• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

I find this very interesting

F1fan

Veteran Member
In the meantime, the spiritualists and religionists have given the world no new knowledge in that time or at any time. Yet they sing the praises of their method of discerning "truth" while decrying the shortcomings of "materialism" and what others who are more empirical are unable to grasp. I might ask you now what you think we are unable to grasp, but I know that you won't have an answer. Why?

Because I've asked several RF posters over several years to comment on what they mean by spiritual, the spiritual realm, spirits and spiritual beings, and spiritual truths. They can't describe any of it or give examples of any spiritual truths. What should a skeptic conclude from that?
What I find is a sort of arrogance among theists who align to a basic religious framework even though their details differ. That basic framework is operating as a theist with certain assumptions that are treated as truths or factual, yet under questioning and scrutiny there are inadequate answers.

I see many theists refer to a search for truth, understanding, and wisdom, yet then show hostility and aggression when asked for clarification. To my understanding of psychology they are suffering cognitive dissonance and can't reconcile what they want to believe from how it's also irrational and conflicting from actual knowledge.

I see the theist adopting a bad approach where the more they want to believe true in their religious assumptions and beliefs, and the more these beliefs are inconsistent with knowledge and what we perceive, the more the person retreats into the religious illusions, and cannot cross the line to engage with skeptics. How many hard questions asked by skeptics don't get answered?

The wise should know better. One, to not believe in dubious ideas, and two, if the self does believe in dubious ideas protect them by avoiding open debate. I suspect some theists violate this wisdom to use the doubt and skepticism of others to retreat further into their illusion. This is aided by treating skeptics as people who "just don't get it" when in fact we do. It's a further illusion that skeptics "don't get it".

All we don't "get" is the attraction and reliance on the religious illusion.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
I see the physical world is like a mirage, like a vapor in the desert, a semblance of reality.
Well to some degree this is how the brains of all animals work. We do process sensory data via senses that filter out certain things. We humans can't see infrared light, while other animals can. Not all animals can see colors the same. Bats have a sort of radar. But the thing is we have instruments that allow us to see and understand what is real and true about our universe. We humans also have all sorts of emotional and socially learned limitations that teach us to ignore certain realities about our living experience. Many humans prefer a sort of illusion to function within and operate within this sort of box. We all have these biases and only a few work to identify and see beyond these boxes.

We humans can know a lot about what is real and true, and not be so absorbed in our own mental "world" and think we are the center of the universe.

Look at how we are made, for a short time we have material senses, but what are they made up of and how is the mind connected to the 5 senses? It is the intelligence working through the senses that gives the material world its structure.
False, the material world exists outside of our sensory awareness. Your statement here is what I referred to when I said how we get absorbed in our own mental "world". It's a safe space, and it is one that is easily misinformed. It takes a lot of courage to set aside the "self" being the center os all things perceived and understood. It can be a bad habit, comfortable habit.

Yet consider, in our dream state we walk, fly, speak, go to far away places and really exist without and senses.
That sounds like the safe space some need to retreat into what life gets difficult to face head on. I understand some folks have stress they need to escape, but I think these safe mental spaces can be a bad habit that compromises quite a bit from life experience.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Thank you for exemplifying my point, here.

Here is what you're unable to see (accept):
1. We're not all or always seeking 'knowledge'. Some of us are seeking understanding, and wisdom, which is not the same as knowledge (collecting facts).
2. We are not all seeking to eliminate our flaws and fallibility. Some of us are seeking acceptance and forgiveness, instead. Partly because we do not assume that perfection is an attainable, or even desirable goal.
3. The physical world is not the significant factor for those of us who are not of the materialist philosophical bent. It is simply the mechanism from which the 'real world' (that really matters), springs. Understanding the mechanism does not resolve any of the major questions and issues we have about the phenomenon of existence.
Which is why empiricism, although useful, is not nearly so useful as you materialist always and forever assume.

I asked, "I've asked several RF posters over several years to comment on what they mean by spiritual, the spiritual realm, spirits and spiritual beings, and spiritual truths. They can't describe any of it or give examples of any spiritual truths. What should a skeptic conclude from that?"

You declined to answer, but that's fine. YOU exemplified MY point: you have no answers for any of that. But I knew that before I asked, and perhaps shouldn't have phrased it as a question. Perhaps I should just have come out and said explicitly what I already knew from so many previous encounters with people making similar claims.

