|
| Thread: The Spirituality Thread |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted March 06, 2005 09:04 AM |
|
|
Ugh...
This would be a good time for me to admit how little I know about this stuff. In fact I was confused about 3 posts down and 1.5 paragraphs into the discussion. A good poster also knows when he doesn't know beans about 4-square....yes that's it exactly. This may not be the rocket science thread but my brain still feels like it's trying to compute some sort of complex mathematical equation when reading it. This thread is making me think waaaaaay too much. My brain can't handle this. **skull hurts** I hope you guys will understand if I keep quiet for this one.
Excuse my interruption. So please continue...with the stuff....the spiritual stuff....**head-throbbing**
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
Shiva
Promising
Famous Hero
|
posted March 06, 2005 01:46 PM |
|
Edited By: Shiva on 6 Mar 2005
|
Quote:
I expected to get such feedback from most of the people on HC when I wrote that post.
Yes, I noticed what you said. I just dont know if u've noticed how no one sees what you see. We humans see, what scientists see; other perceptions by non-scientists are usually proven to be illusionary. Because perceptions, my friend, are in the bottomline subjective, not objective. Scientists come closest to objectiveness when it comes to perception, so dont prescribe me arrogance for something which is common sense.
As for the existance of more than we know, of course we allow it, we just dont take it for granted based on hollow beliefs, for Invisible Pink Unicorn's sake.
Never said I was looking for a Pink Unicorn, invisble or
not. That is your sceptics mind talking. My only stated
goal is that the mind should become quiet, and one can
then act from awareness, not from habit pattern. Trust
me, its goal not easily attained and I dont say I'm all
the way there. To get there, I use meditation as a technique of discipline.
Scientific fact changes, from flat world to round as new
info comes in. Those who suspect a divine intelligence
perhaps do so from observing an intricate pattern in
creation. All those scientific laws came from somewhere,
chaos is a more likely outcome from a randomn creation.
God does not play dice with the universe after all.
It is not true that science and spiritual thinking
needs to be at odds with eachother. That is a hold
over from the days when the RC church excommnuicated
people for opposing views. Creationism and evolution
actually fit together better than most people think, if
they could step out side the concepts their minds hold. All this came from somewhere (creation), and nobody is sure where. You can think science is the be all and end all of progressive thought, but it too becomes the RC Church of the present as it holds to what it thinks to be true, not allowing greater possibilities.
As far as your perceptions being objective, I think if
you could remove Karl Marx from your brain, maybe you
would see more clearly 
____________
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted March 07, 2005 12:42 AM |
|
Edited By: Svarog on 6 Mar 2005
|
Apparently, you havent been listening to what I say, so what the heck, i wont get in a cycle of repetition. just few things...
Quote:
Those who suspect a divine intelligence
perhaps do so from observing an intricate pattern in
creation. All those scientific laws came from somewhere,
chaos is a more likely outcome from a randomn creation.
God does not play dice with the universe after all.
Few points here. Rationalist attempts to give religion any scientific authority has been proven ridicilous ever since Hume, so please, not here, not now.
Chaos may indeed be an outcome of randomness, so let me tell you that both concepts of chaos and randomness are studied in physics and considered legitimate scientific theories.
On the issue if God plays dice or not, allow me inform you with a 50 years delay, that Einstein lost that battle, and thanks to the Quantum theory (for now) we know that God is one hell of a gambler.
Quote:
You can think science is the be all and end all of progressive thought, but it too becomes the RC Church of the present as it holds to what it thinks to be true, not allowing greater possibilities.
An extremely inadequate comparisson. Science doesnt approach anything with the pre-intention to prove its dogmas, but rather to find ways to disprove them.
If you're interested in this topic check this thread out (where defreni still owes me a reply  ):
http://heroescommunity.com/viewthread.php3?FID=10&TID=13684
Quote:
As far as your perceptions being objective, I think if
you could remove Karl Marx from your brain, maybe you
would see more clearly
lol. Oh come on, you can undermine my integrity better than that. Simply because some of my claims are direct opposites of Marxist thought.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Shiva
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted March 07, 2005 01:27 AM |
|
Edited By: Shiva on 6 Mar 2005
|
My dear Svarog, I don't answer you on purpose. Its mostly
because you don't care for answers, you just want to argue
your vision of scientific rationalism. Its a kind of mental
masturbation without resolution. Every time someone starts
a thread with a "spiritual" tinge, you jump in ready to
tear it apart, with out really adding anything constructive. If you have no respect for the subject, then stay away .
