I am at a complete crossroads..

fuck.

I've just come to the (disgustfully late) realization that there is absolutely no evidence that things like spirituality, mysticism, god exist. Religion I kn[e]w was just a corrupted interpretation of GOD (all that there is, the beautiful wondrousness of th universe)...

But then I realized, in the depths of my hells when I relied on spirituality there was nothing. To keep my faith and my strength and my knowingness, I justified the bad with statements like "It is teaching me a great lesson" (which it was, I experience immense spiritual growth, whoopdy fucking do). I justified it with "Well then what the fuck were all the religions and great spiritual teachers like Jesus talking about for thousands of years if its not legit?"

And then it hit me.

Spirituality is the greatest invention that the human mind has ever made. We make it for the same reason we indulge in sex and good food. IT FEELS GREAT.

A source of everything, a cosmic web that ensures us love and divinity, a warm feeling shooter-outer, AWESOME. It feels great, and there is nothing that can convince us that it does not exist.

The funny thing is, spirituality is great. If you know that there is infinite love and abundance, you walk with your head held high, grab opportunities without hesitation, follow your dreams, you look deep into people's eyes. You smile and accept. If everyone followed spirituality the world would be a happy lovely place.

Spirituality is such an amazing tool. But its just a wild invention, because when it comes down to it, the only benefits that come from it are psychological and result from the individual. The power of belief is truly amazing.

That is why there are so many variations. That is why there is atheists. That is why there is no clear cut answers..because they cannot be found. SPIRITUALITY IS A TOOL, USEFUL AS HELL, BUT IT HAS NO VALIDITY OUTSIDE YOUR OWN HEAD. It is merely a system of comfort and convenience.

What a shitty conclusion to my search
___________________

Rereading this before I hit submit new thread, I shake my head. Reading over this hurts. It feels bad. I love things that give off positive energy, and I shun people who breathe for the sole purpose of finding things to disprove..

I DO NOT WANT to believe any of that fucking spew...but I have nothing else to go on.

I shun people who breathe for the sole purpose of finding things to disprove..

You shun people who seek the ultimate truth??

That's pretty messed up...

You shun people who seek the ultimate truth??

That's pretty messed up...
No. Actively searching is great. Not searching, just arguing others on their search from your endless static-ness i what im talking about.

No. Actively searching is great. Not searching, just arguing others on their search from your endless static-ness i what im talking about.

That's how you find the truth... You find holes in theories so that you can disprove them. Systematically deducing through all the bullshit until you come to the truth.

You have no business criticizing people who want to learn if you have no clue yourself as to how the learning/discovery process works.

Mufasa, I know how you feel. My entire life I've wanted some sort of spiritual something to exist - God, magic, spirits, whatever, just something!

I too eventually had to come to the conclusion you did: none of it exists. But I also eventually realized that this doesn't mean life is meaningless, or any depressing thing like that. Think of the majesty and wonder of the whole universe: there are stranger things in existence than any supernatural anything anyone has ever thought up. Even the Lovecraftian horrors from beyond time and space are pretty mundane compared to things like pulsars, wave/particle duality, computers, bombardier beetles...

I see the universe as a vast and incredible playground. Since there is no God telling us what's allowed, no God telling us what matters, we're free to come up with... whatever we want! You can find purpose in life wherever you want to, and it's perfectly valid. The sheer amount and variety of things available for me as a person, and humankind as a whole... it boggles my mind.

Just try to imagine what life will be like ten thousand years from now. Look how fast things have progressed in the past ten thousand years, then think of how much faster they progress with every new year.

:eek: It's literally un-imaginable... but you can have fun trying! :D

Anyway, I kinda got off topic, but my point is that I don't really feel I need spirituality... life is awesome as is. :)

That's how you find the truth... You find holes in theories so that you can disprove them. Systematically deducing through all the bullshit until you come to the truth.

You have no business criticizing people who want to learn if you have no clue yourself as to how the learning/discovery process works.

This^

Aye but I'm saying the truth that I've come to isn't arguable (at least for me at this time)

So i've got no more deduction..



Though today I feel much more spiritual.

IDK.

Crossroads.

Tekhelet is a blue dye mentioned numerous times in the Jewish Bible. It is described: "for tekhelet resembles the sea, and the sea resembles the sky, and the sky resembles God's holy throne".

But now, if i were to fill a jar with water from the sea what color would it be? It almost certainly wouldn't be blue. And if I were to fill a jar with air from the sky, what color would that be? Of course we would all say clear.

My point being, we can choose to view God as being fully present or completely absent. We can choose to find God in every crevice of the Earth, or nowhere in this universe.

Tekhelet is a blue dye mentioned numerous times in the Jewish Bible. It is described: "for tekhelet resembles the sea, and the sea resembles the sky, and the sky resembles God's holy throne".

But now, if i were to fill a jar with water from the sea what color would it be? It almost certainly wouldn't be blue. And if I were to fill a jar with air from the sky, what color would that be? Of course we would all say clear.

My point being, we can choose to view God as being fully present or completely absent. We can choose to find God in every crevice of the Earth, or nowhere in this universe.
Yes yes I know. But saying that God is present and in and of everything..saying that even the turmoil in the world is perfect and a part of God...It has just as much validity as there is no God, just laws of physics, and shit happens.

I'm saying, both sides have the same amount (or lack) of evidence. "There is nothing empiric"

I'm saying, both sides have the same amount (or lack) of evidence. "There is nothing empiric"

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I'm saying, both sides have the same amount (or lack) of evidence. "There is nothing empiric"

I beg to differ. "Empirical" means "derived from observation or experience." And this is where everything in my own metaphysics comes from.

I accept astrology because, over the years, I have observed that my horoscopes are accurate much more often than not.

