactly, down to the tiny details, despite being from different spiritual paths from different parts of the world and entirely different cultures. Hmmm. Have you considered the astronomically low probability of that, if I really am delusional?)

From Wikipedia:
Sant Kirpal Singh, a contemporary Sant Mat guru, stated that "Naam" ("Word") has been described in many traditions through the use of several different terms. In his teachings,[6] the following expressions are interpreted as being identical to "Naam":

• "Naad", "Akash Bani", and "Sruti" in the Vedas
• "Nada" and "Udgit" in the Upanishads
• "Logos" and "Word" in the New Testament
• "Tao" by Lao Zi
• "Music of the Spheres" by Pythagoras
• "Sraosha" by Zoraster
• "Kalma" and "Kalam-i-Qadim" in the Qur'an
• "Naam", "Akhand Kirtan", and "Sacha ('True') Shabd" by Guru Granth Sahib

You can see from the Wikipedia list that the examples don't just span cultures, they span large swatch of time in human history. And the teachings are functionally identical. If my experiences are a delusion, they are a delusion shared by others throughout history all around the world. Somehow, we all report the same phenomena, despite never having spoken to one another. If you don't find this significant, I shall begin to wonder, where is your common sense?

Two existing paths in the world, both true paths. If you wanted someone who explains things better than I do, you could easily go to these websites:
Radha Soami Satsang Beas - Official Site
Sant Mat - Wikipedia

What I find fascinating is that the average person is such a poor judge of character and motivations. I think it's because most people live their lives focused solely upon themselves. They think about their own advantage, they think about their own situation, they don't truly love others, at least not in the spiritual sense. I'm not talking about giving money to charity. Have you even paused to consider why I'm spending so much time typing to you about truth when I am 99% certain you will never budge from your position? I will tell you point blank I get zero material benefit from it. I won't get any money, I don't belong to a religion looking for new members, and this forum definitely won't think any better of me. In fact, I might get a message from a moderator at any moment now telling me to cool it. The ONLY reason I'm taking this time is because you asked what I believed, and I decided I would try to answer out of love. And believe me, I have encountered my share of internet trolls before.

Like "Love thy neighbour", "Turn the other cheek" etc. and just remove all the inbetween stories. I honestly think you could make a book very similar to that of the Tao Te Ching, if someone cared to do it.

The fact that you can type this strongly confirms to me that you simply cannot sense spirit. There is nothing wrong with that; it's just where you are on your journey.

So again any claim in my opinion should be treated the same, yours equally to mine.

This is so obvious that I wonder why you felt you needed to type it. Do you really think I do not understand scientific method? I have three university degrees, I scored nearly perfectly in school and on standardized tests like the SATs. I don't care about academic achievement, so it is nothing to me that I am probably in the top 0.1% of the world from an intellectual perspective. I have had a very successful career as a software engineer for over 20 years. I've been a manager who has had to represent my company to the government (which requires legal precision), led teams of over 30 engineers, and delivered large projects on schedule and on time. Could I do that if I lived in my own little la-la land of self-delusion or if I was unable to apply something as simple and mechanical as the scientific method? If we were working together on a science project, you would quickly notice my standards for scientific rigor, logical consistency, and mathematical precision are likely higher than yours. Do you think for a moment that I can't tell the difference between self-indulgence and practical techniques that help me in my daily life? Ask yourself, why would someone dedicate hours of daily spiritual practice, every day without fail, if it did not confer some very significant benefit?

If we drew a Venn Diagram representing your world view, can you not acknowledge even the possibility that there might be stuff outside of your circle? Of course you think anything outside of your circle is absolute bunk. Why wouldn't you? I am not asking you to believe me. You asked me about stuff outside your circle, and I tried to explain it to the best of my ability. It's not my responsibility to watch over every skeptic in the world! Quite the contrary, I need to let you have your own experience, discover things in your own time. And believe me, one day, most likely in another lifetime, you will believe exactly as I do. It is absolutely inevitable, you know why? Because there is no other way to return to God except via the true spiritual path. None. It is inscribed upon your soul indelibly, there is no other way to go about it, it is as natural as breathing, the only thing you can do is delay your own self-realization. Does that explain why I've take so much of my time to engage in this conversation with you? How would humanity even know about the true spiritual path if nobody ever talked about it? I'm merely providing a chance, an opportunity, for you to catch truth in this lifetime of yours. If you don't want it, it does not affect me in any way whatsoever.

You have typed this statement over and over again in as many ways as your mind could think of:

"Vichar, I don't believe you about your experiences, and even if you think you've had them, I wouldn't draw the same conclusions as you from them."

