I'll try to respond to the previous three posts at the same time.

Quote :

"If you take the difference between reality and traditional and modernized Christian beliefs, there's quite a lot of extra baggage without justification, evidence, or in same cases, coherence."

I'll agree with that.


.

Quote :

"Faith is like Christianity's version of Dianetics. What you're saying is that I cannot feel an imaginary being's presence until I unhinge myself from reality and convince myself what I'm imagining is real."

and

Quote :

"Only problem is, to claim that the holy spirit is real and is not just a temporary imbalance of DMT in your brain causing you to think of your own imagination as an external entity..."

You can break down the sense of sight into its scientific explanation and say believing what you see is "bullshit," or "unhinged from reality," but that doesn't mean that blind people are intellectually superior.

Quote :

""If you don't get it, it's because you're not ready to get it, and that's perfectly understandable--you're just not enlightened like me. It's okay. I'm better than you because I have faith, but again, it's okay. Everything's okay. La dee da...""

I'm not perfect, and neither is my diction, so I may have given you the impression that I'm a better-than-you singing elf, but I'm not really.

6/9/2006 7:26:56 AM

Quote :

"You can break down the sense of sight into its scientific explanation and say believing what you see is "bullshit," or "unhinged from reality," but that doesn't mean that blind people are intellectually superior."

But sight is kind of special, much like hearing, olfaction and touch, because it provides input from reality into our minds. And since we're not aware of all that's going on in our minds all the time (most of it gets filtered out and doesn't alert our consciousness), there's this big space where our imagination can come up with something and you don't know whether it came from reality or not. Usually sensory information passes right through this space, but sometimes your imagination attaches things, and you think you see something. It's not your eyes playing tricks on you, it's your brain playing tricks on you. The holy spirit is the very same thing, and an excess of dimethyltryptamine (DMT), which is produced both by your brain and by psilocybin mushrooms, will cause much more complex tricks to be played on your perception. Then, the next minute/hour/day, your mind seems completely normal, so you think "well nothing's wrong with me" -- your chemicals are balanced again. So if you honestly believe you have heard the holy spirit talking to you, at least consider the possibility that you were tripping balls. Courts have temporary insanity pleas for just such occasions.

[Edited on June 9, 2006 at 8:59 AM. Reason : .]

6/9/2006 8:58:50 AM

fair enough.

I have considered it many times, by the way.

6/9/2006 8:26:59 PM

Quote :

"The holy spirit is the very same thing, and an excess of dimethyltryptamine (DMT), which is produced both by your brain and by psilocybin mushrooms, will cause much more complex tricks to be played on your perception."

DMT /= 4-HO-DMT.... although they are similar in effect (But not duration). I'm just being picky about that, but anyways I do agree with this statement.

I feel that the intense "god encountering" experiences that some highly religious people have described to me were entirely due to DMT.

6/9/2006 9:08:34 PM

I was under the impression that we don't know how the brain works.
Is it not possible that this chemical yall are talking about doesn't serve a purpose you're unaware of?

6/9/2006 10:02:52 PM

Sure, maybe DMT (in one form or another) is there to get us in contact with God. Bill Hicks suggests,

"Do you think mushrooms growing atop cow shit is an accident? Where do you think the phrase, 'That's good shit,' came from? Why do you think Hindus worship cows? ... 'Holy shit!'"

But, either it's there for a reason, and mushrooms and cow shit really are sacred, and the Hindus have it right, or there's nothing special about DMT, and if that's what contact with God is, there is no contact with God.

[Edited on June 10, 2006 at 12:22 AM. Reason : .]

6/10/2006 12:19:26 AM

The question I meant to ask was how sure experts are that DMT is the cause of anyone who believes they have been spoken to by God to believe that.

6/10/2006 9:21:25 AM

I think it's more the fact that lots of "religious experiences" can be scientificially recreated or demonstrated, and thus have a natural explanation.

DMT, for instance -- but even near-death experiences can be recreated. Those centrifuge things that train pilots have been documented as creating near death experiences in the subject around when they pass out. Why? Because their brain is losing blood, and weird shit happens.

[Edited on June 10, 2006 at 12:12 PM. Reason : .]

6/10/2006 12:11:40 PM

So if someone hallucinates about a McDonnalds being in his or her back yard, does that mean that you should doubt whether or not the one you've seen is real?

6/10/2006 12:43:09 PM

That's a little different. If you doubt the existence of the McDonald's you've seen, you can go back to where you've seen it and touch it, see it, or otherwise test for evidence of its current or past existence.

Nothing about God is testable. Nothing about God is logically consistent, either. This is pretty much another way of saying that the God concept is classic bullshit. The argument of this thread, however, is that the God on a cross concept is an extension of the God concept involved in an inversion of natural values.

Edit:

We can argue a lot about whether religion is a valid, consistent philosophy, but that's not the purpose of this thread. This thread is a discussion of the inversion of natural values, and how it's been characterized as a good thing down to the core of Western culture. I mean, there are even atheists that try to justify Christian morality, and brag that they possess similar or better performance in such a moral scale than God-fearing Christians! How they can fail to be fooled by the bait and still get caught in the trap is baffling to me.

