Atheism as a religion

[Rara]

 

How can you be certain of this Marblehead; it is rather a sweeping statement.

The lineage that I am studying teaches that we reside spread across the whole of the body via the nadi, through which prana travels; of particular importance is the soul which is found just off set from the heart. The whole body being an interface for consciousness.

 

1. Not so much a sweeping statement than a condensed, more basic way of explaining the organs' primary functions. I think we all know here that the two organs work together somewhat.

 

But lets look at the soul. I think I explain myself thoroughly in my previous post about what is "measurable" here, and the soul isn't.

[Rara]

From a more recent scientific perspective, all of the following is testable or rather has been tested; The human heart is a proper little dynamo; whilst giving an electrical charge to the blood, the heart it's self; containing a massive cluster of neurons, has an electric field about it that is perceivable up to 2 meters away.

2. Has been tested, fair enough. But this does not explicitally relate to what you were saying before. Unless I'm missing something in that the electric field is something of an energy or soul that you speak of?

[Rara]

The heart and stomach have been found to have one polarity while all other organs the reverses, like little batteries, you could quite reasonably from this argue that we think with our stomachs.

 

3. How do you draw this conclusion "we think with our stomachs" from the previous sentence?

[Marblehead]

You are getting so far off track now.

 

The point was mere language logic. You can only say you don't believe in magic if you define magic as something you don't believe exists, but you defined it as something that very much exists to you, so in turn you actually would believe in magic.

Is that our only misunderstanding? If it is we are doing vastly better than most people on this planet.

 

Okay. I will do my best to express my "beliefs" regarding this. "I" do not believe in magic. It cannot work for me. Another person believes in magic. It works for them. (But their efforts cannot work on me. They work only on someone who believes.)

 

Really, this entire discussion is based within the concepts of objective reality vs subjective reality.

 

Objective reality suggests that there is nothing super- or unnatural anyplace in the universe. The universe is not "constant state" but is very dynamic. There is always something going on. However, if we had the raw data and the knowledge to analyze it we could explain everything that happens within the universe.

 

Subjective reality is limited to only the individual thinker. Yes, the individual. There is no collective consciousness. Sorry. If there were there would never be a child going to bed hungry and there would never be wars or murders. And everyone would be of the same social, spiritual, and material status.

 

When we speak subjectively what we are leaving unsaid at the beginning is "I think ..."

 

Now, we all know that thoughts can go places the body cannot. But the thinker is having those experiences in their mind and if the experiences are strong enough they will actually effect the body. In this case a new "objective" is being created. But it is being created for only the thinker. It is not effecting anyone else and no one else can have the experiences the individual is having unless the experience is talked about and the listener wants very much to believe in events such as the one the thinker had.

 

Flying saucers exist for you. They don't exist for me. You are fortunate as there is more to your life than there is to mine. But then, I didn't need any flying saucers anyhow.

 

So anyhow, Atheism is not a religion. The only common theme for all Atheists is that "There are no gods." That is all. From that point on individual beliefs vary just as much as any other grouping of people. Some might even practice Voodoo. I know a few who practice healing and we all know that there are many who say that healing is BS.

[Marblehead]

atheist taoist is common and anarchist too which is also common thread among a few of us here. atheists are the ones who relate well to XYP, as do scientists but i digress and will speak more to that on a XYP thread(at some point) my main XYP teacher is atheist,,

XYP does not compute in my brain so you would have to tell me more before I could speak to it.

 

I agree that Taoism and Atheism fit well together.

 

Taoism and Anarchy would have to be supported from Chuang Tzu because, IMO, the TTC does not support it except perhaps in Chapter 80.

 

mh, do you think existentialism fits on this thread, or should i take that conversation to another thread?

I got lost trying to understand existentialism and finally had to give up on trying to understand it. Made me think, Albert Camus was repeatedly accused of being an existentialist but he denied it just as many times.

