Owledge

It gets easier to believe someone is God if that person has more of the divine radiate through them. Because, since we are all God, yet very used to using our analytical mind, we have trouble with the idea that several people can be one thing. That's a big problem and should-be mental conflict in monotheism, with the personification of the divine. The claim that God is almighty, yet is being regarded as a single person. How could someone with the attributes of God still be just a person? Even I was/am habitually operating quite a lot on this analytical view, and that gave me a very hard time when I experienced myself being God.

Not by scientific procedure, only by definition. It is a logical establishment like math. It is very close to a belief, and many people are especially unaware of that because they think they are smart just because they put faith in science. Which makes it even more of a belief system. It's even more problematic: As soon as you understand the definition of "the universe" as less than everything there is (which is happening, especially when you hear people talk about the "multiverse" or "other dimensions"), it becomes everything but a universal truth. Just another scientific idea that eventually will have to be reviewed. Or the definition of "the universe" changed again in order to make things match again. That's usually what happens with encrusted dogmas in the scientific establishment. You build workarounds and move even farther away from greater insight. And those results then are what rings the alarm bell in people with a strong common sense. Just look at what happens with negentropics and zero point technology. The people who are considered the experts in the theory claim it's a perpetuum mobile, thus not possible. They give something a label that describes something that is believed to be impossible, because their idea of the universe is limited and they don't consider in their mind the possibility that there is more. Extremely narrow-minded, but that's the result of putting faith in dogmas. I once witnessed this level of narrow-mindedness from a prof. dr. dr. h.c. mult. (theoretical physics et al.). So much for titles. The ideas of some of the cherished physical principles and so-called "laws of nature" still exist not just because of their verified truth, but because a) they are useful in the way things are done (based on those ideas) and b ) the hype and celebration has a self-perpetuating effect. Try to look at Christianity without looking at the Church. Try to look at science without looking at the academic establishment.

This is one of my favorite quotes now.

You believe it to be true. That is the belief. "Fact" can be quite subjective. It is almost like nothing but a definition by an established authority and thus part of believer mindset. (Yet, from that viewpoint, it's hard to find anything that is not belief. ... And that is a very spiritually valuable realisation, one that you could say was slapped around my face until I shed my denial. I now distinguish between 'ordinary' reality and wholistic reality in order to be more practical in the former.) Pantheism. I consider myself a pantheist.

"Super" doesn't mean bigger or more. It means "above".

This is not psychoanalysis, this is logic. It is pointless and misleading to say as an atheist you don't believe in the supernatural and then when asked say the term doesn't contain anything for you, because it doesn't exist. When I said supernatural, you should know damn well what I mean by that if you haven't lived in a cave all those years. And since you also talked about evidence, there is evidence for the existence of phenomena that are commonly referred to as supernatural. You then didn't explain what you understand with the term, but just claimed supernatural doesn't exist. That's wasting my time with pointless deceptive games. When someone says "Magic is real!", a fool says "No it's not!". A wise man asks what he means by "magic".

So then healing severe ailments through pure intention is by your definition natural. But still, why are you even (mis)using the term "supernatural" in a claim that those phenomena don't exist when you know very well what they are referring to? You are not criticizing the intended meaning, but the term, while playing dumb and focusing on the intended meaning.

If your reality-observation actually was that good, you would have to know what kind of phenomena are referred to with the word "supernatural", and then that would mean you're merely playing word games.

This straw man rhetoric is very familar, and not in a good way. It's an easy and habitual cop-out among people who put great faith in their basic rational capacities, in lack of better words right now. Try not to use it, because the baggage that comes with it seems to affect you, too, because it's obviously not making up a straw man argument, since it's fact that atheism is in praxis often used WITH a lot of connotation, and that's what we're adressing in the discussion. The stuff that actually happens in context to the word. If this is a straw man, then we didn't build it, we're in fact trying to burn it. You cannot tell apart fact from belief now, and if this is not just for demonstration, it would be worrying. You can only factually state your non-belief about the supernatural, but you cannot factually state that nothing supernatural exists; not only based on logical principles, but also because there's good empirical evidence that they in fact do exist (Bruno Gröning being a prime example).

@Protector, too This is what REALLY vexes Atheists* (or should we rather call them "antitheists" for better clarity?), the claim that disbelief is a belief, because it points at the truth that a fanatic mind in denial doesn't want to see. Agnosticism is about non-belief: "I don't know whether God exists." Atheism is often about belief: "I believe God does not exist". It should not be. The term itself doesn't necessarily imply it, but the people who get really worked up and arrogant about said claim are usually the ones who are guilty of its accusation. Furthermore, an objection to a multi-faceted interpretation of the term "atheist" is a double standard when coming from those who use "religion" in very much the same way. For example, statements like "Religion is the bane of the world; caused so much suffering" is very fuzzy, because there are all kinds of religions (e.g. buddhism), so this would kinda potentially insultingly exclude non-Western ones, and religion does not equal a worldly corrupt organization using its label for their own goals. Rabid atheists love to apply double-standards, because they severely lack self-awareness and are not at all about the search for truth, which is a disgrace when brought into connection with science. *) a.k.a. self-proclaimed organized "skeptics", those who often are actually not skeptical at all, but rigid non-believers.

