RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


anthrosub -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/22/2011 9:44:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

I answered your questions. Curious you are avoiding mine.


Not avoiding. I'm simply tired of rehashing. How about you? What say we give it a rest without drawing any conclusions about each other. Okay?




tazzygirl -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/22/2011 9:45:31 PM)

Hmmm... why are you giving in so easily?




GotSteel -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/22/2011 10:13:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
insult and ridicule... seems to be how you respond to those who don't share your world view... at least attack Harris based on positions he actually holds instead of setting up strawmen.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
Bullshit. I posted his position exactly, in his own words, including his reasons for holding it.

Bullshit. In the third quote you posted a portion of his argument leaving out his position entirely.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
 To claim that I deliberately misrepresented his views is a personal attack on my character.

You're attributing a position to him which he contests, so yes you are misrepresenting him. Whether you're doing it deliberately or otherwise, I have no idea. For all I know you could have been bamboozled by some Christian apologetics website.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
 That is how you respond to those who don't share your opinions.

Considering the predominance of theism I'm responding to those who don't share my opinions quite often, yet I can't recall ever bringing up quote mining in one of these discussions before I did so to you. Verbally abusive posters such as yourself on the other hand are somewhat more common but my calling you out as such has everything to do with your behavior.





GotSteel -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/22/2011 10:20:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
My sense is that your reservation is related to non-theism.

It is certainly possible for us to imagine a world that is non-theistic, where there is no concept of theism and where a kind of non-theism would operate as you put it earlier in the thread, as a default position. And it would be legitimate for us (in our world) to describe that world accurately as non-theistic. But, and this is the key for me, we could only do that because we have prior exposure to, and understanding of the concept of theism. That is the way we would see and describe such a world because we have the option of describing it in the terms we use in our (exposed-to-theism) world.

Such an option would not be available to the inhabitants of that (imagined) non-theistic world. Having no prior exposure to, nor understanding of theism, and therefore no awareness of its meaning or possible meaning, it would be beyond the range of their existence, of their possibilities. To the inhabitants of that world, it would be the same as describing chalk in terms of cheese and/or non-cheese ie meaningless. They could have another term or concept to describe what we call a non-theistic world, but it couldn’t be ‘non-theism’.

So even though it makes some theoretical sense to us, I am unconvinced that it would be proper or appropriate to use the term non-theistic to describe that world. It would be a case of us imposing our pre-existing terms and values on an altogether different world. Generally, that’s not seen as a recommended route to understanding.

OK, I agree with that.




Kirata -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/22/2011 11:50:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

You're attributing a position to him which he contests, so yes you are misrepresenting him.

The position I attributed to him was his view that the killing of people who hold dangerous beliefs -- even if they haven't done anything yet, and even if it means killing tens of millions of mostly innocent human beings along with them in a pre-emptive nuclear first strike -- constitute acts of "self defense." He characterizes these acts as self-defense, and nowhere at the link cited or in the excerpt you posted from it does he contest his view that they are.

So let's see now... does that make you a liar?

K.




tweakabelle -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/22/2011 11:53:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Whenever I finish a good yoga session, I can sense a shift in the way I relate to the world... However I would be very reluctant to interpret that as an insight into a hidden reality or union with some mystical entity.

Perhaps that reality is simply not so lurid and "supernatural" as some are inclined to suppose, eh?

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

why does it prove so elusive to render into language... why is it so obscure?

What would you expect? You can talk about love until you're blue in the face, or for that matter about the color blue itself, and you will still never be able to convey either of those experiences to someone who has never had them. They just won't really know what love is, or what blue is, until they experience them.

K.


Yoga isn't the only way I can achieve that shift. I have experienced similar states via music, food, good sex, learning new ideas and other routes. We BDSM players often report feelings of 'soaring' or 'out-of-body experiences'. Timothy Leary reported similar experiences taking LSD. To me, all these seem capable of generating similar or at the very minimum related states of being, insight and exhilaration.

If we can arrive at this state through pleasure, why go through all the self denial and mortification that religious practices seem to insist upon?