You also wrote, "They don't get that their beloved empiricism is, itself, a limited and biased method of ascertaining truth," which is why I chose to point out that you have no extra truth. I probably wouldn't have commented at all except that you decided to take a gratuitous shot at those who don't agree that you see further. You don't merely make empty claims for yourself, you do it at the expense of others, who you describe as deficient for not soaring with you.

I see you've moved the goalposts. You were talking about ascertaining truth. Now, suddenly, when asked to explain what truth you ascertained with your non-"materialist" way of seeing further, now you're not "seeking knowledge." Now, you're seeking understanding and wisdom, whatever that is if not knowledge. Now, you're seeking acceptance and forgiveness and speaking of perfection. You're all over the place.

Also, you deride "materialists" because materialism "does not resolve any of the major questions and issues we have about the phenomenon of existence." You have no such answers. Soft thinking cannot discover anything that deserves the names knowledge, wisdom, or understanding. Claiming otherwise, especially by implying that you have discovered a superior way of knowing that lesser minds are blind to, invites others to expose the emptiness of such claims.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I see many theists refer to a search for truth, understanding, and wisdom, yet then show hostility and aggression when asked for clarification. To my understanding of psychology they are suffering cognitive dissonance and can't reconcile what they want to believe from how it's also irrational and conflicting from actual knowledge.

Agreed.

I mentioned earlier that I have been trying to get a better idea for a few years of just what such people are doing and why. Also, why they are so reluctant to explain these things. The little bit of feedback I've gotten suggests that they are involved with a psychological technique that relieves some kind of cognitive dissonance. Perhaps it is a destressing tactic for some, and an escape from reality. There's quite a bit of discussion of other worlds and a higher awareness, which I now understand as wanting to escape mundane existence regularly for whatever reason, a kind of, "Jesus, take me away from all of this!" It's the same sentiment we hear in some hymns:

Some glad morning when this life is o'er,
I'll fly away;
To a home on God's celestial shore,
I'll fly away (I'll fly away).

I'll fly away, Oh Glory
I'll fly away; (in the morning)
When I die, Hallelujah, by and by,
I'll fly away (I'll fly away).

When the shadows of this life have gone,
I'll fly away;
Like a bird from prison bars has flown,
I'll fly away (I'll fly away)​

This gets framed in the language of insight and higher truth, of wisdom and spiritual truth, but as we've seen, there's really none of that there. I have concluded that for most, it's a kind of coping mechanism, a way of managing unpleasant feelings about the here and now, of making the mundane feel sacred. It's related to what I call the bus stop mentality of so many, who seem to be living life as if they were at a bus stop waiting to be taken away to someplace better. These are the people who say that life is hopeless and meaningless without that belief, and describe that as being focused on the spiritual realm, not this material world. Of course, Christianity creates that separation. That's the goal - redirect your attention from the world around you to this imagined realm, which is described as a higher realm made of a finer substance than base matter, hence the elevation of the spiritual over the material even though this other realm is nowhere to be found. One is exhorted to not be attached to this world, even to see his own flesh as a defective cage for his spiritual self, the soul.

It's not just the religious. I know people that are very new agey, who are also continually writing or speaking in magical terms. This is from the Facebook feed of one, a neighbor, regarding the recent holiday: "Mars enters Taurus on July 4th, moving from masculine Fire to feminine Earth. Our force comes not so much from self-orientation, now, as from our alignment with Nature."

And this was in response to overturning Roe: "We live in a time of the narrowing of minds and hardening of hearts and for some that means a return to the old mistakes of trying to restrict, inhibit and diminish the womb, which otherwise has always represented the great feminine force of life. Ancient ideas considered that the womb held, not simply the seed of life, but also the mystery of life."

You can feel the need for magic there - of astrological houses and ancient wisdom about life forces and the mystery of life. I ask myself what need she meets with this, some need she has but I don't. Isn't life magical enough? Here are the books she wanted her Facebook friends to see on her shelf:

290961666_10227643698181635_2298128213705726179_n.jpg


I should mention that she is an acupuncturist. Her website promotes acupuncture, and also "Akashic soul readings" - more magic. Of course, that makes me, a retired physician, the bad guy pushing drugs, "treating symptoms rather than illness," but we don't go there.

You're right about the hostility directed back at those trying to understand them, which is somewhat alien to academic culture, where people are happy to explain their thinking and look to make clear, meaningful comments about it. Why, I wonder. I understand that there are different degrees of linguistic ability, and that many people have difficulty expressing themselves coherently, including university professors, but they don't get angry about being asked what they are thinking.

