Atheistforums.com

The only good Christian is a Gnostic Christian. True or false?

A nutshell view of Gnostic Christianity is expressed in the first two links. The third shows the attitude and result of Christian and Gnostic Christian interaction. I should point out that Gnostic Christianity does not hold to any supernatural belief, although I know that the literature, mostly written by those who won the God wars, wants to show that we do. Our myths have a lot of supernatural entities but they are myths, not reality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alRNbesfXXw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR02ciandvg&t=3s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ptNcSYo7k4&t=338s

I heard the saying in the title of this O. P. some time ago and after looking at the moral aspects of both ideologies/ theologies; --- I think that statement to be true from a moral point of view.

Do you?

Regards
DL

The length of your three videos combined is one hour, fourteen minutes, and fifty four seconds. I doubt you're going to find many here willing to invest that much time before posting here.

True, best to have clips only.

Can we have it in a nutshell what the difference is between Gnostic Christianity and regular Christianity?  Specifically, does Gnostic Christianity still posit a deity of some sort and that Jeshua bar-Joseph either was, or was a part of, that deity?  Is there still a belief in a soul or some other transcendent part of consciousness, an afterlife, any sort of eternal punishment?

Provisionally, though, I'm going to say false, but for this reason: a good Christian is, in my view, a good person who attributes their own innate goodness to the god they believe in rather than giving themselves their own due for doing good.  It's of no relevance to their goodness what flavor of Christianity they followâ€"or any other religion, or lack thereof.  Certainly I can't stop someone from attributing their goodness to their Christianity, but in my mind what makes them good is within themselves, not imposed from without.

I think more of a Christ thing, than a Jesus thing.

I kind of think Gnostic Christianity IS Christianity.  Gnostic means "knowing".  Isn't that what Christians think they do?  They have their book, they have their Pope and other god-interpreters who say they speak to JESUS every day.  What else is there?

Quote from: Cavebear on April 07, 2018, 01:48:45 AM
I kind of think Gnostic Christianity IS Christianity.  Gnostic means "knowing".  Isn't that what Christians think they do?  They have their book, they have their Pope and other god-interpreters who say they speak to JESUS every day.  What else is there?

Belief doesn't equal knowing.  Regular religious are believers, not knowers.

Quote from: Baruch on April 07, 2018, 03:47:59 AM
Belief doesn't equal knowing.  Regular religious are believers, not knowers.

maybe regular religious are just good little machines. They spit out what they were programmed with. Like the knob on a washing machine. It has no idea what it is doing but it regularly spits out the response that was programmed into it.

The original Christians were "gnostic" and I've even heard Saul/Paul called a gnostic Christian. Those were the ones who didn't think of Jesus as being a real historical person, but as a mystery deity, more like an inspirational gimmick than anything else. The historicists came along decades later and took the religion as their own, reifying the "Messiah" as a real man/God. The so-called "orthodox" Christians were like the freshest initiates, who never understood the deeper meaning of the whole thing, but only what had been given them on the surface. The gnostics were more like the later protestants, who could imagine their deity any way they liked.

Quote from: fencerider on April 07, 2018, 04:24:40 PM
maybe regular religious are just good little machines. They spit out what they were programmed with. Like the knob on a washing machine. It has no idea what it is doing but it regularly spits out the response that was programmed into it.

Well, that is the way the Elite want people to be ... with them controlling the knobs.

The only good christian is a dead christian.  Ummm...........wait...........wait..........I think I'm confusing that with this saying--the only good indian is a dead indian.  I guess it is doesn't really compute one way or the other.

I don't think it matters which is the 'good' one.  There is no 'good' christian in that none are accurate or based on facts or evidence.  Both are fictions.  Either hypothesis leads to control of the masses and are just as destructive.

I don't think gnostic Christians are about controlling anyone. I think they're more of a sort of "do it yourself" kind of religion.

Quote from: Unbeliever on April 07, 2018, 06:03:51 PM
I don't think gnostic Christians are about controlling anyone. I think they're more of a sort of "do it yourself" kind of religion.

Maybe.  But I think Paul was a gnostic.  And his writings are all about controlling others.

Hmmm...good point.

Quote from: Unbeliever on April 07, 2018, 04:32:56 PM
The original Christians were "gnostic" and I've even heard Saul/Paul called a gnostic Christian. Those were the ones who didn't think of Jesus as being a real historical person, but as a mystery deity, more like an inspirational gimmick than anything else. The historicists came along decades later and took the religion as their own, reifying the "Messiah" as a real man/God. The so-called "orthodox" Christians were like the freshest initiates, who never understood the deeper meaning of the whole thing, but only what had been given them on the surface. The gnostics were more like the later protestants, who could imagine their deity any way they liked.

I am not very surprised that the people closest to the alleged Christ in time were less likely to consider him "real" than later generations.  The whole idea is mostly a myth anyway.

Quote from: trdsf on April 06, 2018, 01:16:32 PM
Can we have it in a nutshell what the difference is between Gnostic Christianity and regular Christianity?  Specifically, does Gnostic Christianity still posit a deity of some sort and that Jeshua bar-Joseph either was, or was a part of, that deity?  Is there still a belief in a soul or some other transcendent part of consciousness, an afterlife, any sort of eternal punishment?

Provisionally, though, I'm going to say false, but for this reason: a good Christian is, in my view, a good person who attributes their own innate goodness to the god they believe in rather than giving themselves their own due for doing good.  It's of no relevance to their goodness what flavor of Christianity they followâ€"or any other religion, or lack thereof.  Certainly I can't stop someone from attributing their goodness to their Christianity, but in my mind what makes them good is within themselves, not imposed from without.

Thanks for the well thought out post.

-----

"Specifically, does Gnostic Christianity still posit a deity of some sort and that Jeshua bar-Joseph either was, or was a part of, that deity?

That first clip shows how we see Jesus as an archetypal good man only and not as a deity. We use Jesus as mantra or meditation guide to enhance our focus. gaining access to your pineal gland and activating your right brain is the key to Gnosis.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9QI3nlinYQ

--------

To the rest.

You and I think along the same lines but I see local churches as useful to society in the tribal and fellowship way and that is why I call myself a Gnostic Christian and not just the usual agnostic.

I want to change the mainstream religions to the more atheist church type of organizations and not really destroy them altogether. That would go a long way to ending the homophobia and misogyny propagated by the mainstream religions.

-------

"Is there still a belief in a soul or some other transcendent part of consciousness, an afterlife, any sort of eternal punishment?"

Soul, I define as life force.

We do not believe in eternal punishment as we do not see God as having to condemn his own creations. We fully believe in evolution and not a creator God. That is why we used to say creation from Yahweh was flawed, when speaking of the supernatural that we do not believe in, and why we wrote things like what follows.

Gnostic Christian Jesus said, "If those who attract you say, 'See, the Kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you.
If they say to you, 'It is under the earth,' then the fish of the sea will precede you.
Rather, the Kingdom of God is inside of you, and it is outside of you.
[Those who] become acquainted with [themselves] will find it; [and when you] become acquainted with yourselves, [you will understand that] it is you who are the sons of the living Father.
But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."

These days, I use this.

Candide.
"It is demonstrable that things cannot be otherwise than as they are; for as all things have been created for some end, they must necessarily be created for the best end.”

We are always at the best end, at all points in time. I call what I see evolving perfection. Always moving in time to a more perfect state, using U.S. English.

As to "transcendent part of consciousness".

You will not believe what I say unless you give some credence to what this link shows of a cosmic consciousness. If you do, then I will show and tell.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qM6yLngNnDY

In a nutshell, it posits that our magnetic shield is acting as a cosmic consciousness. If he was not a University prof and getting consistent results, I would likely not show his work.
 
A hint to my position is that I think I found what he did but without his machine. If you cannot give telepathy any credence then this topic dies here and you can concentrate on the rest.

Regards
DL

Quote from: Baruch on April 06, 2018, 06:44:41 PM
I think more of a Christ thing, than a Jesus thing.

Wise, but unfortunately, most think of those terms to mean the same thing and do not care that they are not.

They foolishly see Christ as a name.

Regards
DL

Quote from: Cavebear on April 07, 2018, 01:48:45 AM
I kind of think Gnostic Christianity IS Christianity.  Gnostic means "knowing".  Isn't that what Christians think they do?  They have their book, they have their Pope and other god-interpreters who say they speak to JESUS every day.  What else is there?

If we were the same, then they would not have used their Inquisitions on us.

Mind you, that is logic and reason talking and I don't know if we should apply logic and reason to Christianity, or any religions that say they know anything without giving a logic trail to it the way Gnostic Christians do.

Regards
DL

Quote from: Unbeliever on April 07, 2018, 04:32:56 PM
The original Christians were "gnostic" and I've even heard Saul/Paul called a gnostic Christian.

Yes and no.

The jury is still out for me as I think that Christianity usurped the scriptures of the Gnostic Christians of that day, when they called themselves Chrestians.

Most would not agree with you though without more evidence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=rAt-PAkgqls

Regards
DL

What is this about the pineal gland? Do you believe that Descartes myth that the pineal gland was what connected the soul with the body? And what do you mean by activating the right brain?

Quote from: Mike Cl on April 07, 2018, 05:47:28 PM
The only good christian is a dead christian.  Ummm...........wait...........wait..........I think I'm confusing that with this saying--the only good indian is a dead indian.  I guess it is doesn't really compute one way or the other.

I don't think it matters which is the 'good' one.  There is no 'good' christian in that none are accurate or based on facts or evidence.  Both are fictions.  Either hypothesis leads to control of the masses and are just as destructive.

For the revealed religions, perhaps, but that third link shows that that was not the case for the Cathars.

Seeking wisdom and knowledge and how to be the best possible human is hardly the same as following a genocidal son murdering prick of a God.

Strange that you cannot see that both creeds shown are not morally equivalent.

Perhaps you should join a religion because your secular system is sure not educating you on morals much.

Regards
DL

Quote from: Mike Cl on April 07, 2018, 08:17:57 PM
Maybe.  But I think Paul was a gnostic.  And his writings are all about controlling others.

What makes you think he was a Gnostic Christian?

We have no supernatural beliefs and he did if memory serves.

Regards
DL

Quote from: Blackleaf on April 08, 2018, 03:41:55 PM
What is this about the pineal gland? Do you believe that Descartes myth that the pineal gland was what connected the soul with the body? And what do you mean by activating the right brain?

Soul to me just means life force and I do not connect it to the physical as directly as you put it.

https://www.ted.com/talks/iain_mcgilchrist_the_divided_brain

Just so you do not just discard the whole brain idea, consider the Egyptian eye and Michelangelo's creation painting. Both of those are representation of our right hemisphere. God sit's on a brain background in the creation painting.

Most look at it and see God creating his concept in Adam.

I see it as Adam reaching up to his own mind to find his own Father Concept.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_complex

Regards
DL

Quote from: Greatest I am on April 08, 2018, 03:48:44 PM
What makes you think he was a Gnostic Christian?

We have no supernatural beliefs and he did if memory serves.

Regards
DL

Thanks for the reply.  I seem to remember than Paul did not believe in a corporal Jesus, but a spiritual one; one that lived in heaven.  And I seem to recall that a couple of authors that wrote about Paul labeled him such.  In any case, his Jesus does not match up all that well with the other NT authors.  As for you brand of 'Gnostic', I am not all that familiar with it---and I must confess that I did not view any of your clips.