I hear you loud and clear. But what you fail to understand is that we are not really having the same conversation. You think that we're having an academic debate about some obscure fantasy topic which happened to catch your interest. From my perspective, I'm once again typing the truth to a complete stranger, knowing full well that the chances he will believe me are practically nil (effectively zero percent chance). Now you tell me, why would I go to such lengths to do that? Get out of your intellectual mind for even just one moment and consider with your heart why another person might want to help you. Hint: I'm not trying to publish a white paper on spirituality that needs your approval before I go to print.

 

[Nimos]

Im an atheist, I already told you that? How do you expect me to react when you write stuff like this: "Because there is no other way to return to God except via the true spiritual path. None. It is inscribed upon your soul indelibly, there is no other way to go about it, it is as natural as breathing, the only thing you can do is delay your own self-realization." its obvious that it is not going to fly with me, otherwise I wouldn't be an atheist to begin with.

What is the difference between you getting upset, that I can't accept stuff like this. Or me saying to you that "You are wasting your time believing in God, and there being spiritual path to him, because there is no God, and that is the truth" and then when you tell me, that you believe in God and the spiritual realm and souls etc. Then I get upset with you, for not being rational enough to see that there is no God. That is absurd.

So im sorry, If I don't share your view on all this, even if you are correct. But to me, as I already told you, the video with lady explaining what we know about OBE, seems to explain a lot of the things you have been mentioning here, and even if it doesn't explain all of it, due to there not having been done enough research in the field yet. I still find it a more reasonable explanation, than soul and consciousness flying around. I guess you haven't watch it? but in her lecture she give an example of a women having a brain surgery, where they put electrical stimulators on her brain. By activating these in specific area of the brain, they can cause her to have OBEs.
Don't you find that interesting? and why that is possible?

So again, im not saying that you are not having the experiences that you say you are, I just don't think they are as unique as you think, but also I think the answers can be found in the brain.

If we drew a Venn Diagram representing your world view, can you not acknowledge even the possibility that there might be stuff outside of your circle?

I have no issue with that, I would add a lot of unknown out there. Probably also spirituality, because I do think that through meditation and learning to "manipulate" or stimulate ones thought process or brain, that people can have experiences what one can refer to as spiritual. But just don't think its has a supernatural explanation, but rather a natural one.

The fact that you can type this strongly confirms to me that you simply cannot sense spirit. There is nothing wrong with that; it's just where you are on your journey.

I would agree with you, I have no clue what it is.

"Vichar, I don't believe you about your experiences, and even if you think you've had them, I wouldn't draw the same conclusions as you from them."

No, I haven't

I have suggested, that I DO believe that you have had these experiences, but that you might draw the wrong conclusions, because there have been done science in this field that could explain at least some of it.

The reason I write that, is because it appears to me, its just how I view it, so I might be wrong!!. That you have jumped straight to the supernatural explanations with spirits and souls. Which is not things that are well defined, in general.
So I linked the video with that lady, because again our talk here made we wonder about alternative explanations. So I posted it here, because I thought you would find it interesting, hearing from not only a scientist doing research in this particular field. But also used to be a firm believer in ALL of it.

But maybe I was wrong, because you haven't comment on anything she talks about in it. So whether you haven't seen it, or think its nonsense the stuff she is saying. I find strange. Because it was purely done with good intentions, because you seem very interested in it.

Somehow, we all report the same phenomena, despite never having spoken to one another. If you don't find this significant, I shall begin to wonder, where is your common sense?

But I don't really find it all that strange, Im really sorry, I just don't.

The reason being, that we are all humans, made out of the same stuff, have brains that are easily confused and tricked into believing things that are not real. Doesn't have to be supernatural at all.

As an example, which is something I have tried my self. So when I was in school, we went on a school trip to England, and me and some friends saw they had an Alien live experience or what to call it. can't remember what it was called, but based on the movies.
Anyway the whole idea, were that they had turned a huge room into an alien environment, so sounds, lights blinking etc. and the guests would then start in one room and would have to escape by reaching an escape shuttle, while being guided by an employee, dressed up as one of the military guys.
Knowing that all of it were made up and none of it were real, I think it took about 2 minutes after the "game" started, before people were completely messed up and screaming. With people that you have never met before, holding your arm like they had known you for years, really uncommon behaviour for complete strangers. Anyway it was a lot of fun and a really cool experience.

But why do people react like that? Why are they scared of it, when we know its just made up?

To me, its simply the brain being fooled. Its defence mechanism or what you call it, gets on high alert, because we do not in general like to be caught off guard and jumped scared etc. And we have a problems analysing our environment quick enough, to cover all directions around us, sounds playing, lights blinking, weird screams etc.

So drawing a connection to what you are saying about people having reported similar experience as you have throughout the ages, I think fall in the same category, we try to explain the things going on around us, the best we can. And if we can't reach a solid conclusion we make up things that best explain our experiences, whether or not these are correct or not.