And that emotionality is interesting, too. It always comes from this other world. I would never get angry at her for offering Akashic soul readings the way she would angrily judge traditional medicine. The RF posters who engage in what I call soft thinking since it lacks the rigor of empiricism, are also visibly disdainful of skeptics. I really don't understand that. My response to them isn't emotional or angry. Why would it be? So, there's something else I can't understand or identify with, but I suspect that it arises from unfamiliarity with what I called academic culture, where such behavior is rebuked as inappropriate, where debate is constructive and friendly rather than experienced as a verbal fight.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
I asked, "I've asked several RF posters over several years to comment on what they mean by spiritual, the spiritual realm, spirits and spiritual beings, and spiritual truths. They can't describe any of it or give examples of any spiritual truths. What should a skeptic conclude from that?"
That they are inarticulate.

A lot of people are very inarticulate about a great many things in life. Especially things that are subtle, and esoteric, and that are better represented by art than by logic and reason. Not to mention that our common language in this area is woefully lacking. You just automatically assumed that it's nothing. That there is nothing in it. That's not skepticism, that's just bias. If you were a skeptic you would have been skeptical of your presuming that there's nothing to it. But you didn't. Instead you were only skeptical about the other guys views and ideas. This is why I thanked you for exemplifying my earlier point about the materialist's selective skepticism.
You declined to answer, but that's fine. YOU exemplified MY point: you have no answers for any of that.
And once again your lack of skepticism betrays you. Just because I offered you no answer doesn't mean I don't have one. Yet you just blindly assumed this, because it supports your bias. Where is that skepticism being applied to your own presumptions? Because I'm not seeing it, here, at all.
But I knew that before I asked, and perhaps shouldn't have phrased it as a question. Perhaps I should just have come out and said explicitly what I already knew from so many previous encounters with people making similar claims.
Perhaps you should open your mind a little, and then try the whole conversation again.
You also wrote, "They don't get that their beloved empiricism is, itself, a limited and biased method of ascertaining truth," which is why I chose to point out that you have no extra truth. I probably wouldn't have commented at all except that you decided to take a gratuitous shot at those who don't agree that you see further. You don't merely make empty claims for yourself, you do it at the expense of others, who you describe as deficient for not soaring with you.
It's not "me" that can see further, it's "we", collectively. But for any of us to share in that extended vision, we have to open ourselves up to it. We have to stop defending the limitations of our own vision against the vision of others. Looking for that "one right way" is effectively like wearing blinders. It's how materialism and empiricism fails us.
I see you've moved the goalposts. You were talking about ascertaining truth. Now, suddenly, when asked to explain what truth you ascertained with your non-"materialist" way of seeing further, now you're not "seeking knowledge." Now, you're seeking understanding and wisdom, whatever that is if not knowledge. Now, you're seeking acceptance and forgiveness and speaking of perfection. You're all over the place.
Each of those words refer to a different condition. You seem to be assuming that they are all supposed to mean the same thing: knowledge, understanding, insight, wisdom, and truth. That's why you're confused. They are each their own condition. Related, of course, but still uniquely themselves.
Also, you deride "materialists" because materialism "does not resolve any of the major questions and issues we have about the phenomenon of existence." You have no such answers.
There are many answers, both true and false, simultaneously. The problem is that you want there to be only one right one. And that's not how it is. So you then reject the questions as meaningless nonsense, but that's not how it is, either. You end up trapped by your own unrelenting and unmet expectations. That's always been the failure of materialist philosophy. Existence is so much more than it can allow.
Soft thinking cannot discover anything that deserves the names knowledge, wisdom, or understanding. Claiming otherwise, especially by implying that you have discovered a superior way of knowing that lesser minds are blind to, invites others to expose the emptiness of such claims.
Yup, there it is ... the self-imposed prison of the materialist mindset.
 
Last edited:

F1fan

Veteran Member
You can feel the need for magic there - of astrological houses and ancient wisdom about life forces and the mystery of life. I ask myself what need she meets with this, some need she has but I don't. Isn't life magical enough? Here are the books she wanted her Facebook friends to see on her shelf:

290961666_10227643698181635_2298128213705726179_n.jpg


I should mention that she is an acupuncturist. Her website promotes acupuncture, and also "Akashic soul readings" - more magic. Of course, that makes me, a retired physician, the bad guy pushing drugs, "treating symptoms rather than illness," but we don't go there.