Quote from: Greatest I am on April 08, 2018, 03:46:28 PM
For the revealed religions, perhaps, but that third link shows that that was not the case for the Cathars.

Seeking wisdom and knowledge and how to be the best possible human is hardly the same as following a genocidal son murdering prick of a God.

Strange that you cannot see that both creeds shown are not morally equivalent.

Perhaps you should join a religion because your secular system is sure not educating you on morals much.

Regards
DL

Thanks for this reply.  I have to say, I do love this line--Seeking wisdom and knowledge and how to be the best possible human is hardly the same as following a genocidal son murdering prick of a God.  I so very much agree and came to that conclusion fairly early in life.  And I don't see both creeds as being morally equivalent.  Just because they are both fictional does not mean they are the same from any vantage point other than being fictional.  I do see all organized religions as being fictional and all as being destructive.  But I don't include all 'spiritual' movements or organizations as being religions--I don't know that Wicca, for example, his highly organized or has a hierarchical, rigid official set of offices; Wicca then could be labeled a religion that is not destructive.  So, what I think is really destructive in religions is a hierarchical, rigid official set of offices.  Plus, I don't see any religion as being moral or ethical.

I have attempted to join christianity several times, longing for an outside force to be 'the' force of the universe both physical and emotional (spiritual).  My last and strongest attempt was through Unity, the denomination started by Charles and Myrtle Fillmore.  That attempt lasted a good 10 years and was not a total waste in the end.  The social aspect was good.  The Fillmore philosophy has much  I still use and agree with.  As it turned out, even that loose organization was still too much organization for me.  For me, the search for knowledge and how to be the best human I can be took me away from any and every religion.  My set of 'morals' (what a loaded word and would take many, many posts to figure out what those are, where they come from and what is good about them.)  works for me.  My morals work for me--but when they don't (yes, I do know when I compromise my own set of morals or ethics) I have to figure out how to repair that and set things as straight as I can.   

'I am that I am' is used with great regularity in Unity--'I am' is the Christ Mind.  It is that mind we use when we are at our best when interfacing with the rest of the universe.  For Unity students the Christ Mind and the Christ Consciousness is what we strive for.  I still find much of that teaching to be of a personal benefit in that it is a tool I can use to help me to a better state of mind, of emotion and leads to a 'better' me.  None of this has anything to do with with a real or actual Jesus.  Anyway, Greatest, I don't know that much of what your personal thoughts are or how you came to them and I imagine there are  a number of different beliefs that label themselves as 'Gnostic'.   So, to call your particular belief system as being fictional is a bit hasty; it may be, but I don't really know that to be accurate.  So, I guess when you say I use a 'secular system' to determine my morals, you are accurate--for there can be no other system since there is nothing within this universe that is not secular.  And I guess morals are much like beauty--in the eye of the beholder.

Quote from: Greatest I am on April 08, 2018, 03:30:13 PM
Wise, but unfortunately, most think of those terms to mean the same thing and do not care that they are not.

They foolishly see Christ as a name.

Regards
DL

G-d is always a verb, regardless of which verb you use.  A name is a noun.

Mike your time at Unity sounds very much like  Budhist seeking nirvana.

Quote from: fencerider on April 09, 2018, 12:05:23 AM
Mike your time at Unity sounds very much like  Budhist seeking nirvana.

I have been told that the Fillmore's teachings were kind of close of Buddhist teachings.  I don't know enough about core Buddhist teachings to know for sure.

Quote from: Baruch on April 08, 2018, 07:42:18 PM
G-d is always a verb, regardless of which verb you use.  A name is a noun.

But you say that people are demi-gods. That's a noun.

Quote from: Blackleaf on April 09, 2018, 12:35:09 AM
But you say that people are demi-gods. That's a noun.

Language is tricky like that ... a verb can be used as an adjective or a noun aka verbal adjective or verbal noun.  But what I am saying is, it's more like "dynamic, not static ... becoming, not being".  Using what a person does, as a description, is using that as a verbal adjective ... and using what a person does as a label, is using that as a verbal noun.  Using an adjective or noun, instead of a verb, is a shorthand, just as a pronoun is shorthand for a noun.

Forrest Gump: That day, for no particular reason, I decided to go for a little run. So I ran to the end of the road. And when I got there, I thought maybe I'd run to the end of the town. And when I got there, I thought maybe I'd just run across Greenbow County. And I figured, since run this far, maybe I'd just run across the great state of Alabama. And that's what I did. I ran clear across Alabama. For no particular reason I just kept on goin'. I ran clear to the ocean. And when I got there, I figured, since I'd gone this far, I might as well turn around, just keep on goin'. When I got to another ocean, I figured, since I'd gone this far, I might as well just turn back, keep right on goin'.

Verb ... "Run! Forrest!! Run!!!"
Verbal adjective ... "Forrest loves to run"
Verbal noun ... "Forrest went for a run"

Identical word, used three different ways, all less informative than the first quote.

Quote from: trdsf on April 06, 2018, 01:16:32 PM
Provisionally, though, I'm going to say false, but for this reason: a good Christian is, in my view, a good person who attributes their own innate goodness to the god they believe in rather than giving themselves their own due for doing good. 

Two of my closest friends are a Christian married couple, who are simply wonderfully thoughtful and kind.  In addition, they take or give no credit for their kindness to themselves or to a deity, and least not publicly around me.  The subject has never come up.  It's just who they seem to be.  As such, they are atypical of most Christians I know, and I think of them as what Christians like to claim about themselves, even when their default state is to spew hatred and contempt.  I'm talking about both the ends of the extreme, obviously.

On the other hand, "Gnostic Christian" is probably better defined by looking the word gnostic up in a dictionary, rather than through videos and discussion.  I don't think "gnostic" has anything to do with the inner goodness of a person, be they theist or atheist.  It's a whole different discussion.

Quote from: SGOS on April 09, 2018, 09:34:43 AM
Two of my closest friends are a Christian married couple, who are simply wonderfully thoughtful and kind.  In addition, they take or give no credit for their kindness to themselves or to a deity, and least not publicly around me.  The subject has never come up.  It's just who they seem to be.  As such, they are atypical of most Christians I know, and I think of them as what Christians like to claim about themselves, even when their default state is to spew hatred and contempt.  I'm talking about both the ends of the extreme, obviously.

On the other hand, "Gnostic Christian" is probably better defined by looking the word gnostic up in a dictionary, rather than through videos and discussion.  I don't think "gnostic" has anything to do with the inner goodness of a person, be they theist or atheist.  It's a whole different discussion.

That is sort of how I view 'gnostic'--the dictionary is a good place to start.  And I don't see that the word 'gnostic' carries with it any indication of a person's 'morals' or ethics. 

Quote from: Mike Cl on April 08, 2018, 04:19:42 PM
Thanks for the reply.  I seem to remember than Paul did not believe in a corporal Jesus, but a spiritual one; one that lived in heaven.  And I seem to recall that a couple of authors that wrote about Paul labeled him such.  In any case, his Jesus does not match up all that well with the other NT authors.  As for you brand of 'Gnostic', I am not all that familiar with it---and I must confess that I did not view any of your clips.

The Gnostic Christian view is that heaven is here and now to those with the insight to see it.

Here is how we said it.

Gnostic Christian Jesus said, "If those who attract you say, 'See, the Kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you.
If they say to you, 'It is under the earth,' then the fish of the sea will precede you.
Rather, the Kingdom of God is inside of you, and it is outside of you.
[Those who] become acquainted with [themselves] will find it; [and when you] become acquainted with yourselves, [you will understand that] it is you who are the sons of the living Father.
But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."

This is actually irrefutable at an intellectual level given entropy and our past history.

Candide.
"It is demonstrable that things cannot be otherwise than as they are; for as all things have been created for some end, they must necessarily be created for the best end.”

The best end for natures is here and now and the best end for the imaginary Gods would also be a heaven here and now which is the promise when God returns.

To me, that return would foul heaven as I see the mainstream Gods as quite immoral.

Regards
DL

Quote from: Greatest I am on April 09, 2018, 11:09:02 AM
The Gnostic Christian view is that heaven is here and now to those with the insight to see it.

Regards
DL

Unity says much the same thing in that when the Christ Mind or Christ Consciousness is achieved, we are in heaven.  Heaven and hell, then, are states of mind and Unity strives to give one tools to achieve the best state of mind we can;  a positive state of mind.  One does not need to be a gnostic christian to understand that that is a good thing.

Quote from: Baruch on April 08, 2018, 07:42:18 PM
G-d is always a verb, regardless of which verb you use.  A name is a noun.

Webster's disagrees with you on that. They class it as a noun, and the vast majority use it that way.

Even most Jews disagree with you buddy. That is why they and you write G-d.

Why would/do you do that if it is just a verb. A verb is an action.

Tell us what you are doing when you G-d.

I do not know how to G-d and might enjoy it if it involves using certain body parts. ;-)

Regards
DL

Quote from: Greatest I am on April 09, 2018, 11:09:02 AM
The Gnostic Christian view is that heaven is here and now to those with the insight to see it.

Here is how we said it.

Gnostic Christian Jesus said, "If those who attract you say, 'See, the Kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you.
If they say to you, 'It is under the earth,' then the fish of the sea will precede you.
Rather, the Kingdom of God is inside of you, and it is outside of you.
[Those who] become acquainted with [themselves] will find it; [and when you] become acquainted with yourselves, [you will understand that] it is you who are the sons of the living Father.
But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."

This is actually irrefutable at an intellectual level given entropy and our past history.
Regards
DL

Jesus of the bible is a fiction--he never lived and therefore could not have spoken.  The entire bible is a metaphor and as such this passage simply states that the better you know yourself and your environment the better able you are to make positive choices for yourself.  The less you know yourself, the more impoverished (lacking of knowledge) your decisions will be.  Charles Fillmore wrote the Metaphysical Bible Dictionary in which he provides what he thinks all the metaphors of the bible (actually, the entire bible) are and how they pertain to everyday life.  It's an interesting read.  One does not need religion, or spirituality to figure this out.

Quote from: SGOS on April 09, 2018, 09:34:43 AM
Two of my closest friends are a Christian married couple, who are simply wonderfully thoughtful and kind.  In addition, they take or give no credit for their kindness to themselves or to a deity, and least not publicly around me.  The subject has never come up.  It's just who they seem to be.  As such, they are atypical of most Christians I know, and I think of them as what Christians like to claim about themselves, even when their default state is to spew hatred and contempt.  I'm talking about both the ends of the extreme, obviously.

On the other hand, "Gnostic Christian" is probably better defined by looking the word gnostic up in a dictionary, rather than through videos and discussion.  I don't think "gnostic" has anything to do with the inner goodness of a person, be they theist or atheist.  It's a whole different discussion.

I kind of partially agree with this.

All Gnosis does is gain you access to your full brain and what Jung and Freud called their Father Complex. basically that is where we store our basic instincts.

If one recognizes his true instincts though, he will note that doing good by cooperation instead of  competition, which is evil as it creates a victim, he might recognize that cooperation is the best survival technique and make himself less evil and more good.

Regards
DL
 

Quote from: Mike Cl on April 09, 2018, 11:04:58 AM
That is sort of how I view 'gnostic'--the dictionary is a good place to start.  And I don't see that the word 'gnostic' carries with it any indication of a person's 'morals' or ethics. 