 

i am pleased that you see similarity between ancient greeks and taoists, i think some of our chinese members here dont see that at all.

Yeah, this is one of those trick viewings. One can see it from this side but it cannot be seen from the other side. and yes, I know there are some who cannot see this connection but I have never gotten into those discussions because I cannot see the entire picture from their viewpoint.

 

i think existentialism fits well with taoism myself. i have a 1,000 word paper due tomorrow i havnt started on yet haha so i will check back tomorrow and see where we go from here.

Well, it could be a good discussion but I would likely have to ask a lot of questions so that I knew what I was talking about. But then, I could always take to position of the antagonist.

[Marblehead]

But lets look at the soul. I think I explain myself thoroughly in my previous post about what is "measurable" here, and the soul isn't.

We didn't have much luck finding the mind either. Hehehe.

 

We can find the heart though. But let's not pretend it does things it actually doesn't do.

[Marblehead]

3. How do you draw this conclusion "we think with our stomachs" from the previous sentence?

I will suggest that the stomach does not think but that it does make gas.

[zerostao]

"Flying saucers exist for you. They don't exist for me." , well, i was in the air force, so, there is this base close to dayton heheh

i think and i wonder very subjectively and doubt that pure objective thought is even possible

and even if it is it is of very small value.

 

altho, hegel notoriously had the idea the the whole is the truth

and i cant argue with that

 

a collective consciousness, i cant go along with that either

now if you say collective unconscious, then......

 

objective reality,,spoken like a true marxist

[Marblehead]

No, I haven't read Marx either.

 

Collective unconsciousness - can be found in most places in America.

 

Actually, flying saucers aren't so bad. But one must beware of flying forks and knives.

[zerostao]

good to see you in good form and in good humor this morning.

spoons even, no one ever sees those coming.

camus, yes, those 20th century french thinkers and this one born in algeria which he has in common with the subject i had my aforementioned paper assigned. derrida.

coincidently camus is a known atheist, i think we can safely say. with derrida it is hard to safely say anything

so lets listen to the man himself and see what we think

 

[Marblehead]

good to see you in good form and in good humor this morning.

spoons even, no one ever sees those coming.

camus, yes, those 20th century french thinkers and this one born in algeria which he has in common with the subject i had my aforementioned paper assigned. derrida.

coincidently camus is a known atheist, i think we can safely say. with derrida it is hard to safely say anything

so lets listen to the man himself and see what we think

I don't know Derrida but based on that short speech I think it would be safe to say that he is/was an Agnostic.

 

To my recall, Camus never stated he was an Atheist but then neither do I recall him saying he wasn't an Atheist.

 

Funny about Camus, he wrote much more about Algeria than he ever did about France or Paris.

 

The spoons. No, I didn't see them coming and therefore didn't mention them.

 

Yeah, we need keep our sense of humor. What would life be without it?

 

I think it is safe to say Camus was an Atheist. For sure he was a believer in "cause and effect" but just as much of a believer in the randomness of cause and effect. In the randomness of life itself.

 

Did I miss anything? My thoughts are random, I know.

[zerostao]

i think camus derrida and spoons are enuff for today.

tomorrow lecan, zizek and how it all goes back to hegel imo

which in our synchronicity is curious , in that after marx everyone dismissed hegel

for long long time

derrida speaks of absence, that will be repeated tomorrow

[Marblehead]

It's pretty easy to be absent. Especially absent-minded.

[Rara]

We didn't have much luck finding the mind either. Hehehe.

 

We had some good guesses though based on, oh wait, similar lines of thought. Some were playing dot to dot but getting some very strange shapes.

 

I will suggest that the stomach does not think but that it does make gas.

 

Seems to have a mind (metaphorically speaking) of its own. Always lets me know when I'm hungry, and as I've said before somewhere else, if I don't feed it, it will eat me anyway.