I will try, however, to let you know that some physicists
are turning to a rather mystical outlook. Here is one:
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Quantum/qmeta.html
I could provide more links, but I'll let you research the
subject on your own. The point being, in this article,
is that whether or not there is a proof for spirit, his
mind is open to looking and exploring the subject.
Edit: another link
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Philosophy-Fritjof-Capra.htm
____________
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted March 07, 2005 03:08 AM |
|
Edited By: Svarog on 6 Mar 2005
|
Quote:
My dear Svarog, I don't answer you on purpose. Its mostly
because you don't care for answers, you just want to argue
your vision of scientific rationalism. Its a kind of mental
masturbation without resolution. Every time someone starts
a thread with a "spiritual" tinge, you jump in ready to
tear it apart, with out really adding anything constructive. If you have no respect for the subject, then stay away.
Aha, so while I try to share my view on the matter, thats intepreted as "not being constructive" (apparently because I dont agree with the majority), and I am told to stay away because of that. At the same time, I am told I dont care for answers and the debate and you admit you're the one who doesnt answer on purpose. Wait, theres more. I am accused that I want to argue my vision. Well, whose else's vision I should argue for? Extreme...
My dear Shiva, if you arent used to a normal democratic way of sharing opinions and debate, thats your problem and I dont care at all. 
Quote:
The point being, in this article,
is that whether or not there is a proof for spirit, his
mind is open to looking and exploring the subject.
The point of the article is more likely to show how the unexplored realm of reality is (ab)used to support philosophical (thus speculative) claims of dualists and holists. If you think this article in any way supports your position, you're mistaken. Nobody's mind is closed for anything, no one thinks science has reached its end, I already told you that, but at this point, all those theories are unproven, entirely rationalist (therefore, not scientific), and represent in fact the still healthy balloons I was talking about.
By definition, no balloon can turn solid. Therefore, i have no reason to believe some balloons secretly are solid (like you do), even though I dont a priori reject the possibility, until there's definite counterevidence. Now you think about it twice, and say who's the one with the open mind.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Asmodean
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Heroine at the weekend.
|
|
posted March 07, 2005 11:19 AM |
|
|
Modhat.
Quote:
By definition, no balloon can turn solid.
Except the metaphorical lead balloon, which is what this thread will become if this turn into a wrangling match.
We're all quite used to debated becoming heated here in the Other Side, and we can usually keep a modicum of respect and restraint during them, even if people feel that the issue being discussed is quite personal them.
However criticising someone's debating technique while refusing to engage them in discussion is counter to what the Other Side of the Monitor Forum is here for.
Shiva, we don't all have to adopt the same tone or mindset when we discuss these issues, and rather than trying to exclude a member from the thread, why not engage them in a different way to try and bring them closer to the issues you want to discuss rather than saying 'ok - I don't wanna play with you anymore'
[/modhat]
____________
To err is human, to arr is pirate.
|
|
Shiva
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted March 07, 2005 05:31 PM |
|
Edited By: Shiva on 7 Mar 2005
|
Maybe so Asmodean. I think a better idea is for Svarog
to start a thread Scientific Rationalism vs Spirituality.
This thread is more of a discussion about the Spirit not
a debate about whether anybody who thinks that way is deluded. There have been other threads with a philosophical
spiritual side that have been hi-jacked by Svarog and thus
wind up dead, as no doubt this one will now.
Having traveled that road before with Svarog, I'm simply
not interested in doing it again. Its a dead end. I did initiate a pm exchange last night with him , and some stuff was worked out. Mostly its that we disagree.
____________
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted March 08, 2005 01:03 AM |
|
|
Who are you to define what aspect of spirituality is to be discussed here? I wanted to add some thought to Khaelo's discussion already going on about the nature and difference between religion and spirituality, and my post was in that direction. Besides, most threads in here start out as one thing and evolve into anything for which there is interest to be discussed. Wanna talk about your ghosts? go ahead, ignore me and post.