I agree with the caveat I put in the post just above.

Here is how some Gnostic Christians including myself describe Gnosis.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9QI3nlinYQ

Regards
DL

Quote from: Mike Cl on April 09, 2018, 11:17:25 AM
Unity says much the same thing in that when the Christ Mind or Christ Consciousness is achieved, we are in heaven.  Heaven and hell, then, are states of mind and Unity strives to give one tools to achieve the best state of mind we can;  a positive state of mind.  One does not need to be a gnostic christian to understand that that is a good thing.

No argument there buddy.

Regards
DL

Quote from: Greatest I am on April 09, 2018, 11:09:02 AM


Candide.
"It is demonstrable that things cannot be otherwise than as they are; for as all things have been created for some end, they must necessarily be created for the best end.”

The best end for natures is here and now and the best end for the imaginary Gods would also be a heaven here and now which is the promise when God returns.

Regards
DL

Don't agree with any of that.  The Green Bay Packers won the first Super Bowl--in hindsight that could be seen as not being possible to be any other way.  But, actually, the Oakland Raiders could have scored more points and won the game.  It was not a pre-ordained event.  In fact, nothing is pre-ordained--every event could have happened another way.  Nothing in this universe, or the universe itself, was 'created' by another a force other than happenstance and the right materials in the right amounts--it's all math.  There is no supernatural power that 'created' any of what we now have.  There is no 'best end' for nature.  Nature cares nothing for any end, good or bad.  If there is any 'best' it is only in our individual judgments that that is so.  In other words, it is we and we alone who give a purpose or meaning (or not) to life, our lives or the universe and all that is within.  I don't need any religious or spiritual person to tell me what those purposes are or should be.  I end up making up my own mind.  God is not needed--which is why god is a creation of humankind and not the other way around.

Quote from: Mike Cl on April 09, 2018, 11:24:33 AM
Jesus of the bible is a fiction--he never lived and therefore could not have spoken. 

No argument as I said the same in the O.P.'s link.

I see the bible as a consolidation of many older traditions. That is why you can make the bible and all the fictional characters say almost anything.

Regards
DL

Quote from: Mike Cl on April 09, 2018, 11:38:34 AM
Don't agree with any of that.  The Green Bay Packers won the first Super Bowl--in hindsight that could be seen as not being possible to be any other way.  But, actually, the Oakland Raiders could have scored more points and won the game.  It was not a pre-ordained event.  In fact, nothing is pre-ordained--every event could have happened another way.  Nothing in this universe, or the universe itself, was 'created' by another a force other than happenstance and the right materials in the right amounts--it's all math.  There is no supernatural power that 'created' any of what we now have.  There is no 'best end' for nature.  Nature cares nothing for any end, good or bad.  If there is any 'best' it is only in our individual judgments that that is so.  In other words, it is we and we alone who give a purpose or meaning (or not) to life, our lives or the universe and all that is within.  I don't need any religious or spiritual person to tell me what those purposes are or should be.  I end up making up my own mind.  God is not needed--which is why god is a creation of humankind and not the other way around.

I agree that no creator God exists.

That does not take away from the fact that "Once one dismisses The rest of all possible worlds One finds that this is The best of all possible worlds!"

This is irrefutable given our history and the anthropic principle.

If you can refute that statement somehow, I am willing to read your argument.

Regards
DL

Quote from: Mike Cl on April 09, 2018, 11:17:25 AM
Unity says much the same thing in that when the Christ Mind or Christ Consciousness is achieved, we are in heaven.  Heaven and hell, then, are states of mind and Unity strives to give one tools to achieve the best state of mind we can;  a positive state of mind.  One does not need to be a gnostic christian to understand that that is a good thing.

One can be good, with or without metaphysics.  What I doubt is "good".  It seems to be relative, not absolute.  It is better for me to not kill someone, usually ... than to kill them ... for example.  But better from who's perspective?  If I am hired as hit-man, it isn't good from the POV of the employer, and if I do kill someone, it usually isn't good from the perspective of the victim.  Since meaning and therefore "good" are relative, isn't "good" meaningless .. just a jargon for virtue signaling?

Quote from: Greatest I am on April 09, 2018, 12:03:58 PM
I agree that no creator God exists.

That does not take away from the fact that "Once one dismisses The rest of all possible worlds One finds that this is The best of all possible worlds!"

This is irrefutable given our history and the anthropic principle.

If you can refute that statement somehow, I am willing to read your argument.

Regards
DL

I have always had problems with the anthropic principle, in all but its weakest form.  I think the most we can say is that since we exist, we should not be surprised that we live in a part of a universe that can support our kind of life.  Even that's tautological since we're a product of the universe, and therefore necessarily a product of its structure, laws and contents.  Certainly I think cosmologists John Barrow and Frank Tipler go much too far in positing that we are somehow inherent in the universe, that something like us must arise eventually.  I don't have much more patience for John Wheeler's idea that we're necessary in order to have something to observe and therefore collapse quantum mechanical wave functions into events.

Fundamentally, we can only look at the conditions of the universe and conclude that we are merely possible.  This just happens to be a universe in which we happened.  If we hadn't, we wouldn't be here to remark upon it.

Quote from: Greatest I am on April 09, 2018, 11:09:02 AM
Candide.
"It is demonstrable that things cannot be otherwise than as they are; for as all things have been created for some end, they must necessarily be created for the best end.”

The best end for natures is here and now and the best end for the imaginary Gods would also be a heaven here and now which is the promise when God returns.

Candide was written as a satire to make fun of the idea that we live in the best of all possible worlds, so it wasn't being put forward as a serious concept. In fact, I'm pretty sure we don't live in the best of all possible worlds, since I can imagine worlds much better than this.

Quote from: trdsf on April 09, 2018, 01:11:56 PM
I have always had problems with the anthropic principle, in all but its weakest form.  I think the most we can say is that since we exist, we should not be surprised that we live in a part of a universe that can support our kind of life.  Even that's tautological since we're a product of the universe, and therefore necessarily a product of its structure, laws and contents.  Certainly I think cosmologists John Barrow and Frank Tipler go much too far in positing that we are somehow inherent in the universe, that something like us must arise eventually.  I don't have much more patience for John Wheeler's idea that we're necessary in order to have something to observe and therefore collapse quantum mechanical wave functions into events.

Fundamentally, we can only look at the conditions of the universe and conclude that we are merely possible.  This just happens to be a universe in which we happened.  If we hadn't, we wouldn't be here to remark upon it.

No argument on this.

If an asteroid had not rid the earth of dinosaurs, which allowed mammals to grow and thrive, mankind would not be here.

That does not mean that intelligent life would not have developed here or elsewhere. There might be many places in the universe where there is intelligence and we just would not know it as the speed of light would likely dissuade interstellar travel.

In an endless universe, every possibility becomes a probability. Perhaps even for a God, which I might put at a probability rating of .0000000000000000000000000000000000000001.

Sweet that you could not refute my view of reality.

Regards
DL

Quote from: Unbeliever on April 09, 2018, 01:35:16 PM
Candide was written as a satire to make fun of the idea that we live in the best of all possible worlds, so it wasn't being put forward as a serious concept. In fact, I'm pretty sure we don't live in the best of all possible worlds, since I can imagine worlds much better than this.

So can I, but that does not take away from the fact that "Once one dismisses The rest of all possible worlds, even your imaginary ones, One finds that this is The best of all possible worlds!"

This is the only possible world given our past and entropy.

I do recognize that it was satirically said, but it is still irrefutable.

I have been playing with this notion for a long time and most just give up on trying to refute it because they cannot.

If I was not sure of my view, I would not put it out here.

Regards
DL

Quote from: Greatest I am on April 09, 2018, 01:48:48 PM
Sweet that you could not refute my view of reality.

Whoa, arrogant much?  All I was doing there was commenting on the Anthropic Principle.  I'm at work, so commenting on your videos is not feasible.  And in any case, I would rather hear your take on them than assume you let videos do your thinking for you.

Quote from: Baruch on April 09, 2018, 01:00:30 PM
One can be good, with or without metaphysics.  What I doubt is "good".  It seems to be relative, not absolute.  It is better for me to not kill someone, usually ... than to kill them ... for example.  But better from who's perspective?  If I am hired as hit-man, it isn't good from the POV of the employer, and if I do kill someone, it usually isn't good from the perspective of the victim.  Since meaning and therefore "good" are relative, isn't "good" meaningless .. just a jargon for virtue signaling?

I do agree that 'good' is relative.  So is morality.  As for being meaningless--don't know; but it is very fuzzy.

Quote from: Mike Cl on April 09, 2018, 11:24:33 AM
Jesus of the bible is a fiction--he never lived and therefore could not have spoken.  The entire bible is a metaphor and as such this passage simply states that the better you know yourself and your environment the better able you are to make positive choices for yourself.  The less you know yourself, the more impoverished (lacking of knowledge) your decisions will be.  Charles Fillmore wrote the Metaphysical Bible Dictionary in which he provides what he thinks all the metaphors of the bible (actually, the entire bible) are and how they pertain to everyday life.  It's an interesting read.  One does not need religion, or spirituality to figure this out.

But without metaphysics, you have no metaphors.  The meta- thing.  Try to justify metaphors on the basis of literalism please, that is the written version of justifying reality based on materialism.

Quote from: Greatest I am on April 09, 2018, 11:21:04 AM
Webster's disagrees with you on that. They class it as a noun, and the vast majority use it that way.

Even most Jews disagree with you buddy. That is why they and you write G-d.

Why would/do you do that if it is just a verb. A verb is an action.

Tell us what you are doing when you G-d.

I do not know how to G-d and might enjoy it if it involves using certain body parts. ;-)

Regards
DL

Kabbalists/Hasidim know, the rabbis are parrots, same as all other clergy.  We understand metaphor, the rabbis are taught to parrot what they are taught.  A kosher parrot would make a good rabbi ;-)

Quote from: Mike Cl on April 09, 2018, 11:38:34 AM
Don't agree with any of that.  The Green Bay Packers won the first Super Bowl--in hindsight that could be seen as not being possible to be any other way.  But, actually, the Oakland Raiders could have scored more points and won the game.  It was not a pre-ordained event.  In fact, nothing is pre-ordained--every event could have happened another way.  Nothing in this universe, or the universe itself, was 'created' by another a force other than happenstance and the right materials in the right amounts--it's all math.  There is no supernatural power that 'created' any of what we now have.  There is no 'best end' for nature.  Nature cares nothing for any end, good or bad.  If there is any 'best' it is only in our individual judgments that that is so.  In other words, it is we and we alone who give a purpose or meaning (or not) to life, our lives or the universe and all that is within.  I don't need any religious or spiritual person to tell me what those purposes are or should be.  I end up making up my own mind.  God is not needed--which is why god is a creation of humankind and not the other way around.

When you make up your own mind, you are making up G-d's mind ... his particular demigod mind which is in you.

Quote from: SGOS on April 09, 2018, 09:34:43 AM
Two of my closest friends are a Christian married couple, who are simply wonderfully thoughtful and kind.  In addition, they take or give no credit for their kindness to themselves or to a deity, and least not publicly around me.  The subject has never come up.  It's just who they seem to be.  As such, they are atypical of most Christians I know, and I think of them as what Christians like to claim about themselves, even when their default state is to spew hatred and contempt.  I'm talking about both the ends of the extreme, obviously.

