Understanding the religious mindset

[henry quirk]

It's too bad you can't respond to me without acting so arrogant,

sez the pot

I was totally nice in my response to you, Henry. I even thanked you.

Really?

Yeah, still not gettin it.

Yeah, I can see that.

That's okay. You have your ways of being amused and seeing value... and I have mine.

It's too bad you can't respond to me without acting so arrogant, but I guess that comes from you thinking you know the final word on every fucking thing you talk about.

Are you Unitarian (Universalist)?

No.

Not seein' nice or thanks in there.

Anyway, I don't think my response was unduly nasty: you say I act arrogant; I point out you do the same.

[Age]

How do you know that?

BECAUSE once what God IS is KNOWN, to 'one', then that 'one' evolves passed the human being stage.

It is, after all, ONLY 'you', human beings, who are wondering what God is, and what God wants, right?

I'm not wondering what a god is or what a god wants.

Are you saying that you have evolved past the human being stage?

NO.

Once what the 'you' IS is KNOWN, to one, then that 'one' will KNOW how the 'you' can NOT evolve passed the human being stage.

[henry quirk]

If you know what you mean: post it instead of defaultin' to meaningless or misused words like energy.

I did. Energy is real and measurable.

I'd not seen the following article before just now, but it describes in more detail the kind of energy I'm referring to. I'm sure there are countless articles on the same. This is not NEW information. Is it honestly incomprehensible to you? Do you not see any potential implications of everything being energy which is connected together?

(You may need to scroll to the top of the following article to see it from the beginning... it doesn't start at the top when I open this link.)

https://www.turnerpublishing.com/blog/d ... %20energy.

Okay...I get what you're drivin' at. Problem with such notions is those notions get stretched to encompass stuff they weren't meant to.

As I reckon it: interconnection (or, more accurately, permeability) is all about the constant exchange of (non-metaphysical) force between discrete entities.

Take that great heat sink, the Gulf of Mexico: water, air, heat, geography juxtapositioned just right makes for a hurricane machine. Energy (heat) is exchanged, stored, does work and we folks on the gulf coast have sumthin' to think about every year.

It's all pretty straight forward.

Then the crystal rubbers come along and start their nonsense, addin' super to natural and before you know it we're all gettin' lectured about how we need to evolve and live in the moment and honor creative energy and blah, blah, blah. Energy (the capacity for doing work) gets turned into Casper the Friendly Ghost and we have to build lil Wiccan altars and burn sage and mouth platitudes and...

[Lacewing]

I was totally nice in my response to you, Henry. I even thanked you.

Really?

Yes.

Here was the response:

...

After I thanked you for trying to understand, you responded in your usual put-down know-it-all fashion that refuses to recognize any validity beyond your own nose that is overly stuffed with snark. Just when I think we might have a decent conversation, you unload that... as if you're so full of it, it just sprays out all over everything.

[Lacewing]

Okay...I get what you're drivin' at. Problem with such notions is those notions get stretched to encompass stuff they weren't meant to.

So... you're saying that not everything is made of energy?

As I reckon it: interconnection (or, more accurately, permeability) is all about the constant exchange of (non-metaphysical) force between discrete entities.

How can we possibly know the level and extent of information or force that is exchanged/shared between all things? Why would there be any barriers, other than the superficial imaginings of humans who think everything is solid and separate?

Then the crystal rubbers come along and start their nonsense, addin' super to natural and before you know it we're all gettin' lectured about how we need to evolve and live in the moment and honor creative energy and blah, blah, blah.

There's more to this Universe than you (or any of us) understand, Henry. But you like to sit in your box and point to the four corners over and over as if that's so complete.

Energy (the capacity for doing work) gets turned into Casper the Friendly Ghost and we have to build lil Wiccan altars and burn sage and mouth platitudes and...

What do you think everything is made up of?

And why do you suppose you have to degrade any views other than your own? Do you really think you're so brilliant?

[henry quirk]

I was totally nice in my response to you, Henry. I even thanked you.

Really?

Yes.

Here was the response:

...

After I thanked you for trying to understand, you responded in your usual put-down know-it-all fashion that refuses to recognize any validity beyond your own nose that is overly stuffed with snark. Just when I think we might have a decent conversation, you unload that... as if you're so full of it, it just sprays out all over everything.

*i yam what i yam and *what i yam doesn't jibe with what you are. Fire and water we are.

This line...

refuses to recognize any validity beyond your own nose

...tickles me, comin' from you.