I accept the existence of God because of the many times I have communicated with him/her/it/them/whatever (mostly whatever, now that I think of it).

I accept the validity of shamanic healing because I have done to much of it, and have seen an almost instantaneous change in clients, especially after doing a soul retrieval.

I accept the notion of the seventh state of consciousness being the most profound having experienced it a few times.

Ditto with astral travel, spirit guides, channelling, psychic readings, exorcisms, and so on.

That said, there is nothing I can do to enlighten a hardedned knee-jerk naysayer. All I can is relate my experiences as clearly and completely as I can.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Yes, it is. For instance, if I showed you an empty box and claimed I had a dog in it, the absence of evidence for there being a dog in the box would be good evidence that the dog is, in fact, not there.

I beg to differ. "Empirical" means "derived from observation or experience." And this is where everything in my own metaphysics comes from.

Empirical: Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment.

Empirical is not personal. Empirical means it can be obvserved and experienced by everyone, not just you.

So I would like for you to verify, or help me observe your magic! If you have personal empirical evidence, then you do not have empirical evidence. You have belief and opinion.

Cannot allow you to twist the word empircal.

I accept astrology because, over the years, I have observed that my horoscopes are accurate much more often than not.

I read in Carl Sagan's demon haunted world about a man who put an ad in the paper about offering free psychic readings. Just send him your address, first name, and birth date and he sent you a personalized astrological reading.

He sent everyone the exact same generic horoscope regardless of birthday. In a followup survey he asked how accurate the reading was. A large majority said spot on.

That is an example of something empirical. We can both see the same thing.

I accept the existence of God because of the many times I have communicated with him/her/it/them/whatever (mostly whatever, now that I think of it)..

What does the voice of God sound like? Can you record it for us? Can you ask God what my first pet's name was?

If you respond with the correct answer, that will be evidence (still not empirical mind you) enough for me to believe everything you say from now on.

I won't hold my breath waiting.

I accept the validity of shamanic healing ebcause I have done to much of it, and have seen an almost instantaneous change in clients, especially after doing a soul retrieval.

What can you heal? Could you heal Ted Kennedy's brain tumor on live television. THAT would be empirical. That would at least be close to it.

But if you are healing the headaches of unemployed uneducated suburban cattle, you will excuse my skepticism of your self proclaimed wizardry. You will also understand that this is not empirical.

Ditto with astral travel, spirit guides, channelling, psychic readings, exorcisms, and so on.

You can channel ghosts and travel to other dimensions? You have personal experience banishing demons or evil spirits?

SHOW US.

Can you in ANY FUCKING way record ANY OF THESE THINGS?

I thought not. That odor everyone is smelling right now, is horse shit.

That said, there is nothing I can do to enlighten a hardedned knee-jerk naysayer. All I can is relate my experiences as clearly and completely as I can.

I like this final quote here from your post because it translates into you saying, I have nothing empirical to offer.

Empirical means it can be obvserved and experienced by everyone, not just you.

An objective expereince, in other words?

How exactly do you verify that an experience is really objective, when our perspectives are all subjective?

Yes, it is. For instance, if I showed you an empty box and claimed I had a dog in it, the absence of evidence for there being a dog in the box would be good evidence that the dog is, in fact, not there.

Because you can verify that there is no dog in the box, in this case absence of evidence is evidence of absence. But, if the case were that you could not verify there wasn't a dog in the box, then we cannot rule out the idea that there is a dog in the box.

BP, once more you seem to be taking a lot of time and trouble to poop in the punchbowl. Your mind is obviously made up, so I seriously doubt that any amount of facts would matter to you.

We all create our own reality. This is Metaphysics 101, basic stuff. In the reality shared by me, my wife and family, and clients over the years, I have done what I say I have done. I do not lie. Call it arrogance if you will, but I simply would not lower myself to do so. Accept it or not.

Your opinion of me is none of my business, and your closed-mindedness is none of mine.

We all create our own reality. This is Metaphysics 101, basic stuff.

There is such thing as an objective reality, or else you would never experience anything you didn't wish to experience. Or, you are just an incredibly weak person with no control over your own mind, and are thus a crippled slave to your subconscious.

BP, once more you seem to be taking a lot of time and trouble to poop in the punchbowl. Your mind is obviously made up, so I seriously doubt that any amount of facts would matter to you..

I only poop in punchbowls of foolish claims.

Please prevent some facts that prove any of your claims to wizardry true, or admit that you cannot, and drink the fucking punch.....;)

-----------------

On a side note.....if your reasoning for closing my thread (so late in the game no less)was due to the fact that I engaged in assholery with Hare (who delights in following me through threads to make snide comments) I will expect this to be a common place behavior.

That is to say, I will serve to remind you when a thread should be closed due to name calling.

Precedence is a mother fuking bitch, ain't it?

ELSE, you closed my thread b/c you didn't like what I said about your claims to having super powers in this thread. Which I think is an abuse of power, and far from the enlightened state you would have us believe you attempt to obtain.

Two minutes after you posted here in response to my scathing review of the horseshit you espoused, you closed my thread. Petty revenge is not what I consider to be a virtue of enlightenment, but what do I know, I don't even believe in the mystical nonsense you do, and yet it would seem I have a better grasp of it.

Hello darkness my old friend.....

I do enjoy the deafening sound of your silence.

Please pick a post to delete, either #18 or #20. Bumping is fine, but twice-said copypasta is completely unnecessary. I'm sure he'll respond to you if he feels like it; no amount of redundancy is going to hasten things.

[protip: It could technically be considered spam if someone were cranky enough]

Whatthefuckever.

I am sure he won't respond. What can he say?