For instance, in the video, she talks about sleep paralysis, if you don't know what it is, its basically happens when you sleep or about to wake up, where you are completely aware of what is happening around you, but unable to move. And usually this comes with some rather nasty experiences as well, such as there being someone in the room with you or whatever. Its a fairly common experience, meaning that I think they estimate that approximately 1/3 of people will experience it, at least 1 time in their life.

Now in the video, she mentioned the Mare, which is where the "mare" in Nightmare comes from, and is an ancient Norse creature, that was said to haunt or "ride/ have sex with" you when you sleep, just to keep the explanation short. Which probably is how they explained what this experience were. You have people seeing demons, probably those that tend to be believe in Satan, hell etc. And today, you have alien abductions, where most follow the same pattern.

Just looking at sleep paralysis as an example, if its so common as it is, is it then strange why different cultures throughout history, report of similar things, but give slightly different descriptions of the them, depending on their beliefs? and apparently it is a good way, if one want to try to have an OBE experience as well, at least according to her.

I haven't tried it my self, the closest I guess, is when you are in that stage of sleep, where you can sort of explore your dreams, not sure what it is called. But you are aware that it is a dream, but everything seems very real, but also very strange at the same time. To me that is very enjoyable and wish I could do it on command, and always get a bit annoyed when I wake up, because I want to explore some more.

I will tell you point blank I get zero material benefit from it. I won't get any money, I don't belong to a religion looking for new members, and this forum definitely won't think any better of me.

I don't get anything out of it either, in that sense. Except its interesting to share experiences, even if we don't agree on a lot. I don't see anything wrong with that, personally.

You think that we're having an academic debate about some obscure fantasy topic which happened to catch your interest. From my perspective, I'm once again typing the truth to a complete stranger, knowing full well that the chances he will believe me are practically nil (effectively zero percent chance).

I don't really think that is a fair way to put it. You claim to share the truth with me, which I don't accept, because of the lack of proof. Therefore i argue, that before you get the right to claim to know the truth, you have to proof it. And that is basically it. I have already said, that I do not care whether or not you believe it to be the truth or not. That is fine with me, if that is what you believe. Just as I believe it is not the truth. Again im not talking about your personal experiences here.

Both of us, from what I can understand from you as well, do not expect to convince the other of anything. But do you think im being unreasonable that when you present your ideas, and I asked questions about them? Like the cloning stuff, isn't that one of the reasons, a person goes on a forum, to learn from others beliefs and to have their own beliefs questioned?

If one just come on here and throws out all their beliefs and the moment people ask into it, they get upset. Because they didn't just accept it, that seems like an unreasonable way to do things. So not really sure why you see it as a academic debate, was it because I wrote that, "a bit more scientific" or what?

 

[Nimos]

Anytime humans interact there will be problems. Religion, politics, economics, you name the endeavor, and I will show you many examples of man's inhumanity to man. Also, keep in mind that the vast majority of theists are not 'evangelical'. They do not believe that anyone else needs to buy into their theistic views.

I know, we don't have a lot of that evangelical theists in Denmark, at least not that im aware of, in general religion is rarely a topic here at all. So I think its more common in the US, and obviously depends on where in the states you are as well. So I agree with that.

But you can have evidence without proof. And in fact, that's what we humans have to work with most of the time.

I think you are correct about that.

Existence is so complex (perhaps even infinitely so) that the most intelligent beings that we know of cannot figure it out. So it would be logical to assume that whatever the source of existence it, it is likely to be at least as intelligent as that which it is responsible for causing to happen.

I think it depends, I do agree with you that we would not be able to directly point at it and say that is God or that is the intelligent being we are talking about.

But I do think we can look at, how things are working in general and draw conclusions based on that. We obviously would have to define what we see as being an intelligent design. Maybe the criteria for that, is if we as humans can look at the given thing and with our limited intelligent, see why something is not working as optimal as it could be.

I do think biology and evolution, assuming that it was set in motion by an intelligent being, is not really showing a lot of intelligence. Compared to adaptability. I mean looking at varies lifeforms, could the be designed better, had we the power to just form them out of clay and give them life. Then I think the answer would be yes, we could do a better job, and there is no intelligent being, that at least directly created each animal.

Anyway that would be a huge discussion But quite interesting, but I think at least, one could approach the question of whether an intelligent being is behind the creation or not. And what is most reasonable to assume is correct.

The same is true of philosophy, and most religions. The difference is that science seeks physical evidence, while philosophy seeks logically reasoned evidence, and religion seeks circumstantial evidence.

The problem with none physical evidence, at least as I see it, is that they can easily be misunderstood, there is a huge chance of fallacies, wrong interpretations etc. Which is basically the issue with these things, and is also why there are so many different philosophers, religions etc. Teaching different things. So in regards to getting through life and find meaning, I think it can be useful on a personal level, but in regards to truth, probably not so much.

They can only provide their evidence, and how they reasoned that evidence to be convincing. Only you can determine "proof".