Unfortunately, you cant do that now, because as I have ruined other threads with my posts before, the curse of Svarog is upon this thread too, so I decree no further posting shall be allowed here, finishing with this one. So go on, this thread is over. Shoo!
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Shiva
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted March 08, 2005 01:55 AM |
|
|
Dear Svarog
Who am I ? That was the subject here, but you already know the answer to that, don’t you? I mean, you know who you are. Some hydrogen atoms, oxygen atoms etc. that by some strange happenstance coalesced into Svarog. Out of all the possibilities in the quantum universe, what are the odds that Svarog should be born? Not only be born, but be born as a someone who likes to rape aardvarks in the morning. I say they are pretty slim, unless you take into account the humor of creation that would allow such a thing to be.
Its that sense of humor that makes me think there is an
Intelligence underlying all this. I mean, take a good look in the mirror and tell me this isn’t a joke. Have a good laugh, a laugh that actually isn’t rational at all, because we laugh when the serious layer of thought is stripped away and we see ourselves exposed in all our frailty.
Frail yet noble, at least the possibility of nobility is there. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not referring to the feudal system or something, but to the inherent hero and heroine that lies beneath the weak humanity, which surfaces when one least expects. A saving grace..ooops, sorry don’t mean to use the word grace, that’s getting to close to fantasy. After all, we are never graced, no, intelligence came to those random molecules of our body by chance, just out of the blue, for no reason at all. Well, maybe for the reason that we can argue about why it's happenned endlessly.
But besides all those inexplicable accidents of creation..oops sorry again, creation, we weren’t created, we were assembled from some incredible mechano set that works with robotic fervor behind all this. Works how? Aw, who cares it just works we don’t have to think of how. Anyway, besides all those..er.. accidents..By the way? When you see the spiral in daisy, what do you think? When you feel love for someone, supposing you
do feel love, what do you think? When you look out at the stars at that ever expanding (or collapsing) sky, what do you think? When you ponder the paradox of the singularity, can you still think? In otherwords, have you ever stopped thinking and just experienced? Purely experienced without your mind saying its this or that? I beseech you to try..bet ya can’t
____________
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted March 08, 2005 04:08 AM |
|
Edited By: Svarog on 7 Mar 2005
|
Quote:
Purely experienced without your mind saying its this or that? I beseech you to try..bet ya can’t
lol. Dear Shiva, you have no idea how inverse the roles are. Its not me who rejects possibilities for what reality is, based on how much one dislikes them or how much they seem unlogical.
The argument you just gave (the design argument) was refuted in the 17th century by a philosopher called David Hume. Here's a link for a short summary of it (look under Grand plan): http://www.thoughtware.com.au/philosophy/philref/PHILOS.28B.html
And say welcome to my new sig - inspired from this thread:
"Philosophy is to science what masturbation is to sex." - Karl Marx
here's 1 more:
"Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possible avoid it, "But how can it be like that?" because you will get "down the drain," into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that." - Richard Feynman
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Shiva
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted March 08, 2005 01:33 PM |
|
Edited By: Shiva on 8 Mar 2005
|
Quote:
The argument you just gave (the design argument) was refuted in the 17th century by a philosopher called David Hume. Here's a link for a short summary of it (look under Grand plan): http://www.thoughtware.com.au/philosophy/philref/PHILOS.28B.html
And say welcome to my new sig - inspired from this thread:
"Philosophy is to science what masturbation is to sex." - Karl Marx
here's 1 more:
"Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possible avoid it, "But how can it be like that?" because you will get "down the drain," into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that." - Richard Feynman
well lets see, it says " that a few laws explain that design"..laws? Laws imply order, order implies
intelliegence.
Or as Feyman said, nobody has escaped from that "how can it be" because nobody knows how it can be. There is a limit to human explanations and understanding. If you say its based on this law, I say good, whatever that law is, but you cannot tell me where that law came from. Basically, Feyman has supported that mystery with his statement.
