Who Created God?

[ludolfo]

Well, right now, we live in a largely egalitarian society, not a "patriarchy" or "matriarchy." We are a society in which all individuals are held to have equal status. This is not because they are assumed to have the same abilities, the same morality, or even the same social esteem. It is because we, to a large extent, judge a person's level of honor and integrity based on whether or not he or she tries to treat people fairly.

We might acknowledge that men can lift and carry more than a woman, but we make allowances for that. We might realize that a person afflicted with autism might have more difficulty than others understanding social queues or sometimes lack the capacity for speech, but we try to make allowances for that. If someone is a complete incompetent idiot, we try to find place for that person. If a person is a criminal and a sociopath, we try to reform that person or at least use the probation system to keep that person out of trouble until that person can become afflicted with reason and compassion.

Ohhh the world you paint is really quite idealistic. I do not see it like that at all. And often women are stronger than men, and as a queer you should know some men are much stronger than other man they consider effeminte, etc etc. So it is more complex than you make out with your black and white split between 'STRONG males' and 'weak women'. And also what do you even mean by 'strong'--physical? What about psychological strength. What about how often single mums have to raise kids, and hold down jobs etc. is that not 'strong' in your book? Is it strong for the man to walk away or weak. it is all more complex than you make out. Also women HAVE to go to hospital to give birth, and the medical profession is male dominant and this is reflected in how woman and babies are treated. Also how people with so-called 'mental illness' are treated, where they are considered robots and not mysterious humans interrelated with mysterious nature.

And the point of science is to try to make people less slaves of their genetics, so they can aspire to do the things they really want to do. You know, I have severe Tourettes Syndrome and a degree of autism, so there are a few drugs I take to improve my quality of life. I do this with the same attitude that I put on warm clothes during the Wintertime: I find it more comfortable than doing without. I find myself to be more functional. There is more that I can get done. Sure, I could survive without it, but why?

I am not anti-choice. Of course people can choose to take drugs to ease whatever it is that is troubling them, but what I challenge when I mention the mental illness myth is the MASIVE abuse this myth has done to people by making them believe that the labels given them are biological diseases backed up by medical science, and this is not the case. You want this info should be hidden from people (and remember more and more children are targeted by this evil myth, and younger and younger--even babies). OR do you support then having access to informed consent?

I find it incomprehensible that there is a strain in feminist thought that science is somehow the bad guy. Before scientists intervened, people thought that individuals like me were possessed by demons (which I hardly condemn them for considering the terrifying, inhuman growls that I make when in a state of passion). They were kept chained to a chair, and they pretty much lived that way until they got sick and died. It's thanks to science that the kid in the video Ludolfo linked us to was given half a chance to prove himself instead of being thrown into an insane asylum and spending his life in a small padded room. We study these conditions because we think they are as deserving as anyone else of a chance to live decent lives.

Yes, and that all happened in patriarchal culture, and you keep assuming I am anti-science. I am anti scientism which pushes the physicalist myth as THOUGH it is supported by science instead of toxic myth.

Yet I see this bizarre antiscience movement in feminism, and its zealots are wild-eyed fanatics. It's because of those people and others like them that I realized that you can't get rid of unreasoning thought processes by getting rid of religion. It doesn't work. You can take away the religion, but it would just be replaced with another set of idiotic beliefs that were arrived at through faulty methods of reasoning. Making religion go away wouldn't create some hate-free, misogyny-free utopia. It would just end up being more of the same, for the same reasons.

it is the essence of reasoning to see and speak out against the major fuck-up the '"scientific" mindset' is doing to planet Earth and others in its path!

And I don't know that doing away with faulty reasoning would necessarily eliminate religion. I think it might result in fewer people believing in things like gods and angels and afterlife, but I am really not even specifically sure about that. Who knows? Someday, we might just end up with a new formulation of religion that is based on a less faulty method of coming to conclusions about things. Making religion go away is not the point, and it's not a way of getting to the point. It's just something that I am of the opinion might be a consequence; feel free to disagree.

If you honest, Brian, you don't really know if there aint no spirits, and UFOs--do you? As I've pointed out. science--SCIENCE--does not understand what consciousness is nor what matter is. Think about that.

But what really must go is the way that people latch onto ideas and become personally attached to them, defending them in the way that they would defend their own reputation. Another thing that must go is the way some people explain away people who disagree with them by suggesting that there is some conspiracy theory or satanic force influencing their minds. This kind of tripe is what leads to people hating each other unnecessarily and trying to kill each other. It's really not what people believe that counts, but it's the way people treat a belief.

lol so your not included...? be honest already---we have ideas. We are all wondering. We all share in this amazing mystery called life here on planet Earth, and when we speak our truth that is what we do. Our views may change of course, because reality is not static. But if I see something wrong I will not be quiet about it. That is my freedom which I WILL exercise, and encourage others to do. Like you are.

 

[Durango95]

Oh so its 'workin' is it? Maybe for you it is, but for the millions of poor who are living on crap all a day, and those living in literal shit tips with toxic air, and all the species being made extinct, and the general disrespect for other species, other humans, and nature--it AINT working. Look at how you impose your myth, as your interpretation of 'science' on us. Earth is 'just a rock hurdling through space which happens to have the means of supporting life". Oh...right, Well that's that then. We can all go home and put TV on and eat out Big Macs...? As I am trying to show. mythology is a natural process that humans do because we are imaginative and love stories, and this here life, despite what your previous 'scientism' says is a BIG MYSTERY. But scientism together with the State wants you to assume there is no deep sacred spiritual meaning to it. THAT is the current myth. And it is of the patriarchal ilk because you can see this same pattern in their earlier myths also where nature and others and one's very body and nature are de-graded.