On the other hand, "Gnostic Christian" is probably better defined by looking the word gnostic up in a dictionary, rather than through videos and discussion.  I don't think "gnostic" has anything to do with the inner goodness of a person, be they theist or atheist.  It's a whole different discussion.

If you need Webster to do your thinking for you ...

Quote from: Greatest I am on April 09, 2018, 12:03:58 PM
I agree that no creator God exists.

That does not take away from the fact that "Once one dismisses The rest of all possible worlds One finds that this is The best of all possible worlds!"

This is irrefutable given our history and the anthropic principle.

If you can refute that statement somehow, I am willing to read your argument.

Regards
DL

What is your ... anthropic principle?  Mine is ... we are demigods, because everyone is equal, and Augustus is a demigod.  A rock can't act on its own, a human being can.  That is the very basis of Semitic criticism of statue worship.

Quote from: Unbeliever on April 09, 2018, 01:35:16 PM
Candide was written as a satire to make fun of the idea that we live in the best of all possible worlds, so it wasn't being put forward as a serious concept. In fact, I'm pretty sure we don't live in the best of all possible worlds, since I can imagine worlds much better than this.

Voltaire was making fun of Leibniz.  But Leibniz is having the last laugh ... Voltaire was a precursor to the French Revolution, and all the Leftist crap that came out of that.  The first "soy boy".  Voltaire leads us to the worst of all possible worlds ... the world of everyone making war against anyone who has even one dollar more than they do.  The absolute opposite of any social solidarity (the ancients called it "the evil eye").  Per ancient culture, the very definition of Satan .. anarchy as it would be run by humans.

Quote from: Mike Cl on April 09, 2018, 02:48:37 PM
I do agree that 'good' is relative.  So is morality.  As for being meaningless--don't know; but it is very fuzzy.

Thuzzy Finking ... is jibberish ... so unless you can make sense of gibberish, it is meaningless.  However, your good, or my good, is good, even if we don't agree.  As demigods we have that power.  A rock does not.  Materialists have rocks for brains.

Quote from: Baruch on April 09, 2018, 07:34:47 PM
But without metaphysics, you have no metaphors.  The meta- thing.  Try to justify metaphors on the basis of literalism please, that is the written version of justifying reality based on materialism.

Not sure what your point is.

Quote from: Baruch on April 09, 2018, 07:38:39 PM
When you make up your own mind, you are making up G-d's mind ... his particular demigod mind which is in you.

Nope--I have the mind of Daffy Duck--or is it the roadrunner??--I keep forgetting which.

Quote from: Baruch on April 09, 2018, 07:40:08 PM
If you need Webster to do your thinking for you ...

Webster doesn't think.  It only provides common reference points for clear communication.  You can make up your own definitions for commonly used words and go on communicating like crazy, and you might even clearly understand what you are saying, but no one else would without a common reference.

Quote from: Greatest I am on April 08, 2018, 04:00:22 PMJust so you do not just discard the whole brain idea, consider the Egyptian eye and Michelangelo's creation painting. Both of those are representation of our right hemisphere. God sit's on a brain background in the creation painting.

Most look at it and see God creating his concept in Adam.

I see it as Adam reaching up to his own mind to find his own Father Concept.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_complex

Regards
DL

My concern is that you're subscribing to the myth that people only use 10% of their brains at a given time. I don't know if that is what you're implying, but it is completely untrue. We wouldn't be able to survive on 10% brain power. The brain has to monitor balance, movement (several brain areas govern specific types), perceptions, keeping your heart beating, keeping your lungs breathing, and all kinds of things you're not even consciously aware of. You're using all areas of your brain all the time. The degree to which it is being used varies, but more activity doesn't equal better. Seizures cause neurons to fire like crazy, but those are of course undesirable.

Quote from: Mike Cl on April 09, 2018, 08:59:08 PM
Not sure what your point is.

If you know what a metaphor is, can you not know what metaphysics is?

Quote from: SGOS on April 09, 2018, 09:17:35 PM
Webster doesn't think.  It only provides common reference points for clear communication.  You can make up your own definitions for commonly used words and go on communicating like crazy, and you might even clearly understand what you are saying, but no one else would without a common reference.

We have no common reference points, because that means there is an absolute meaning, which everyone here denies exists.  Hence any real discussion ends up in pointless semantics.  The only reason why a dictionary is brought in, is as a gambit.  My dictionary is bigger than your dictionary ...

If you use a word, but don't know what it means, you use a dictionary, but then that means you have already admitted your ignorance.  Sad.

What is communication?  It isn't a string of meaningless ones and zeros.  It is the human at one end, and the human at the other end that give it a shared meaning, but more like an overlap, not like an actual agreement.  Why are you uncomfortable with overlap?  Because if someone will concede to your definitions, you are half way there to controlling the discussion.  Newspeak.

Define the terms and ... there is no choice but materialism, no choice but Hillary ...

Quote from: Baruch on April 09, 2018, 10:29:28 PM
We have no common reference points, because that means there is an absolute meaning, which everyone here denies exists.  Hence any real discussion ends up in pointless semantics.  The only reason why a dictionary is brought in, is as a gambit.  My dictionary is bigger than your dictionary ...

If you use a word, but don't know what it means, you use a dictionary, but then that means you have already admitted your ignorance.  Sad.

What is communication?  It isn't a string of meaningless ones and zeros.  It is the human at one end, and the human at the other end that give it a shared meaning, but more like an overlap, not like an actual agreement.  Why are you uncomfortable with overlap?  Because if someone will concede to your definitions, you are half way there to controlling the discussion.  Newspeak.

Define the terms and ... there is no choice but materialism, no choice but Hillary ...

This at least partially explains why people here don't know what you are talking about half the time.  Your communication skills are sub par, even though you think the problem is with your audience.  You are right that communication has a human at each end, but you don't seem to hold up your end of the transaction very well.

Quote from: Baruch on April 09, 2018, 10:29:28 PM
We have no common reference points, because that means there is an absolute meaning, which everyone here denies exists.  Hence any real discussion ends up in pointless semantics.  The only reason why a dictionary is brought in, is as a gambit.  My dictionary is bigger than your dictionary ...

If you use a word, but don't know what it means, you use a dictionary, but then that means you have already admitted your ignorance.  Sad.

What is communication?  It isn't a string of meaningless ones and zeros.  It is the human at one end, and the human at the other end that give it a shared meaning, but more like an overlap, not like an actual agreement.  Why are you uncomfortable with overlap?  Because if someone will concede to your definitions, you are half way there to controlling the discussion.  Newspeak.

Define the terms and ... there is no choice but materialism, no choice but Hillary ...

What is sad is not admitting one's ignorance.  That is what leads to stupidity and that, indeed, is sad. 

Ignorance can be fixed--and all of us are ignorant of many, many things.  So what?  A stupid person doesn't care and reveals in their stupidity. 

Quote from: SGOS on April 09, 2018, 10:51:59 PM
This at least partially explains why people here don't know what you are talking about half the time.  Your communication skills are sub par, even though you think the problem is with your audience.  You are right that communication has a human at each end, but you don't seem to hold up your end of the transaction very well.

All I have to do, is surrender unconditionally, making a verbal safe space for all you college kids ;-)

And no, I am not blaming anyone.  And if you accept any authority, you aren't free, you are just another drone.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4fHre-yRPY

Which of us is Alice, and which of us is the Cheshire Cat?  Well Gilgamesh seems to be this guy ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZy-n8gP8o8

Quote from: Blackleaf on April 09, 2018, 09:56:55 PM
My concern is that you're subscribing to the myth that people only use 10% of their brains at a given time. I don't know if that is what you're implying, but it is completely untrue. We wouldn't be able to survive on 10% brain power. The brain has to monitor balance, movement (several brain areas govern specific types), perceptions, keeping your heart beating, keeping your lungs breathing, and all kinds of things you're not even consciously aware of. You're using all areas of your brain all the time. The degree to which it is being used varies, but more activity doesn't equal better. Seizures cause neurons to fire like crazy, but those are of course undesirable.

This is tricky.  On the one hand, evolution doesn't "reward" any creature for developing more ability than they need to thrive.  But evolution also doesn't seem to like an under-used talent either.  It either dimiinshes and becomes used.   

Intelligent primates like us might be  a contradictory evolutionary situation.    And THAT might suggest self-aware intelligent creatures might be more rare than I both hope and fear.

Quote from: Cavebear on April 09, 2018, 11:57:03 PM
This is tricky.  On the one hand, evolution doesn't "reward" any creature for developing more ability than they need to thrive.  But evolution also doesn't seem to like an under-used talent either.  It either dimiinshes and becomes used.   

Intelligent primates like us might be  a contradictory evolutionary situation.    And THAT might suggest self-aware intelligent creatures might be more rare than I both hope and fear.

True. Certain strengths seem to diminish when they're not particularly useful. Deep sea fish often lack coloration as well as eyes because...well, they can't see anything down there and you can't see it. Which is pretty fortunate, because what fish would want to procreate with this ugly piece of shit?

(https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/150806073348-new-fish-species-ceratioid-anglerfish-exlarge-169.jpg)

I mean, Jesus Christ. Not even a mother could love a face like that. Fortunately for us, our survival became dependent on our use of tools, agriculture, and cooperation, so we continued to grow more intelligent. To a certain extent, we even hold evolution on a leash now. We have selectively bred plants and animals to suit our needs. Bananas went from being hard and requiring them to be boiled before eating to being soft and ready to eat. Soon we'll probably even be able to genetically alter babies to eliminate diseases, maximize strengths, or even just choose what color hair they have. So if the day comes when our big brains are no longer necessary for survival, we probably won't have to worry about losing brainpower.

I'm not sure what you are getting at  here.  Deep ocean creatures  are more reactive than intelligent.    If they meet something else, they try to eat it.  With the exception of a Gulper that can actually eat something larger than itself via an immensely expandable stomach.

So, your point?

Quote from: Mike Cl on April 09, 2018, 10:53:20 PM
What is sad is not admitting one's ignorance.  That is what leads to stupidity and that, indeed, is sad. 

Ignorance can be fixed--and all of us are ignorant of many, many things.  So what?  A stupid person doesn't care and reveals in their stupidity.

No Brite here will admit to that.  Only Dims are stupid.  We are the Brainiacs.

Soft bananas as ecologically soft ... they are vulnerable to disease, and are going extinct.  Only tough bananas will be left.

Quote from: Greatest I am on April 09, 2018, 01:54:58 PM
So can I, but that does not take away from the fact that "Once one dismisses The rest of all possible worlds, even your imaginary ones, One finds that this is The best of all possible worlds!"

Well, with that logic, once you dismiss the rest of all possible pizzas, even the imaginary ones, one finds that anchovies with pineapple and liverwurst is the best of all possible pizzas.

Quote from: Unbeliever on April 10, 2018, 01:22:09 PM
Well, with that logic, once you dismiss the rest of all possible pizzas, even the imaginary ones, one finds that anchovies with pineapple and liverwurst is the best of all possible pizzas.

Anchovies would cover the taste of the liverwurst and pineapple would cover the taste of the anchovies .... brilliant!