You're right about the hostility directed back at those trying to understand them, which is somewhat alien to academic culture, where people are happy to explain their thinking and look to make clear, meaningful comments about it. Why, I wonder. I understand that there are different degrees of linguistic ability, and that many people have difficulty expressing themselves coherently, including university professors, but they don't get angry about being asked what they are thinking.
Some decades ago I dated a girl that was the local head of the School of Metaphysics. She was smart and well read. She often was a guest on a morning show of our local NPR station as she did dream analysis and other things.

She was very stable and confident. As we dated we had many debates about the things she believed in and taught. The only times i ever saw her break was during our debates. She had been involved with her school of metaphysics nationally and locally, but never subjected herself to skepticism. She would get rattled. This was the first time I ever saw a "religious" person suffer from the cognitive dissonance of their beliefs against the hard questions of reason. To me it was natural to ask questions, but for her it was something her school did not teach. They had a perspective that was half science half divinity which relied on a load of assumptions.

It was really important for her that I accept what she believed. I don't think it was for my sake, but for her own comfort. This is why I find the claims by many religious folks as a "search for truth" being more of a "search for agreement".
 
Last edited:

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
That they are inarticulate.

Does that include you as well? Because like all of the rest, you also have no answers, no truths to report.

A lot of people are very inarticulate about a great many things in life. Especially things that are subtle, and esoteric, and that are better represented by art than by logic and reason. Not to mention that our common language in this area is woefully lacking. You just automatically assumed that it's nothing.

And I am correct. It's simply not credible that dozens of people are gleaning truth and wisdom, but none can put it into words.

Just because I offered you no answer doesn't mean I don't have one. Yet you just blindly assumed this, because it supports your bias.

You're simply not credible if you cannot produce any of the fruits you claim to receive from spiritual practices. You are expecting me to believe that a person who articulates and defends coherent positions on matters like capitalism and the Republican party suddenly can't find the words or just doesn't feel like writing them? You have my tentative conclusion - there is nothing there but feelings being called truth and wisdom. It is supported by all of the evidence to date, including your words in the quote sections of this post. My position could be easily falsified were it incorrect. And until it is, it is an unrebutted, plausible position. That makes it correct.

I have gleaned several insights in my time on RF. I saw further. And I can easily relate them to you or anybody else. One is the one we're discussing now - my assessment of what people talking about seeing further with a special way of knowing are actually doing. You may not agree with me, but if so, that's because I've given you something clear to disagree with.

Another is that it was here that I came to realize that most people don't know what critical thinking is. Formerly, I thought that people generally knew what it was - a prescribed manner of thinking that generates sound (correct) conclusions that one can know are correct. Since, I've discovered that most hold no such concept. These are the people who don't recognize that expertise exists, and will listen to an uneducated president rather than Fauci or the head of the CDC. These are the people who say, "That's just your opinion" as if all opinions were equal, as if they are all generated the way they get their opinions - guessing. These are the people who call others arrogant for insisting that that some opinions are more informed and thus better than others.

Once again, you might not agree, but that's not the point. The point is that if you could do something analogous, you would, as would the others who make the same claim but never produce

See how easy that is? There is no good reason that haven't you done something similar for your claimed truths apart from that you can't.

Where is that skepticism being applied to your own presumptions? Because I'm not seeing it, here, at all.

I don't think you use that word the way I do. Maybe you meant tentativity in my conclusion. Skepticism in critical thought means not accepting unsupported claims as truth, of such claims needing to pass muster before being believed, and even then, are believed only to the degree that the quantity and quality of available evidence supports, always ready to be revised if new evidence suggest the need. My conclusions presented here fulfill those criteria. The evidence suggests that I am correct about the claims of seeing further. If you could see further, you could demonstrate that vision - like this guy:

A man visits a primitive tribe whose only mathematics is counting. They don't know about adding. Somebody is getting married, and a herd of 36 sheep will be merged with another of 47. The quickest and only way to get a total is to recount the smaller flock starting at 48. Then a man who knows how to add claims to have a better way of knowing that allows him to see further, and he shows them what he sees: 47 + 36 = 83. The chief then does his head count on the smaller flock - "48, 49, 50, [...], 81, 82, 83." The tribe gasps audibly at this sorcery, and then murders the man. OK, that last part didn't need to be in the story to make the point, which is that if one really has access to truth not available to others, he can articulate that truth.

It's not "me" that can see further, it's "we", collectively. But for any of us to share in that extended vision, we have to open ourselves up to it. We have to stop defending the limitations of our own vision against the vision of others. Looking for that "one right way" is effectively like wearing blinders. It's how materialism and empiricism fails us.