I wouldn't even consider it evidence, because it is so far off something that we can explore, that what appear to be logic to us, might be completely different. I would much rather just refer to these as being ideas compared to evidence. I don't really think we can even produce a single evidence for a multiverse, simulation theory or God for that matter, in regards to what were before the big bang.

I, personally, see no reason to care about "proof" at all, since as a limited non-omniscient human, I can't have 'proof positive'. And 'proof un-positive' is, well, silly. So all I'm really interested in is the evidence, the reasoning behind it, and the real life results of presuming it to be the truth.

I like proof a lot, but again, I think it might be because we view reality slightly different.

Of the options you listed, none are exclusive of another. So one could easily adopt all of them, simultaneously. But again, for me, this isn't important. What's important are the results one gets from adopting one or more of these existential paradigms, or some other. For me, the point is the value gained, not the amount of evidence or the reasoned "proof".

I understand what you are saying, just want to make sure, that it not really about choosing 1,2 or 3 or all of them. But rather than there might be thousands more, as we expand our knowledge. But ultimately, there is only one correct answer, which explain exactly how it works, and figuring that one out, is probably never going to happen.

We can adopt one of them, and live 'as if' it were true, and then see how that increases or decreases the value of our existential experience.

Agree, that is definitely possible, Again also why I think people should believe what they want, if it makes sense. As long as they don't hurt others in the process.

 

[Vichar]

But just don't think its has a supernatural explanation, but rather a natural one.

Post after post, you keep saying that I'm giving supernatural explanations, and I keep saying they are natural. Of all points of confusion during our conversation, this one stumps the most. So I looked up the term:

su·per·nat·u·ral
/ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/
adjective

1. (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

From my viewpoint, spirit is quite scientific. Western society is so primitive it doesn't know about spirit. But I quite assure you, the spirituality I have been referring encompasses the laws of nature you're familiar with. You may not agree with my findings, but since what I experience is quite repeatable and predictable, I treat it like I would any other kind of experiment. I'm sure when scientists found electromagnetic waves outside of the visible spectrum they did not refer to them as supernatural, despite being able to use electromagnetism to "invisibly" move objects. Some laymen might have been tempted to do so, but they would have been mistaken.

That you have jumped straight to the supernatural explanations with spirits and souls. Which is not things that are well defined, in general.

You keep saying that they are not well defined, but they are simply not well defined to you. Simply being rejected by the popular masses because they lack the ability to sense and understand the phenomena does not make something supernatural. It just makes it difficult (or impossible to understand). I'm not quite sure I have a proper grasp on all aspects of quantum mechanics, but I would never dare argue with the experimental evidence, much less refer to the theory as supernatural.

From wikipedia, Surat Shabd Yoga - Wikipedia :

If seven different laboratories across the world concluded that gravity waves exist via experiment, and published their articles all at once, the scientific community would never dare believe that this was a coincidence. The scientific community would probably therefore conclude that "gravity waves" was probably a phenomenon worth further investigation. Understanding spirituality confers great power over your own life and eventually lets you commune with God directly. Nothing needs be taken on faith, some steady effort results in your ability to experience it yourself. Why do you keep insisting I'm claiming some kind of magical, fantastic, or supernatural source? Unless your definition of supernatural is simply {the set of all things currently outside the realm of your personal experience}.

So I linked the video with that lady, because again our talk here made we wonder about alternative explanations. So I posted it here, because I thought you would find it interesting, hearing from not only a scientist doing research in this particular field. But also used to be a firm believer in ALL of it.

But maybe I was wrong, because you haven't comment on anything she talks about in it. So whether you haven't seen it, or think its nonsense the stuff she is saying. I find strange. Because it was purely done with good intentions, because you seem very interested in it.

Sorry, I didn't directly comment because my post was already quite long and I was in danger of exceeding the character limit. Thank you for the link, I found the talk fascinating. However, it is worth noting that she immediately dodged the question of consciousness. She knew better than to engage on that topic for precisely the same reasons we are having difficulty in our conversation. There is a dark sorcery which gets people riled up as soon as someone says the word "spirituality" as it relates to consciousness. I already explained why that is (your mind is programmed to reject it due to an entity, call it George. George is in charge of the mental plane, and all your thoughts until you become self-realized are thanks to George. If you watched the movie "the Matrix," it's a great spiritual analogy. You are plugged into the matrix, your thoughts are not your own, and George's job is to make sure you don't easily discover what spirituality really is.)

But I don't really find it all that strange, Im really sorry, I just don't.

And why should you find it strange? You surely know that you can take certain controlled substances and you would experience things that humans don't normally experience. In fact, Native Americans used to use peyote as an aid to have their vision quests. Why do people do drugs? One major reason is to have these experiences. They are seeking spirituality (even if they can't put name to that impulse) and want some shortcuts. I mean, it's obvious spirit is not supernatural if spirit can interact with the physical world. I say it again and again, but your mind just doesn't like the word "spirit". Why? Could your mind be like a computer program which has flagged certain key words, just like those algorithms Google uses to filter out adult content by default (moderate protection level)? Don't you think that's interesting that I could talk about any other scientific topic, but as soon as I decide to use the word "spirituality" your mind has a problem with it?