Your sig just inspired me to some anarchist poetry: I reserve the right to be wrong. I reserve the left to be right. P.S.: Now also on Twitter, tadaaa: https://twitter.com/Dowlphin/status/520949729065439233

Wrong!

You'd love the German language. ^^ Huge success for me, lol. Also: I have a trampolining pink pony in my sig. Your argument is invalid.

And in so few words, haha.

Nothing about it is a proper name. It translates as "no God-belief". You could just as well capitalize "philosophy".

Very nice. You noticed the several occurences of its capitalization. Picking up subtle but meaningful clues. Those are all symptoms that speak a much clearer language than the syntax of what people say.

That smugness and lavishing in his conformant audience. Spoils all the attempted humor for me. When calling atheism a religion, I don't go by what Bill Maher chooses to pick in order to support his line of reasoning. There's the Wikipedia definition "A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.[note 1] Many religions have narratives, symbols, and sacred histories that are intended to explain the meaning of life and/or to explain the origin of life or the Universe. From their beliefs about the cosmos and human nature, people derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle." and that can be correlated with the original meaning of the word, meaning re-connecting. But it is best to take it as the multi-faceted word that it is and try to get the message behind the statement instead of harnessing one's 'superior mind power' to wield a certain definition. I think the whole polar 'conflict' between radical atheists and radical theists, like other conflicts of that nature emerging in recent times, is showing a crisis of imbalance. Fear-based minds are creating an environment of separation, and those separated poles cannot exist properly without each other, but when they are still living the problem, they will naturally see the other pole as the cause for their grievances. I'd say the driving force behind the atheist side of this conflict can be identified or summed up as "hubris". That thing that makes so many people today still believe that animals are like mindless zombies or machines unaware of themselves and having no emotions. It is a culture of separating oneself from everything else, and that leads to lack of empathy. Conflict atheism is as much about giving away power and authority to others as is conflict theism. So what I wanted to point out with the idea of atheism as a religion is the similarity in issues of people on both sides. BTW Maher ridiculing the idea that the belief in man-made global warming is not a religion (again - context) either indicates the unwavering faith-based belief in the politically tainted doctrines put forth by the establishment. And this is part of the problem with that kind of atheism: They automatically see themselves as crusaders of science and will believe anything that has that authoritative label on it. In a way, people of that belief could be called, in the original sense of the word, a gnostic sect. Atheist gnosis. Because an agnostic wouldn't be so sure about those doctrines. (I recently witnessed Steven Colbert act like the biggest asshole, divider and mass-following zealot when he mocked people who don't believe in MMGW and tried to attack them with his mighty peer pressure.) I think what is often derogatively and inaccurately called "liberalist" or "progressive" by some people is talking about that side of the imbalance - that smug attitude that surprisingly often in a clichéed way brings together several problematic ideologies. Contrary to the misconception (that I myself had when I was less enlightened) you can totally be a theist and a scientist. Because, as should be apparent, as long as you don't entertain the hubris of trying to prove or disprove the existence of God, but focus on the practical, observable phenomena, you can make a very good contribution to scientific endeavors. Hell, if what happens in quantum physics doesn't ring an alarm bell for people, I don't know what. People seem to be surprisingly comfortable observing something mindboggling and unexplainable and say the 'unexplainable particles' did it and that's it. Another victory for science®. The much older and thus well-developed scientific methods and findings in Taoism are an example of how to practice things in balance. Non-exclusive nature-observation and exploration and lots of philosophy in the mix. Without going into too much detail here (I might blog about it), I think the opposing duality in the meaning of the word "philosophy" is a symptom of the problem. Science can make good use of philosophy in its original sense - as the search for wisdom. But wisdom is a more advanced thing than 'knowledge'. "A philosophy" is usually referring to a rigid mindset, an idea of how things are, a convenient belief in order to avoid being honest to oneself.

Easy for me to pass that up. I totally don't have the patience for reading books anymore, and I don't like dark fiction at all. Same reason why I don't play the supposedly excellent Metro games. The overall energy is what appeals to me, and that's why I love MLP. It is not a craving of the intellect.

