Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2018 16:35:15 GMT
Then let me put it this way - my view is that the "spirit world" exists in much the same way that Superman exists. Both exist as fictional constructs which people created because they fulfil a basic human desire - in Superman's case, the desire for a shared mythology and for heroes that populate it. In the "spirit world" a shared desire for some kind of external meaning and purpose to human consciousness. But in both cases, these things do not exist as a part of actual reality. You cannot meet Superman in actual reality, and you cannot visit the spirit world as an actual place, because both of them do not exist outside of people's invention. But it is entirely possible that the drug simply causes some people to experience something that is not real, is it not? What do you mean by 'actual reality'? Things that exist outside of the human mind. They are? Then you have an interestingly different take on what "real" means. Let me ask you this. If I dream that you punch me in the face, am I justified in reporting you to the police for assault? Do ALL people have identical or extremely similar experiences? That seems very unlikely to me. It seems more likely that there is a wide range of experiences that people have, and that there are common elements to some or most of these, but not all. It seems likely that people then look at these common elements and say "look, these are similar and that proves something!" It's called "selection bias". As to why common elements exist at all, human beings are not identical to one another by any means, but human beings are members of a single species who conceptualise the world in a relatively narrow range of ways and therefore respond in similar ways to similar things. For example, all (normal) human beings express amusement by laughing. This is the same across every culture in all of history, no matter how disconnected. They even laugh at similar things. Why should this be so? Because we are all individuals, but we are also all variations on a theme. How real something feels is irrelevant as a guide to how real it actually is. Plenty of things which are not real feel real. I don't know. And again, don't see why it is particularly relevant. Yet you seem to reject the one answer that fits the actual facts of the world as we know it.
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Aug 1, 2018 18:20:10 GMT
I can't stand Dillahunty, he's one of those of atheists who thinks he's smart becuase he can beat conventional theists in a debate.
It's a shame he doesn't debate a Spinozist, he would get owned.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Aug 1, 2018 18:39:01 GMT
I can't stand Dillahunty, he's one of those of atheists who thinks he's smart becuase he can beat conventional theists in a debate. It's a shame he doesn't debate a Spinozist, he would get owned. What's a "conventional theist"? He's debated people from all over the theist spectrum (Christians, Muslims, creationists, deists, agnostic theists, etc)
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Aug 1, 2018 19:51:09 GMT
I can't stand Dillahunty, he's one of those of atheists who thinks he's smart becuase he can beat conventional theists in a debate. It's a shame he doesn't debate a Spinozist, he would get owned. What's a "conventional theist"? He's debated people from all over the theist spectrum (Christians, Muslims, creationists, deists, agnostic theists, etc) Somebody who believes in a god that has a mind.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 1, 2018 23:38:15 GMT
My profound concern is that the experiences are not really valuable, that they are a deception. Sometimes deception is good. If it's necessary for medical reasons and you're having your leg cut off, drugs can give you the illusion that all is fine. Of course you can still know intellectually, at some time anyway, that everything is not fine, your leg is cut off, but with less pain. I suspect the "entheogenic" drugs are not doing anything but messing up your wiring and giving you worthless illusions. You know how difficult proofs can be though. I don't think we know enough to draw any conclusions yet. They're just starting to do research again after the illogical demonizing in the late sixties early seventies. In our society where 'spirituality' and religion is often mocked.. and alcohol, a drug that makes us dull and dumb, is encouraged, I don't think our society has much to lose. I work in mental health and depression and anxiety is pandemic right now. It frustrates me how ineffective antidepressants are, and how long people have to take them before they can expect any positive results. The results they got in Saskatchewan in the 60's working with alcoholics and addicts was very promising ( Psychedelic Revolutionaries )( More about Saskatchewan) Of course people will need to be taught that you use such drugs more like a sacrament and not at all like party drugs like cocaine and alcohol. As I already mentioned, sometimes illusions can be a good thing. People who are very ill at ease might experience some relief from that condition under the influence of drugs. That would be just treating the symptom though. It does not address the cause of the maladjustment, or the adjustment to whatever the problem might be. I suspect many of the positive experiences attributed to drugs are better obtained without drugs. I've known them to be obtained without drugs. Alcohol is often used to avoid bad feelings. You know very well it is better to address the causes of the feelings and resolve them and move past them avoiding alcohol as much as the troubled can be persuaded to avoid it. No alcohol is the best way. I am confident that genuine spiritual experiences are possible without drugs and remove the need for fake spiritual experiences and the drugs that produce them. The hookah smoking caterpillar is not a good doctor.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 1, 2018 23:47:44 GMT
I can't stand Dillahunty, he's one of those of atheists who thinks he's smart becuase he can beat conventional theists in a debate. It's a shame he doesn't debate a Spinozist, he would get owned. Spinoza posits crap like "an infinity of attributes" and essences.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 2, 2018 0:02:26 GMT