Quote from: trdsf on April 09, 2018, 02:02:51 PM
Whoa, arrogant much?  All I was doing there was commenting on the Anthropic Principle.  I'm at work, so commenting on your videos is not feasible.  And in any case, I would rather hear your take on them than assume you let videos do your thinking for you.

Not my thinking. my typing so that I might give my two typing fingers a break.

I generally only use vids to supplement what I put.

Regards
DL

Quote from: Baruch on April 09, 2018, 07:37:22 PM
Kabbalists/Hasidim know, the rabbis are parrots, same as all other clergy.  We understand metaphor, the rabbis are taught to parrot what they are taught.  A kosher parrot would make a good rabbi ;-)

I will let you get away with this deflection. I too will deflect.

Have you read what scriptures say of prophets and Rabbis?

Isaiah 56:11) "They are shepherds who have no understanding; They have all turned to their own way, each on to his unjust gain, to the last one" But do not despair, for the day of judgment is at hand, for the day of judgment and the day of the LORD occupy the same time frame. All the dross will be burned away. (Zech 13:9) & (Malachi 3:3). In that day, "you will distinguish between the righteous and the wicked" (Malachi 3:18)

That is why I think that the best religious form of Jewry are the Karaite Jews.

They are almost as worthy of praise as Gnostic Christians. :-)

Regards
DL

Quote from: Baruch on April 09, 2018, 07:41:42 PM
What is your ... anthropic principle?  Mine is ... we are demigods, because everyone is equal, and Augustus is a demigod.  A rock can't act on its own, a human being can.  That is the very basis of Semitic criticism of statue worship.

Agreed.

If you can name your God as I am, then you are enlightened.

That has been said by many enlightened sages for many years now. Some day I will write an O.P. on this.

I think I will be disappointed though by the numbers who are dim as compared to those who are bright.

The world is getting brighter but way too slowly for my tastes.

Regards
DL

Quote from: Blackleaf on April 09, 2018, 09:56:55 PM
My concern is that you're subscribing to the myth that people only use 10% of their brains at a given time. I don't know if that is what you're implying, but it is completely untrue. We wouldn't be able to survive on 10% brain power. The brain has to monitor balance, movement (several brain areas govern specific types), perceptions, keeping your heart beating, keeping your lungs breathing, and all kinds of things you're not even consciously aware of. You're using all areas of your brain all the time. The degree to which it is being used varies, but more activity doesn't equal better. Seizures cause neurons to fire like crazy, but those are of course undesirable.

Well put and I do not follow the 10% use thinking at all.

That does not take away that we do not use all of our minds and that meditation, activating our pineal gland to engage more of our minds is a worthy thing to do.

https://www.ted.com/talks/iain_mcgilchrist_the_divided_brain

Regards
DL

Quote from: Greatest I am on April 12, 2018, 11:57:25 AM
I will let you get away with this deflection. I too will deflect.

Have you read what scriptures say of prophets and Rabbis?

Isaiah 56:11) "They are shepherds who have no understanding; They have all turned to their own way, each on to his unjust gain, to the last one" But do not despair, for the day of judgment is at hand, for the day of judgment and the day of the LORD occupy the same time frame. All the dross will be burned away. (Zech 13:9) & (Malachi 3:3). In that day, "you will distinguish between the righteous and the wicked" (Malachi 3:18)

That is why I think that the best religious form of Jewry are the Karaite Jews.

They are almost as worthy of praise as Gnostic Christians. :-)

Regards
DL

Yes, I have.  You know I am not Orthodox nor Orthopraxis ;-)  Prophets who tell you what you want to hear, are false prophets.

The clergy are always troublesome, but the laity need leadership.  Damned if you do, damned if you don't.  I am fortunate in falling outside that dialectic.  But I am not typical.

Quote from: Greatest I am on April 08, 2018, 03:11:08 PM
"Specifically, does Gnostic Christianity still posit a deity of some sort and that Jeshua bar-Joseph either was, or was a part of, that deity?

That first clip shows how we see Jesus as an archetypal good man only and not as a deity. We use Jesus as mantra or meditation guide to enhance our focus. gaining access to your pineal gland and activating your right brain is the key to Gnosis.

I prefer to not reply to a video on the grounds that with staggering regularity, it leads to "Well, yes, it says that, but it really means...."

What my takeaway from this so far is that you believe that through meditation or something like it, humans can attain the godhead, is that a fair way to put it?

Quote from: Greatest I am on April 08, 2018, 03:11:08 PM
To the rest.

You and I think along the same lines but I see local churches as useful to society in the tribal and fellowship way and that is why I call myself a Gnostic Christian and not just the usual agnostic.

I want to change the mainstream religions to the more atheist church type of organizations and not really destroy them altogether. That would go a long way to ending the homophobia and misogyny propagated by the mainstream religions.

If 'church' still means 'believing in things that cannot be independently demonstrated', then you can't really have an atheist church.  I would much prefer to see churches made unnecessary rather than merely made over.

I quite agree with the utility of the tribe, but let it be enlightened by reason without any fluff, frills or mummery.

Quote from: Greatest I am on April 08, 2018, 03:11:08 PM
"Is there still a belief in a soul or some other transcendent part of consciousness, an afterlife, any sort of eternal punishment?"

Soul, I define as life force.

We do not believe in eternal punishment as we do not see God as having to condemn his own creations. We fully believe in evolution and not a creator God. That is why we used to say creation from Yahweh was flawed, when speaking of the supernatural that we do not believe in, and why we wrote things like what follows.

Gnostic Christian Jesus said, "If those who attract you say, 'See, the Kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you.
If they say to you, 'It is under the earth,' then the fish of the sea will precede you.
Rather, the Kingdom of God is inside of you, and it is outside of you.
[Those who] become acquainted with [themselves] will find it; [and when you] become acquainted with yourselves, [you will understand that] it is you who are the sons of the living Father.
But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."

These days, I use this.

Candide.
"It is demonstrable that things cannot be otherwise than as they are; for as all things have been created for some end, they must necessarily be created for the best end.”

We are always at the best end, at all points in time. I call what I see evolving perfection. Always moving in time to a more perfect state, using U.S. English.

'Life force' is an awfully slippery thing.  Where's the line?  Are viruses and bacteriophages alive?  Are animals 'more alive' than plants?  Are humans by virtue of consciousness 'more alive' than animals?  It's also no more demonstrable than a putative soul is.

Further, you can't just point to a living thing and say it has a life force because it's alive.  You can say it has a life force when you can demonstrate a life force exists.  The closest we can get to a definition of life is that it has ongoing chemical processes fueled by the intake of material, and is in principle capable of reproduction.  Nothing in that indicates anything beyond chemical and biochemical processes.

As for being "demonstrable" that things cannot be other than what they areâ€"that is not demonstrated.  We have no basis on which to say that this is the best of all possible worlds.  The most that we can say is that it is a suitable world (and universe) for us to happen in.  Certainly we haven't any other habitable world to compare it to.

There's nothing inherent in this world, much less this universe, that commands we exist.  It wasn't created with us in mind, and just on the basis of the statistics of planetary geology and genetics, it's possible to imagine a world better suited for us (for example, one that can better withstand the environmental damage we're doing to it), or a species better suited to inhabit this world (perhaps amphibious to allow for colonization of bodies of water, or less demanding of nutritive resources).

This entire idea also goes away with the discovery of life elsewhere in the galaxy, or even just outside of the orbit of Marsâ€"material can and has transferred between Earth and Mars, so cross-contamination can be ruled out, but transferring material clear out to Jupiter and beyond appears not possible, so those can be considered pristine environmentsâ€"because unless we and they are absolutely identical, clearly this world, this *universe* is better suited to one over the other.

This is the same fallacy as the strong anthropic principle, or if you prefer, Douglas Adams' intelligent puddle:

Quote from: Douglas AdamsThis is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in â€" an interesting hole I find myself in â€" fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.

You seem to want to make us as a species and as an intelligence somehow necessary, and the fact is, we're just not.  We happened, but we didn't need to happen.  Had we been otherwise, you could make all the exact same arguments as you have here, and they would be no more valid for they than we.

There is no demonstrable purpose to the universe other than to be, to follow the laws of physics and evolve in accordance with them.  It's not a "creation", it's just an existence.

Does humanity have a purpose?  None that it doesn't give itself.

And to be honest, I don't see anything put forward here that sounds much different from any other New Age-y self-actualization pop "psychology".

Quote from: Greatest I am on April 08, 2018, 03:11:08 PM
As to "transcendent part of consciousness".

You will not believe what I say unless you give some credence to what this link shows of a cosmic consciousness. If you do, then I will show and tell.

In a nutshell, it posits that our magnetic shield is acting as a cosmic consciousness. If he was not a University prof and getting consistent results, I would likely not show his work.
 
A hint to my position is that I think I found what he did but without his machine. If you cannot give telepathy any credence then this topic dies here and you can concentrate on the rest.

Again, not interested in videos rather than direct explication and communication.  You can 'show and tell' on your own, and I can judge your evidence on its own merits.

Now, I am disinclined to accept the idea of Gaia or Galaxia or Universalia (to expand the idea of cosmic consciousness to its utmost), and it's not unheard of for university professors to be dead wrong, even for the best of reasons.

It stands to reason that were I connected to the rest of the universe, I should be able to tell on the basis of meditation alone where to look for radio signals from another intelligent species, where to look for stars with Earth-like planets, what lies within the permafrost of Mars and the ocean of Europa.  The only connection I have to the rest of the universe is atomic: that's where the atoms that make me up came from.  Except for the hydrogen, most of that came from Big Bang nucleosynthesis.  But that isn't a conscious, subconscious, or unconscious connection since atoms aren't conscious entities.

Telepathy and other alleged psychic abilities have failed again and again and again to meet the burden of proofâ€"and I have run some of the tests myself.  And I really wanted to believe such things were not only possible, but true.  But they didn't and still don't meet the burden of evidence, and wanting them to be so, or even saying that they're 'not impossible', doesn't make them so.

Quote from: Baruch on April 12, 2018, 01:29:38 PM
Yes, I have.  You know I am not Orthodox nor Orthopraxis ;-)  Prophets who tell you what you want to hear, are false prophets.

The clergy are always troublesome, but the laity need leadership.  Damned if you do, damned if you don't.  I am fortunate in falling outside that dialectic.  But I am not typical.

Neither am I and I would not have it any other way.

I am not sure that the laity need guidance. I see most religionists as just appeasing their tribal/fellowship needs, which are stronger than I realized since I have little of that, being a loner.

That and there are few positions available to give Joe public any power and churches tend to make their laity they have some, even if confined to the one church building they are in.

Regards
DL

Quote from: trdsf on April 12, 2018, 01:45:51 PM
I prefer to not reply to a video on the grounds that with staggering regularity, it leads to "Well, yes, it says that, but it really means...."

What my takeaway from this so far is that you believe that through meditation or something like it, humans can attain the godhead, is that a fair way to put it?

I could not get the split quote working so will do some splitting. Apologies.

That is a fair way to put it, yes. The Godhead being in your own head.

In Gnostic Christianity, when asked who our God is, we answer I am, and we really mean ourselves as we are autonomous entities and are in control of ourselves and not being controlled by outside forces unless we decide to let them control us.

If you cannot say that you have authority over yourself, you cannot be a Gnostic Christian.