Nice thread revive. ^^ Valuable for people on the internet who still might not have learned about the fandom. This thread was what ignited by love for MLP and my creative spark, and nowl I'm owl owlver the place - http://dowlphin.de

But you should try watching that pony when you're tired. Like a meditation. See what happens. Actually, I got a video with her that might be an alternative meditation to that:

This is a semi-rant I guess... Man, do I encounter people lately that are projecting heavily! Since spiritual growth is very much about self-cultivation, projection is one of the most fundamental obstacles. There are two views on it that I tend to consider happening: 1) Blaming others for the things you are yourself is just the plain easiest means of intellectual defense. It can indicate lack of it, and it can also indicate that someone feels cornered, overpowered, under pressure, thus can only come up with this lamest of all tactics. 2) When you feel alright and then someone starts interacting with you, pointing out your flaws, and you don't want to admit those flaws in you, then the simple escape for you is: I felt fine, then the guy appeared, now I feel uncomfortable, thus 'naturally' he is the source of that. I feel repulsed? Well, it certainly isn't me, but the feeling is there, so it has to be that other person there who is repulsive. Projection is like the popculture version of denial and a more severe form of simple denial. I had so much experience with people in denial that I don't think projection is unconscious. In most cases, people know very well what they're doing. Some might become very good at lying to themselves, but originally they knew it's a lie. When someone's flaw is pointed out and they feel discomfort, they know it is because the other person is right. I do not go hunting for people like that, but fools have always underestimated me and gotten a bloody nose because they couldn't resist getting into an intellectual wrestling match. ... Which is unsurprising, since they are by definition not smart and sincere enough to admit that someone else might be smarter than they. So they attack me, then don't like the reaction, and then guess what happens: projection. They might be the one throwing the first stone and still they complain when their window gets shattered. People can radiate certain qualities, and in my case, it seems that often my mere mostly passive presence is like an insult to certain people. I can trace this all the way back to my childhood and it has always put me off, and thus also isolated from most people around me. My current spiritual theme is getting rid of remnants of the psycho-games that tried to tell me I am the one who is wrong or odd or unacceptable, and also to shed false modesty and self-doubt, another result of past experiences. My problems don't seem to be mainstream, too, which I guess is natural for a minority. Pop culture keeps repeating advice for young people, about how to hone their character, and it's mostly pretty much the opposite of what I need. I am very careful these days with my judgments when I hear from people that someone is arrogant. If the people saying that have issues (that are widespread, like inferiority complexes and such), then what they call arrogant is just the perceived difference to their own lack of self-esteem. They're agents of the mind game that tells exceptional people to be modest, so that the mediocre ones don't feel uncomfortable.

Basically, at the root, one has to be sincerely interested in finding out the truth (about themselves), and this requires a willingness to face and confront discomfort. Social stigmas like the fear of being found wrong are doing great harm to the spiritual development of humankind. Many people, in arguments, are pretty much waging war, treating others as enemies that they have to oppose. Too much competition (fueled by society's capitalist mindset), not enough cooperation. Yin-yang imbalance. Male dominance. How things got this way is all quite clear. Improving them is a wholly different story.

I wonder whether this description is related to the experience I had on ayahuasca. At some point, it felt as if the 'cleaning process' was tugging at a big heavy chunk in my guts, and I believed that if that clot was removed, I'd lose the anchor to physical reality. Another thought this triggered in me is this: Could this be related to why various nei gung techniques emphasize bringing the energy down after moving it? Because personally I'm kinda torn sometimes. I get an energy-pulsating feeling around my third eye and along my forehead and want it to do its work (if that's what happens) in order to open stuff up there, so I am hesitant bringing it down. Then again, fire in the head could be problematic. But the thing is that it never bothered me. Even if I don't care at all about bringing the energy down (if that even works), I never get headaches or psychoses or anything.

But if you see things that way, then what has never been seen also cannot be unseen. Because you are already all-knowing, just limiting yourself, shielding omniscience from your egoic mind. If you look at it more pragmatically, then what has been seen can very well be unseen, by moving it back into the unconscious. We are unseeing all the time in order to function properly on the material plane.

@Seeker of Tao It's of course all vague terms. There isn't one fixed threshold or something. If you attain absolutely "full" enlightenment, you have no identity anymore. So this is an extreme that will only be attainable temporarily through the use of psychdelics. I am generally careful before judging something, but that one time on ayahuasca, while I don't remember the details of the experience, I do remember my thoughts after coming down a little: 'That's it? Up there, BAM - full enlightenment, understanding everything, and now back down here and life goes on as if nothing has happened? What's the point in reaching for it then? Just to be shown that there's no point?' Also interesting about the word "enlightenment" is that it is used in a seemingly more mundane sense, as in "the Age of Enlightenment". (It's the name of a historical period.) I say it's the same thing, just less severe. Every Eureka!-moment is a small step on the path of enlightenment. Whenever you think: "Ah! I see now!" - that's enlightenment. Full enlightenment is fool enlightenment.