Another claim that empiricism is short-sighted absent any substance. Where's the beef?

There are many answers, both true and false, simultaneously.

You also don't use the word answer the way I do. Perhaps that's what you mean when you say that your special way of knowing gives answers. When I say that I'm looking for answers, I am referring only to correct ones - knowledge, not wrong guesses.

Also, nothing is both true and false in the same sense at the same time. It's an axiom of reason, the law of noncontradiction.
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
False, the material world exists outside of our sensory awareness. Your statement here is what I referred to when I said how we get absorbed in our own mental "world". It's a safe space, and it is one that is easily misinformed. It takes a lot of courage to set aside the "self" being the center os all things perceived and understood. It can be a bad habit, comfortable habit.

Consider the world in the light of a Matrix.

When we are born into this world, the womb of our mother exists, but one can see it had its purpose.

This matrix we now live in is serving the purpose of our spiritual birth into the next world of lights. How we develop here, determines our reality in the world's to come.

Consider a rock exists in this world, compare that to the human reality, this is what the Holy books talk about when it compares Life and death. Life is awareness of God, death is a lack of that awareness.

There is many a good talk available on this topic. They give great food for thought.

Regards Tony
 

MikeF

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
IMO

Thank you for exemplifying my point, here.

Here is what you're unable to see (accept):
1. We're not all or always seeking 'knowledge'. Some of us are seeking understanding, and wisdom, which is not the same as knowledge (collecting facts).
2. We are not all seeking to eliminate our flaws and fallibility. Some of us are seeking acceptance and forgiveness, instead. Partly because we do not assume that perfection is an attainable, or even desirable goal.
3. The physical world is not the significant factor for those of us who are not of the materialist philosophical bent. It is simply the mechanism from which the 'real world' (that really matters), springs. Understanding the mechanism does not resolve any of the major questions and issues we have about the phenomenon of existence.
Which is why empiricism, although useful, is not nearly so useful as you materialist always and forever assume.

What you advocate here is some type of fictionalism. For some who advocate for fictionalism, the assertion is that human beings require fictional, artificial constructs of reality to function and cope, for humanity cannot handle the reality of a purposeless and uncaring cosmos. Is this your view?

I do not disagree that we must create our own purpose, both individually and societally. What I don't understand is why it cannot be grounded in actual reality and be a progressive and adaptable purpose. Must the illusion of purpose be some universal imposed on humanity from an imagined external source? Why can we not set our own purpose and meaning, and admit it to ourselves?

As I have said before, when you create an imagined external source with which to give life meaning and purpose, anyone can imagine alternate and conflicting sources and meanings to life. I think it is much better in the long-run to acknowledge and accept that it is we, ourselves, that is setting the meaning and purpose for our lives and take responsibility for actions and outcomes based on those self-assigned purposes and meanings, and be willing to make changes and adjustments as we go along to refine and improve them.
 
Last edited:

PureX

Veteran Member
IMO

What you advocate here is some type of fictionalism. For some who advocate for fictionalism, the assertion is that human beings require fictional, artificial constructs of reality to function and cope, for humanity cannot handle the reality of a purposeless and uncaring cosmos. Is this your view?
YOU are "fiction". That which we refer to as "you" are a whole collection of fictional presumptions happening in the minds of everyone that encounters "you", everyone that hears of your existence, and even in your own mind. We all are. Just as what we call "reality" is also an elaborate fiction that we imagined in our minds in response to our actual experiences of ... whatever is out there and apart from us. Based on how we determined to understand those experiences. To be human is to be a 'story-maker'. And for most of us most of the time, it's also about 'believing in' our own stories.
I do not disagree that we must create our own purpose, both individually and societally. What I don't understand is why it cannot be grounded in actual reality and be a progressive and adaptable purpose.
Our chosen purposes ARE grounded in "actual reality". Or, at least, grounded in our experiences of actual reality, and in our fictionalized understanding of it. But that's the rub. "Actual reality" is fictionalized reality to we humans. We can't help it. It's who we are and what we are and how we function. We are story-makers. And everyone has a little bit different piece of the story to tell.
Must the illusion of purpose be some universal imposed on humanity from an imagined external source? Why can we not set our own purpose and meaning, and admit it to ourselves?
Well, we are all doing that. But some of us really, really don;t want to acknowledge that. They want to believe that their purpose was given to them from 'on high'. That's a very big and important part of their story. I suppose because it gives their purpose extra importance, and extra meaning. Which then helps them stick to it.