Then let me put it this way - my view is that the "spirit world" exists in much the same way that Superman exists. Both exist as fictional constructs which people created because they fulfil a basic human desire - in Superman's case, the desire for a shared mythology and for heroes that populate it. In the "spirit world" a shared desire for some kind of external meaning and purpose to human consciousness. But in both cases, these things do not exist as a part of actual reality. You cannot meet Superman in actual reality, and you cannot visit the spirit world as an actual place, because both of them do not exist outside of people's invention. As I have already made clear many times there are issues in society that science, as you prefer it, cannot begin to address. Religion does deal with those issues. Of necessity arts are employed rather than sciences. Still you complain that only science matters. A movie (not drug induced) can help people understand and resolve some issues. How much does it matter that the movie is "true" providing it helps people see a truth beyond mere material concerns? I am not defending drug use. Science only fakes spiritual experiences, you're saying something like that yourself here. I agree that science is the not what is needed in these issues at all. That is the wrong concept of a god.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2018 0:55:15 GMT
Then let me put it this way - my view is that the "spirit world" exists in much the same way that Superman exists. Both exist as fictional constructs which people created because they fulfil a basic human desire - in Superman's case, the desire for a shared mythology and for heroes that populate it. In the "spirit world" a shared desire for some kind of external meaning and purpose to human consciousness. But in both cases, these things do not exist as a part of actual reality. You cannot meet Superman in actual reality, and you cannot visit the spirit world as an actual place, because both of them do not exist outside of people's invention. As I have already made clear many times there are issues in society that science, as you prefer it, cannot begin to address. Religion does deal with those issues. Certainly there are issues that science does not address. A lot of people feel as you do, that these are therefore issues for religion. I myself don't see why religion should have input on any issue at all. No, this is a lie. I have never made this statement. If you are arguing, as some seem to, that religion has value because it helps people to arrive at an understanding of aspects of their lives, then I agree that this may be so. That's simply not an issue I care about. Religion may have all sorts of value for people unconnected to its truth of lack of truth - it's handy to have a place to get married in, for instance. Or to have a career option that's open to pedophiles and their supporters. (That one was a joke.)
But as I say; I don't care if religion is useful. I only care if the claims it makes are true.
No, one cannot fake an experience. The experiences people have when they take drugs are real - that is to say, they are real experiences. That is not to say that those experiences reveal anything about reality that is reliably true. In this way they are identical to non-drug spiritual experiences. I think you are totally wrong about science "faking" spiritual experiences. If you go to church and have a religious experience, then that is a perfectly real experience. But where it fails is when people makes assumptions such as "I felt the power of god in my heart, and therefore I have felt proof that there is a god." That statement is equally fallacious whether the experience in question stemmed from taking drugs or just listening to a really inspiring service.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Aug 2, 2018 4:00:27 GMT
What's a "conventional theist"? He's debated people from all over the theist spectrum (Christians, Muslims, creationists, deists, agnostic theists, etc) Somebody who believes in a god that has a mind. So "unconventional theist" would be someone who sees God as more of a vague, abstract force rather an anthromorphic, thinking being? Pretty sure he has debated people like that on the Atheist Experience. In any case I can't imagine that an "unconventional theist" would really bringing any new, compelling arguments to the table.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Aug 2, 2018 4:05:34 GMT
I can't stand Dillahunty, he's one of those of atheists who thinks he's smart becuase he can beat conventional theists in a debate. It's a shame he doesn't debate a Spinozist, he would get owned. Spinoza posits crap like "an infinity of attributes" and essences. What exactly is spinozism? I've heard it tossed around a bit (wasn't Einstein a spinozist?)
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Aug 2, 2018 5:43:29 GMT
IMO having a sense that you are connected to everything is a divine experience. One thing psychedelics seem to do is break down the ego and make make people feel more connected to 'the Universe'. So, I can look at a sunset even when not on psychedelics and for me it's a spiritual experience.. like I'm looking at the face of God. Would I have that if I had never touched any psychedelics? Maybe, but it's hard to say. How much of it is from medication and simply progressing through life and all it's sufferings and lessons? Again, hard to say. People can say 'You're not really experiencing that', but I couldn't care less. I don't know if you're understanding my question. I'm not saying anything like "you're not really experiencing that." Obviously you are. Anything you experience is something you really experience. (Keeping in mind that experience is a mental phenomenon.) What I'm asking you is why you'd interpret what you're experiencing as not just a brain phenomenon, but as something external to yourself that you're perceiving (via information arriving at your senses somehow, etc.) Take something simpler for a moment for comparison. I don't know if you're in the same boat that I am, but I have "floaters" in my eyes, for example. Sometimes they can look like, say, a mosquito flying by. Well, I can interpret that as either a mosquito really flying by--that is, something external to my body that I'm perceiving, or I can interpret it as one of the floaters in my eyes--that is, something of my body that can give the appearance of something (external) I might be perceiving (to simplify the explanation). So I'm asking why you'd interpret the experience as something external to your body that you're perceiving. Interesting question. I guess I don't make that much of a distinction between external and internal realities, I don't think you can have one without the other. I said in another thread that I used to think consciousness was a symptom of the Universe but now I think the Universe is a symptom of consciousness. I also have floaters in one eye, two of them. I think of them as the eyes of God, so that's what they are. I work in mental health so I realize that sounds insane, but there it is. lol