--------

"If 'church' still means 'believing in things that cannot be independently demonstrated', then you can't really have an atheist church"

It does not seem to mean that to atheists and from what little I know, the word church is synonymous with meeting place. Unfortunately I could not find a reference to the older definition.


----------

"'Life force' is an awfully slippery thing.  Where's the line?  Are viruses and bacteriophages alive?  Are animals 'more alive' than plants?  Are humans by virtue of consciousness 'more alive' than animals?

??

Can you not tell when you look at something if it lives or not? I can although I have to use a microscope sometimes for the smallest life.

The law of the excluded middle says that there is life in something or not.

It does not try to say there is more or less as something either has life or not.

Regards
DL

Quote from: trdsf on April 12, 2018, 01:45:51 PM

As for being "demonstrable" that things cannot be other than what they areâ€"that is not demonstrated.  We have no basis on which to say that this is the best of all possible worlds.  The most that we can say is that it is a suitable world (and universe) for us to happen in. 

You can demonstrate it for yourself and to your own standards in the scientific sense.

If you think that things cannot be other than what they are, then show how, given all the past history of what you are looking at, it could somehow be other than what it is. Easy for you to deny what I put but now prove your position.

We live in the best of all possible worlds because it is the only possible world. Sure we can imagine better, but that imagined world is not the real world. For the moment, this is the only possible world so it must be the best world possible.

------------

I have nothing to argue against in your scientific views of the universe.

I do for this.
" You seem to want to make us as a species and as an intelligence somehow necessary, and the fact is, we're just not."

You indicated above this and in this that I am saying the universe was created for us. I make no such claim. I think we are here by chance and science says that if a meteor had not wiped out the dinosaurs, we mammals would have never been able to compete against them and would likely not be here.

------------

"Telepathy and other alleged psychic abilities have failed again and again and again to meet the burden of proof"

I agree.

But it has not failed to me as I have a witness/victim of it, even though I cannot replicate it at will due to not having the conditions I think are required to replicate it.

Regards
DL

Quote from: Greatest I am on April 12, 2018, 03:03:04 PM
I could not get the split quote working so will do some splitting. Apologies.

That is a fair way to put it, yes. The Godhead being in your own head.

In Gnostic Christianity, when asked who our God is, we answer I am, and we really mean ourselves as we are autonomous entities and are in control of ourselves and not being controlled by outside forces unless we decide to let them control us.

If you cannot say that you have authority over yourself, you cannot be a Gnostic Christian.

Not a problem, you made it clear which sections you were responding to.

I guess my question then becomes: if it's all within you, why bother with a god concept at all?  How does it become necessary, other than as an ideal to aspire to and focus on?

Quote from: Greatest I am on April 12, 2018, 03:03:04 PM

Quote from: trdsf
"If 'church' still means 'believing in things that cannot be independently demonstrated', then you can't really have an atheist church"

It does not seem to mean that to atheists and from what little I know, the word church is synonymous with meeting place. Unfortunately I could not find a reference to the older definition.

Sorry, I was referring to churches as institutions, in the same way one refers to 'the Catholic Church' to mean not a specific building, but the overall belief structure, hierarchy, and everything.

In the long run, though, it's probably not useful to refer to 'atheist churches', insofar as 'church' is generally understood to mean a place of worship, not merely a meeting place.  If I say "I'm going to church on Sunday", virtually everyone will assume that I mean I am going to church services on Sunday, for the purpose of taking part in a religious rite.  If I mean that I'm going to hear a recital of Bach organ pieces and not for a religious service, I really do need to specify that I'm going to a church for that purpose.

So 'church' is unto itself a loaded term regardless of any subsidiary definitions it may have, at least not without the word being reclaimed and taken into general use as meaning something other than a place for religious worship, which is something that's unlikely.  Personally, I don't want the word.  Do we need more atheist meeting halls?  Sure.  But I think we can do perfectly well without atheist "churches" (or "atheist" churches).

Quote from: Greatest I am on April 12, 2018, 03:03:04 PM

Quote from: trdsf
"'Life force' is an awfully slippery thing.  Where's the line?  Are viruses and bacteriophages alive?  Are animals 'more alive' than plants?  Are humans by virtue of consciousness 'more alive' than animals?

??

Can you not tell when you look at something if it lives or not? I can although I have to use a microscope sometimes for the smallest life.

The law of the excluded middle says that there is life in something or not.

It does not try to say there is more or less as something either has life or not.

I don't think the 'excluded middle' applies here.  There seems to me to be a continuumâ€"it seems to me pretty clear that a bacterium is 'more alive' in a sense than a virus is, in that a bacterium has more complex processes than the virus, which only exists to mindlessly reproduce itself.  I think on some level you can say that we eukaryotes are 'more alive' than bacteria (and by extension, viruses) as we're able to internalize more processes than bacteria do.

But I don't know that I would say a virus is not aliveâ€"it fulfills the basic necessary process that makes it subject to evolution, that is, reproduction.  And viruses do evolve, otherwise your flu shot would be a one-time-ever deal.  Further, some classes of virus, particularly the phages, are quite complex, with multiple parts operating analogously to different organs.

In any case, it seems it must be that there is a continuum between 'alive' and 'not alive'.  The abiogenetic development of life wasn't a sharp line between 'not alive' and 'alive'; it must have begun with a molecule only capable of making crude copies of itself, and over deep time, as benevolent copying errors proliferated and malignant errors died out.  While somewhere along the line it crossed over from random chemical reactions to something we'd recognize as life, I'm confident that if you actually had a clear record of the chemical changes over time and took hundreds of biologists and asked them to mark the line between 'life' and 'not-life', you'd get hundreds of different answers.

"We live in the best of all possible worlds because it is the only possible world." ... quoting Leibniz, aka Dr Pangloss (Candide).

I simply can't agree to that, from an empirical POV.  Human experience empirically denies that human life is good (in an absolute way).  I can only have a relative good (yesterday is better than today, or tomorrow is better than today).  I have to ask, better or worse compared to what?  And once we include inevitable bias, we discover the distortion of optimism and pessimism.

I agree that there is only one world, but I think that the thought experiment "best of all possible X" to be empty, like calculating the number of angels who can dance on the head of a pin (but as an optimization problem).  This leaning comes about from the Greek idea of arete ... or excellence, which Greeks strived for, but could hardly apply to a gad-about like Zeus.

"If you cannot say that you have authority over yourself, you cannot be a Gnostic Christian." ... I agree.

"if it's all within you, why bother with a god concept at all?" ... is a false dichotomy.  It isn't just me vs god, but it could be god = me.  But clearly a demigod, like Augustus Caesar, not like the Christian Father god, more like the Christian Son god, which is what the Gospels are about, a fictionalized demigod.  Augustus as a demigod can't raise from the dead, and neither did Jesus.  But a dead hero like Julius Caesar, could be "translated" to the heavens, theologically, making Octavian (later Augustus) the son of a god while still alive.

This is no coincidence.  Savior was an official title of Augustus .. how could Jesus not also be a savior.  What pagan society most objected to in Christianity, is that it was originally democratic (ekklesia, the original Greek word for church, is the whole assembly of men, not just the quorum of the synagogue (aka minyan)).  Jesus in the Gospels says, that it only takes 2, not 10, to make an ekklesia.  This is where I break with GIA ... deity isn't really personal as it is relational.  But it takes two enlightened people to manifest objectively.

And originally, Christianity had the negative press of being Jewish.  Paul changed that forever.  Paul made social gnosticsm available for the masses, not just the elites, and for Gentiles, not for Jews.

Greatest I Am--Unity would approve of your use of 'I Am'; at one time so would I--well, at least sort of.  I ended up thinking that I Am is not really god, since there is no god (and not even Unity persuaded me into thinking or believing there was one), but one's best (or highest if one prefers) possible self.  And even then, the measuring would be done by one's self, based on self assessed values and ideals. 
As for this being the best possible universe because it is the only possible universe--I can see that if one is striving to 'live in the moment' or 'in the now'.  That can be a good state to achieve.  At one time I strove to do that.  What realization I came to was that it helped me appreciate what I was, where I was and all that I have and am.  But I realized that living in the now means the past has no value and the future is never going to come.  Only the 'now' exists.  I found that made it impossible for me to plan for the future or to use the past to evaluate what (if anything) I would like to work on changing or adding in my life.  So, it does not matter to me if this is the best possible universe or if this is the only possible universe there could be.  What matters to me is that I appreciate the 'now' and then use what happened to get me to that 'now' and what choices I can make to make my coming 'now' better than it is now.  If you think that now is the best possible and/or only possible universe, then good for you.  I don't think you are correct, but then that is my choice and not yours.
l

Quote from: trdsf on April 12, 2018, 04:48:34 PM
Not a problem, you made it clear which sections you were responding to.

I guess my question then becomes: if it's all within you, why bother with a god concept at all?  How does it become necessary, other than as an ideal to aspire to and focus on?
It does not seem to mean that to atheists and from what little I know, the word church is synonymous with meeting place. Unfortunately I could not find a reference to the older definition.

Sorry, I was referring to churches as institutions, in the same way one refers to 'the Catholic Church' to mean not a specific building, but the overall belief structure, hierarchy, and everything.

In the long run, though, it's probably not useful to refer to 'atheist churches', insofar as 'church' is generally understood to mean a place of worship, not merely a meeting place.  If I say "I'm going to church on Sunday", virtually everyone will assume that I mean I am going to church services on Sunday, for the purpose of taking part in a religious rite.  If I mean that I'm going to hear a recital of Bach organ pieces and not for a religious service, I really do need to specify that I'm going to a church for that purpose.

So 'church' is unto itself a loaded term regardless of any subsidiary definitions it may have, at least not without the word being reclaimed and taken into general use as meaning something other than a place for religious worship, which is something that's unlikely.  Personally, I don't want the word.  Do we need more atheist meeting halls?  Sure.  But I think we can do perfectly well without atheist "churches" (or "atheist" churches).

??

Can you not tell when you look at something if it lives or not? I can although I have to use a microscope sometimes for the smallest life.

The law of the excluded middle says that there is life in something or not.

It does not try to say there is more or less as something either has life or not.

I don't think the 'excluded middle' applies here.  There seems to me to be a continuumâ€"it seems to me pretty clear that a bacterium is 'more alive' in a sense than a virus is, in that a bacterium has more complex processes than the virus, which only exists to mindlessly reproduce itself.  I think on some level you can say that we eukaryotes are 'more alive' than bacteria (and by extension, viruses) as we're able to internalize more processes than bacteria do.

But I don't know that I would say a virus is not aliveâ€"it fulfills the basic necessary process that makes it subject to evolution, that is, reproduction.  And viruses do evolve, otherwise your flu shot would be a one-time-ever deal.  Further, some classes of virus, particularly the phages, are quite complex, with multiple parts operating analogously to different organs.

In any case, it seems it must be that there is a continuum between 'alive' and 'not alive'.  The abiogenetic development of life wasn't a sharp line between 'not alive' and 'alive'; it must have begun with a molecule only capable of making crude copies of itself, and over deep time, as benevolent copying errors proliferated and malignant errors died out.  While somewhere along the line it crossed over from random chemical reactions to something we'd recognize as life, I'm confident that if you actually had a clear record of the chemical changes over time and took hundreds of biologists and asked them to mark the line between 'life' and 'not-life', you'd get hundreds of different answers.