Pardon me. I am not quite seeing your point. So you want all of us to be living in mud huts and eating bugs. Is that your utopia? Myth this and myth that, it has been my experience that those that constantly use this particular term are trying desperately to refute something irrefutable. Those very people could quite possibly be myths themselves.

 

[Brian Smith]

Ohhh the world you paint is really quite idealistic.

Compared to going from one sexist tyranny to another, yes. We don't need "matriarchy." Egalitarianism works the best, and making progress toward it has served our society well for more than two centuries now.

I do not see it like that at all. And often women are stronger than men,

The woman I know who routinely overpowers men three times her mass busted her ass for it. She complained steadily for years about having what most women would consider to be an ideal body. She has a high metabolism that won't slow down even as she enters her 20's, so she remains waif-thin. She only recently got her cup size down to a C, having started from a large D, and she is hoping to get them down to a B eventually if not, in time, eliminate them altogether. Unlike most physically powerful women, her body is solid muscle.

It sounds like I keep strange company, but we identify with each other because we both have some autism, we're both moderately gifted, and we both have an interest in neuroscience.

Therefore, there is not only a variety of female body types, but those who do have the "supermodel" figure can overcome their natural limitations, which is also one of the reasons that we study science. We hope to apply our minds and become something above and beyond just the bodies we are born with. I have a nephew who suffers from cystic fibrosis whom I hope can aspire one day to be a successful athlete.

and as a queer you should know some men are much stronger than other man they consider effeminte, etc etc.

I'm hi-fem and smooth except for some facial scruff that has only started to emerge in the past two years, but I have normal strength for a man my size and weight. In fact, considering that I don't work out, I'm pretty fortunate in that area.

So it is more complex than you make out with your black and white split between 'STRONG males' and 'weak women'.

You're the one making it black-and-white. I was actually arguing on behalf of laws that prevent women from being thrown off the job for supposedly not being able to lift and carry as much as a man. I see it as an atrocity because a lot of them are single moms. If most men don't have a job, they find somewhere to loaf until their luck improves. If a single mom doesn't have a job, her kids starve and are deprived both adequate shelter and a decent education. When I say that I think people are honor-bound to observe egalitarian principles, I kind of mean it.

And also what do you even mean by 'strong'--physical?

That's the kind of strength that we usually use for lifting and carrying things. Unfortunately, there are still business that throw women off the job just because they are supposedly less able to tolerate doing a lot of heavy lifting. I remember one case in which this was being done even in cases of women who were more physically powerful than average for a man. That's one of the reasons that I am such a strong advocate of egalitarianism. It's not something we follow because it's profitable or always practical. It's something we follow because it's morally right.

What about psychological strength. What about how often single mums have to raise kids, and hold down jobs etc. is that not 'strong' in your book? Is it strong for the man to walk away or weak. it is all more complex than you make out. Also women HAVE to go to hospital to give birth, and the medical profession is male dominant and this is reflected in how woman and babies are treated.

I've encountered your type before. When you feel threatened, you try to portray your opponent's views as simplistic, primitive and misogynistic. The last person I encountered who thinks and acts the way you do eventually declared that I am sounded "short and fat."

Also how people with so-called 'mental illness' are treated, where they are considered robots and not mysterious humans interrelated with mysterious nature.

I have lived with autism, and I can assure you that I am not a "mysterious human interrelated with mysterious nature." It is kind of cool, though. It's like I have a movie theater in my brain. I'm fortunate enough in that respect that I don't suffer from an inability to speak or anything like that.

However, I also have Tourettes, and I can assure you that I regard it as a nuisance. Even without the mistreatment I endured during my adolescence, the disorder is highly aggravating, and the effects it has on my moods have tended to make my social life very complicated. Now, my case is not so bad that I couldn't get along without medication, but there are some people who have such severe Tourettes that they are effectively crippled. This includes a nice girl I was acquainted with once who would get stuck in weird poses, and she would make peculiar animal sounds. She often broke down in tears over the way it has complicated and impaired her existence.

I am not anti-choice. Of course people can choose to take drugs to ease whatever it is that is troubling them, but what I challenge when I mention the mental illness myth is the MASIVE abuse this myth has done to people by making them believe that the labels given them are biological diseases backed up by medical science, and this is not the case. You want this info should be hidden from people (and remember more and more children are targeted by this evil myth, and younger and younger--even babies). OR do you support then having access to informed consent?

Actually, my one criticism of child and adolescent psychiatry, as it was practiced in the 1990's is that, when they are dealing with children, a lot of doctors were not listening to feedback from their patients. The way I was treated, I was being given "good medicine for my own good," so nobody listened to me very much if I said "I don't think this one is helping, and I think it's making me worse." I just got told, "well, the doctor says that you have to put some effort into it. The medication works just fine, and you're the problem. You're using your Tourettes as an excuse now, and you're acting like a brat." After all, I was a stupid child and didn't know what was good for me, and it was my word against the doctor's.

I'm not against trying to do something to help children, though. The system that I was exposed to as a kid was just grossly inadequate. I am deeply thankful that modern child and adolescent psychiatry has changed considerably in its basic philosophy. The fact that today's child and adolescent psychiatrists are listening to their patients and trying to work with them is saving young lives and dreams.

But I can assure you that Tourettes and autism are both rooted in biology. I have lived with these things for my entire life, and I have studied them very closely. There are actually strange connections between the central nervous system and the immune system, and adrenal steroids and catecholamines can sometimes play a weird role as well. The science has progressed a long way within my lifetime, though. My doctor actually has me on a medication that used to be used for treating something else, thankfully, so I can get cheap generics for it.

and you keep assuming I am anti-science. I am anti scientism which pushes the physicalist myth as THOUGH it is supported by science instead of toxic myth.