*a no-prize to the one who identifies who this comes from

[Lacewing]

This line...

refuses to recognize any validity beyond your own nose

...tickles me, comin' from you.

Please provide an example.

If you're referring to theism, I've frequently acknowledged the values of it... even though it's not a belief I hold.

Unlike you (apparently), I can see all kinds of things that "work" or that offer insights.

[Lacewing]

Once what the 'you' IS is KNOWN, to one, then that 'one' will KNOW how the 'you' can NOT evolve passed the human being stage.

Whatever. You haven't demonstrated anything compelling for a discussion.

[henry quirk]

So... you're saying that not everything is made of energy?

Actually, all I'm sayin' is new agers take words and notions and stretch 'em to encompass stuff they weren't meant to.


How can we possibly know the level and extent of information or force that is exchanged/shared between all things? Why would there be any barriers, other than the superficial imaginings of humans who think everything is solid and separate?

Indeed, so why do you wanna defer to universal connectedness and honoring the great creative energy when you don't know jack, and why am I in the wrong for not deferrin' to universal connectedness and not honorin' the great creative energy? As you say how can we possibly know(?).

As for barriers: go walk thru a closed door, then talk to me about how barriers are just human imaginings.

A few years back, a buddy of mine, after a few drinks, would get all preachy about how matter was mostly empty space...I'd let him go for a bit, then I'd slam my open hand down on the table, sayin' this here seems pretty fuckin' solid to me.

Sure, from a certain perspective, matter is mostly empty space; from another, matter is a field; and from another, the table is pretty fuckin' solid. None of these stances is more accurate than the other: they're all true (real).

The quantum level of reality is supposedly all spooky with nonlocal occurrences and entanglements and whatnot. If so, none of this spookiness negates or supersedes the fact the table is fuckin' solid.

See? I can wrap my lunkhead around big concepts...thing is: I don't toss out good, old-fashioned Reality to accept that Reality has complimentary aspects...and, since I live in one particular frame of reference, I tend to favor it (not as bein' more real or accurate but becuz it is the frame of reference I live in [which is why I open doors instead of tryin' to just walk thru solid objects]).


There's more to this Universe than you (or any of us) understand, Henry.

Sure, but I only apprehend a segment of it, live within a particular frame of reference. When I learn to astrally project or after I transcend into a transhuman, I'll spend time jugglin' chi and talkin' to trees. Till then: I got better things to do.


And why do you suppose you have to degrade any views other than your own?

Like you do to Mannie?


Do you really think you're so brilliant?

In my own way, yeah.

[henry quirk]

If you're referring to theism, I've frequently acknowledged the values of it

Nah...you pay lip-service to theism in advance of attackin' the theist

You presume your superficial understandin' of theism qualifies you to...

*dissect and denigrate specific strains of theism (like Christianity)

...and...

*take a dump on the theist.

Seems to me: if you detractors were all-fired sure of your positions, philosophies, etc., then theism and the theist wouldn't be the thorn in your keisters that it, and he, is.

Truth is: you're intimidated by the theism and -- exactly like many here -- you work damn hard to degrade the theist.

[Lacewing]

Indeed, so why do you wanna defer to universal connectedness and honoring the great creative energy when you don't know jack, and why am I in the wrong for not deferrin' to universal connectedness and not honorin' the great creative energy? As you say how can we possibly know(?).

You're not in the wrong. I was showing that there is reasonably more to consider than the notion of aligning with a god, and having a soul that survives after the death of a body.

Sure, from a certain perspective, matter is mostly empty space; from another, matter is a field; and from another, the table is pretty fuckin' solid. None of these stances is more accurate than the other: they're all true (real).

I agree.

The quantum level of reality is supposedly all spooky with nonlocal occurrences and entanglements and whatnot. If so, none of this spookiness negates or supersedes the fact the table is fuckin' solid.

What it indicates is that there is MORE than the table... and that could be valuable to be aware of from time to time.

See? I can wrap my lunkhead around big concepts...

That's refreshing.

thing is: I don't toss out good, old-fashioned Reality to accept that Reality has complimentary aspects...and, since I live in one particular frame of reference, I tend to favor it (not as bein' more real or accurate but becuz it is the frame of reference I live in [which is why I open doors instead of tryin' to just walk thru solid objects]).

Of course. Another thing is... when one recognizes that all of this potential and flexibility exists, it can expand their considerations beyond worn/patterned thinking. You still live on the stage with the table and all the other stuff, but maybe you're not as intoxicated with it. If you WANT to be intoxicated with it, great! But if someone says, "Hey, there's more than this!"... and they're on a fucking philosophy forum that discusses such things... you're being as dense as a table to suggest that they're being artsy fartsy. Why aren't you saying that to people who are pretending to be the mouthpieces for gods???