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Aug 2, 2018 5:45:09 GMT
I don't think we know enough to draw any conclusions yet. They're just starting to do research again after the illogical demonizing in the late sixties early seventies. In our society where 'spirituality' and religion is often mocked.. and alcohol, a drug that makes us dull and dumb, is encouraged, I don't think our society has much to lose. I work in mental health and depression and anxiety is pandemic right now. It frustrates me how ineffective antidepressants are, and how long people have to take them before they can expect any positive results. The results they got in Saskatchewan in the 60's working with alcoholics and addicts was very promising ( Psychedelic Revolutionaries )( More about Saskatchewan) Of course people will need to be taught that you use such drugs more like a sacrament and not at all like party drugs like cocaine and alcohol. I am confident that genuine spiritual experiences are possible without drugs and remove the need for fake spiritual experiences and the drugs that produce them. That's true, you can always do meditation. ..it just takes longer.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 2, 2018 8:48:44 GMT
You have a problem labeling what is "not science." You don't want to use the label "religion." Use another label then, call it "art," as that term is sometimes used to distinguish what is not science. Far and away the better practitioners of it are going to be religious. There are impressive buildings for example. I'm certain I care as much about the truth as you do, but this does not have to be at the expense of utility. I'm sorry if my impression is not correct, but you do seem to get in the way of utility too often. Examples are your definitions of "agnostic" and "atheist" that are obviously not useful whatever "truth" might be in them. How long did it take you to realize labels aren't "true" in themselves, only in their application useful to communication? You are missing my point. I do not doubt that something happens when people take drugs. I very much suspect it is not a "spiritual" experience however much they perceive it to be. I have not found claims it was spiritual convincing. I also never said that all the claims of spiritual experiences not involving drugs are necessarily genuine. I suppose some people who very much want to have a spiritual experience somehow convince themselves they had one. Exercises in self deception can be difficult to categorize. Genuine "proofs" of the spirit have been described here many times. Most often they are only available to parties very closely associated with the information.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2018 10:36:22 GMT
You have a problem labeling what is "not science." You don't want to use the label "religion." No, I really don't. That may be so, but it is not my experience of you. No, you're just wrong here. The definitions I use of those words are true, but also they are the most useful because they are the most accurate and because they best contribute towards productive discussion of atheism and religion. You object to them because you want to accomplish the goal of shifting the burden of proof from yourself and onto atheistst. No, you are misunderstanding. An experience that a person perceives as spiritual, IS spiritual, by definition. It is impossible to have a spiritual experience that is not "really" spiritual. Stubbing your toe is a spiritual experience... if the person stubbing their toe feels that it is. Whether it convinces you or I is irrelevant. All it has to do is convince the person having the experience. You should have, because they are. Genuine experiences, that is. Then they are not actually proofs. And this attempt to pretend that there is proof but only the experiencer or believer can see it comes across very much as an excuse to not present proofs that don't really exist.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Aug 2, 2018 10:48:29 GMT
I said in another thread that I used to think consciousness was a symptom of the Universe but now I think the Universe is a symptom of consciousness. You don't know what this string of bullshit even means. Sorry to break it to you, but as much as you think you are being deep and profound, you are being neither.
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Aug 2, 2018 10:52:47 GMT
I said in another thread that I used to think consciousness was a symptom of the Universe but now I think the Universe is a symptom of consciousness. You don't know what this string of bullshit even means. Sorry to break it to you, but as much as you think you are being deep and profound, you are being neither. Dude, it would be impossible for me to care less about what you think of me. Get over yourself.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 2, 2018 10:55:33 GMT
Spinoza posits crap like "an infinity of attributes" and essences. What exactly is spinozism? I've heard it tossed around a bit (wasn't Einstein a spinozist?) It's referring to the views of philosopher Baruch Spinoza: plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2018 10:55:36 GMT
I said in another thread that I used to think consciousness was a symptom of the Universe but now I think the Universe is a symptom of consciousness. You don't know what this string of bullshit even means. Sorry to break it to you, but as much as you think you are being deep and profound, you are being neither. It's a big trend in modern philosophy. You just take a statement that sounds obvious, and then turn it around in hopes that it will sound profound. "You think you are watching the television, but it is the television that is watching you." "Do we eat meat because it is tasty, or is meat tasty because we eat it?" "The atheist may not believe in god, but god believes in the atheist." See? It's really easy. Totally meaningless, but really easy.
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Aug 2, 2018 10:56:08 GMT
I can't stand Dillahunty, he's one of those of atheists who thinks he's smart becuase he can beat conventional theists in a debate. It's a shame he doesn't debate a Spinozist, he would get owned. Spinoza posits crap like "an infinity of attributes" and essences. Yeah I you can have a Spinozist view of God and not believe in that stuff.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 2, 2018 10:59:40 GMT
Spinoza posits crap like "an infinity of attributes" and essences. Yeah I you can have a Spinozist view of God and not believe in that stuff. What would you say are the necessary criteria for a Spinozist view of God?
|
|