So you are mad at scientists because they haven't obediently proven that nature spirits exist. You are still anti-science if the only way that you will be satisfied with it is if they start producing evidence for your beliefs. As with the Creationist, I would find your beliefs to be charming if you did not insist on having things proven and verified to you that ought to be part of your faith.

I'm not going to be like Elijah and Josiah. I don't cherish the idea of knocking down other people's idols. I don't take pleasure in making other people feel uncomfortable about their beliefs. The same thing applies to you that applies to Christians, though: I will not tolerate science being perverted in order to compensate for your spiritual insecurities.

It's a wonderful thing to have faith. Enjoy the fact that you have the ability to have a faith. Not all of us can. Some of us have a natural skepticism that impairs our ability to let go and believe for a while that there is something magical in the world. Like I said, trying to find something in science that confirms articles of religious faith is like trying to find something in the design of a toilet that confirms that a sunset is beautiful.

Religion is to science as art is to engineering. Just as it is ignorant to judge that a painting of misty foothills is "ugly" because it doesn't do the same job as the blueprint for a high rise, it is ignorant to say that a religious belief isn't valid just because it doesn't help us understand a neuron. Trying to force science to be affirming of people's religious faith could only succeed in both perverting science and cheapening faith.

it is the essence of reasoning to see and speak out against the major fuck-up the '"scientific" mindset' is doing to planet Earth and others in its path!

Before "scientism," the human race was constantly at war, and we died routinely of various forms of pestilence and plague. Modern technology is really a lot cheaper per capita than the primitive technology we had during the Middle Ages. In the Middle Ages, we had to heat our homes using brown coal. Do you realize how filthy that stuff is for the environment? Global warming is only a problem right now because of our massive over-population. However, it's only in the most technologically advanced countries that the explosion in our population is starting slowly to reverse itself, hopefully in time bringing us back to a normal population.

If you honest, Brian, you don't really know if there aint no spirits, and UFOs--do you? As I've pointed out. science--SCIENCE--does not understand what consciousness is nor what matter is. Think about that.

I am intimately familiar with neuroscience, and I can assure you that we have come a long way in grokking the human mind over the past fifteen years. It's really very interesting subject matter. A friend and I both have a degree of autism, and we used to spend a lot of time sharing our findings from reading through the contents of cutting-edge scientific research. It's getting more fascinating by the day.

lol so your not included...?

I have a weird brain, so I can't say for sure.

be honest already---we have ideas. We are all wondering. We all share in this amazing mystery called life here on planet Earth, and when we speak our truth that is what we do. Our views may change of course, because reality is not static. But if I see something wrong I will not be quiet about it. That is my freedom which I WILL exercise, and encourage others to do. Like you are.

Kind of trite, and it comes across as phony considering the attitude you have shown toward people whose beliefs differ from yours. Rather than questioning the interference of arrogant religious people in both science and politics, you are acting very much like Elijah and Josiah. You are not satisfied with simply explaining why you disagree with another person's spiritual beliefs, but you insist on knocking down their idols and desecrating their temples. You are intent on smashing their sacred stones and burning their Asherah poles, scattering the dust over common graves. In the end, you are no better than the callus and homophobic evangelicals whom you criticize, who sneer nastily at other people's idols while raising up a grossly distorted caricature of their own.

Mind you, I do not and have not hesitated to call out the wickedness of the Church. I just see no reason I ought to destroy what there is in the Christian faith that might be worthwhile.

 

[Brian Smith]

Modern technology is really a lot cheaper per capita...

Grrrr, I meant "cleaner." I'm making typos and grammar errors all over the place today.

 

[Brian Smith]

I enjoy reading your Logic and Reasoning in this thread. You are far better at it than most people posting here. Thank you. I had a roomie who is autistic too, so, I can understand where you are coming from. My Roomie, he was 19 when I met him.

Thanks. You're different from a lot of orthodox Catholics I've known. Sometimes, they can be the worst for not being aware of the problems and bad politics among the secular clergy. Bless their hearts, but they just can't comprehend the idea that their Holy Father sometimes turns out to be misguided.

 

[ludolfo]

You tend to waffle, and don't absorb what I mean, and did you Google 'scientism'? Even Einstein warned about it!.

Before "scientism," the human race was constantly at war, and we died routinely of various forms of pestilence and plague.

OMG what have I been saying? I am saying that the patriarchy have had their oppressive dick fukin-up civilization since at least Babylon

Ludolfo: be honest already---we have ideas. We are all wondering. We all share in this amazing mystery called life here on planet Earth, and when we speak our truth that is what we do. Our views may change of course, because reality is not static. But if I see something wrong I will not be quiet about it. That is my freedom which I WILL exercise, and encourage others to do. Like you are.

Brian: Kind of trite, and it comes across as phony considering the attitude you have shown toward people whose beliefs differ from yours.

but that's what YOUR doing buster. Exactly the same thang. You are tryig to argue I am wrong not to wholly trust --what your calling science, which I am calling scientism. Which not understanding consciousness or matter will preach like a fundamentalist bitch that 'there are no lol nature spirits. what are youuu CRAZY or mentally ill?!" WHEN theyu have no actual scientific evidence to insist such an assertion. None.

Such arrogance.

 

[ludolfo]

And Brian, I dont think you sound short and fat lol (not that theres anything wrong in being short and fat). I see you more Oscar Wildish but better lookin. And that my favourite character in our version of Big Brother was this guy who had Tourettes Syndrome (he won the show), and the most moving scene that's stayed with me was when some other shits ran after this mouse who had a wonky leg to crush it, and that guy ran after them frantically and passionately begged them to spare its life because it represented the whole show--was part of their experience, and they allowed it to live. I just loved him for that, and if you say I am a soft git i may start hatin on ya.