Seems to me that you are winning this discussion, though I don't care to join at this time.  I don't see an entry point that feels right for me.  Keep up the good replies though.  :)

Mike CL ... you seem rather Buddhist tonight.  Have I forgotten that part of you?  Maybe.

Even if one is only an ape, one can be a hero among apes, a demigod ape.  Dr Zaius for instance.

Quote from: Baruch on April 12, 2018, 09:56:58 PM
Mike CL ... you seem rather Buddhist tonight.  Have I forgotten that part of you?  Maybe.

Even if one is only an ape, one can be a hero among apes, a demigod ape.  Dr Zaius for instance.

Yeah, Baruch, that is a side of me you do seem to forget.  It is something that Unity strengthened--but it is a bit ironic an atheist finds a better way to view life and the universe through Fillmore's thoughts. 

Quote from: Mike Cl on April 12, 2018, 11:11:46 PM
Yeah, Baruch, that is a side of me you do seem to forget.  It is something that Unity strengthened--but it is a bit ironic an atheist finds a better way to view life and the universe through Fillmore's thoughts.

Baruch is desperate to find associates here these days.  I spent over a year trying to connect to him before I gave up.  I've never been sure what his purpose here is (though I assume it has an honorable a purpose in his views), and that the discussions give him some personal pleasure I don't understand. 

Quote from: Cavebear on April 13, 2018, 01:44:53 AM
Baruch is desperate to find associates here these days.  I spent over a year trying to connect to him before I gave up.  I've never been sure what his purpose here is (though I assume it has an honorable a purpose in his views), and that the discussions give him some personal pleasure I don't understand.

I have my cats, same as you.  And I am still working.  I have more than enough companionship.

Quote from: Greatest I am on April 12, 2018, 03:30:06 PM
You can demonstrate it for yourself and to your own standards in the scientific sense.

If you think that things cannot be other than what they are, then show how, given all the past history of what you are looking at, it could somehow be other than what it is. Easy for you to deny what I put but now prove your position.

We live in the best of all possible worlds because it is the only possible world. Sure we can imagine better, but that imagined world is not the real world. For the moment, this is the only possible world so it must be the best world possible.

I never said they can't be other than as they are, only that they aren't other than as they are, and that we cannot derive any special information about ourselves from that because anyone in any other reality that might have been could make the exact same claims for the exact same reasons.

Also, define 'best'.  And who decides it's best anyway?  Your 'best' could be my 'worst'.  My 'best' could be your 'worst'.

Regardless, statistically speaking, it is highly unlikely that this is, in fact, the best of all possible worlds.  Just because it's the currently existing world doesn't mean it's the best possible one, and the principle of mediocrity means that when you have one data point, you assume it's more likely average than extremeâ€"and best (and worst) is an extreme by definition.

There are any number of ways that this world could be different that I think would be better.  It just takes one event happening (or not happening) when it shouldn't (or should) have.  Whether or not they would be demonstrably better had, say, the Library of Alexandria not been destroyed, or had Constantine chosen something other than Christianity to be his state religion, or more recently, had Gavrilo Princip failed to assassinate Archduke Franz Ferdinand, there really is no way to say because those events didn't happen.

Regardless of the triggering event or events, though, I can certainly imagine better worlds than this one.  A world where population growth leveled off a few billion people ago, a world where the first warnings about climate change were heeded, a world where human exploration of our solar system didn't stop nearly fifty years agoâ€"I can assert that those would be better than this one with at least as much authority as you can assert that this is the best.

The fact that this world could be better means that it cannot be stated with certainty that this is the best of all possible worlds.  You cannot assert any more than that the world is what it is; otherwise, you are claiming knowledge that you cannot possibly have.

That doesn't mean that this world definitely isn't the best possible, because it could be.  It means only that we cannot say with any certainty that it is, because it could be that it's not.

Quote from: Greatest I am on April 12, 2018, 03:30:06 PM
I have nothing to argue against in your scientific views of the universe.

I do for this.
"You seem to want to make us as a species and as an intelligence somehow necessary, and the fact is, we're just not."

You indicated above this and in this that I am saying the universe was created for us. I make no such claim. I think we are here by chance and science says that if a meteor had not wiped out the dinosaurs, we mammals would have never been able to compete against them and would likely not be here.

But when you assert that this is the best of all possible worlds, that does make a claim that it must be for us, since it's clearly not the best possible world for any theoretical intelligent dinosaurs, or dolphins, or any other species that might have risen to intelligence in our place.

Quote from: Greatest I am on April 12, 2018, 03:30:06 PM
"Telepathy and other alleged psychic abilities have failed again and again and again to meet the burden of proof"

I agree.

But it has not failed to me as I have a witness/victim of it, even though I cannot replicate it at will due to not having the conditions I think are required to replicate it.

That's anectodal, however.  Anecdotal evidence is not evidence.  I've had events I can't explain happen to me.  D'you know what my explanation for them is?

It's "I don't know."

That's the only possible explanation for an unrepeatable event.  It simply cannot be extrapolated to any more than that, not with any legitimacy.

"That's the only possible explanation for an unrepeatable event.  It simply cannot be extrapolated to any more than that, not with any legitimacy."

This is why the paranormal is irrelevant to me.  But I don't find ordinary experience to be ordinary, or common explanation to be persuasive.

Quote from: trdsf on April 13, 2018, 07:16:35 AM
I never said they can't be other than as they are, only that they aren't other than as they are, and that we cannot derive any special information about ourselves from that because anyone in any other reality that might have been could make the exact same claims for the exact same reasons.

Also, define 'best'.  And who decides it's best anyway?  Your 'best' could be my 'worst'.  My 'best' could be your 'worst'.

Regardless, statistically speaking, it is highly unlikely that this is, in fact, the best of all possible worlds.  Just because it's the currently existing world doesn't mean it's the best possible one, and the principle of mediocrity means that when you have one data point, you assume it's more likely average than extremeâ€"and best (and worst) is an extreme by definition.

There are any number of ways that this world could be different that I think would be better.  It just takes one event happening (or not happening) when it shouldn't (or should) have.  Whether or not they would be demonstrably better had, say, the Library of Alexandria not been destroyed, or had Constantine chosen something other than Christianity to be his state religion, or more recently, had Gavrilo Princip failed to assassinate Archduke Franz Ferdinand, there really is no way to say because those events didn't happen.

Regardless of the triggering event or events, though, I can certainly imagine better worlds than this one.  A world where population growth leveled off a few billion people ago, a world where the first warnings about climate change were heeded, a world where human exploration of our solar system didn't stop nearly fifty years agoâ€"I can assert that those would be better than this one with at least as much authority as you can assert that this is the best.

The fact that this world could be better means that it cannot be stated with certainty that this is the best of all possible worlds.  You cannot assert any more than that the world is what it is; otherwise, you are claiming knowledge that you cannot possibly have.

That doesn't mean that this world definitely isn't the best possible, because it could be.  It means only that we cannot say with any certainty that it is, because it could be that it's not.

But when you assert that this is the best of all possible worlds, that does make a claim that it must be for us, since it's clearly not the best possible world for any theoretical intelligent dinosaurs, or dolphins, or any other species that might have risen to intelligence in our place.

That's anectodal, however.  Anecdotal evidence is not evidence.  I've had events I can't explain happen to me.  D'you know what my explanation for them is?

It's "I don't know."

That's the only possible explanation for an unrepeatable event.  It simply cannot be extrapolated to any more than that, not with any legitimacy.

I too can imagine better worlds than this one.  I won't bore you with my own unless asked, but imagining, many events could have gone differently recently, deep into history, and even prehistory.

Great Post!

Quote from: Cavebear on April 13, 2018, 07:27:55 AM
I too can imagine better worlds than this one.  I won't bore you with my own unless asked, but imagining, many events could have gone differently recently, deep into history, and even prehistory.

Great Post!

Thanks!  :)

I think the events I would really be curious about the changes they would wreak are generally older ones: had the Library of Alexandria been preserved rather than destroyed, had the rational thinking of Demokritos and Protagoras come to dominate Western thought rather than the mystical of Platon and Aristoteles, had Constantine chosen something other than Christianity.

The most recent historical event that I would like to see the counterfactual of is the assassination of Franz Ferdinand in 1914, since most of the 20th century can be traced back to that.  I think a world war might have come eventually, but I'm not sure there would have been two.

I don't know that there would have been a revolution in Russia since Tsarist forces would not have been tied down fighting in Europeâ€"it might have come later, or sufficient reform would have come to bank the revolutionary fires, more likely, since government forces would have remained in place.  And absent Lenin taking power, you also lose Stalinism, the Iron Curtain and Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, the Cold War and much of the impetus for the nuclear arms race.  Sadly, you also lose a large part of the drive for the Space Race.  You probably lose the Internet as we currently know it, too.  That was a Cold War program and there is no definite Cold War in the alternate history.

You don't lose anti-Semitism in Germany, but you do lose many of the conditions that helped propel it to the obscene heights it reached, particularly the draconian war reparations levied against Germany by the victors, so you lose the social conditions that allowed Hitler and the Nazis to take power.

Interesting to note is that this also preserves many empires and monarchies: the Russian, Prussian and Austro-Hungarian monarchies particularly remain in place for the time being, and this probably permits the British Empire to remain an empire longer, before converting to a commonwealth.

Anyway, without the Second World Warâ€"which was in many ways a logical consequence of the Firstâ€"the drive to perfect many technologies we take for granted also evaporates.  Push back the development of the digital computer, RADAR, nuclear energy (and nuclear weaponry), rocketry, synthetic rubber and oil, jet engines and (of all things) M&Ms.  It's hard to judge how many years of R&D were compressed into the six years of World War II, but it's certain that the 2018 of this alternate universe would not be as technologically advanced as the real 2018.

tl;dr: Wow, what a derail from the original topic.

Quote from: Greatest I am on April 08, 2018, 03:41:48 PM
The jury is still out for me as I think that Christianity usurped the scriptures of the Gnostic Christians of that day, when they called themselves Chrestians.

Most would not agree with you though without more evidence.

I'm just curious, are you familiar with the Egyptian god Nuk pu Nuk? The term seems to translate as "I am what I am," or "I am who I am":

http://spentamainyu.tripod.com/moses3.htm

Quote from: Unbeliever on April 13, 2018, 01:59:39 PM
I'm just curious, are you familiar with the Egyptian god Nuk pu Nuk? The term seems to translate as "I am what I am," or "I am who I am":

http://spentamainyu.tripod.com/moses3.htm

Always check further ...

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:The_Religion_of_Ancient_Egypt.djvu/259

Of course Jews were in Egypt many times, and were aware of Egyptian religion. People borrow ideas all the time.  Currently the Nu Pu Nuk business is being touted by "African Israelite" cultists, part of the "all wisdom and technology came from sub-Saharan Africans, and that Egyptians were sub-Saharan Africans".  See Nuk Pu Nuk on Facebook and elsewhere.  I once listened to a two hour sermon, by a Black Israelite preacher, on the true African pronunciation of Hebrew ;-)

In its later stages, ancient Egypt was conquered by Nubia, and the Pharaoh was quite Black.  But the Egyptian language shows that they probably originated in N Africa (when the Sahara dried out), different genetically then and now, from sub-Saharan Africans.  Still, definitely not Swedes ;-)

Quote from: Baruch on April 13, 2018, 06:28:33 PM


In its later stages, ancient Egypt was conquered by Nubia, and the Pharaoh was quite Black.  But the Egyptian language shows that they probably originated in N Africa (when the Sahara dried out), different genetically then and now, from sub-Saharan Africans.  Still, definitely not Swedes ;-)

Swedes, quite easily, can be dark.  Ever hear of Laplanders?  Jokkmokk has quite a few.