The only question, again is whether you believe that unknown is a random event or there is an intelligence behind it. Your belief in randomness is as much a speculation as mine in intelligence, only you are to blind with your own seeming knowledge to admit it.
Svarog, you can laugh derisively, you can masturbate
forever, but you still have no explanation for what life
really is. As science is your god and rational thinking
is your religion, you sacrifice your joy and wonderment
at the mystery of life for the feeble thought that you
can explain it all in an equation. Which you can't.
As for Karl Marx, lets face it, nothing is so deluded
as a communist in todays worlds who cant admit the
communist experiment failed. The few elements of
socialism that have been widely adopted in the world
have benfited many, but it failed because Marx
never understood human nature, and the need for reward.
So any statement by him is flawed, as his whole way
of thinking is seriously flawed. But do keep
masturbating, maybe you'll grow some hair on your hands
____________
|
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
|
posted March 08, 2005 01:44 PM |
|
|
-Or some place else .
Then again some people adnired Marx
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted March 08, 2005 07:56 PM |
|
|
Quote:
As for Karl Marx, lets face it, nothing is so deluded
as a communist in todays worlds who cant admit the
communist experiment failed. The few elements of
socialism that have been widely adopted in the world
have benfited many, but it failed because Marx
never understood human nature, and the need for reward.
So any statement by him is flawed, as his whole way
of thinking is seriously flawed. But do keep
masturbating, maybe you'll grow some hair on your hand...
Now, what shall we do about the fact of growing evidence that global capitalism is a success only unto itself, that the human race it presumably serves is being consumed by multinational corporatism, the environment is being destroyed, cultures incompatible with the capitalist ethic are being economically segmented, assimilated against their will or wiped out altogether, and I can't find a frigging job in America despite fourteen years of professional experience?
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Conan
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted March 08, 2005 08:25 PM |
|
|
Svarog, you posted in your first post:
Quote:
Why is there the urge in some people to present spirituality as a more rational alternative to religion? Its clear that most/all religious beliefs havent withstood the test of scientific verification. [...] as long as we wait for science to tear down the spider web of our own imagination in which we have entangled ourselves, there’s a dreadful possibility that humanity will forever be victim of that fictitious spider. And it is precisely here that we should be looking for the answer: How come “spiritual people” claim they differ so much from “religious people”, enough to be considered “enlightened and in consistency with on-going science”. They get rid of the puffed balloons as “religious anachronism”, but they keep holding up high all the remaining ones as “spiritual wisdom”. The truth is they are all filled with nothing but thin air.
I don't consider spirituality to be a rational thing. You are right, most/all religious beliefs havent withstood the test of scientific verification. And here, since you put spirituality and religion in the same boat, I conclude you speak also of spirituality. But I tell you this: when the church was in power in the middle ages, there was very little science. Knowledge of spirituality or our connection with consciousness was limited to the Church and what it said. Amid the corruption of the Church, people realized that such a corrupt organisation could not seriously give us our true meaning. So we turned to science. We gave science the power to solve every problem, to have all the questions. But centuries after, we find that some questions remain that we cannot find answers to. Some realize that science is not so powerfull afterall.
So what do we do? We the Church and it did not work. We had science and now it seems not able to give answers to everything. Yet the Quest continues... Science will never be able to untangle the web, as you put it. And as you said, we are victim of this spider, albeit not fictionnal. The quest to find the Truth, the answers to who we are, cannot be found in science. And this is where my beleifs come in; I believe that this quest is "spirituality"
I define myself to be spiritual. Although not "enlightened". That would be a judgement, and not up to me to decide. You can call it a religion of 1: me. But to be filled with thin air? why? Again, when you say that these are beliefs, I tell you I can see these "beliefs" with my own eyes. To me, it is real. As real as the computer you are typing on. You cannot tell me that what I see is created in my own brain because the same goes for the computer infront of your face. If my spirituality is filled with thin air balloons, so is your belief that you are typing on a computer.
____________
Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward, you will service.... us. - Star Trek TNG
|
|
Shiva
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted March 08, 2005 11:55 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Now, what shall we do about the fact of growing evidence that global capitalism is a success only unto itself, that the human race it presumably serves is being consumed by multinational corporatism, the environment is being destroyed, cultures incompatible with the capitalist ethic are being economically segmented, assimilated against their will or wiped out altogether, and I can't find a frigging job in America despite fourteen years of professional experience?