 

[bankside]

It does not matter.

God has told me, through my conscience, that I should not proclaim the belief that his existence is empirically or logically evident. He has told me that, if I were to proclaim a belief in him, it ought to be based on faith and trust.

If you would like to suggest that someone besides God speaks to me through my conscience, feel free to do so. I may not believe that God exists, but you do. If you believe that he exists, you presumably believe that it is his voice that speaks to me through my conscience, which directs all of my moral inclinations. Therefore, I ask that you take it on faith that I might speak under the inspiration of God. You may never have heard this from an atheist, but you are hearing it from me.

The Church has estranged that trust in me. I acknowledge that sufficient kindness and compassion could overthrow my atheism. If I were welcomed into the fold by faces that were filled with the spirit of the pure and simple love taught by Christ, I could not help but follow them. I am a rationalist and a thinker, but I am not a robot. Like you, I am a man. I doubt I would have left a Church that truly followed the teachings of Christ.

I just don't see it coming, my friend. The Church has failed. It has failed us all. It has failed God.

Yours is not the sort of opinion that can fall under the rubric of atheism. To be annoyed by a congregation's failings, or indeed to be annoyed by the perceived failings of a deity, does not give one standing to call oneself an atheist. The compassion or kindness of others is just not a factor relevant to the question.

Atheism is simply the understanding that on the balance of probabilities, there is nothing supernatural.

 

[bankside]

"Scientism" is a word coined as a slur against science being used to challenge myth. It has no corrective value within science; there is peer review for that. It is the bleating of a way of thinking in retreat: that something inspirational or insightful or capable of sparking awe, must also be factual and true.

The project of science is to catalogue what is true; this has demolished the ability of many myths to be presented as true. Note this does not eviscerate the myth, it only presents it on a different foundation. One of the delightful side-effects of science has been to show us that insightful and inspirational things need not be factual. Science gives us a way to delight in the imagination.

 

[HoodedRat]

and the Pope is sometimes misguided by a few miscreants who have creeped into the Vatican since Vatican II.

I am surprised that the 'Holy Spirit' has allowed the Popes to be misguided in such a way.

'Since Vatican II'? ... is that when the HS gave up guiding the Catholic church?

 

[Brian Smith]

You tend to waffle, and don't absorb what I mean, and did you Google 'scientism'? Even Einstein warned about it!.

He also warned us about quantum physics, and he was wrong about that. I don't conform to everything Einstein believed for the same reasons that he didn't conform to everything Isaac Newton believed, not that I am trying to compare myself to either.

OMG what have I been saying? I am saying that the patriarchy have had their oppressive dick fukin-up civilization since at least Babylon

Before Babylon, different tribes just violently murdered each other instead of trying the strange idea of trying to coexist with each other. Things were not all fine and dandy before civilization came into being. Those among our ancestors who did not have a shitty existence were largely responsible for creating the system that makes it possible for even complete idiots to live decent lives, which I am grateful to them for.

but that's what YOUR doing buster. Exactly the same thang. You are tryig to argue I am wrong not to wholly trust --what your calling science, which I am calling scientism. Which not understanding consciousness or matter will preach like a fundamentalist bitch that 'there are no lol nature spirits. what are youuu CRAZY or mentally ill?!" WHEN theyu have no actual scientific evidence to insist such an assertion. None.

Such arrogance.

You are accusing scientists of having unethical motives based on the fact that they aren't finding great mountains of evidence for your nature spirits. That would be a bit like Mikey saying that all scientists are liars based on the fact that science doesn't support the Biblical creation tale.

People who have serious spiritual insecurities always demand that whatever force seems to be in authority back up their beliefs. If the self-same authority fails to do so, they start insinuating that there must be some evil force or some kind of conspiracy behind it.

I know a lot of people who are perfectly secure in their beliefs, though. They don't expect science to back up their beliefs. I find that people who are really secure in their faith don't have a problem making the transition between the kind of belief they exercise in their religious faith and the eyes they use to see scientific writings. Like I keep saying, it's the same way we use a different set of eyes to look at the design for a modern toilet than those we use to look at a sunset.

We don't use an accountant's voice to talk about things like the value of charity and goodwill toward our fellow man, either. We realize that these values are things that are non-quantifiable. They are things that we don't need evidence for to realize that they are important to us, deep down in our hearts.

And I think it reflects tragic spiritual insecurity, on your part, that you think that it's some evil "patriarchy" that is behind the science that produced the very drugs that I use to make my life easier and more pleasant. Maybe I can live without them, but I know some people who are still struggling just to cope. No, I don't think they are "diseased" or "inferior," and I don't even regard them with something as condescending as "pity." However, I do support the research that is being done on their conditions, and I hope someday it will produce something that might make their lives a little easier as it has for mine.

However, my muscle-bound, MMA-obsessed psycho-feminist friend has a brother who is non-verbal autistic, and there is nothing glamorous or magical about his condition. He routinely pisses himself in bed, and he has embarrassing meltdowns in public places. They do the best they can by him, but there is only so much they can do. You can call it what you want to, but I think I am justified in thinking it's biological.

You know, my muscle-bound psycho-feminist friend once declared that she had gotten fed up with the feminist subculture. She tried to make a cause out of defending people who were naturally skinny. She felt that the feminists she interacted with tended to go too far in putting down women who were below normal weight, always sneering at them for being "emaciated" and "anorexic."

You see, she is a body-builder, so it's a huge inconvenience to her that it is very hard for her to put on weight. She doesn't starve herself to stay thin, but, on the contrary, she's been drinking monstrous protein shakes to try to get away from that body type. Well, when she tried to speak up about the fact that skinny people were all accused of being vain, shallow and "anorexic," she was flamed for it. This is a person whose mother, who is not even as rabidly feminist as she is, has gone before the Irish parliament to try to convince them to change their abortion laws. As soon as she questioned the orthodoxy, though, she became the "Great Satan."