To me, its simply the brain being fooled. Its defence mechanism or what you call it, gets on high alert, because we do not in general like to be caught off guard and jumped scared etc. And we have a problems analysing our environment quick enough, to cover all directions around us, sounds playing, lights blinking, weird screams etc.

I also think you're missing the point of spirituality. The experiences are just a very minor part of it. Spirituality is an entire way of life, a way of being. Everybody is on the spiritual path whether they know it or not. I could just as easily say we are all alive and it roughly has the same meaning. The purpose of spirituality is to let us mature properly so we can have a proper conversation with God and have a chance of understanding him.

In other words, I could just take drugs to have a psychedelic experiences. That is not my purpose. My purpose is to properly learn about what I am, how I should be, and what I should be doing. Think of it like the classroom we call life. Spirituality is simply the name I'm giving to that class we are all taking. There is nothing supernatural about it, it's just that some of us are choosing classes from the syllabus (true spirituality) and everyone else is cutting class.

I am way, way past the stage where I'm chasing after UFOs or trying to stop my own heart hoping to have an OBE. I'm not a seeker anymore. A seeker is called such because they are looking for spirituality. I have found it. I am a practicing student of spirituality. The system is much more profound and all-encompassing than you might suspect. We aren't trying to keep secret about it, we don't have a secret handshake or Illuminati-like puzzles or mysteries. We congregate in plain sight to exchange spiritual notes, kind of like study groups. Why, then, don't more people know about it? It's because of the "dark sorcery" I keep referring to. An ordinary person's mind is wired to overlook/disbelieve/ignore all such evidence pointing to spirituality by active design.

The video is interesting, but it supports what I'm saying rather than contradicts it. She can see her own body, doesn't that suggest that she is not just her body? What is projected out and looking back at herself? She even reports the "silver cord," which is part of the astral sheath. If this lady can't detect the "thing that left" experimentally, must we conclude that nothing left? You seem to imply that a scientific measurement would disprove spirituality somehow, while this entire time I've been saying that spirituality is repeatable, predictable, and should eventually be a part of our common scientific knowledge. So I would think any scientific progress on the front would rather support what I'm saying?

Off topic, I have exerpienced sleep paralysis myself, and I lucid dream quite often. My spiritual practices have an effect of "waking me up" which grants me additional probability of becoming lucid during dreams. OK back on topic.

So drawing a connection to what you are saying about people having reported similar experience as you have throughout the ages, I think fall in the same category, we try to explain the things going on around us, the best we can. And if we can't reach a solid conclusion we make up things that best explain our experiences, whether or not these are correct or not.

Sure, and as a scientist, I try to pick the most complete, powerful (from a predictive standpoint) theory of everything that I can. That is spirituality. Look, at the risk of sounding condescending, I am a student but you are not even a novice when it comes to spirituality. When I claim that spirituality does a much better job of predicting natural phenomena, I mean it. I'm not under some strange delusion or influence of drugs. I see just as well as you do, and I'm quite logical, which is why I brought up the subject of my career. It's difficult to be a computer programmer, much less a project lead, if you don't have very disciplined thoughts and personal responsibility. I would never adopt a worldview that was made up of fairy tales and wishes.

For instance, in the video, she talks about sleep paralysis
...
And usually this comes with some rather nasty experiences as well, such as there being someone in the room with you or whatever. Its a fairly common experience, meaning that I think they estimate that approximately 1/3 of people will experience it, at least 1 time in their life.
...
To me that is very enjoyable and wish I could do it on command, and always get a bit annoyed when I wake up, because I want to explore some more.

Look, I used to mess around a little with astral travel myself, and the practice is fraught with danger. I didn't really want to comment because I can tell you're curious about it. Do what you like, but I'm telling you there is danger there. There's a reason the body is attached firmly to the spirit. Detaching a bit of it to go flying around is ill advised. If you don't find your way back, you could be in serious trouble.

If one just come on here and throws out all their beliefs and the moment people ask into it, they get upset. Because they didn't just accept it, that seems like an unreasonable way to do things. So not really sure why you see it as a academic debate, was it because I wrote that, "a bit more scientific" or what?

But I'm not upset. Your reactions are well within normal expectation, and I have listened to these same arguments dozens of times. I'll summarize my purpose. Spirituality is the study of the path back to your true self. Not a physical path, but rather a journey of self-discovery. It's the study of you. You can listen to the wisdom of people who have taken the journey or you can muddle about on your own. Please shed all thoughts that it is supernatural, because spirituality is the actual reality, and current Western science is the limited, incomplete subset of observations and theories about it.