I don't know, really, because that's not part of my story. My story has me determining the purpose and choosing to follow it. But I'm not everyone and everyone isn't me. So other people do it differently. And it is their story, so ... why not?
As I have said before, when you create an imagined external source with which to give life meaning and purpose, anyone can imagine alternate and conflicting sources and meanings to life.
So what? There is no law that says our stories have to agree. That we all have to live for the same purpose. In fact, it may well be that we are far stronger and wiser for our not agreeing on the same story. Even with the conflict it causes, we still get introduced to perspectives that we would never have been able to dream up on our own. And they each represent a new possibility. Even if we decide to reject it.
I think it is much better in the long-run to acknowledge and accept that it is we, ourselves, that is setting the meaning and purpose for our lives and take responsibility for actions and outcomes based on those self-assigned purposes and meanings, and be willing to make changes and adjustments as we go along to refine and improve them.
I agree. But that and a 10 dollar bill will get us a cup of coffee. :)

As my friend Jay is so fond of saying; "there are many closets in my father's mansion".
 

MikeF

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
YOU are "fiction". That which we refer to as "you" are a whole collection of fictional presumptions happening in the minds of everyone that encounters "you", everyone that hears of your existence, and even in your own mind. We all are. Just as what we call "reality" is also an elaborate fiction that we imagined in our minds in response to our actual experiences of ... whatever is out there and apart from us. Based on how we determined to understand those experiences. To be human is to be a 'story-maker'. And for most of us most of the time, it's also about 'believing in' our own stories.

That you have used terms in quotations tells me that we have some agreement in the demarcation between physical reality and our thoughts. We can also demarcate between thoughts that correspond to, or are representative of reality, that are possible in our world of experience, from those concepts that are purely abstract, purely fictional, or impossible in our world of experience.

MikeF said: ↑
Must the illusion of purpose be some universal imposed on humanity from an imagined external source? Why can we not set our own purpose and meaning, and admit it to ourselves?

Well, we are all doing that. But some of us really, really don;t want to acknowledge that. They want to believe that their purpose was given to them from 'on high'. That's a very big and important part of their story. I suppose because it gives their purpose extra importance, and extra meaning. Which then helps them stick to it.
I don't know, really, because that's not part of my story. My story has me determining the purpose and choosing to follow it. But I'm not everyone and everyone isn't me. So other people do it differently. And it is their story, so ... why not?

Creating abstract constructs such as political and economic systems that represent shared agreements in societies is not the same as creating imaginary entities and treating them as real and existent things.

What individuals believe affects and influences the societal choices they make. If everyone isn't in agreement that we are making group value choices ourselves, rather, some adopt a belief in an immutable, unchallengeable, universal entity that dictates immutable and unchallengeable values, how are we to ever reconcile differences, compromise and form consensus? What individuals believe can affect all of us.

MikeF said: ↑
As I have said before, when you create an imagined external source with which to give life meaning and purpose, anyone can imagine alternate and conflicting sources and meanings to life.

So what? There is no law that says our stories have to agree. That we all have to live for the same purpose. In fact, it may well be that we are far stronger and wiser for our not agreeing on the same story. Even with the conflict it causes, we still get introduced to perspectives that we would never have been able to dream up on our own. And they each represent a new possibility. Even if we decide to reject it.

From a secular perspective I agree with you whole-heartedly. :)

Diversity in government, in addressing social problems, all allow for exploration and experimentation in finding better solutions. I think having tiered systems of government (local, state, national) can help foster this kind of social problem solving as well.

Immutable entities that fix social values and morays only stagnates society.

MikeF said: ↑
I think it is much better in the long-run to acknowledge and accept that it is we, ourselves, that is setting the meaning and purpose for our lives and take responsibility for actions and outcomes based on those self-assigned purposes and meanings, and be willing to make changes and adjustments as we go along to refine and improve them.

I agree. But that and a 10 dollar bill will get us a cup of coffee. :)
As my friend Jay is so fond of saying; "there are many closets in my father's mansion".

If you agree with my statement, then surely you don't begrudge my advocating for it. :)

Given the trends of religious belief in Europe, it seems that religious belief in and of itself is not a requirement for human existence. If you agree that it is preferable to have value systems that can be refined and improved, then surely it is preferable to move away from immutable universals.
 