The fact that one mod with a grudge against me (Hare) said to delete the thread EVEN THOUGH HE DOES NOT MODERATE THIS FORUM (or does he? lol) and another said it was fine (you) and the final vote was cast by the tie breaking mod (armsmerchant) 2 minutes after he read a post in which I called him on his self proclaimed mystical super powers, and after the thread went on for 6 pages, leads me to believe that some bullshittery is taking place.

I would like some type of explanation.

He ammended the thread content to make it more suitable for the forum he wanted to discuss it in.

Uptight, much?

Why were you wrong in allowing my thread? That would be a good start. How were you wrong, and mistaken?

But that wasn't the reason he closed it was it?

Done. Better late than never.

BTW--language like this-- "Heres a fucking penny for em, fag"--being the main reason.

Posters who wish to spout obscenity and disrespect may do so in other forums..

He closed it b/c of my naughty language and disrespect towards Hare. Gee whiz, I did not know this was a valid thing to do considering the thread went on for 6 pages and engaged in some decent disscussion after I called Hare a fag.

I dont think this is right........but don't just take my word for it.

A moderator had this to say on that very fucking subject......

personal insult and other language you might personally feel is inappropriate IS allowed by the management, on this website as a whole. There is no reason why this forum should be exempt from that.

My, my that was you. So again, WHY are you so wrong? Why is arms right?

The most important question, chief, is which one of the CLEARLY conflicting moderating personas should we listen to?

Methinks the problem is too many chiefs.

And Hare......

And although I think BrokeProphet, for example, is crude, vitriolic, and downright nasty, I certainly do not want to see his mannerisms turned into an excuse to prevent his viewpoints from being expressed on the forum.

Are you still a stalwart defender of this postition......even when you are on the recieving end of my crude behavior? If not, I am sure you will be willing to explain how you are NOT a hypocrit.

All in all this http://www.totse.com/community/showthread.php?t=2131535 was a pretty informative thread on where three of the four moderators stand on the issue of censorship.

Getting back to my point of Arms closing my thread two minutes after he read my scathing post insulting his slaims to wizardry...........leads me to believe Haregeist was right when he said this......

Didn't I complain, when ArmsMerchant was moderated, that he would slowly try to shape this forum into a New Age fest concerned primarily with his opinions?

Now Arms..........THIS is some type of psychic ability. This is almost empirical evidence of Hare possessing psychic powers. Not really, but it is something. It sure is something.

Bumpity

I just want to make sure none of you miss this.....

So, bump.

One last bump before I get off work....

Arms expects a higher level of communication from posters in My God, so what? Put on your big-boy pants and deal with it.

You're overthinking it, IMO. I personally wouldn't have closed the thread, and stated as much. What was I supposed to do, infract him for closing it?

I'm not sure why you're bent with me, but if it's because I didn't re-open the thread, my explanation is two-fold: 1) it's a bit of an unspoken rule not to reverse your co-moderator's actions without first talking it over with them or at least consulting the M&A forum or an admin. I simply didn't e-mail him about it because I figured you'd just shrug it off, and - if you really felt passionately about it - visit the issue again in a new thread (which you have), or even e-mail me directly if you had a serious issue with it (which you did not).

The second half of my explanation will probably fall on deaf ears, but here goes: I've been really slammed at work these last coupla weeks. Put simply: I slacked here. :o

Once I read the sticky, I responded with as much conviction as I possibly could on the subject. Beyond that, I can't really *do* anything else.

The copypasta just wasn't necessary, and the bumps? Futile, since he's probably subscribed to this thread anyway. To reiterate once again - if he wants to answer you, he'll answer you. He might just be AFK or some shit, and let's not forget that he lives out in the middle of the woods with limited library access. If he doesn't answer, that certainly doesn't compromise your position any. You know you're right. However, if you hold your breath waiting for Arms to admit as much, I warn you - you might turn blue.

Edit: Sorry for the derail, Mufasa.

Fair enough AngryFemme.

Arms expects a higher level of communication from posters in My God, so what? Put on your big-boy pants and deal with it.

Higher communication?

Arms is clearly a hypocrite.

His higher communication only involves people not calling him a hypocrite.

You, however, are only the lap dog of a hypocrite. Keep licking boots and you may one day become a full fledged hypocrite. Good luck to you in that.

Are you still a stalwart defender of this postition......even when you are on the recieving end of my crude behavior?

Of course. I can tell you that I think you should stop being an idiot, or that I am not going to bother putting up with your venemous nonsense, but I won't stop you from posting prattish posts, nor remove or close any of your posts -- even if I am on the receiving end of the nasty ones -- unless they violate rules agreed upon by moderators, such as spamming or posting the same thread in two different forums, etc.

...unless they violate rules agreed upon by moderators, such as spamming or posting the same thread in two different forums, etc.

I do appreciate that. On a personal note I see no real or valid difference between being a crude foul mouthed prick or a pretentious arrogant prick, but that is neither here nor their. The adjectives may change, but the end result is the same.

I did not post the same thread in two different forums. I re-worded it so it could be posted here. Both moderators of THIS forum (not you) found it acceptable. I say both b/c Arms main reason for closing that thread was not that the re-wording was unacceptable, but that I used some naughty language.

The spamming charge I am guilty of, but in my defense, I am just super curious and a bit anxious to see what Arms could possibly defend his postition with. But the spamming isn't what closed my thread, as it was after the fact.

I would like to apologize as well Mufasa.

wtf, wasn't there a post here a minute ago ... ?

Yeah, there was. Hare was misinterpreting the rules and accusing me of having bias towards BrokeProphet before he deleted it, for some reason. :rolleyes:

Posting identical threads in two different forums simultaneously is against the rules. Re-posting a thread in the same forum it was closed in due to incorrect forum-respective content is against the rules. Posting a different (albeit similar) thread in the correct forum, where the content suits the forum description ... is perfectly acceptable.