 

[Nimos]

From my viewpoint, spirit is quite scientific. Western society is so primitive it doesn't know about spirit.

You keep saying that they are not well defined, but they are simply not well defined to you. Simply being rejected by the popular masses because they lack the ability to sense and understand the phenomena does not make something supernatural.

Lets try to see what spirit means to different people and cultures:

The Great spirit
The Great Spirit, known as Wakan Tanka among the Sioux,[1] Gitche Manitou in Algonquian, and in many Native American (excluding Alaskan Natives and Native Hawaiians) and Aboriginal Canadian (specifically First Nations people) cultures as the Supreme Being, God, a conception of universal spiritual force.[2][need quotation to verify] According to Lakota activist Russell Means, a more semantically accurate translation of Wakan Tanka is the Great Mystery.

The Vættir
The Vættir (Old Norse; singular Vættr) are spirits in Norse mythology. The term can be used to refer to the full cosmos of supernatural beings, including the Álfar (elves), Dvergar (dwarves), Jötnar (giants), and gods (the Æsir and Vanir). Vættir can also refer more specifically to Landvættir (nature spirits), Fjallvættir (mountain spirits), Sjóvættir (sea spirits), Skogvættir (forest spirits), Vatnavættir (guardians of the specific waters), or Húsvættir (house spirits).[1][2]

Ancient Egyptians
Egyptians believed that even after one's death their spirit would live because their life force was a separate entity that could detach itself from the body. This life force was called the Ka, and was consider to be one part of what the Egyptian believed to be the immortal soul.

Japanese folklore
Yōkai (妖怪, ghost, phantom, strange apparition) are a class of supernatural monsters, spirits, and demons in Japanese folklore. The word yōkai is made up of the kanji for "bewitching; attractive; calamity" and "spectre; apparition; mystery; suspicious."[1] They can also be called ayakashi (あやかし), mononoke (物の怪) or mamono (魔物). Yōkai range diversely from the malevolent to the mischievous, or occasionally bring good fortune to those who encounter them.

Mayan spirit animals
What can Mayan Astrology teach you about your past, present, and future? As it turns out, quite a bit! According to Ancient Mayan Astrology, we are all born with a spirit animal. These spirit animals guide us on our life paths, and help us through a lifelong journey to discover our authentic selves.

Christianity
For the majority of Christian denominations, the Holy Spirit, or Holy Ghost, is the third person of the Trinity:[2] the Triune God manifested as God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit; each entity itself being God.

Islam
In Islam, especially Sufism, rūḥ (Arabic: روح‎; plural arwah) is a person's immortal, essential self — pneuma, i.e. the "spirit" or "soul".[1][2] The Quran itself does not describe rūḥ as the immortal self.[3] Nevertheless, in some contexts, it animates inanimate matter.[4] Further, it appears to be a metaphorical being, such as an angel.[4] In one instance, rūḥ refers to Jesus.[4] Further, the Quran refers to rūḥ as Ruh al-qudus (Arabic: روح القدس‎, "the holy spirit" or "spirit of holiness") and al-ruh al-amin ("the faithful/trustworthy spirit").

Outside the Quran, rūḥ may also refer to a spirit that roams the earth; a ghost.[5]

Islam and the holy spirit
The Holy Spirit (Arabic: روح القدس Ruh al-Qudus, "the holy spirit") is mentioned four times in the Qur'an,[30] where it acts as an agent of divine action or communication. While there are similarities to the Holy Spirit mentioned in Christian and Jewish sources, it is unclear if these four references refer to the same Holy Spirit.
The belief in a "Holy Trinity", according to the Qur'an, is forbidden and deemed to be blasphemy. The same prohibition applies to any idea of the duality of God (Allah).

So looking at just these few cultures and their view of what a spirit is. We can conclude that it can be the following things...A Supreme Being, God, a conception of universal spiritual force, the Great Mystery, full cosmos of supernatural beings, including elves, dwarves, giants and several gods, nature spirits, mountain spirits, sea spirits, forest spirits, guardians of the specific waters, house spirits, supernatural monsters, demons to being born with a spirit animal that guide us on our life path, A Holy spirit that is part of a trinity, to an angel and ghost, to it being the holy spirit but not part of a trinity.

And then we can add yours as well and all the other cultures around the world that have their own idea of what a spirit is. So for some people a spirit is or were clearly seen as being supernatural.

Understanding spirituality confers great power over your own life and eventually lets you commune with God directly. Nothing needs be taken on faith, some steady effort results in your ability to experience it yourself. Why do you keep insisting I'm claiming some kind of magical, fantastic, or supernatural source? Unless your definition of supernatural is simply {the set of all things currently outside the realm of your personal experience}.