Is it possible that this state, which one person referred to as 'transcendence' is open to multiple interpretations? Evangelicals often speak of being 'touched' by the Holy Ghost at their services. My suspicion is that they misinterpret the state of heightened perception and sensation that is the natural reaction of a human body exposed to intense sensory stimulation during their services as that 'touching'.

How can I eliminate the same order of misinterpretation happening here, that 'transcendence' is an merely an altered/elevated state of human awareness, consciousness or being with no 'deeper' meaning or consequence?




Kirata -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/23/2011 12:02:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

If we can arrive at this state through pleasure, why go through all the self denial and mortification that religious practices seem to insist upon?

What are you talking about? Contemplative prayer constitutes "self denial and motification"? Mindfulness meditation constitutes "self denial and mortification"? Where's this attitude coming from? Why do you characterize "religious practices" -- wholesale -- in that way? Do you feel that the yoga you practice constitutes "self denial and mortification"?

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

How can I eliminate the same order of misinterpretation happening here...

Don't interpret.

A fellow once approached an old guru and begged of him a mantra that would lead him to enlightenment. The guru complied, and the fellow went off to meditate. But after three years of trying to attain enlightenment, he returned to the guru and complained that the mantra hadn't worked. The guru asked what was the mantra that he had given the fellow, and when told exclaimed "Oh, no! That's wrong!" and gave him another. So the fellow went off again. But he didn't have much faith that the new mantra would be any better, and he had become so comfortable with his old familiar mantra that when he reached his meditation place he just sat down and began to recite it with no expectations. He attained enlightenment that very day.

K.




GotSteel -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/23/2011 12:23:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
Secondly, much as I am pleased to learn that you stayed awake through Psych 101, not even the infant's inability to comprended its parent as a separate being in its own right, nevermind constancy, prevents the formation of a bonded relationship that survives absence.

I ask you again, how do you know, been interviewing a lot of infants? By which I mean of course, cite your source.




Kirata -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/23/2011 1:36:54 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
not even the infant's inability to comprended its parent as a separate being in its own right, nevermind constancy, prevents the formation of a bonded relationship that survives absence.

how do you know, been interviewing a lot of infants? ...cite your source.

The research you depended on refers to studies with physical objects, e.g., a carrot sliding along a track partially occluded by a screen. You misapplied that research to interpersonal object relations (wherein the word "object" means a person) apparently assuming that there isn't much difference between an infant's mother and a carrot. You are wrong, of course, which should be starting to sound familiar to you.

The following excerpts are from a professional-level monograph discussing the self-psychology and object relations theories of Margaret Mahler and Heinz Kohut in light of current research.

Numerous empirical studies demonstrate that the infant is an active, eager learner, prewired and well-equipped for communications and interactions with the environment from the very beginning... Current infant research strongly supports the importance to normal development of the close connectedness between the child and primary caregiver from birth on... Stern (1985) concludes, on the basis of his synthesis of this research, that from the very beginning, the individual's life is always social... the infant experiences the psychological presence of important others even when he or she is not in their company. Stern postulates that the infant has the capacity for an evocative like memory, making it possible for interactions with significant others to be laid down in memory, to be retrieved spontaneously when only aspects, or cues, of the remembered experience are present... He states that the normal infant, with its capacity for representation of experiences with important others always available to him in time of need, has an inborn ability to adjust to the requirement for either independence or interdependence

Reference

K.




tweakabelle -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/23/2011 2:08:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

If we can arrive at this state through pleasure, why go through all the self denial and mortification that religious practices seem to insist upon?

What are you talking about? Contemplative prayer constitutes "self denial and motification"? Mindfulness meditation constitutes "self denial and mortification"? Where's this attitude coming from? Why do you characterize "religious practices" -- wholesale -- in that way? Do you feel that the yoga you practice constitutes "self denial and mortification"?