Totse doesn't put a lid on people's expressions. Totse only asks that you post it in the applicable forum that the content belongs in, which is what BrokeProphet did. Arms suggested the first post was more political than religious, so it was moved. BP amending the post to get to the meat of the religious issues versus the political issues and posting a different thread about it in the religious forum is not outside the rules.

Both of the two different threads drummed up discussion in each forum before one was closed. Strangely enough, it was the one that solicited the most pages of discussion and was in the most relevant forum that was closed (?). Concerning bias for or against BrokeProphet, I think it's clear by looking at those two threads where the bias lies against him, and by whom.

Yes, I consider you to be a biased moderator, and I have no problem confessing my opinions. I deleted my post because I cannot be bothered with the childish cliques and, what leads from them, the meaningless arguments that consist of endless chest beating that somehow manage to crop up on internet forums.

So you prefer making accusations and then quickly deleting the post so that nobody can effectively reply to them? That's less childish to you? :confused:

Yes, I consider you to be a biased moderator, and I have no problem confessing my opinions. I deleted my post because I cannot be bothered with the childish cliques and, what leads from them, the meaningless arguments that consist of endless chest beating that somehow manage to crop up on internet forums.

Show one instance of bias, considering what you wrote doesn't amount to anything since 1) rules weren't bent to serve him and 2) I did absolutely no favors for him.

Could you be bothered to at least back that up?

I am at a complete crossroads..

fuck.

I've just come to the (disgustfully late) realization that there is absolutely no evidence that things like spirituality, mysticism, god exist. Religion I kn[e]w was just a corrupted interpretation of GOD (all that there is, the beautiful wondrousness of th universe)...

But then I realized, in the depths of my hells when I relied on spirituality there was nothing. To keep my faith and my strength and my knowingness, I justified the bad with statements like "It is teaching me a great lesson" (which it was, I experience immense spiritual growth, whoopdy fucking do). I justified it with "Well then what the fuck were all the religions and great spiritual teachers like Jesus talking about for thousands of years if its not legit?"

And then it hit me.

Spirituality is the greatest invention that the human mind has ever made. We make it for the same reason we indulge in sex and good food. IT FEELS GREAT.

A source of everything, a cosmic web that ensures us love and divinity, a warm feeling shooter-outer, AWESOME. It feels great, and there is nothing that can convince us that it does not exist.

The funny thing is, spirituality is great. If you know that there is infinite love and abundance, you walk with your head held high, grab opportunities without hesitation, follow your dreams, you look deep into people's eyes. You smile and accept. If everyone followed spirituality the world would be a happy lovely place.

Spirituality is such an amazing tool. But its just a wild invention, because when it comes down to it, the only benefits that come from it are psychological and result from the individual. The power of belief is truly amazing.

That is why there are so many variations. That is why there is atheists. That is why there is no clear cut answers..because they cannot be found. SPIRITUALITY IS A TOOL, USEFUL AS HELL, BUT IT HAS NO VALIDITY OUTSIDE YOUR OWN HEAD. It is merely a system of comfort and convenience.

What a shitty conclusion to my search
___________________

Rereading this before I hit submit new thread, I shake my head. Reading over this hurts. It feels bad. I love things that give off positive energy, and I shun people who breathe for the sole purpose of finding things to disprove..

I DO NOT WANT to believe any of that fucking spew...but I have nothing else to go on.


Yeah oh my god I JUST had this sort of head change, and it is pretty staggering to think about.

"I am not special"

"Nothing happens for any particular reason!"

And yes, all spirituality/religion is completely made up. However without them, I really don't value my life. Therefore, I will NOT try to convince any religious people that they are wrong, because frankly, humans are greedy and without fear of punishment, MANY people will act in their own self interest. The world will be a much more wicked place.

Think about it for a second.

We need religion. It is all that keeps humans from putting themselves first.

Sad, but true.

We need religion. It is all that keeps humans from putting themselves first.

Sad, but true.

No, my friend, we need World of Warcraft as a cyber-euphoric alternative! This way, we can capitalize on the stupidity of others (assuming you work for Blizzard).

Take up existentialism.

That's how you find the truth... You find holes in theories so that you can disprove them. Systematically deducing through all the bullshit until you come to the truth.

You have no business criticizing people who want to learn if you have no clue yourself as to how the learning/discovery process works.

If I may not to attack your empirical, reductionist mindset.

But I have written about this that religion is not some problem to be figured out. It is a mystery to be experienced. In order to know and understand what spirituality - which strange as it is leads to religious dogma (which is what we really are arguing over 95% of the time in this forum) - is about (at its center) one cannot reduce or deduce it you have to live it to know it. Now I am not going to say YOU HAVE TO! and than say OR ELSE! because, I am not a fundamentalist.

Now here is the thing: Evangelicalism is not the key to get people to get where you are coming. Which means this spiritual work and experience is not for everyone. You must be willing to put your own full effort in this if you do not than you are as Kierkegaard would call an unbelieving "believer" in said faith. Whether, some people are immature or for some other reason just unable to handle the responsibility and they will not seek after the work and experience associated with it. If you do not go for the experience of the spiritual path however, than you do not know. If you do not know than you are ignorant. Thus, one has not "figured out" spirituality and one has no right to boast saying that they do.

PARADOX: "You cannot figure out religion. You can figure out religion in the experience of the mystery of religion and spirituality."

Nonetheless Religion cant be reduce and cant be "figured out." I find this to be part of the arrogance that modern science can become a know-it-all. I feel sorry for anyone who has put faith in such an unscientific claim.