The problem with the feminist subculture is that they can be extremely nasty toward anyone who doesn't see Ruth Hubbard as the Holy Prophet of feminism. If you so much as dare think for yourself or suggest an idea that doesn't fit inside their little bubble world, they instantly pigeonhole you as someone who champions "patriarchy," conservatism, and misogynistic ignorance. It is impossible to have a productive discussion with such people.

Hey, I can think like that kind of "feminist," too! I can use feminism to refute the heliocentric theory by chalking it up to "patriarchy." Yes, "the heliocentric theory is based on patriarchal scientism! It is so terribly convenient that the sun has always been a symbol of MALE power and MALE dominance, so it serves their PATRIARCHAL agenda to create a MYTH that the feminine EARTH revolves around the SUN. Follow me, and return to the more NATURAL viewpoint that the SUN revolves around the nurturing MOTHER EARTH." That's the kind of logic that I have seen being bandied-about in feminist subculture. It's a load of horse shit, but people who think in this way have a smug certainty that their way is the only way forward. Their point-of-view is that anybody who thinks differently is under the influence of the Great Satan, the "Patriarchy."

And, with drums beating and cymbals crashing...with flags waving and trumpets bleating...with cries of triumph, they would march us back...BACK, into the Dark Ages!

 

[Brian Smith]

And Brian, I dont think you sound short and fat lol (not that theres anything wrong in being short and fat).

If there is anything wrong with someone being short and chubby, I must not be aware of it, considering my partner's physique. Hehehe, but we're trying to fix the "chubby" aspect...not for looks, but he has a heart condition.

I see you more Oscar Wildish but better lookin.

Heh, check the twink forum a little later...

And that my favourite character in our version of Big Brother was this guy who had Tourettes Syndrome (he won the show), and the most moving scene that's stayed with me was when some other shits ran after this mouse who had a wonky leg to crush it, and that guy ran after them frantically and passionately begged them to spare its life because it represented the whole show--was part of their experience, and they allowed it to live. I just loved him for that, and if you say I am a soft git i may start hatin on ya.

Oh, I'm liking the guy myself based on that. A few days ago, my partner was freaking out over a rat and had me kill it because he was fearful it would hurt our geriatric, blind, deaf and incontinent dog. The shriek the poor creature made is still playing over and over in my head, and I'm rather depressed over it. I just keep thinking about how closely we are related to rodents. Humans and rodents are under a superorder called "euarchontoglires," ourselves being in the "euarchonta" portion and rodents being in the "glires" portion. I feel like I've killed a distant cousin, and I don't think I could do that again. That scream sounded so...human. A terrible wail of despair. I think I have most people beat for being a soft-hearted git, based on that.

Yours is not the sort of opinion that can fall under the rubric of atheism. To be annoyed by a congregation's failings, or indeed to be annoyed by the perceived failings of a deity, does not give one standing to call oneself an atheist. The compassion or kindness of others is just not a factor relevant to the question.

Atheism is simply the understanding that on the balance of probabilities, there is nothing supernatural.

Oh, I'm an atheist, alright...just an extremely weird one.

I think what happened to me was that I stopped identifying with my atheism, and it has gotten to where atheism is an entirely incidental aspect of who I am. I really don't care if one day I were to stop being an atheist, but I kind of doubt it will ever happen. I'm pretty deeply entrenched in a way of thinking that tends to be inhospitable toward religion, and I don't see any reason to change it.

 

[ludolfo]

I do not belong to the body builders feminist club, and feminism like most things has diverse groups. Some don't recognize women of colour for example.

I was attracted to Monica Sjoo because I really gelled with what she said at that part of my evolution of understanding and still do. She also had a tragic life and was very courageous, and I love the way she communicates---very direct

As I have said --we are not just rational beings, we are also imaginative, and this is where mythologies come from.
All of this reality we are all communicating in is mystery. So why is it mystery? Well for one you don't really know where you have come from lol nor where you are going or why you are here. I know some of you may scream you do, but you don't really.

Well, there is knowing or known, and whereever there is knowing or known there always must be unknowing or unknown. There will never ever be a time when we know everything. That just doesn't make any sense. Is too absurd. Reality isn't like that.

We may very well know more, but we may also forget things we knew which become unknown, or unconscious again, and like said however much we know there is always the polar-relationship of unknown, and this is the same for up and down, front and back, visibleand invisible, light and dark, male and female, life and death ,subjective and objective etc, . All those words or terms are concepts abstracted out of processes. and although may seem to be independent, in reality they are interrelated and dynamic.

Now scientism seems uncomfortable with mystery, and so does traditional religion. The former gives us "promissory materialism as in 'soon we will KNOW consciousness. Be patient. But in the meantime everything is physical. Full stop' etc etc, and traditional religion claims that they KNOW what matter is and humans are, for example, 'it is fallen and we are sinners. And the word of God tells us everything'. And heaven is this and hell is that.

BOTH of those worldviews do not accept, for example nature spirits. Trad. religion would call them diabolical, because for them nature is fallen, and so any 'supernatural' manifestation of nature, and/or ecstatic interaction with nature, must be from the Devil and thus evil.

For scientism any experience with nature spirits would be explained as being faulty chemicals and electrical activity in the brain causing psychotic hallucinations.

A real scientist, and some do exist, do not try and explain away anomalous events and experience, because to do that is not science.

 

[Brian Smith]

I do not belong to the body builders feminist club, and feminism like most things has diverse groups. Some don't recognize women of colour for example.