[iain]

1. Not so much a sweeping statement than a condensed, more basic way of explaining the organs' primary functions. I think we all know here that the two organs work together somewhat.

My heart is what pumps my blood. That's all a heart does for anyone. All the concept work is done in the brain.

Do you not notice the "boxed" implication of this statement? To my mind, a kin to opening Schrodinger's box and proclaiming that "Lucky", Schrodinger's favorite Cheshire cat, is alive and grinning; Blissfully ignorant of the system upon which his health depends.

 

More seriously, as I have already mentioned in a post, I think in this thread, the empirical evidence that science demands is to my mind, rather like the photon detector demanding to be intensified so as to better know the world; whilst examining the single stripe of light on the photographic plate and pondering all the while as to where the other 80% of that experimantal universe is is.

Where as the more sensitive detector can just plain see the waves, with out asking for proof that matter exists as a block.

 

delta t is physics's big slip up; a Jyotisa studies it.

But lets look at the soul. I think I explain myself thoroughly in my previous post about what is "measurable" here, and the soul isn't.

Here we go again; another sweeping statement once again with no proof; the soul is measurable; this is exactly what a Jyotisa does.

 

Kind regards.

Edited October 22, 2014 by iain

[iain]

2. Has been tested, fair enough. But this does not explicitally relate to what you were saying before. Unless I'm missing something in that the electric field is something of an energy or soul that you speak of?

Energy is everything, thanks to Mr Einstein we have good proof of this; expressed most eloquently in his famed equation E=mc². It is no far stretch of the imagination to relate this to an electric field generator a current and a signal ...

 

Well my only point here was to show that the heart has a function other than pumping blood, and I though this might entice the curious reader into watching the rather fascinating documentary that was inserted in post. There is one particularly interesting experiment documented, all very scientific, in which test subjects are rigged up and monitored as they watch a progression of images upon a screen, the Heart brain and adrenal responses are monitored; it was found that the heat reacts before the brain in activating a response to perceived danger, this certainly puts into question the phrase "My heart is what pumps my blood. That's all a heart does for anyone. All the concept work is done in the brain." As here it would appear that the heart has made a decision for the subject being monitored. It is arguably the brain that the martial artist switch's off, this beggs the question; with what is He/She acting and reacting?

Edited October 22, 2014 by iain

[Rara]

Do you not notice the "boxed" implication of this statement? To my mind, a kin to opening Schrodinger's box and proclaiming that "Lucky", Schrodinger's favorite Cheshire cat, is alive and grinning; Blissfully ignorant of the system upon which his health depends.

 

More seriously, as I have already mentioned in a post, I think in this thread, the empirical evidence that science demands is to my mind, rather like the photon detector demanding to be intensified so as to better know the world; whilst examining the single stripe of light on the photographic plate and pondering all the while as to where the other 80% of that experimantal universe is is.

Where as the more sensitive detector can just plain see the waves, with out asking for proof that matter exists as a block.

 

delta t is physics's big slip up; a Jyotisa studies it.

 

Here we go again; another sweeping statement once again with no proof; the soul is measurable; this is exactly what a Jyotisa does.

 

Kind regards.

But this isn't what I said about science. It is still "pondering" and looking into all sorts of phenomenon.

 

And no, it isn't a sweeping statement. There has been no credible news on the soul, qi or anything, otherwise these "answers" would be globally accepted. They are about as measurable as a God in the sky - and religion in the west is dropping off. Atheism is on the rise due to this wisdom.

 

That's not to dispute God (for this is a very broad term) or consciousness for that matter (which we certainly do have but similarly have trouble seeing) or energy. In fact, I will continue in response to your next post...

Edited October 22, 2014 by Rara

[Marblehead]

Do you not notice the "boxed" implication of this statement? To my mind, a kin to opening Schrodinger's box and proclaiming that "Lucky", Schrodinger's favorite Cheshire cat, is alive and grinning; Blissfully ignorant of the system upon which his health depends.