I also believe that Self-Knowledge and Insight should be valued and not just external empirical data. This is not to say I shit all over empiricism but I find it to be A WAY not THE WAY. In fact here is my conclusion at the risk of oversimplifying the mystery of life should one stop taking the empirical path but instead seek other ways of knowing through self-knowledge, intutional knowledge, and Insight. By doing this we keep both sides happy: Empiricism is not abandoned, but spiritual insight is not rejected either. When both sides are happy their is a maintenance of reverence towards life.

I believe their are things that should be left off limits to not be understood, as it ruins the mystery of life and makes life seem like a problem trying to be figured out. This perverts life and their is no real reverence in oversimplified things. It becomes common language and common language is abused, and we see life being abused all the time instead of revered. If we have but one life to live I would rather live it in reverence than try and decode every nook and cranny their is to life, because, than we miss out on life when we try and decode it.

People will obviously disagree with some of the things I said in this post, its quite alright... After all it is only what I believe to be true about life.

Good to see you 'round these parts again godfather89

Empirical: Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment.

Empirical is not personal.


I beg to differ. EVERYTHING is personal. We create our own reality even as we experience it. The world is in us, we are not in the world.

We create our own reality even as we experience it.

I willing to bet that you don't even know what that means, or at the very least don't know what the implications of that ridiculous allegation are.

For example, why get angry/annoyed/[insert whatever word you want to use to describe it here] at BrokeProphet's post in that other threads and close it? Why create that reality? Why create a reality that utterly refutes (or fails to substantiate) all your paranormal and spiritual claims?

^Simple. Because I'm not perfect.

Despite my striving to manifest forgiveness, transcend fear, and manifest unconditional love, I still fall prey, sometimes, to the illusion of separation and react with anger.

I have learned to forgive myself for being where I am.

No, you don't understand. Why make the post in the first place? Clearly, if you make your own reality, you chose to make one where such a post would exist. Why?

Good to see you 'round these parts again godfather89

Thanks.... Took a break going around other forums trying to diversify things you know. Also actually doing the works of Christ, many insights and connections but I know these are as well only the outside of the search for Godhood.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

You, sir, do not understand the process by which rational beings accept things for fact. Rational beings accept something as a fact when there is enough empirical evidence presented to prove that it is true.

As for God and his cohorts, he cannot himself exist. We all know that something has to come from something. This is the law of causality: everything has a cause. As such, there cannot be an eternal God. It makes much more sense to simply accept the universe as infinite and to accept something that the scientific community accepts, like string theory that explains an infinite universe.

God in the way we percieve him cannot exist either. He cannot be omnipresent because that directly contradicts the law of identity. A is A, A cannot be A' or A". As such, the earth is the earth, the universe around us is the universe. Is there any spiritual existence anywhere that we can observe? No. A human being is a human being, there is no spirit inside of it.

You, sir, do not understand the process by which rational beings accept things for fact. Rational beings accept something as a fact when there is enough empirical evidence presented to prove that it is true.

As for God and his cohorts, he cannot himself exist. We all know that something has to come from something. This is the law of causality: everything has a cause. As such, there cannot be an eternal God. It makes much more sense to simply accept the universe as infinite and to accept something that the scientific community accepts, like string theory that explains an infinite universe.

God in the way we percieve him cannot exist either. He cannot be omnipresent because that directly contradicts the law of identity. A is A, A cannot be A' or A". As such, the earth is the earth, the universe around us is the universe. Is there any spiritual existence anywhere that we can observe? No. A human being is a human being, there is no spirit inside of it.

So, am I understanding this correctly, are you saying that the universe can be eternal and innfinite but, God cannot? That doesn't seem right to me.

I have a problem with the last part of your post, not sure how to say it, so I'll try it this way.

You say that the earth is the earth, and the universe is the universe. But the earth is part of the universe and so part of the identity of the unverse is that it includes earth. Couldn't we then say that part of God's identity is the Universe? If it doesn't hurt the identity of the Universeto contain the Earth, does it hurt the identity of God to contain the Universe?

Is there any spiritual existence anywhere that we can observe?

Are we able to observe non-local interactions as discovered by the Aspect experiment? Are we able to observe dark energy and dark matter? Can we explain the evolutionary steps required to produce a platypus? Science is not yet able to explain the mysteries of the universe, what then? Do we simply nod and accept that, or look for answers in the mystical/mythical? Considering the length of a human lifespan it seems unlikely science will unravel all the secrets of existence within my lifetime. For those of us with the thirst to know, what other alternatives are there?

^ Well creating superfluous explanations of things that even Science hasn't explained is surely nothing close to "knowledge", so asking yourself why you would do that when you claim to have a "thirst for knowledge" would be a great start.

^ Well creating superfluous explanations of things that even Science hasn't explained is surely nothing close to "knowledge", so asking yourself why you would do that when you claim to have a "thirst for knowledge" would be a great start.

You're asserting that I'm "creating superfluous explanations"? No. I'm looking for answers and if I can't find them in science then what other avenue do you suggest? In any case I've read the thoughts of many great scientists, the book Quantum Questions for example. It's a little like sci-fi in that one is able to experiment with various philosophies, theories, technologies as a means of stimulating the mind. Recently I read how Oppenheimer drew much inspiration from eastern spirituality. I've not found the truth, the whole truth only relative truths, but I'm still looking.

Considering the length of a human lifespan it seems unlikely science will unravel all the secrets of existence within my lifetime. For those of us with the thirst to know, what other alternatives are there?

Accepting the fact that humans will most likely NEVER find the answers to everything, and certainly not in your lifetime.

If you still have a thirst for knowledge, science IS the bees fucking knees.

You're asserting that I'm "creating superfluous explanations"? No. I'm looking for answers and if I can't find them in science then what other avenue do you suggest?