And why do you suppose you have to degrade any views other than your own?

Like you do to Mannie?

Your fondness for him is screwing up your objectivity. I would love to have a perfectly reasonable conversation about Mannie's views, as I have attempted many times. But he runs away from questions that challenge the claims he makes, and he uses deception to twist and avoid accountability and honesty. Anyone who makes claims as he does... can be questioned! Anyone who claims to know atheists better than they know themselves... can be challenged. There are valid reasons that several people are noticing what he is doing. Stop treating him like a victim. He is responsible for what he says... and he could answer all of these people for himself if he had the integrity and courage to do so.

So, back to the question put to you: Why do you suppose you have to degrade any views other than your own?

Do you really think you're so brilliant?

In my own way, yeah.

That's not saying much. But it's true.

[Lacewing]

If you're referring to theism, I've frequently acknowledged the values of it

Nah...you pay lip-service to theism in advance of attackin' the theist

No, Henry... you're wrong. I have spoken about this many times, and I'm being honest. You really need to shut the fuck up about what you think is going on in my head. You're sounding like Mannie.

*take a dump on the theist.

You take dumps on EVERYONE.

Truth is: you're intimidated by the theism and -- exactly like many here -- you work damn hard to degrade the theist.

Then why am I able to have perfectly reasonable conversations with theists who focus on the qualities of theism rather than being full of themselves and trashing non-theists? Hmm... could it have something to do with me challenging ignorant claims that can't be explained? What's wrong with that?

[seeds]

And why do you suppose you have to degrade any views other than your own?

Like you do to Mannie?

Or like Mannie did to Averroes the Muslim in the thread "What causes muslims to be violent?" ?

For example [bracketed insert mine],...

The "politeness" of your dismissals also doesn't deceive. The substance is that you are not looking to stay on topic. You're looking to protect Islam from real examination at all costs. And I understand that move perfectly [boy, ain't that the truth]: Islam has a horrible record, since Mohammed's time, actually, of violence, anti-semitism, cruelty, slavery, abuse of women, and tyranny towards dissent. I wouldn't want to have to answer for that either, were I a Muslim.

It's apparent that the reason why you are mounting a "stop picking on poor little Mannie" defense of him is because you have never had the types of debates with him that some of us have had.

I'm talking about contentious arguments where he subtly (and not so subtly) twists and misrepresents the things you have said, or just flat-out ignores relative points.

Besides, Mannie is very articulate and fully capable of defending himself. Indeed, I would be an admirer of his tenacity and his eloquent defense of his beliefs if he wasn't so devious and deceitful in the way he handles criticism.
_______

[Walker]

What's wrong with that?

Was it the infinitely expanding base of the pyramid? Was that it?

The wrongness is the assumption that one’s own lack of understanding, which is rooted in firmly held precepts whatever they may be, supersedes another’s knowing, a knowing that is only provable beyond one’s own lack of understanding, a lack which must by necessity grasp for an extrapolation from all the resources available to folks, including the lazy way of asking questions, resources unavoidably made meager by incarnation and individual corruption of incarnated capacity, although those incarnated as humans and purified of corruption are said to have the highest capacity for understanding the totality of existence.

When personal energy is freed up from all that energy commonly directed into delusion and neurosis, as life skills in a basically hostile-to-individual-life universe oft’ require, then energy that formerly caused one to horizontally move in mind or body towards a similar distracted activity, instead takes a vertical turn, back into the stillness of awareness.*

Thus is the advantage of formal seated meditation, the purpose of which is the cessation of physical and mental movement for a natural interval from which the body eventually emerges without prompting, back into the dualistic thought realm, to play.

Awareness feeding awareness. When the body is still then naturally expanding awareness feeds awareness that causes happenings beyond coincidence to begin showing themselves to awareness … they reveal not by choice but by revelation, and that connectedness unexplained by coincidence, theorized by a massive fudge-factor such as dark matter calculations, is actually the intelligence that is attributable to the nameless thing known to exist by all, although oft’ denied at the fringes by many proud atheists nibbling at the fringes of the essence.

* "The centre of the system of the world is immovable."
- Isaac Newton … quite a religious fellow of striking countenance and flowing mane.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm talking about contentious arguments where he subtly (and not so subtly) twists and misrepresents the things you have said, or just flat-out ignores relative points.

Let's have an example, then. If I have done what you say, then I'll repent.