Oh, no, she wasn't specifically associating with body builders. She is pretty diverse and ecumenical. In fact, I think she still likes the MMA wackos she sometimes hangs with, and I quite frankly like them as well.

As I have said --we are not just rational beings, we are also imaginative, and this is where mythologies come from.
All of this reality we are all communicating in is mystery. So why is it mystery? Well for one you don't really know where you have come from lol nor where you are going or why you are here. I know some of you may scream you do, but you don't really.

Well, there is knowing or known, and whereever there is knowing or known there always must be unknowing or unknown. There will never ever be a time when we know everything. That just doesn't make any sense. Is too absurd. Reality isn't like that. Well, there is knowing or known, and whereever there is knowing or known there always must be unknowing or unknown. There will never ever be a time when we know everything. That just doesn't make any sense. Is too absurd. Reality isn't like that.

Don't mind me. I'm just a kitty. Purrrrrrr.

We may very well know more, but we may also forget things we knew which become unknown, or unconscious again, and like said however much we know there is always the polar-relationship of unknown, and this is the same for up and down, front and back, visibleand invisible, light and dark, male and female, life and death ,subjective and objective etc, . All those words or terms are concepts abstracted out of processes. and although may seem to be independent, in reality they are interrelated and dynamic.

Yet, if we can draw away from the possibly illusory necessity of "knowing," perhaps we can aspire to wisdom. Perhaps there is a level of understanding beyond "knowing." Perhaps there is a level of understanding that, rather than proclaiming its existence, becomes a part of existence itself, neither proclaiming nor denying itself, willingly being broken down into its parts and recycled for other use, neither mourning nor rejoicing.

Now scientism seems uncomfortable with mystery, and so does traditional religion. The former gives us "promissory materialism as in 'soon we will KNOW consciousness. Be patient. But in the meantime everything is physical. Full stop' etc etc,

Like I keep saying, science aspires to be little more than a tool for figuring out how to make a better toilet paper for you to wipe your butt with and a better lubricant to put on a guy's dork before he sticks it up your pooper. I am serious. You are not going to find ultimate meaning in the sciences. It's just not meant for that. There are those of us who get entranced with science, but we are fascinated with it for different reasons from those which you are on about now.

BOTH of those worldviews do not accept, for example nature spirits. Trad. religion would call them diabolical, because for them nature is fallen, and so any 'supernatural' manifestation of nature, and/or ecstatic interaction with nature, must be from the Devil and thus evil.

For scientism any experience with nature spirits would be explained as being faulty chemicals and electrical activity in the brain causing psychotic hallucinations.

But I think you ought to feel free to have your psychotic hallucinations. They probably do you some good.

A real scientist, and some do exist, do not try and explain away anomalous events and experience, because to do that is not science.

The thing is, though, when you attribute things to nature spirits, you are imposing an explanation. A lot of scientists suggest to you other possibilities not because they think that their explanations are necessarily the only possible answer, but it's an attempt to point out to you that there are other possible ways of interpreting your experiences beyond those which you assume.

But really, why bother over whether or not your nature spirits exist when you can merely get along with them?

 

[ludolfo]

The thing is, though, when you attribute things to nature spirits, you are imposing an explanation. A lot of scientists suggest to you other possibilities not because they think that their explanations are necessarily the only possible answer, but it's an attempt to point out to you that there are other possible ways of interpreting your experiences beyond those which you assume.

But really, why bother over whether or not your nature spirits exist when you can merely get along with them?

LOL. I likes that.
I have had two OBEs (out of the body experiences) where I have encountered 'spirits', and the second one was VERY powerful, and I had a sexual encounter with a Satyr who had been wearing a human mask of someone close to me. Now when you have deep powerful experiences like this they call into question 'normal' notions of reality, and they make you deeply respect others who have had unexplainable experience.

Many a time I have spoken with pseudoskeptics who will jump to the nearest cliche explanation they pluck from their limited worldview---examples: if someone were to report an 'alien abduction' they would say 'it's sleep paralysis!!!' They have never MET the person, or people, don't know the case in detail, but they cling to their scientific materialist safe little worldview, and demand it must be right. These people can get quite hostile.

 

[Mariatenebre]

Thanks. You're different from a lot of orthodox Catholics I've known. Sometimes, they can be the worst for not being aware of the problems and bad politics among the secular clergy. Bless their hearts, but they just can't comprehend the idea that their Holy Father sometimes turns out to be misguided.

Did you read the part where he says he is never going to have sex because of Catholic doctrine and how he said that he would never permit a woman to have any kind of authority over him?

 

[Brian Smith]

LOL. I likes that.
I have had two OBEs (out of the body experiences) where I have encountered 'spirits', and the second one was VERY powerful, and I had a sexual encounter with a Satyr who had been wearing a human mask of someone close to me. Now when you have deep powerful experiences like this they call into question 'normal' notions of reality, and they make you deeply respect others who have had unexplainable experience.

Many a time I have spoken with pseudoskeptics who will jump to the nearest cliche explanation they pluck from their limited worldview---examples: if someone were to report an 'alien abduction' they would say 'it's sleep paralysis!!!' They have never MET the person, or people, don't know the case in detail, but they cling to their scientific materialist safe little worldview, and demand it must be right. These people can get quite hostile.

Occasionally, I hear music I can't find the source of.

Well, I first searched my entire house and then wandered the neighborhood trying to find the source of the music, and I postulated for a while about the possibility of some sort of effect akin to a "whispering gallery," which I had read about in Journey to the Center of the Earth. I toyed with a number of different ideas, actually.

Eventually, I just lay down and began analyzing the tonal and melodic qualities of the music. I thought about how I might start trying to pick parts of it out on my little Yamaha. When I fell asleep, I think I had decided that it might have been using a phrygian scale. It was nicely haunting.