You are creating superfluous explanations if you are making them in the supernatural or the unscientific - which is what Encrypted Soldier was talking about (i.e. "Is there any spiritual existence anywhere that we can observe?").

If you are claiming that they are not superfluous (i.e. that they are necessary) then I must ask you to prove it.

Like it or not "I can't find them in Science" isn't a reasonable excuse to make things up. It's a reasonable excuse to say "I don't know right now, so I'm not going to make anything up, and just patiently wait (or actively conduct Scientific research) until these 'holes' are filled".

You are creating superfluous explanations if you are making them in the supernatural or the unscientific - which is what Encrypted Soldier was talking about (i.e. "Is there any spiritual existence anywhere that we can observe?").

If you are claiming that they are not superfluous (i.e. that they are necessary) then I must ask you to prove it.

Like it or not "I can't find them in Science" isn't a reasonable excuse to make things up. It's a reasonable excuse to say "I don't know right now, so I'm not going to make anything up, and just patiently wait (or actively conduct Scientific research) until these 'holes' are filled".

Rust I'm not fully understanding you here. Generally I respect your opinions as well thought out, often insightful and thought provoking. Aside from some sarcasm and abruptness that often comes across as rudeness your posts at least give contrast and another, usually reasonable, point of view. Where am I creating superfluous explanations?

IMO The spiritual traditions present in many of the religious holy writings give insight into not only the religious beliefs and practices of diverse cultures, but also reveal our ancestors attempts to pass on knowledge to succeeding generations. Not all, or even much, of that info is couched in scientific terms, however, if one steps back a bit from the fundamentalist mindset that seems to dominate religion, it is possible to theorise that the myths of Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, and so forth relate to things like the archetypes of Jung. IOW they are being held up as examples for those who wish to learn how to live a good life.

Take the Baghavad Gita. Yogananda's translation reveals a very interesting text in which a grand analogy of civil war and a pivotal battle are vehicles for examining the human psyche. This is science. It may not be quantum physics, but for those of us who are simply trying to survive the vicissitudes of life the science of psycho-analysis is one of the things from spiritual teachings that could make a big difference to present happiness and well being. Ethics and morals are another of the sciences discussed within 'holy' scriptures. For example: "Thomas Jefferson believed that the ethical system of Jesus was the finest the world has ever seen." and he believed that strongly enough to produce the Jefferson Bible.

Point is Rust, I listen and consider all points of view that are presented in a positive manner. I try as much as I am able to keep an open mind and to remain flexible enough to change my opinions if given the right information. As you and others no doubt have experienced, this is easier said than done as the programming from childhood is deep and difficult to fully comprehend in any given moment.

The man who never alters his mind is like standing water, and (he) breeds reptiles of the mind. (William Blake)

Cheers:)

^----Like a brick fucking wall.

Rust I'm not fully understanding you here. Generally I respect your opinions as well thought out, often insightful and thought provoking. Aside from some sarcasm and abruptness that often comes across as rudeness your posts at least give contrast and another, usually reasonable, point of view. Where am I creating superfluous explanations?

In response to Encrypted Soldier saying "Is there any spiritual existence anywhere that we can observe?", you said (among other things), "Do we simply nod and accept that, or look for answers in the mystical/mythical?" and "For those of us with the thirst to know, what other alternatives are there?".

To me, either you're suggesting that we should propose a spiritual existence or at least find answers in the spiritual when Science cannot answer something, or your reply itself is irrelevant to his point and makes little sense.

Finding answers in the "mystical/mythical" is what would be superfluous. There is no need to find answers in the "mystical/mythical".

[At this point you should remember he specifically said "supernatural existence" which means any talk about the "mystical/mythical" should be within the context of the supernatural, not just ancient myths or ancient fiction that we could use as analogies today]

If you find a answer in the supernatural, then again I ask you to prove that it's necessary. Prove to me that we need that supernatural explanation. Prove that it's not superfluous.

The very fact that you must ask what we should do, already reveals the fact of the situation: we don't need to find answers in the mystical or mythical. We can wait patiently until Science provides the answer, or actively contribute to the cause itself.

To me, either you're suggesting that we should propose a spiritual existence or at least find answers in the spiritual when Science cannot answer something, or your reply itself is irrelevant to his point and makes little sense.



What I am saying is there is much of interest to science in mythology and mysticism. I have said that with reference to the science of psycho-analysis and excluded the supernatural by reference to Jefferson's bible. Quite literally science cannot, and probably will not in my lifetime be able to, explain 95% of the universe/existence. The ancients were able to construct things that are still beyond modern technology. Is it such a stretch to think that they left messages? Messages that were couched in mystical/mythical terms so as to befuddle literalists? It's poetry, art, and often it's not the words but the feelings they engender that make the difference ... for me:)

^----Like a brick fucking wall.

This post contributes how? Not at all, no it's like the work of a .. mocker, or a bully. Just more ad hominems to add to your previous trollish behaviour! You act like such a dick how could anyone take you seriously?;)

What I am saying is there is much of interest to science in mythology and mysticism. I have said that with reference to the science of psycho-analysis and excluded the supernatural by reference to Jefferson's bible. Quite literally science cannot, and probably will not in my lifetime be able to, explain 95% of the universe/existence. The ancients were able to construct things that are still beyond modern technology. Is it such a stretch to think that they left messages? Messages that were couched in mystical/mythical terms so as to befuddle literalists? It's poetry, art, and often it's not the words but the feelings they engender that make the difference ... for me:)

Well again I must remind you that he was talking specifically of the supernatural. You have just changed terms completely by talking about non-supernatural myths that you're trying to learn technological advances from.