[Edited on June 10, 2006 at 5:32 PM. Reason : .]

6/10/2006 5:29:31 PM

Quote :

"The argument of this thread, however, is that the God on a cross concept is an extension of the God concept involved in an inversion of natural values."

What are these natural values?

[Edited on June 10, 2006 at 5:34 PM. Reason : I apologize if you've already explicitly explained what you mean by "natural values."]

6/10/2006 5:34:10 PM

I already have >: (

I like you and I'm more inclined to tell you than others, but I have to be fair and say READ WHAT I WROTE.

6/10/2006 7:42:13 PM

Looks like I got some reading to do.

6/10/2006 7:47:25 PM

It's funny that the topic of this thread is not to argue about whether religion is valid and at the same time people can say it is "classic bullshit." Well, maybe not so much funny as pathetic and makes me realize that my initial gut feelling it wouldn't be worth arguing here turned out to be correct.

6/11/2006 11:13:24 AM

^^^page #?

6/11/2006 12:18:56 PM

^^certainly this thread is worthless to you if you don't avail yourself of new options because of new information.

[Edited on June 11, 2006 at 1:35 PM. Reason : .]

6/11/2006 1:34:08 PM

lol right, I'm not availing myself based on McDanger's inflamatory internet crusade against religion at large.

by the way, people can still consider options without choosing the same ones you would. Just so you know.

6/11/2006 4:27:52 PM

Quote :

"by the way, people can still consider options without choosing the same ones you would. Just so you know."

Nobody questions your ability to still consider other options. My position is that you should only consider reasonable options.

6/11/2006 5:45:24 PM

I have considered the option that bigben1024 doesn't consider reasonable options.

6/11/2006 6:07:56 PM

I think that's more of a possibility than an option, but still funnay. gg.

6/11/2006 6:19:59 PM

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/print.php?artnum=20011007

6/26/2006 12:49:59 PM

and who defines what is "reasonable?"

6/29/2006 5:30:22 PM

Well, people do.

People create methodologies, by which things are deamed acceptable or unacceptable.

6/30/2006 12:05:44 PM

everything is subjective

6/30/2006 12:06:33 PM

That's very true, but the consequences are functionally similar to if objective truth existed.

[Edited on June 30, 2006 at 12:08 PM. Reason : .]

6/30/2006 12:07:57 PM

nobody can ever determine if an objective truth exists for religion until they die and even then they cant necessarily do that

but i realize the whole topic is hypothetical in a sense and i dont want to derail the focus of the thread so carry on

6/30/2006 12:10:18 PM

What we can determine is what things breach our reality/are relevant to us.

6/30/2006 1:29:43 PM

This thread is still alive?

6/30/2006 3:52:48 PM

^^gg, that is what's most important.

6/30/2006 9:06:58 PM

^^^ actually, you can't even do that.

brain in a jar, man. brain in a jar.

6/30/2006 9:35:23 PM

We cannot determine what's relevant to our reality?

Uh, our perceptions alone do that. It's how we survive.

7/1/2006 3:15:31 AM

Some would say we should only use our perceptions to determine what's relevant if we get approval from the nearest nihilist.

7/2/2006 8:56:05 AM

Quote :

"brain in a jar, man. brain in a jar."

I believe there is a table in front of me. Can I prove that it is really there? No, but I can see it, touch it, and put my computer on top of it. Whether or not I have sufficient justification to know its existence is not as relevant as the fact that it clearly affects my life.

7/2/2006 9:21:24 AM

^ This man is spot on.

Quote :

"Some would say we should only use our perceptions to determine what's relevant if we get approval from the nearest nihilist."

What I mean to say is that all things that are relevant are phenomenal.

7/2/2006 9:35:18 PM

Quote :

"Some would say we should only use our perceptions to determine what's relevant if we get approval from the nearest nihilist."

Some=nihilists.

Quote :

"I believe there is a table in front of me. Can I prove that it is really there? No, but I can see it, touch it, and put my computer on top of it. Whether or not I have sufficient justification to know its existence is not as relevant as the fact that it clearly affects my life."

Let's see, it's "spot on" to not be able to prove the existence of a table and yet still assume it exists and is "phenomenal" or whatever, but if we cannot prove the existence of God then the burden of proof is on us ? There seems to be a double standard when it comes to God with you materialists.

7/3/2006 11:25:41 AM

Are you joking?

7/3/2006 12:21:41 PM

what ^ said

[Edited on July 3, 2006 at 12:23 PM. Reason : too late]

7/3/2006 12:23:27 PM

Quote :

"Let's see, it's "spot on" to not be able to prove the existence of a table and yet still assume it exists"

Pretty much. It's impossible to disprove the existence of higher forces that have the ability to deceive me, but that doesn't mean I should act like matter doesn't exist. Throughout my life, all the tables I've seen have conformed to the rules of the natural universe. (They follow logic and causality.)What reason do I have to sit around thinking, "I don't have enough reason to act like this table exists?"