 

More seriously, as I have already mentioned in a post, I think in this thread, the empirical evidence that science demands is to my mind, rather like the photon detector demanding to be intensified so as to better know the world; whilst examining the single stripe of light on the photographic plate and pondering all the while as to where the other 80% of that experimantal universe is is.

Where as the more sensitive detector can just plain see the waves, with out asking for proof that matter exists as a block.

 

Yeah, I'm pretty good at setting limits. If you are not alive then you either haven't yet been born or you were born and then died. Those are the limits. The cat is either alive or it is dead - it cannot be both at the same time.

 

With a detector you either detect what you are looking for or you don't. There is never a "maybe I am detecting something".

 

Atheism is not a religion. It cannot be called a religion and then have none of the attributes required to be classified a religion.

 

And true, I really don't care that I am a bunch of atoms mixed together with mostly empty space. Personally, I think I am more than that. But others seem to be happy being empty space. That's fine too.

[Rara]

Energy is everything, thanks to Mr Einstein we have good proof of this; expressed most eloquently in his famed equation E=mc². It is no far stretch of the imagination to relate this to an electric field generator a current and a signal ...

 

Well my only point here was to show that the heart has a function other than pumping blood, and I though this might entice the curious reader into watching the rather fascinating documentary that was inserted in post. There is one particularly interesting experiment documented, all very scientific, in which test subjects are rigged up and monitored as they watch a progression of images upon a screen, the Heart brain and adrenal responses are monitored; it was found that the heat reacts before the brain in activating a response to perceived danger, this certainly puts into question the phrase "My heart is what pumps my blood. That's all a heart does for anyone. All the concept work is done in the brain." As here it would appear that the heart has made a decision for the subject being monitored. It is arguably the brain that the martial artist switch's off, this beggs the question; with what is He/She acting and reacting?

...so I am not denying energy. What I deny are the conclusions as they appear to have been made elsewhere from the spiritual side. Feel free to present them here, I don't wish to stop that, but like I said before, it is important that the information is somewhat tangible.

 

Also, back to the significance of the electric field of the heart (from a post before) I do not see it. Yes, it has one, but there is nothing astounding about this. Getting to the bottom of points (aka concrete or consistency) is all that I'm challenging.

 

Your description of the video has interested me though, and I will watch. I just haven't yet because I wasn't enticed first off, no, and I'm always quite busy. But I admit, you've got me curious to watch. I can't comment further until I have. Thanks for persisting with that

Edited October 22, 2014 by Rara

[iain]

3. How do you draw this conclusion "we think with our stomachs" from the previous sentence?

I didn't draw the conclusion from that sentence; to my mind it is obvious that this is the case, so I didn't see the necessity. I have also commented on neuro transmitters that are made in the Gut (though I don't remember where).

 

There is a simple experiment that you can or anyone else can conduct, if you have doubts as to your stomachs link to your mind and thought; very low budget science so no funding is required ... try a fast, I'll bet you struggle to make 3 days.

Edited October 22, 2014 by iain

[Rara]

I didn't draw the conclusion from that sentence; to my mind it is obvious that this is the case, so I didn't see the necessity. I have also commented on neuro transmitters that are made in the Gut (though I don't remember where).

 

There is a simple experiment that you can or anyone else can conduct, if you have doubts as to your stomachs link to your mind and thought; very low budget science so no funding is required ... try a fast, I'll bet you struggle to make 3 days.

Well, I believe I quoted you in order of how you wrote it. Again, if it makes sense to you, then great, but this is exactly the point behind my "mumbo jumbo" comment. Nothing linked, but if you did speak of that earlier then ok, but it's not what I read initially.

 

But further to your elaboration, yes, and in fact, I made a similar statement in response to MH about the stomach making up its own mind (but metaphorically) to eat the person if they don't choose to feed it.