I'm following what he said. He ask where could we observe the supernatural and answered that we could not, so it shouldn't be part of our explanations. Thus, I am taking your responses trying to justify the act of "looking elsewhere" as suggesting that we should look at completely superfluous supernatural explanations.

As for their constructions still being "beyond modern technology" could you please mention one of them? I'd would be absolutely shocked if that were true; but alas I fear you've fallen prey to the media's bullshit.

This post contributes how? Not at all, no it's like the work of a .. mocker, or a bully. Just more ad hominems to add to your previous trollish behaviour! You act like such a dick how could anyone take you seriously?;)

I did not know what else to say.

You clearly do not understand that you lost the argument a page or so ago, and have to continue to regress into further abstract or redefining words in order to convince YOURSELF you are not wrong, and have not been wrong rather than just admit it...

OR

Like a brick fucking wall.

I did not know what else to say.

You clearly do not understand that you lost the argument a page or so ago, and have to continue to regress into further abstract or redefining words in order to convince YOURSELF you are not wrong, and have not been wrong rather than just admit it...

OR

Like a brick fucking wall.

This is the crux, you so desperately want to win 'the argument' that you are prepared to go to any lengths to do so. How's that powertrip doing for you anyway?

This is the crux, you so desperately want to win 'the argument' that you are prepared to go to any lengths to do so. How's that powertrip doing for you anyway?

What argument?

I said you were a brick wall after you foolishy tried to claim you are not creating superfluous explanations.

Rust asked to to prove they are not superfluous, which you did not, and can not, and still refuse to acknowledge that.

So I ask you again, what argument?

Well again I must remind you that he was talking specifically of the supernatural. You have just changed terms completely by talking about non-supernatural myths that you're trying to learn technological advances from.


After reviewing the post it seems you are the one who has "changed terms completely", changing 'spiritual' into 'supernatural'. That's ok, different points of view, however I would not regard spiritual as being necessarily supernatural.

The OP was talking specifically about spirituality, here now, in his head. He refers to it as "the greatest invention that the human mind has ever made", and talks about IT in terms that relate to natural life: "The funny thing is, spirituality is great. If you know that there is infinite love and abundance, you walk with your head held high, grab opportunities without hesitation, follow your dreams, you look deep into people's eyes. You smile and accept. If everyone followed spirituality the world would be a happy lovely place."

Mufasa concludes that spirituality is a mental device we use:
Spirituality is such an amazing tool. But its just a wild invention, because when it comes down to it, the only benefits that come from it are psychological and result from the individual. The power of belief is truly amazing.

That is why there are so many variations. That is why there is atheists. That is why there is no clear cut answers..because they cannot be found. SPIRITUALITY IS A TOOL, USEFUL AS HELL, BUT IT HAS NO VALIDITY OUTSIDE YOUR OWN HEAD. It is merely a system of comfort and convenience.
Perhaps it is just an 'invention' of our minds, but does that make it supernatural any more than other figments of imagination? I think not, it seems the OP is talking of something most of us would relate with the constant mental struggle between positive and negative thoughts/feelings. To my mind that use of spirituality in the OP refers to our emotional selves and the effects spiritual thoughts have upon us. Thus in reply to encrypted soldier's question:
Is there any spiritual existence anywhere that we can observe? Yes. This thread itself is evidence of spiritual existence as it is the very form that spiritual existence takes -- a constant comparison/debate between opposites over the shape of the formless.

After reviewing the post it seems you are the one who has "changed terms completely", changing 'spiritual' into 'supernatural'. That's ok, different points of view, however I would not regard spiritual as being necessarily supernatural.

*thump

The term supernatural DOES ENCOMPASS spiritual, thus no changing of terms took place or were required.

The term supernatural or supranatural (Latin: super, supra "above" + natura "nature") pertains to entities, events or powers regarded as beyond nature, in that they cannot be explained by the laws of the natural world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernatural

Unless you can explain the spirit using the laws of the natural world.......the spirit is supernatural.

*thump

Yes. This thread itself is evidence of spiritual existence as it is the very form that spiritual existence takes -- a constant comparison/debate between opposites over the shape of the formless.

*thump

This thread is evidence of opposing points of view and nothing more. To claim that the debate over whether something exists or not, is evidence of it existing is foolish on an epic fucking scale.

*thump

Man that is one tough wall.

After reviewing the post it seems you are the one who has "changed terms completely", changing 'spiritual' into 'supernatural'. That's ok, different points of view, however I would not regard spiritual as being necessarily supernatural.

No I did not , so please stop accusing me of such.

He specifically said spiritual existence and then talked about spirits living in human beings e.g. souls. The quote and context:

"Is there any spiritual existence anywhere that we can observe? No. A human being is a human being, there is no spirit inside of it."

"Spirits" and "Spiritual existence" is above observable nature, because we don't observe "souls" or "spirits" in human beings, or indeed in any beings. That's supernatural.

Even ignoring this - even if we say he meant something else completely - the whole point was you venturing into the unscientific realm and so the usage is still appropriate.


The OP was talking specifically about spirituality,

So? That's quite simply irrelevant. You were replying to Encrypted Soldier and his comment about spirits, and spiritual existence. Whether the OP which is not Encrypted Soldier (ES) - was talking about spirituality, cotton candy or pussy, is not really important since ES can change the topic. You yourself are now just talking about brick walls, power trips and arguments.

*thump

The term supernatural DOES ENCOMPASS spiritual, thus no changing of terms took place or were required.

The term supernatural or supranatural (Latin: super, supra "above" + natura "nature") pertains to entities, events or powers regarded as beyond nature, in that they cannot be explained by the laws of the natural world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernatural

Unless you can explain the spirit using the laws of the natural world.......the spirit is supernatural.