Why do you react so angrily and defensively? No one is trying to attack you. I was reminded a of another Zen story that I find quite beautiful and compelling:

In Japan, a samurai approached a venerable old monk and demanded:
"Monk tell me the meaning of heaven and hell"
The tiny bald monk looked up at the samurai and berated him;
"Look at you - you armour is rusty, your sword is chipped, you haven't shaved or bathed you are a disgrace to samurai. Get away from me"
The samurai was outraged by these insults and angrily drew his sword. As he began to lower to the sword to decapitate the monk, the monk looked up and said:

"That is hell"
Suddenly the samurai realised what was going on and was filled with love and compassion for this old monk who had risked his own life in order to point out a truth to the samurai. Filled with gratitude, he began to put his sword away, and the monk said:
"That is heaven"




Kirata -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/23/2011 2:58:03 AM)


I wasn't angry. Blinking in disbelief maybe, but not angry. I asked you why you characterized religious practices -- wholesale -- as seeming to insist upon "self denial and mortification." It's obvious from the examples of practices mentioned right here in this thread (contemplative prayer, meditation, and yoga) that such a claim comes straight out of left field. What's up with that? Leave it unanswered if you choose, but maybe it's food for thought.

K.




Kirata -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/23/2011 4:46:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

An in-depth, and pretty scathing, critique of which can be found here:

And he's not just scathing about Karen Armstrong...

Armstrong depicts Islam as forward looking and progressive, tolerant, non-violent, given to compassion and devoted to justice. In the light of what is happening around her, this seems to me plainly obscene, and clear evidence that her thinking about religion has gone off the rails.

I bet Lesley Hazelton would really get his panties in a bunch. Not to mention, somebody needs to tell these folks that their religion isn't Islam. But I'm glad you didn't link to some batshit Islamophobic anti-religion nut. I can't imagine what kind of review it would have been then!

K.




PeonForHer -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/23/2011 6:08:52 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

And he's not just scathing about Karen Armstrong...K.



All too often, the worlds that the pro- and anti- religious inhabit are so distant from one another that the two sides can't even have a proper conversation.  They might as well be talking in different languages (and in some cases that's literally the case).  They just will, very often, end up thinking each other to be 'batshit crazy'.  Me, all I'll say is that Armstrong comes from a position that's too far from my own to speak to me.  On the basis of that critique, she doesn't begin to address my concerns in her various books.  





















GotSteel -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/23/2011 7:26:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
The observation I was relying on, in the post that started this, was simply that the two views appear to be mutually exclusive. I don't think they are unrelated, however. Although they represent different ways of expressing the nature of life and our relationship to the universe, their practices appear to lead to the same changes in cognitive functioning.

Which would lead one toward the conclusion that said practices are relevant and that the views are irrelevant.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
What I think this shows is that no conceptualization, theistic or otherwise, is adquate to the task of communicating that understanding, and that a rigid dependence on the letter of texts misses the point. A Zen teaching story tells of a young monk who begged of his Abbot how best to teach the truths of the Sutras. The Abbot laughed, "Burn them!" Not literally, of course, but you see the point.

If that's the case then texts on the subject, regardless of a rigid or fuzzy interpretation, are wrong.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
The finger that points toward the Moon is not the Moon.

Thing is if you're going to talk about a finger pointing toward the moon said finger should be pointed towards the moon instead of somewhere else entirely.

If what we are talking about cannot be accurately conceptualized then writings on the subject are inherently doomed not to point to the moon as it were. So if the changes in cognitive functioning stem from some practice or practices and the views aren't relevant then religions generally are needlessly obfuscating that "union" (whatever that's supposed to mean) with writings that are necessarily false.




anthrosub -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/23/2011 7:54:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Hmmm... why are you giving in so easily?


The following link should answer your question concisely.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1wg1DNHbNU




tazzygirl -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/23/2011 8:24:40 AM)

So you cannot answer my question, but, instead, direct me to a link that will? I wanted your answer. But, alas, its not to be. Sort of what i expected though.




Enigma108 -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/23/2011 10:39:03 AM)

The critic makes good observations, some I agree with, but I don't think her books should be dismissed. My take on it (as someone who is already educated in world religions and spiritual practices) is that whatever flaws Armstrong's book might have (only to be expected considering what a huge undertaking it was) it still is a monumental work that can help anyone (who can wade through it) to see the big picture about religion(s) more clearly.