 

That is a good (and as you say obvious) observation which is so often overlooked. I just wouldn't go as far as to say it is a mind, or that it thinks, for those definitions have their own variables. The stomach can't do maths, but it can act spontaneously to its needs. These are quite different things.

Edited October 22, 2014 by Rara

[iain]

...so I am not denying energy. What I deny are the conclusions as they appear to have been made elsewhere from the spiritual side. Feel free to present them here, I don't wish to stop that, but like I said before, it is important that the information is somewhat tangible.

 

Also, back to the significance of the electric field of the heart (from a post before) I do not see it. Yes, it has one, but there is nothing astounding about this. Getting to the bottom of points (aka concrete or consistency) is all that I'm challenging.

 

Your description of the video has interested me though, and I will watch. I just haven't yet because I wasn't enticed first off, no, and I'm always quite busy. But I admit, you've got me curious to watch. I can't comment further until I have. Thanks for persisting with that

 

Oh you are quite welcome, I love discussing all of this and the nature of that. Physics a passion of mine also.

 

Are you familiar with the quantum slit experiment to which I have made reference?

 

Your response seems to imply to me that perhaps you are not familiar; my argument depends upon it. As does modern Physics.

 

 

Interestingly enough, the recently found "Higgs Boson" is proof of Ākāśa tattva, a fundamental concept of Jyotish shastra.

(please forgiver me my tangental thought, I am a very non linear person; I actually find writing very difficult to such an extent that If I had no spell check and this was hand written; you would think that I am a child and I would be to embarrassed to send a message.)

Edited October 22, 2014 by iain

[Rara]

 

Oh you are quite welcome, I love discussing all of this and the nature of that. Physics a passion of mine also.

 

Are you familiar with the quantum slit experiment to which I have made reference?

 

Your response seems to imply to me that perhaps you are not familiar; my argument depends upon it. As does modern Physics.

 

 

Interestingly enough, the recently found "Higgs Boson" is proof of Ākāśa tattva, a fundamental concept of Jyotish shastra.

(please forgiver me my tangental thought, I am a very non linear person; I actually find writing very difficult to such an extent that If I had no spell check and this was hand written; you would think that I am a child and I would be to embarrassed to send a message.)

Hello! The quantum slit experiment I believe vaguely, but correct, I dabbled in what I see as entry level quantum physics but didn't move much further. I think 4th Spatial Dimension was about it as well as what I think you're describing - do you mean the photon blasted through a slit but then dispersed in a fashion on the other side that was not predicted? I just stopped because it didn't interest me, especially when the "real quantum physics" emerged. Formulas were never my thing...each to their own.

 

Your reference to the quantum split though, was sandwiched between talking about MH's "boxed" answer and something else though (am I correct? Sorry, I don't have time to trace back through the thread today) I think I missed the analogy (if there ever was one!) You could well have been talking about something completely different.

 

Perhaps that was why there was a miscommunication in places...your tangents I was left scratching my head on how certain things were threaded together. But feel free to explain more about the quantum slit if I haven't quite got that overview correct!

 

Physics is my stronger side, as well as maths. Not strongest, not expert, but fairly well educated. I'm lucky in that my Wing Chun teacher is PhD Physics, research fellow and university lecturer. As a good friend, I happen to just hear all about it by default.

 

Your "Higgs Boson" is proof of Ākāśa tattva, a fundamental concept of Jyotish shastra...is lost on me. Only because I haven't been learning the latter, so only you will know what you mean here.

[Marblehead]

so only you will know what you mean here.

Yeah, I know what I mean too but oftentimes I fail to properly express it to others.

 

(Yes, I must continue to read all the posts in this thread 'just in case'.)

[Rara]

Yeah, I know what I mean too but oftentimes I fail to properly express it to others.

 

(Yes, I must continue to read all the posts in this thread 'just in case'.)

Though I have often seen you say sometimes you don't know what you mean How will we ever know when you actually know? Hehe (there goes my insecurity again)