*thump



*thump

This thread is evidence of opposing points of view and nothing more. To claim that the debate over whether something exists or not, is evidence of it existing is foolish on an epic fucking scale.

*thump

Man that is one tough wall.

Can't help yourself with the ad hominems can you BP?;) BTW your reference does not include any mention of spiritual so here's a definition from a randomomly chosen internet dictionary:
Main Entry: 1spir·i·tu·al
Pronunciation: \ˈspir-i-chə-wəl, -i-chəl, -ich-wəl\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French & Late Latin; Anglo-French espirital, spiritual, from Late Latin spiritualis, from Latin, of breathing, of wind, from spiritus
Date: 14th century
1: of, relating to, consisting of, or affecting the spirit : incorporeal <spiritual needs>
2 a: of or relating to sacred matters <spiritual songs> b: ecclesiastical rather than lay or temporal <spiritual authority> <lords spiritual>
3: concerned with religious values
4: related or joined in spirit <our spiritual home> <his spiritual heir>
5 a: of or relating to supernatural beings or phenomena b: of, relating to, or involving spiritualism : spiritualistic
— spir·i·tu·al·ly adverb
— spir·i·tu·al·ness noun http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spiritual
The definition is of course wide and includes supernatural as well as natural. So, depending on the context the meaning is determined, and the OP is talking about the events of his natural life and the workings of his natural mind. The mind being a type of interface between the natural/physical/form and the spirit/mental/formless. This is were the term forming thoughts comes from. We have ideas, that begin as a formless thing, which we then use to create -- for example with our thoughts words and actions we create a lifestyle. That is created from what? What begins a thought? What is it that causes that physical flow of energy between neurons? Does one atom nudge another? How does it start? In the formless causal realm? In Spirit?

The definition is of course wide and includes supernatural as well as natural. So, depending on the context the meaning is determined, and the OP is talking about the events of his natural life and the workings of his natural mind.

The quote below says that for the purpose of the argument, you do not get to redefine which definition is used.....

He specifically said spiritual existence and then talked about spirits living in human beings e.g. souls. The quote and context:

"Is there any spiritual existence anywhere that we can observe? No. A human being is a human being, there is no spirit inside of it."

"Spirits" and "Spiritual existence" is above observable nature, because we don't observe "souls" or "spirits" in human beings, or indeed in any beings. That's supernatural.

Even ignoring this - even if we say he meant something else completely - the whole point was you venturing into the unscientific realm and so the usage is still appropriate.

^This is correct.

This means that you do not get to redefine the term spiritual so that you can claim that you are not creating superfluous explanations.

Rust asked to to prove they are not superfluous, which you still have not.

The quote below says that for the purpose of the argument, you do not get to redefine which definition is used.....



^This is correct.

This means that you do not get to redefine the term spiritual so that you can claim that you are not creating superfluous explanations.

Rust asked to to prove they are not superfluous, which you still have not.

The thread is not about Rust, as significant as his opinions may be, the original post is obviously referring to natural spirituality, things like meditation and prayer.

What the OP was talking about something else does not suddenly mean you get to ignore what the people you're replying to were talking about.

If you want to come out and say you were confused and thought Encrypted Soldier was talking about spirituality as the OP was when he in fact was talking about the existence of spiritual entities - spirits, souls, etc. - then that's fine. Just don't try to pin this on us. We were right.

What the OP was talking about something else does not suddenly mean you get to ignore what the people you're replying to were talking about.

If you want to come out and say you were confused and thought Encrypted Soldier was talking about spirituality as the OP was when he in fact was talking about the existence of spiritual entities - spirits, souls, etc. - then that's fine. Just don't try to pin this on us. We were right.

I agree we differ and that is the 'spirit' of any good debate, right or wrong is obviously a relative thing and yes you may claim to be referring to ES's post however that's your call, just as it's also appropriate to remain on topic. Anyway I don't agree soul or spirit is supernatural, maybe beyond our present understanding but then so is quantum non-locality.

----------------
On Topic: David Hawkins(Power vs Force) is an example of a person who has conducted empirical research on spiritual subjects. He carried out a series of kinesiological tests that showed a correlation between thoughts and bodily strength.

1. You would have a point regarding the "appropriateness" of staying on topic had you told Encrypted Solider that. You did not. He was talking specifically about spiritual existence, about souls and spirits, and instead of telling him to stay on topic, you replied without correcting him or without even explaining what "spirituality" you meant when you were talking.

Sorry, but saying "Right and wrong are relative" here, smells like a cop out. What part of replying to someone who is talking about topic A while you talk about topic B without saying anything, appropriate? It seems to me you were confused and for some unknown reason don't want to admit that we have a point: that your replies definitely gave the impression that you were saying we should look at supernatural explanations given that ES was talking about souls and spirits.

2. As for the soul and non-locality, we have confirmed non-locality through experiments. There is empirical data that shows that the universe, at least in a quantum level, exhibits that characteristic (among others). There is no such thing regarding souls. We haven't demonstrated the existence of souls. The two aren't really comparable.

3. Care to provide any evidence regarding the claims you make about "empirical research on spiritual subjects"?

As far as I know, David Hawkins is a quack. I would love for you to provide one single entry of his in a proper peer-reviewed scientific journal regarding this research. I would be surprised.

His very Ph.D. diploma came from a unaccredited, and now-closed, pathetic excuse for a "University". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_Pacific_University) I myself particularly like the part where they allowed and approved a Ph.D. dissertation in Spanish and they couldn't even understand the language. Clearly the stuff of great research education.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. A guy publishing his own books - that conveniently bypasses peer-review - and having diplomas from atrocious "universities" that have their licensing revoked for their terrible standards, are nothing even closely resembling "extraordinary evidence".