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
Language, Sense perception, Emotion, Reason, Imagination, Faith, Intuition and Memory. These are 8 ways of knowing. There is no only one way of knowing.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
The problem is that you want there to be only one right one. And that's not how it is. So you then reject the questions as meaningless nonsense, but that's not how it is, either. You end up trapped by your own unrelenting and unmet expectations. That's always been the failure of materialist philosophy. Existence is so much more than it can allow.
Yup, there it is ... the self-imposed prison of the materialist mindset.
That is not correct. The right one does not come that easily. What skeptics want is to get as close to the right one as possible with the evidence available. We know the short comings in our knowledge but do not fill the gaps with rubbish.
This matrix we now live in is serving the purpose of our spiritual birth into the next world of lights.
There is no evidence of that, Tony.
Language, Sense perception, Emotion, Reason, Imagination, Faith, Intuition and Memory. These are 8 ways of knowing. There is no only one way of knowing.
I will leave out emotion, imagination and faith. But then, whatever comes to our knowledge must be weighed against evidence. There is no escaping that.
 
Last edited:

PureX

Veteran Member
Creating abstract constructs such as political and economic systems that represent shared agreements in societies is not the same as creating imaginary entities and treating them as real and existent things.
Please keep in mind that this assumption that an imagined God does not correspond to actuality is YOUR story. Your fiction. In truth you have no more proof that this is so than they have that it isn't. People tend to automatically assume that their story of what is and what is not IS what is. But it's not. It's just another story we made up in response to what we experience.
What individuals believe affects and influences the societal choices they make. If everyone isn't in agreement that we are making group value choices ourselves, rather, some adopt a belief in an immutable, unchallengeable, universal entity that dictates immutable and unchallengeable values, how are we to ever reconcile differences, compromise and form consensus? What individuals believe can affect all of us.
Why do you keep assuming that we are supposed to "reconcile our differences"? Compromise and form consensus? Why not just accept that we each invent our own piece of the story, and respect that in doing so we are stronger and wiser than had we all been always telling the same story?
From a secular perspective I agree with you whole-heartedly. :)

Diversity in government, in addressing social problems, all allow for exploration and experimentation in finding better solutions. I think having tiered systems of government (local, state, national) can help foster this kind of social problem solving as well.

Immutable entities that fix social values and morays only stagnates society.
That is your bias. And it's no more valid than any other. There are many ways to solve a problem. Some ways agree with your story, and some do not. Yet the problems get solved just the same. I am not religious, but I'd be a liar if I said religion did not help a huge number of humans solve their particular problems.
Given the trends of religious belief in Europe, it seems that religious belief in and of itself is not a requirement for human existence. If you agree that it is preferable to have value systems that can be refined and improved, then surely it is preferable to move away from immutable universals.
That's just ridiculous. Humans everywhere and throughout time have used the ideal of God/gods to center their concepts of reality. No current trend in Europe changes that fact. It's a huge apart of who we are.
 
Last edited:

PureX

Veteran Member
That is not correct. The right one does not come that easily. What skeptics want is to get as close to the right one as possible with the evidence available. We know the short comings in our knowledge but do not fill the gaps with rubbish.There is no evidence of that, Tony.I will leave out emotion, imagination and faith. But then, whatever comes to our knowledge must be weighed against evidence. There is no escaping that.
There is no "right one". That's just a blind assumption on your part. Once you finally are able to accept that, you can stop dismissing everyone else's story of reality as "rubbish".
 

MikeF

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Please keep in mind that this assumption that an imagined God does not correspond to actuality is YOUR story. Your fiction. In truth you have no more proof that this is so than they have that it isn't. People tend to automatically assume that their story of what is and what is not IS what is. But it's not. It's just another story we made up in response to what we experience.
Why do you keep assuming that we are supposed to "reconcile our differences"? Compromise and form consensus? Why not just accept that we each invent our own piece of the story, and respect that in doing so we are stronger and wiser than had we all been always telling the same story?
That is your bias. And it's no more valid than any other. There are many ways to solve a problem. Some ways agree with your story, and some do not. Yet the problems get solved just the same. I am not religious, but I'd be a liar if I said religion did not help a huge number of humans solve their particular problems.
That's just ridiculous. Humans everywhere and throughout time have used the ideal of God/gods to center their concepts of reality. No current trend in Europe changes that fact. It's a huge apart of who we are.

I advocate reconciliation, compromise, and consensus because we all have to live together and we have to agree with one another on how best to do that.

Many Trump supporters seem to believe that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump and that Trump actually won that election. Should we be accepting of their beliefs and not challenge them in any way?

If some individuals find strength and purpose in seeing their particular race as superior and privileged and they proactively work to order society in a way that reflects that belief, should we be accepting and tolerant of such beliefs?