Now, over the next few days, I had a number of theories as to where it might have come from. I thought of possibly hypnogogia, possibly something I had eaten that night and so on. They were all very interesting thoughts, and I ended up doing some gainful research on sleep disorders of varying types. I did find it thoroughly enjoyable.

For the most part, though, it is really just fairly good music, and I am rather fond of it.

However, I also routinely get sleep paralysis, and I also have peculiar tremors during the night, which I had never noticed until my partner began waking me up from them. Hmm, another odd sleep issue is that my body turns into what he calls a "Duo Therm Heater" late at night, but we're on the subject of inexplicable experiences, not my ass backwards biology.

Now, sometimes I have the sleep paralysis combined with the tremors. In theory, I can force my way out of it with some effort and come into the waking world, but there are times when I think, "I'll be buggered by a mule if I am going to wake up right now" and just endure it. There is generally, in these cases, a somewhat worrisome sound of a helicopter. I think the longest I ever lay through one of these things was about two hours before I realized that the damn thing wasn't going to go away until I broke myself loose and woke up, but by then my partner was ready for our morning play.

As far as your satyr, I must say that I have not heard of that, but it sounds interesting.

Let's see, after my grandmother's death, I saw her wandering her yard a couple of times. On the day of her funeral, I saw in her house at one point a handsome, young man in his 20's, a little somber-looking, sitting in a chair, but he vanished the instant that I noticed him and did a double-take. Of course, this didn't leave me believing in spirits or afterlife, but I must say I found it rather interesting.

You see, my opinion is that most people who proclaim that they have seen spirits and therefore claim to believe in afterlife are very much in a haste to get at answers and explanations for things. Well, what I have found, in my experience, is that questions are significantly more amusing and more useful than answers or explanations.

On that satyr experience, though. Would you describe it for me? I am not asking for a description of the satyr itself, but what I am curious about is the experience itself. Not the positions, mind you.

 

[Brian Smith]

Did you read the part where he says he is never going to have sex because of Catholic doctrine and how he said that he would never permit a woman to have any kind of authority over him?

How exactly did you interpret the term, "orthodox"?

 

[ludolfo]

Let's see, after my grandmother's death, I saw her wandering her yard a couple of times. On the day of her funeral, I saw in her house at one point a handsome, young man in his 20's, a little somber-looking, sitting in a chair, but he vanished the instant that I noticed him and did a double-take. Of course, this didn't leave me believing in spirits or afterlife, but I must say I found it rather interesting.

You see, my opinion is that most people who proclaim that they have seen spirits and therefore claim to believe in afterlife are very much in a haste to get at answers and explanations for things. Well, what I have found, in my experience, is that questions are significantly more amusing and more useful than answers or explanations.

On that satyr experience, though. Would you describe it for me? I am not asking for a description of the satyr itself, but what I am curious about is the experience itself. Not the positions, mind you.

My mum also has had that experience of seeing spirits. Not all the time but at certain times, and latest was before a lady died in her neighborhood and she had seen her walk about the garden. My mum is VERY down to earth.
You sound like you have the sight laddy...lol. Seriously though, ancient peoples saw nothing odd with dancing with the dead, and nor do I. I mean hmmmm ARE they 'dead'. As I have tried to explore in other places, polar-relational reality is weird. it is a dynamic process which is multidimensional. For example take light and dark. There is no such thing as 'only light' or 'only dark', it is more a process that has both light and dark and all variations in between, kind of like both/and. Same is so with all 'opposites'. Take male and female. Homophobic mindsets LOVE to defininitely separate 'male' from 'female' don't they, and of course 'gay' and 'str8'. Their worldview, I feel, depends for its 'life' on those dichotomies. Yet I am aware that it is not that simple at all. It is all a mix whereby you cannot see where one joins another. A male has female qualities in varying degrees and vice verse. Again this is so with life and death. Some people have 'this' = 'life' and at the end there waiting is 'death'. But I am very aware that death is in life and life is in death. I am typing this, and every tap on a key is the 'death' of that moment, and the next tap is the 'life' of that new fresh tap---get me? Moments die, and new moments come alive. minutes, hours, days, weeks die ---changes in life. So this is the process of lifedeath or deathlife, and included with this is a depthlessness which is mystery. There is no depth/measurement to mystery because it is un-known.

My second OBE experience was me going to bed, and at a certain part of the sleep waking up and getting out of bed and going to the toilet and finding I couldn't piss. When I go back to my room I see my sleeping body!! AND on either side of my body are two human-looking people kneeling --knees in direction of where top of my head was facing.
Obviously I was completely shocked, but these beings turned and telepathically communicated to me not to be afraid, and then got up and glided me down the stairs. I then saw the front door ajar and I went out into the garden but then come in and look into a mirror.... it is a very personal experience so will get to the part where I think I see someone close to me, and this is where we have the sexual encounter. At a particular panicking point the one sucking me off stands up as does the other (who was sat down on a couch), take off the human masks and underneath they look like satyrs! I then run like fuck to my room, dive in my body and am conscious of the whole re-entry. LOL when in my perception and feeling feels like psychedelic experience. I feel tired but very energized and am fascinated by a psychedelic display of light on the wall looking at light coming through curtain. I then fall to sleep

This experience was extremely real, and surreal in that all the fixtures and fittings in the house were the same and yet this utterly magical event was happening there. So for example it wasn't like a lucid dream where surroundings can morph etc. And there was a definite sense of being out of the physical body.

So what do you make of this?

 

[Brian Smith]

My mum also has had that experience of seeing spirits. Not all the time but at certain times, and latest was before a lady died in her neighborhood and she had seen her walk about the garden. My mum is VERY down to earth.
You sound like you have the sight laddy...lol. Seriously though, ancient peoples saw nothing odd with dancing with the dead, and nor do I.