Im not saying that one should not investigate spirituality, simply that one need to be able to demonstrate it somehow, to figure out what it is, and if it can be considered natural. Because clearly some see it as supernatural, you might not, which is fine. I have no issue with that. But you can't just claim that it is what you say, because you are convinced of it. And its not just in regards to me, its to whoever believe in spirits and disagree with you. How would you convince a Christian that the Holy spirit is not divine? I doubt the majority of them would accept that it is not.

I would personally, and think I have already mentioned it to you, see spiritually as trying to become "one" with yourself or something, through meditation, sensations, trances etc. But clearly the way I see it, is vastly different from those ideas above.

Why do people do drugs? One major reason is to have these experiences. They are seeking spirituality (even if they can't put name to that impulse) and want some shortcuts.

To me, people that suggest that you can reach spirituality through drugs, doesn't really seem to fly with my understanding of it. Because to me, it seems to be all about control and not simply being high or whatever. Because obviously people will see all kinds of weird things, if they take stuff that causes such thing.

I mean, it's obvious spirit is not supernatural if spirit can interact with the physical world. I say it again and again,

And again, how would you explain that to a Christian? Because God is per definition supernatural, he can not be, right?

Spirituality is an entire way of life, a way of being.

That I could agree with. I would simply throw away all the God stuff. Then you pretty much know how I see spirituality, so see nothing wrong with it, and it might actually be healthy, I think

The video is interesting, but it supports what I'm saying rather than contradicts it. She can see her own body, doesn't that suggest that she is not just her body? What is projected out and looking back at herself? She even reports the "silver cord," which is part of the astral sheath.

That is an interesting question, because she doesn't really conclude on it. But also as she say, she had done tests with these OBEs people, where they could come and read something in her kitchen, I think it were. And none of them were able to. Even her own OBE where she flew over her university and recalled what she saw, was completely wrong when she went to check if she could actually see those things. So maybe the brain just construct the virtual illusion of what it expect to see. And therefore it gets it wrong. Maybe its not even that different from when you are dreaming and you can remember your dream, clearly a person is not at these locations, but in the dream these locations exists, sometimes very detailed. This is just me speculating about it, obviously.

But I don't know, but think its interesting if they can figure it out, what exactly is going on with OBEs.

So to underline it, spirituality to me is NOT supernatural. Spirits as described in the above examples are and if these are connected to ones understanding of what spirituality means for a person, I probably just understand it as something else.

This is a way to explain it (Which is a lot more like, I see it. Adding the stuff I wrote above about meditation etc. Btw I didn't write this, just thought it described it rather well.):
Spirituality is a broad concept with room for many perspectives. In general, it includes a sense of connection to something bigger than ourselves, and it typically involves a search for meaning in life. As such, it is a universal human experience—something that touches us all.

The definition or at least one of them is this (Which is not how I see it. I agree with the definition that, it is how most people understand it.):
the quality of being concerned with the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things.

 

[Igtheism]

I don't believe you can choose belief. I wanted to live forever in bliss, not die off into nothingness. So I chose to believe that long ago a woman picked the wrong fruit, and therefore I needed for a savior to die for the sin I inherited from her. I tried hard to believe that, but never could. It sure wasn't because I didn't choose to.

 

[Thief]

I don't believe you can choose belief. I wanted to live forever in bliss, not die off into nothingness. So I chose to believe that long ago a woman picked the wrong fruit, and therefore I needed for a savior to die for the sin I inherited from her. I tried hard to believe that, but never could. It sure wasn't because I didn't choose to.

none the less...….you chose to believe

you say you could NOT believe …..that....which was offered
and so you chose to believe something else

the weigh scale was in your hand
you weighed the options.....one or the other

you chose

 

[rstrats]

Thief,

From your post is seems that you think that you can consciously choose to believe things. Perhaps you can help me. I have never been able to consciously choose any of the beliefs that I have and I would like to be able to do that. If you think that you can consciously choose to believe things, I wonder if you might explain how you do it. What do you do at the last moment to instantly change your one state of belief to another? What is it that you do that would allow you to say, "OK, at this moment I have a lack of belief that ‘x’ exists or is true, but I choose to believe that ‘x’ exists or is true and now instantly at this new moment I do believe that ‘x’ exists or is true?

Maybe you could use something like leprechauns to demonstrate your technique. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, a leprechaun is "a fairy peculiar to Ireland, who appeared in the form of an old man of minute stature, wearing a cocked hat and a leather apron" and who stores away his gold in a pot at the end of a rainbow, and If ever captured has to grant three wishes to the person who captures him.

So, assuming that you don’t already have a belief in them, how about right now, while you are reading this, choose to believe - be convinced without a doubt - that they exist. Now that you believe in leprechauns, my question is, how did you do it? How did you make the instantaneous transition from lack of belief to belief?

 

[Igtheism]

Thief<<<none the less...….you chose to believe

Yes I did. But I didn't get what I chose.

<<<you say you could NOT believe …..that....which was offered>>>

Offered? Nobody offered me anything. I wanted it to be true, just like I choose for this pandemic to go away now, but it's not going away.