You seem to argue that any and all beliefs are equally valid. Is that correct?
 

PureX

Veteran Member
I advocate reconciliation, compromise, and consensus because we all have to live together and we have to agree with one another on how best to do that.
We can kill each other trying to force everyone to abide by 'the one right story', or we can accept and respect that we are all going to develop our own stories and it's not about who's story is right, but about balancing mutual cooperation and autonomy regardless of our stories.
Many Trump supporters seem to believe that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump and that Trump actually won that election. Should we be accepting of their beliefs and not challenge them in any way?
There is nothing we can do about what they believe. We have no control over that. All we can do is protect everyone from everyone else's invasive behavior. Or not, and battle it out to determine who gets to claim the "right story".
You seem to argue that any and all beliefs are equally valid. Is that correct?
Valid according to what? They are all valid according to those that hold them, and invalid according to those who hold to a different story. This is what we need to finally accept, and accommodate.

We are all still deriving our stories from our experience of existing, though, so that is bound to limit and determine the stories we invent. And help keep us unified. We are all as much the same as we are different, after all.
 
Last edited:

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I'm seeing two different approaches to life and reality here. @MikeF and @Aupmanyav (and I would add myself) represent what I would call the humanist trend, with an emphasis on empiricism (a rejection of faith) and community (mutual understanding). On the other hand, @PureX represents the religious trend: "You can't prove their god doesn't exist" and a general acceptance of invented realities being just as good as any other. "We all invent our own realities, our own fictions." "Valid according to what? They are all valid according to those that hold them." That's alien to the other tradition, which is common reality oriented.

"There is nothing we can do about what they believe. We have no control over that." That's correct, but the degree to which that's true in America (maybe everywhere else, too) seems new. Never have I felt so disconnected from so many, and have no expectation that talk can make a difference any more. Reconcile with the election hoax people, the antivaxxers, the climate deniers, Republican voters, the gun people, and the anti-choice people? Not possible. They simply don't possess the interest or skills to do that.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
I'm seeing two different approaches to life and reality here. @MikeF and @Aupmanyav (and I would add myself) represent what I would call the humanist trend, with an emphasis on empiricism (a rejection of faith) and community (mutual understanding). On the other hand, @PureX represents the religious trend: "You can't prove their god doesn't exist" and a general acceptance of invented realities being just as good as any other. "We all invent our own realities, our own fictions." "Valid according to what? They are all valid according to those that hold them." That's alien to the other tradition, which is common reality oriented.

"There is nothing we can do about what they believe. We have no control over that." That's correct, but the degree to which that's true in America (maybe everywhere else, too) seems new. Never have I felt so disconnected from so many, and have no expectation that talk can make a difference any more. Reconcile with the election hoax people, the antivaxxers, the climate deniers, Republican voters, the gun people, and the anti-choice people? Not possible. They simply don't possess the interest or skills to do that.
Maybe try meeting them where they are, and as they are, instead of always insisting that your understanding of reality IS reality. Because it isn't. It's just one story among many, based on your own experiences, the same as everyone else's is. Actual reality will defend itself. And will be what it is regardless. And we will all have to abide by that. But how we choose to interpret it and what meaning we ascribe to it is up to us. Because that's who we are, and how we are.

We humans are story makers, and story tellers. We ARE fiction. Our very existence IS fictional. Our identity is fictional. Our culture is fictional. Our sense of love and justice are fictional. Without the story of us we are just a bunch of hairless apes. But because we can imagine ourselves to be so much more then that, we ARE so much more then that. Our fiction is what makes us great, and makes us human.

Yet philosophical materialism keeps trying to dismiss all that fiction as nothing. As nonsense. As irrelevant fantasy. It's materialism that is inhumane, not religion. Religions are profoundly human, even when they are being abused.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
There is no "right one". That's just a blind assumption on your part. Once you finally are able to accept that, you can stop dismissing everyone else's story of reality as "rubbish".
I am not concerned with what view others have. I was stating my position. "I don't fill gaps with rubbnish". I will wait for more information to be available.
We humans are story makers, and story tellers. We ARE fiction. Our very existence IS fictional. Our identity is fictional. Our culture is fictional. Our sense of love and justice are fictional. Without the story of us we are just a bunch of hairless apes.
I agree with you there. I do not even believe in existence of universe, birth and death,; since I am an 'advaitist' (believer in non-duality). But I do not feel like a hair-less ape. I remain a human. :D
 
Last edited:
Top