I would rather have coffee with them, personally.

I mean hmmmm ARE they 'dead'. As I have tried to explore in other places, polar-relational reality is weird. it is a dynamic process which is multidimensional. For example take light and dark. There is no such thing as 'only light' or 'only dark', it is more a process that has both light and dark and all variations in between, kind of like both/and. Same is so with all 'opposites'. Take male and female. Homophobic mindsets LOVE to defininitely separate 'male' from 'female' don't they, and of course 'gay' and 'str8'. Their worldview, I feel, depends for its 'life' on those dichotomies. Yet I am aware that it is not that simple at all. It is all a mix whereby you cannot see where one joins another. A male has female qualities in varying degrees and vice verse. Again this is so with life and death. Some people have 'this' = 'life' and at the end there waiting is 'death'. But I am very aware that death is in life and life is in death. I am typing this, and every tap on a key is the 'death' of that moment, and the next tap is the 'life' of that new fresh tap---get me? Moments die, and new moments come alive. minutes, hours, days, weeks die ---changes in life. So this is the process of lifedeath or deathlife, and included with this is a depthlessness which is mystery. There is no depth/measurement to mystery because it is un-known.

Oh, gonadal steroids do some very interesting things in the brain. The mistake that most people make when reckoning matters of gender is the assumption that sex determination is a perfect, infallible system. It really isn't. For example, your mother's reproductive system might accidentally deactivate a gene that is supposed to prevent you from being partially feminized when testosterone levels are unusually low. Beyond that, you have a lot of different receptors for gonadal steroids, and you might have an allele for one that renders it as either having a stronger or weaker affinity or coding more slowly or more quickly. You could end up with a receptor for allopregnanolone that is coupled with the second messenger protein that is normally coupled with estradiol. It's a very complex system, and you are correct in saying it's not all cut-and-dried.

My second OBE experience was me going to bed, and at a certain part of the sleep waking up and getting out of bed and going to the toilet and finding I couldn't piss. When I go back to my room I see my sleeping body!! AND on either side of my body are two human-looking people kneeling --knees in direction of where top of my head was facing.
Obviously I was completely shocked, but these beings turned and telepathically communicated to me not to be afraid, and then got up and glided me down the stairs. I then saw the front door ajar and I went out into the garden but then come in and look into a mirror.... it is a very personal experience so will get to the part where I think I see someone close to me, and this is where we have the sexual encounter. At a particular panicking point the one sucking me off stands up as does the other (who was sat down on a couch), take off the human masks and underneath they look like satyrs! I then run like fuck to my room, dive in my body and am conscious of the whole re-entry. LOL when in my perception and feeling feels like psychedelic experience. I feel tired but very energized and am fascinated by a psychedelic display of light on the wall looking at light coming through curtain. I then fall to sleep

This experience was extremely real, and surreal in that all the fixtures and fittings in the house were the same and yet this utterly magical event was happening there. So for example it wasn't like a lucid dream where surroundings can morph etc. And there was a definite sense of being out of the physical body.

So what do you make of this?

I would have invited them to sit down and have a drink of coffee.

It's funny how our brains construct memories. You know, you actually form most of your memories after you have had the experiences to which they pertain. You reflect later on your sensory inputs, and you try to figure out how best to interpret and rationalize what is coming in through the interface. If it's not coming together in a rational way, you try to do things to smooth out the edges, and you try to fit things into a conceptual framework that you can understand. The thing is, you are not even aware that you are doing this.

Now, one possible explanation for your experience is that you had some kind of alien visitation. Well, in what other possible ways can you interpret your experience? I am not suggesting that your interpretation is necessarily mistaken, but it is a good practice to toy with a variety of different explanations.

What I do is, rather than settling on one explanation for something that seems to fit, I keep it to a list of different possibilities that I have narrowed a mystery down to. I realize that I can never be completely certain of any one of them, but I don't need to be. Even in cases in which I need a working conclusion to act on, I simply choose one that seems plausible and go. There is simply no reason I have to narrow it down to one.

For example, it is of no consequence whatsoever if I were being visited by aliens and having sexual encounters with them rather than simply experiencing some sort of interesting phenomenon related to a sudden discharge of neuropeptides in my occipital lobe, possibly due to having been under work stress or maybe just as a random event. If the creatures in question had so far done me no injury, I would see no reason to disrupt my inner tranquility over whether the events in question had actually happened. I would hope that behaving hospitably toward them would be a good bet for improving me in their esteem, though.

Consider it as you would consider a court case, and consider it as if any given explanation were on trial. Well, in American courts, you are, by law, "innocent until proven guilty." What this means is that a trial is not designed to find that you are innocent because your innocence is not on trial. What is on trial is the case that you are guilty of a crime. That is what must pass the test.

Now, if we treat any possible explanation for an experience in that manner, we are more likely to, as I suggested above, carry around in our heads a list of possibilities that we have not succeeded in dismissing. Considering that there isn't, in your case, any pressure to come to a final, working conclusion on the matter, this strikes me as a perfectly workable process.

Therefore, let's take the case of my night music. I never have eliminated the possibility that I am hearing distant music from somewhere, but I also have not eliminated the possibility that it is an auditory hallucination. I have not even truly eliminated the possibility that I am hearing ethereal spirits or something; it doesn't rank very high, but I have never bothered to try to eliminate it.

And I see no reason I ought to feel any pressure on it because, quite frankly, I happen to like the music just fine, wherever it comes from. I don't see any reason I ought to ferret out the source of it. I don't see any reason I ought to take some sort of medication in order to alleviate it. I am perfectly at ease with leaving it the way that it is.