Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[Belinda]

Atla, in grounded ecstasy intones:

What you don't realize is that the gods themselves are divided, there is the eternal conflict between the gods of creation and the evil gods of destruction going on, across infinite worlds and infite realms, and across all time, and the evil gods are just as powerful. That's why this world is so fucked up too, it's a symptom of the greater eternal conflict.

Sounds Manichean if you ask me. Hardly non-dualist. But please correct me if I am wrong.

I agree that's Manichean.

Manicheanism can be practically efficient in the cause of good if it's combined with autonomy. Manicheanism combined with fatalism or apathy does more harm than good.

[Atla]

Atla, in grounded ecstasy intones:

What you don't realize is that the gods themselves are divided, there is the eternal conflict between the gods of creation and the evil gods of destruction going on, across infinite worlds and infite realms, and across all time, and the evil gods are just as powerful. That's why this world is so fucked up too, it's a symptom of the greater eternal conflict.

Sounds Manichean if you ask me. Hardly non-dualist. But please correct me if I am wrong.

Nondualism (at least how I use it) doesn't mean that some entities can't be categorized as good and others as evil. It just means that there are no absolute, fundamental, inherent divisions in the world. Like mental vs material for example. You younger cultures who came after us, invented these divisions (made them up).

[Alexis Jacobi]

The ONLY way you can beat up on me, defeat me in effect, is with facts or the near probability of such. The kind rendered by research and observation. You'll never accomplish that with your dim-witted moronic metaphysical fairytales and mental strivings, their credibility being thoroughly nil. I suggest you tail-end your teacher and master of great learning, Immanuel Trump as the guide to follow since you both have a cultist mentality in common and all the qualities which keep those aberrations alive.

First, you certainly misunderstand why what is “metaphysical” is really of vital importance to preserve. You might disagree with the means by which metaphysics and complex symbols are drafted into and, say, abused by religious maniacs, but not all are maniacs. And you, my drooling friend, should know this.

I have been thinking about your comments about the mass-madness of the American multitude. I have been reading Gustav Le Bon’s The Crowd and also remembering your asinine, ill-informed and dopish judgments of Ortega y Gassett’s The Revolt of the Masses.

Your critique of Trump, the lower-level, mindless, impulsive and profoundly unreasoned action of America’s underclasses, is precisely related to the madness of crowds and intellectual bankruptcy.

Now, what really is “dim-wittedness” when the issue is really the upper dimensions of intellectual attainment? Or let me mention again all those musical creations that so move you. You don’t drool when listening to the finest of the finest, do you?! All of these creations depend ABSOLUTELY on the realization of metaphysical categories.

You'll never accomplish that with your dim-witted moronic metaphysical fairytales and mental strivings, their credibility being thoroughly nil.

This is a really REALLY dim-witted sentence, m’boy, and unless you walk it back toot sweet you will have to be severely intellectually beaten. I have astounding tolerance but there are limits, even for me.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Nondualism (at least how I use it) doesn't mean that some entities can't be categorized as good and others as evil.

Thanks, Master Atla, I can work with this.

Interesting to note that Guénon, in a certain sense, denies the dualism in the good-evil contrast. He maintains that if we are really non-dualists that we recognize the Unity in our manifest world. In other words, if we really are non-dualists that “evil” as a category doesn’t really exist.

Rather, in an age of descent, the prevalent “doctrine” that moves people, that captivates them, is one of “counter-initiation”. But such false-initiation is naturally a parody.

Consequential, yes, but ultimately empty.

[Atla]

Nondualism (at least how I use it) doesn't mean that some entities can't be categorized as good and others as evil.

Thanks, Master Atla, I can work with this.

Interesting to note that Guénon, in a certain sense, denies the dualism in the good-evil contrast. He maintains that if we are really non-dualists that we recognize the Unity in our manifest world. In other words, if we really are non-dualists that “evil” as a category doesn’t really exist.

Rather, in an age of descent, the prevalent “doctrine” that moves people, that captivates them, is one of “counter-initiation”. But such false-initiation is naturally a parody. Consequential, yes, but ultimately empty.

Did you like the story about Atlantis and gods and channeling? I can come up with more if you like.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Heh. If you want to go the route of roundly and decidedly avoiding genuine conversation of these questions I won’t oppose you.

You do not “believe in” either Atlantis, gods or channeling.

But carry on as serves your purposes!

[Atla]

Heh. If you want to go the route of roundly and decidedly avoiding genuine conversation of these questions I won’t oppose you.

You do not “believe in” either Atlantis, gods or channeling.

But carry on as serves your purposes!

Well I do think that there are probably beings out there that are godlike to us. The question is how "far away" out there.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Oh God ….

[Atla]

Heh. If you want to go the route of roundly and decidedly avoiding genuine conversation of these questions I won’t oppose you.

You do not “believe in” either Atlantis, gods or channeling.

But carry on as serves your purposes!

Wait, you aren't joking, right? Where you live, you really haven't already discussed the god and spirituality topic to death when you were growing up?

(Also, the annoying thing about me is that I have no purpose on this forum.)

[Alexis Jacobi]

Do you have a ‘purpose’ anywhere?

[Atla]

Do you have a ‘purpose’ anywhere?

Do you?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Ok, I will drop attempts to seriously question you.

[Atla]

Ok, I will drop attempts to seriously question you.

But you're the one who doesn't know what seriousness even is.

[Alexis Jacobi]

That is a good intro-point for you to define it: what is “seriousness” in your view?

[Atla]

That is a good intro-point for you to define it: what is “seriousness” in your view?

I know what it is but I'm not sure if I can define it. Being real, not being a clown. Taking reality head-on. Being serious has a constant emotional component that does not bend. Part of it is felt.