Peacemaker, I'm not a fan of corporate capitalism either.
And I do sympathize with your position. Please understand
these comments were made to Svarog, and debating with him
is basically like total war, no holds barred
I think any system would work provided the people within
it were not ethically bankrupt. Its not the system in the
end that fails as much as the people who fall victim to
their own greed and lust for power. Therefore, I don't
particularly consider myself socialistic, capitalistic
or anything else. There are points in each that make sense.
____________
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted March 09, 2005 12:42 AM |
|
|
Agreed.
Shiva, you'll learn something about me. I can't stand it when my friends fight.
I always butt in.
(LOL)
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted March 09, 2005 05:42 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The only question, again is whether you believe that unknown is a random event or there is an intelligence behind it. Your belief in randomness is as much a speculation as mine in intelligence, only you are to blind with your own seeming knowledge to admit it.
Did I say anywhere that I believe the world began randomly? You assumed it yourself from the very start. When the unknown is concerned I don’t believe anything (like all scientists do), that’s why its unknown. U are the one who believes based on your subjective “experience”, and its you who has the burden of proof. Inducing from history, none of your kind has ever proven the “spiritual theories” (my claim – they are impossible to prove; see previous posts), but yet still, I don’t reject them, just cant accept them. Please, if you want to continue the debate, read and understand what I was saying, before repeating over and over what I already responded to.
Quote:
As science is your god and rational thinking
is your religion, you sacrifice your joy and wonderment
at the mystery of life for the feeble thought that you
can explain it all in an equation. Which you can't.
Were you even reading any of what I wrote or did you just read the first lines and said: “Aha, I know what this is… He’s an atheist who thinks he knows all.” and continued typing? I despise rational thinking, a philosophical system opposite of what I rely on when it comes to obtaining knowledge, and that is empiricism (knowledge from experience). You are the rationalist by throwing up rational arguments, such as the design argument (and that’s a badly formulated one, even for a rational argument ). Your mind cant let you believe that its possible there was only matter, so you reject it. That’s classical rationalism. Empiricism has never pointed to the existence of spirit, therefore I have no reason to believe it.
Quote:
As for Karl Marx, lets face it, nothing is so deluded
as a communist in todays worlds who cant admit the
communist experiment failed.
I understand you’re new and don’t know what my opinions on particular subjects are, but that doesn’t justify you assuming them. U r actually arguing it with urself.
@ Conan,
Quote:
So what do we do? We the Church and it did not work. We had science and now it seems not able to give answers to everything. Yet the Quest continues...
You don’t expect to get the answers of everything, do u? Its impossible. Science has been successful in its mission of “interpreting the world to suit practical human needs”. From the dawn of civilization, all technological advancements have been results to the advancement in the scientific comprehension of the world. Spirituality doesnt have a practical implementation concerning surrounding phenomena, and is therefore useless when it comes to that. It is valid only on intrapersonal level (when it comes to psychology).
Quote:
But to be filled with thin air? why? Again, when you say that these are beliefs, I tell you I can see these "beliefs" with my own eyes. To me, it is real. As real as the computer you are typing on. You cannot tell me that what I see is created in my own brain because the same goes for the computer infront of your face.
Excellent point. I agree. But whats the difference between the two? If I gathered a team of scientists to see me typing, they’d all confirm what I see. In fact all people in the world would confirm what I see. While the computer may still not be real, it would be irrelevant, since as far as we as humans are concerned, its most convenient for us due to practical purposes to assume it’s real. Science is in a way the same thing; in my opinion, scientific theories don’t reflect objective reality, but serve as an instrument for prediction about the world, and that’s whats important. (this is called instrumentalism in philosophy of science)
If your spirituality was to predict anything about the outside world, then it would be valid to say that it gives answers. If we called a team of scientists (or experts of ur area, psychics, if u like ), they wouldn’t be able to see the same that you see, and consequently there’s no way they could unanimously make a prediction. When you cant make even a basic prediction using your spiritual guidance, its too ambitious to even think you can understand the complex structure which causes such predictable phenomena happen. (take for example “positive and negative energies”; can u predict and demonstrate any phenomenon concerning them, which could persuade people in the practical relevance of your theories? I don’t think so. Well, scientists can, and that’s why we choose to believe them.)