The key element is Transcendence itself. Without this, all is merely gossip and as useful as a well (as the Gita says) in a place surrounded by water. It's obvious that Armstrong has not experienced Transcendence but for gaining a historical perspective, and for (if the reader can forgive whatever flaws he or she might presume to find) I think it's the best thing that available to the casual reader.

Satara




Enigma108 -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/23/2011 11:24:56 AM)

quote:

Is it possible that this state, which one person referred to as 'transcendence' is open to multiple interpretations? Evangelicals often speak of being 'touched' by the Holy Ghost at their services. My suspicion is that they misinterpret the state of heightened perception and sensation that is the natural reaction of a human body exposed to intense sensory stimulation during their services as that 'touching'.


This question, is "transcendence" open to multiple interpretations, is a great question. As students in the philosophy of science, we held long examination of this question. I'm afraid I will do a poor job of explaining such a big concept, but consider this, that the word transcendence means "to go beyond." Therefore, any time one goes beyond where one has been, any new learning, any aha! or heretofore not experienced sensation, etc, can be called transcendent (small t) and is open to interpretation. But Transcendence (note the capital T) is Absolute and meets the scientific criteria that it is the same for all observers because if it is experienced in it's pure state, it is pure nothingness. Even though it has the qualities of bliss, etc., the qualities will be experienced in memory, and each individual will describe it differently--even though they were having the same exact experience.

It is useful to understand that there are different states of consciousness, and that there are also altered states, which is different. As near as I can tell from my limited experience with bdsm, I think that it can stimulate Transcendence. Anything taken far enough must finally arrive at pure Transcendence because that is the Unified Field, the underlying Oneness. I have transcended on pain so I know that it's possible, although it certainly isn't my first choice of methods. For the rest, my observations are that the various bdsm activities trigger autonomic reactions, the release of endorphins for pain, etc., and other innate potentials that are hard-wired into the brain and mind-body system.

The experiences of "flying" and other highs can probably rightly be called altered states of consciousness, which means that normal consciousness, baseline consciousness, is stretched to some alternative dimension, but once the stimulus is removed, then conscious must revert back to the baseline. I suspect that bdsm activities are like drugs in that respect, especially considering that there is what is called "dom drop" (and maybe "sub drop"?) after sessions. When there is pure Transcendence, the effect would be positive and lasting and would possibly account for why there is rapid healing; but when the experience has been tricked into happening, it is logical to think there would have to be some equal and opposite down.

I doubt that I did a good job of explaining what I was trying to say, and I still haven't got the entire thing sorted out. The biggest question for me is, is bdsm simply a way of experiencing pleasure, or can it be a disciplined lifestyle that awakens honest progress towards enlightenment, like tantra. In the modern world, tantra is mostly seen as a means of enhancing pleasure, but real tantra understands that pleasure must be Transcended. Pleasure creates attachment, and attachment ties us to illusion, which is why it is called the left hand path. BDSM is certainly a left-hand path, but unlike Tantra, there isn't much ancient wisdom for guidance.

Satara





Enigma108 -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/23/2011 11:39:26 AM)

from antrosub
quote:

but what each of us thinks of as his or her "self" is nothing more than an extremely complex set of electro-chemical energy patterns zipping around in the cells that make up our brain. When the brain stos fiunctioning there's nothing left to maintain the energy patterns. You won't be around to feel good, bad, or anything else about your life or death. In essence, the "observer" is gone... "


Have you considered that the observer is the only thing that is real, that the rest is just a collection of "electro-chemical energy patterns zipping around in the cells"?


"Most people think in terms of subject/object. For example, you (the subject) feel good (the object). You (the subject) have a body (the object).


I agree that most people think in terms of subject/object. What is left out is, who is the knower that experiences subject and object?

Satara




Enigma108 -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/23/2011 11:42:07 AM)

I think I've just got the hang of how these quote boxes work.

My comment, "Have you considered that the observer is the only thing that is real, that the rest is just a collection of "electro-chemical energy patterns zipping around in the cells"?" ended up in the middle of the quote box.

Satara




Page: <<   < prev  14 15 [16] 17 18   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
9.570313E-02