Thief<<<and so you chose to believe something else.<<<

No. I didn't choose to believe something else. My brain wouldn't go that way.

Thief<<the weigh scale was in your hand
you weighed the options.....one or the other<<

One or the other?? There is either a belief or a lack of belief. I think you're playing a word trick on me. You're defining 'the lack of belief' as 'a kind of belief'. You don't define 'the lack of a horse' as 'a kind of horse', do you? lol. A newborn baby lacks that belief same as I do. Do you say the newborn baby has a belief because he lacks a belief?

 

[rational experiences]

Belief is a learning experience.

I also know, for if I did not know then understanding that enables change to exist and then overcoming change in conditions of self harm could not be identified or known.

Therefore I know myself, and then I live the experience of what I learn.

As a human I am born, my parents own their beliefs, my community owns variations to beliefs and then I am forced to question self if spirit exists asides from self or if we are just owning a human experience as a self present life form.

Knowing that I cannot be anything other than who I am.....for the presence of all other bodies and things advises me that I am just my own self.....a human.

Then I have other humans in groups coercing and using tactics in the group structure to force belief.

Yet I know my whole self experience is just a self experiencing, so I argue.

Therefore humans own a question and a theory/story that we came from spirit and that when we die we return to spirit.

So I question my knowing of self presence. I was born from sex....so my parents owned that choice...I never did....explained to self.

I know from seeing other humans be babies, grow into adults...that I do too.

I know from their human death that their bio life body dies....and it disappears back to a stone like form...what I know.

Therefore I know that asides from the physical presence of others...humans like my own self in spiritual living conditions, the term spirit is present in my thoughts, real or not real the question.

So I have to use self identification information to claim is spirit real...and all I have to ask that question is my mind, my thinking capabilities.

And so I did...asked that question and said if you are real then prove yourself.

And it did. So then my belief changed into experiences...and I would not simply believe if I did not own experience. For I do realize in life that group forced behaviours, are unnatural, when we each are just a self.

Therefore actually I had to own a belief first that spirit did exist to ask it to prove itself.

Humans who own a belief first that spirit does not exist, therefore make no attempt to seek if it is real or not for they already gave self their self answer/agreement.

 

[Igtheism]

rational experiences>>Therefore actually I had to own a belief first that spirit did exist to ask it to prove itself.<<

Spirit is feelings, isn't it? Everybody has spirit from time to time, i.e., emotions of enjoyment. When somebody is feeling good, we say "His spirit is high". And if he or she is feeling bad, we say "His or her spirit is low"

rational experiences>>Humans who own a belief first that spirit does not exist,

I'd think everybody believes that people have emotions of happiness and enjoyment?. It would be more accurate to say "spirit occurs", not "spirit exists". But I guess it's ok to say "spirit exists", for we do say "emotions exists", and spirit is emotion.

rational >>therefore make no attempt to seek if it is real or not for they already gave self their self answer/agreement.<<

Of course those feelings of spirit occur, or exist, if you use "exist" to mean "occur". But since you say "exist" rather than "occur" so much, it sounds like you think you're not using "spirt" for the only thing I know that "spirit" is used for, namely feelings and emotions.

Thanks for answering. What do you claim to be using "spirit" to mean, if not emotions?

 

[Thief]

Thief,

From your post is seems that you think that you can consciously choose to believe things. Perhaps you can help me. I have never been able to consciously choose any of the beliefs that I have and I would like to be able to do that. If you think that you can consciously choose to believe things, I wonder if you might explain how you do it. What do you do at the last moment to instantly change your one state of belief to another? What is it that you do that would allow you to say, "OK, at this moment I have a lack of belief that ‘x’ exists or is true, but I choose to believe that ‘x’ exists or is true and now instantly at this new moment I do believe that ‘x’ exists or is true?

Maybe you could use something like leprechauns to demonstrate your technique. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, a leprechaun is "a fairy peculiar to Ireland, who appeared in the form of an old man of minute stature, wearing a cocked hat and a leather apron" and who stores away his gold in a pot at the end of a rainbow, and If ever captured has to grant three wishes to the person who captures him.

So, assuming that you don’t already have a belief in them, how about right now, while you are reading this, choose to believe - be convinced without a doubt - that they exist. Now that you believe in leprechauns, my question is, how did you do it? How did you make the instantaneous transition from lack of belief to belief?

well your post doesn't appear to be a proper litmus test of how belief works

can you change your mind?
of course you can

today science will have you believe....blah blah blah
tomorrow science will discover a fault and you can change your mind
and the new idea replaces the old one

but ….does science ever make an offer that is too much to believe?
so it does
and that's where the confusion and debate set in

like I am NOT sold on the idea that particles just 'pop' into existence
however
the universe is expanding which indicates a starting 'point'

that even science offers as a......'pop'