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Conan
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted March 09, 2005 07:43 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If your spirituality was to predict anything about the outside world, then it would be valid to say that it gives answers. If we called a team of scientists (or experts of ur area, psychics, if u like ), they wouldn’t be able to see the same that you see, and consequently there’s no way they could unanimously make a prediction.
That's why I say that in the spiritual area, science is not the proper tool. But, if you have a group of highly spiritual people looking at something, they would see what I see. They have, I've done the test to make sure I was not seeing things. Therefore, it is unanimous. But the prediction is something else... see below.
Quote:
When you cant make even a basic prediction using your spiritual guidance, its too ambitious to even think you can understand the complex structure which causes such predictable phenomena happen. (take for example “positive and negative energies”; can u predict and demonstrate any phenomenon concerning them, which could persuade people in the practical relevance of your theories? I don’t think so. Well, scientists can, and that’s why we choose to believe them.)
Spirituality works in steps. I am have not reached a level where I can predict what will happen in the same sense that science can on the physical level. However, I can understand it better. Indeed, different colors of energy signify different moods of people. I can (with great effort and the right settings) see the color and determine the mood of a person.
And I just found an example of prediction; if I look at someone and transmit enough energy (intentionnaly or not), that person will turn around and look at me. We've all experienced this before. Some of us can control it and actually use it. For example, if I'm on the bus, I can predict that someone will look at me, using part of my spirituality
____________
Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward, you will service.... us. - Star Trek TNG
|
|
Shiva
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted March 12, 2005 09:33 PM |
|
Edited By: Shiva on 12 Mar 2005
|
Quote:
Did I say anywhere that I believe the world began randomly? You assumed it yourself from the very start. When the unknown is concerned I don’t believe anything (like all scientists do), that’s why its unknown. U are the one who believes based on your subjective “experience”, and its you who has the burden of proof. Inducing from history, none of your kind has ever proven the “spiritual theories” (my claim – they are impossible to prove; see previous posts), but yet still, I don’t reject them, just cant accept them. Please, if you want to continue the debate, read and understand what I was saying, before repeating over and over what I already responded to.
No one is trying to prove anything, nor do I have the
burden of proof. That is your assumption. Spirituality
is purely experiential, you have no experience there, so
you think it is junk. If your perceptions were open in
that area, you would think differently, they aren't, so
you don't.
You mistake the debate for trying to prove the existance
of God to an infidel. I am only talking to you in
the hope you will at least stop talking as if know some
thing about this. You don't, you have no experience,
nor do you have any real interest in the subject
other than to show how much you think you know about
everything else, empirical or otherwise.
There is no need to prove this all in a general theory
so that every sceptic will accept it. There are those
that refuse to even look inside and accept only what
their outer vision tells them. That is you. If I said
there was a light and you refused to open your eyes to
see, that would be akin to what this discussion has
evolved into. Again, its a matter of experience, you
wont even look, so we have no basis to talk in common
ground.
Quote:
Were you even reading any of what I wrote or did you just read the first lines and said: “Aha, I know what this
Funny, I had a discussion with someone who shall remain
nameless that you are like that, only answering what
suits your fancy, not going where you feel troubled.
I guess we kinda reflected each other, didn't we? It
would help if you had some basic respect instead of
irrational disdain based on what you think is logic.
Conan, I understand what you say about religion and
spirituality. There are those who have left traditions
behind, only to find they missed something. My family
were leftists, idealists, and never practiced religion
at all. In some ways, they gave me a chance to decide
from my own experience where to go with my life, without
being encumbered by any way of thought pushed on me
from birth. And there is a need for spiritual thinking
that provides a clear insight into our being without
being constricted by thought that is small and
contracted as religion can be whether its fundamentalistic or not.
____________
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted March 13, 2005 04:00 AM |
|
|
When you cant kill the messege, kill the messenger.
Or smth along those lines was it?
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
| |
|
|