Quote :

"and is "phenomenal" or whatever"

Not really familiar with that terminology. Is it Kantian?

Quote :

"but if we cannot prove the existence of God then the burden of proof is on us ?"

IMO, I have much better reason to believe that the table that is holding my monitor is real and is affecting my life than I have reason to believe the same about God. In any case, it is not necessarily foolhardy to believe in gods, but one should have a good reason for believing in them. If one just arbitrarily assumes the existence of a supernatural force that is not actually real, he is likely to lose sight of what makes life good to him.

[Edited on July 3, 2006 at 4:12 PM. Reason : ]

7/3/2006 4:10:04 PM

Quote :

"Not really familiar with that terminology. Is it Kantian?"

I used the term as Hegel or Husserl would use it.

Nobody can prove that any of their senses are reliable. We could all be in a dream world, or somehow controlled by a "mad scientist" into believing our surroundings and living in "The Matrix", I suppose.

However, even assuming that we are in some sort of inpenetrable illusion, there are still testable phenomena and natural laws. When you drop something, it still falls to the ground. When you touch the table, you feel it and it impedes your hand. You can place things on top of it. There's a phenomenon associated with the table, it presents itself to your perceptions.

Basically -- even if we lived in The Matrix, it'd be irrelevant, because we could never know.

7/5/2006 1:21:21 AM

Quote :

"Nothing about God is testable. Nothing about God is logically consistent, either. This is pretty much another way of saying that the God concept is classic bullshit. The argument of this thread, however, is that the God on a cross concept is an extension of the God concept involved in an inversion of natural values."

I guess if you ignore everything that you have seen, touched, tasted, heard or felt.... or that the fact that we are living, cognizant beings capable of reason. I'm not a big Jesus person by any by any means, but regardless of how your religious tendencies sway... it seems pretty evident that there is some type of evidence of intelligent design. I mean it is pretty sweet that the laws of physics just happen to work in our favor to allow life to exist on this planet.

and to quote Dogma

Quote :

"The humans have besmirched everything bestowed on them. They were given Paradise, they threw it away. They were given this planet, they destroyed it. They were favored best among all His endeavors, and some of them don't even believe He exists. And in spite of it all, He's shown them infinite fucking patience at every turn."

[Edited on July 5, 2006 at 1:29 AM. Reason : .]

7/5/2006 1:28:47 AM

Quote :

"it seems pretty evident that there is some type of evidence of intelligent design."

Uhh, how?

Quote :

"I mean it is pretty sweet that the laws of physics just happen to work in our favor to allow life to exist on this planet."

In a Universe as vast as ours, is it really that strange that a place was perfect for the development of intelligent life? Seeing as how we are intelligent life, why is it so strange that we found ourselves in this perfect condition?

7/5/2006 1:33:10 AM

^^ You realize that throughout history people have attributed the things they could not explain at the time to gods/godesses don't you? Because you can't explain life and all the things you mentioned you assume there is a being/force which is responisble at least in the most minimum way. How is what you're saying any different?

Quote :

"it seems pretty evident that there is some type of evidence of intelligent design."

how's that? And what is this evidence?

7/5/2006 2:50:50 AM

I had written out this long, well thought out response to all this....but I figured it probably wasn't worth it and deleted it... as any decent response will create more questions then it answers

7/5/2006 3:10:46 AM

Quote :

"Seeing as how we are intelligent life, why is it so strange that we found ourselves in this perfect condition?"

wow, well now I'm convinced.

I love how you just shrugg off physical law as if it is nothing special, all those physicists who marvelled at the structure of physical law were idiot noobs like Einstein, fortunately for mankind we have philosophers who can put things in perspective for the rest of us dullards.

7/5/2006 3:12:12 AM

^ Quite the contrary, in fact.

I made no statement regarding my attitudes towards physical law. However, it would stand to reason that intelligent life would occur in regions of space amenable to its development.

Citing that we are in a region of space amenable to the development of life as evidence for intelligent design is silly. Of COURSE we are! We ARE intelligent life, why is it so shocking that we find ourselves in an environment that is friendly to its development? Just because these conditions are rare means nothing.

The base requirement for pondering how rare one's surroundings are is the ability to ponder. If only these rare conditions spawn the ability to ponder, why is it then shocking that we, beings who can ponder, exist in rare conditions?

7/5/2006 11:07:03 AM

^ and ^^
Furthermore, if the laws of physics worked differently, then intelligent life would have happened someplace else, at the balancing point between extremes of the defining phenomena of the universe. Which, given these laws of physics, is where we are now -- we are balanced in terms of gravity, temperature, electromagnetism, radiation, and so on. Change the balance, and you will find a fulcrum elsewhere. Or not -- but then there wouldn't be any intelligent life, and as was said, here we are. Life is the remarkable thing about the universe, not its innate "balance." Really, the physical phenomena of the universe are hardly balanced -- it's all black holes and empty void, mostly. But given infinite (or barely finite) space and matter, there you go.

7/5/2006 5:51:36 PM