Quote from: Mike Cl on April 13, 2018, 06:57:43 PM
Swedes, quite easily, can be dark.  Ever hear of Laplanders?  Jokkmokk has quite a few.

Go back far enough, the first modern humans, who came out of Africa to mate with Neanderthals, are thought to have been curly haired and dark, but with blue eyes.  But those people were lithe, not chunky like the Neanderthals who were bred to ice ages, instead of tropics.

Quote from: Baruch on April 13, 2018, 07:14:22 PM
Go back far enough, the first modern humans, who came out of Africa to mate with Neanderthals, are thought to have been curly haired and dark, but with blue eyes.  But those people were lithe, not chunky like the Neanderthals who were bred to ice ages, instead of tropics.

What does that have to do with Swedes?  Go back???  All you have to do to find Laplander Swedes is to go to Sweden.

Quote from: Mike Cl on April 13, 2018, 09:14:33 PM
What does that have to do with Swedes?  Go back???  All you have to do to find Laplander Swedes is to go to Sweden.

Lapps are Sami, they aren't Swedish.  They have lost their original language, and mostly speak Finnish today.  In a generation from now though, there will be lots of Swedes who are ME in ancestry and who are Muslim, not Lutheran.

Quote from: Baruch on April 14, 2018, 12:38:18 AM
Lapps are Sami, they aren't Swedish. 

No shit, Charlie!  That does not mean are not any Lap Swedes.

Quote from: Mike Cl on April 14, 2018, 09:02:32 AM
No shit, Charlie!  That does not mean are not any Lap Swedes.

There are Haitians in Florida ... does that make Florida part of Haiti?  Your point seems to depend only on a silly geographical boundary.

Those in Sweden who are ethno-nationalist, don't want Norwegians or Danes in their country either ;-)

Quote from: Baruch on April 14, 2018, 09:12:59 AM
There are Haitians in Florida ... does that make Florida part of Haiti?  Your point seems to depend only on a silly geographical boundary.

Those in Sweden who are ethno-nationalist, don't want Norwegians or Danes in their country either ;-)

For fuck-sake, Baruch.  My comment was just a little joke about your bring up Sweden as all white, blue eyed and blonde.  As usual, you turn it into some far-reaching lesson in logic, history and psychology--at least as you see it.  I see it as simply tiresome.  Of course it is just geographic--all boundaries are just geographic--so what???  Of course there are Laplanders who are not Swede; but there are some who are and some who have married Swedes and produced brown babies and some who are Swedish citizens/nationals.  Take a fucking chill-pill guy--it was only a little joke. 

Quote from: Mike Cl on April 14, 2018, 11:04:29 AM
For fuck-sake, Baruch.  My comment was just a little joke about your bring up Sweden as all white, blue eyed and blonde.  As usual, you turn it into some far-reaching lesson in logic, history and psychology--at least as you see it.  I see it as simply tiresome.  Of course it is just geographic--all boundaries are just geographic--so what???  Of course there are Laplanders who are not Swede; but there are some who are and some who have married Swedes and produced brown babies and some who are Swedish citizens/nationals.  Take a fucking chill-pill guy--it was only a little joke.

Sorry, but I didn't get it.  I still don't.

Quote from: Baruch on April 14, 2018, 03:25:21 PM
Sorry, but I didn't get it.  I still don't.

Okay, then.  On the 13th you said: "In its later stages, ancient Egypt was conquered by Nubia, and the Pharaoh was quite Black.  But the Egyptian language shows that they probably originated in N Africa (when the Sahara dried out), different genetically then and now, from sub-Saharan Africans.  Still, definitely not Swedes ;-)"

As a small joke I was simply saying that Laplanders who live within the Swedish Artic Circle are Swedes--they are dark skinned; so not all Swedes are white.  That's all.  I'm kinda sorry I felt jocular at that moment. :)

Quote from: trdsf on April 13, 2018, 01:40:20 PM
Thanks!  :)

I think the events I would really be curious about the changes they would wreak are generally older ones: had the Library of Alexandria been preserved rather than destroyed, had the rational thinking of Demokritos and Protagoras come to dominate Western thought rather than the mystical of Platon and Aristoteles, had Constantine chosen something other than Christianity.

The most recent historical event that I would like to see the counterfactual of is the assassination of Franz Ferdinand in 1914, since most of the 20th century can be traced back to that.  I think a world war might have come eventually, but I'm not sure there would have been two.

I don't know that there would have been a revolution in Russia since Tsarist forces would not have been tied down fighting in Europeâ€"it might have come later, or sufficient reform would have come to bank the revolutionary fires, more likely, since government forces would have remained in place.  And absent Lenin taking power, you also lose Stalinism, the Iron Curtain and Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, the Cold War and much of the impetus for the nuclear arms race.  Sadly, you also lose a large part of the drive for the Space Race.  You probably lose the Internet as we currently know it, too.  That was a Cold War program and there is no definite Cold War in the alternate history.

You don't lose anti-Semitism in Germany, but you do lose many of the conditions that helped propel it to the obscene heights it reached, particularly the draconian war reparations levied against Germany by the victors, so you lose the social conditions that allowed Hitler and the Nazis to take power.

Interesting to note is that this also preserves many empires and monarchies: the Russian, Prussian and Austro-Hungarian monarchies particularly remain in place for the time being, and this probably permits the British Empire to remain an empire longer, before converting to a commonwealth.

Anyway, without the Second World Warâ€"which was in many ways a logical consequence of the Firstâ€"the drive to perfect many technologies we take for granted also evaporates.  Push back the development of the digital computer, RADAR, nuclear energy (and nuclear weaponry), rocketry, synthetic rubber and oil, jet engines and (of all things) M&Ms.  It's hard to judge how many years of R&D were compressed into the six years of World War II, but it's certain that the 2018 of this alternate universe would not be as technologically advanced as the real 2018.

tl;dr: Wow, what a derail from the original topic.

And I do appreciate an ocassional derailment.  Alternate history is fascinating.  Allow me to think of some changes.

1.  Hitler is not gassed in WWI.  He goes on to paint mediocre art and is never heard of again.
2.  The French offer the Germans survivable long-term war payments.
3.  The German currency stabilizes and payments are made (though resented).
4.  The Payments end through mutual trade.
5.  The British maintain and increase their navy.
6.  The US increases its navy to match Britain.
7.  The Germans are recovering and build their own navy again. 
8.  European history follows as usual and Germany invades France in 1942 demanding the return of payments (because it wasn't THEIR generation in WWI who attacked).
9.  In the Pacific, the Japanese successfully attack all Asian ports of European powers.  The colonial era in SE Asia ends.  Vietnam, Burma, Laos, and Cambodia are left as trading partners
10.  China remains chaotic and meaningless.
11. The US and Japanese conduct negotiations and conclude a Trans Pacific Treaty acknowledging "mutual interests" and "local freedom act.
12.  The Highest official of the Japanese Empire and the US Secretary of State meet to sign "Pacific Concordance Treaty".  Japan remains a nominal monarchy, but the legislature removes official powers.  In return, the US gives administrative control of islands west of Hawaii to the Japanese. 
13.  The Japanese baseball team, in a spririt of friendship is allowed to compete in a world series baseball playoff.  They lose 4-1 but US players say "they have talent".
14.  In 1960, the Japanese legislature declares a democracy.  The Emperor retires in dignity to write the story of the monarchy.  It is well-received and almost wins some awards.
15.  By 1980, the Japanese, British, French and US are close strategic allies.  North Korea falls.  The Wall falls.  Almost immediately after the Berlin Wall falls.
16.  The Soviet Union collapses.  Though briefly a democracy, it reverts to authoritarianism. 
17.  China collapses in 1990 due to failed trade plans massive crop failures and internal unrest.  Civil War ensues.  100 million people die and no one knows what to do.  The UN can't stop it.
18.  Frustrated by the Chinese Horror, the rest of the world settles on what it can do. 

I think I will end it there, LOL!

Quote from: trdsf on April 12, 2018, 04:48:34 PM
Not a problem, you made it clear which sections you were responding to.

I guess my question then becomes: if it's all within you, why bother with a god concept at all?  How does it become necessary, other than as an ideal to aspire to and focus on?

The word God has a number of definitions and has been used in many ways.

Primarily, it mean last word in terms of authority.

That is what I am. I have chosen to be my own authority because I have earned that right. Not just due to my apotheosis but by my level of thought.

Do I or be I good or evil, I stand as responsible for my actions. No one speaks for me but me.

I am the ideal and the fittest thinking man I know. That does not mean that there are none better, and as an esoteric ecumenist, I perpetually seek those out.

If you can say what I just did for yourself, who is your God?

============

"In the long run, though, it's probably not useful to refer to 'atheist churches',

I can appreciate your distaste.

In the old days, before the mainstream religions went stupid on us and started reading their myths literally, the temples and churches were mystery schools, read that as atheist schools, where people sought God, as defined as the best laws and rules to live life by.

In a sense, the brain dead religions based on the supernatural usurped the old atheist churches and temples. Think of atheists returning the favor and now getting pay back and reclaiming what was once yours from the literalist fools.

Regards
DL

Quote from: Baruch on April 12, 2018, 05:44:43 PM
"We live in the best of all possible worlds because it is the only possible world." ... quoting Leibniz, aka Dr Pangloss (Candide).

I simply can't agree to that, from an empirical POV.  Human experience empirically denies that human life is good (in an absolute way).  I can only have a relative good (yesterday is better than today, or tomorrow is better than today).  I have to ask, better or worse compared to what?  And once we include inevitable bias, we discover the distortion of optimism and pessimism.

I agree that there is only one world, but I think that the thought experiment "best of all possible X" to be empty, 

With you my friend, I have to cut as much of what you put so that I might focus.

If you agree that there is only one world, then you see it as the best world as there is no other to compare it to.

This does not mean that you cannot imagine better. It just says you cannot have that better one at this point in time. By this point in time I mean the point in time that you look at it. It continues to evolve by the second but regardless of when you look, it is always the best that it can be given the past history.

"Human experience empirically denies that human life is good (in an absolute way)."

I agree only partially with this depending on the definition of terms you and I might agree on.

If you were to ask any living thing, assuming it could answer, if life for it was good at that point in time, I think, since it is alive, it would have to say yes. It might say that it was not in the absolutely best life it could imagine, but like you and I, it would say, I am happy to take what I can have at this point in times. Rheumatism and all.

That may not be good in an absolute way but it is good life as it can answer because it has some good life as compared to bad life that would not be alive enough to answer. That to life, at that point in time, is the best of all possible world for what is alive.

Thus I refute your, ""best of all possible X" to be empty." It is not empty, it is a fact.

Regards
DL

Quote from: Mike Cl on April 12, 2018, 08:25:17 PM
Greatest I Am--Unity would approve of your use of 'I Am'; at one time so would I--well, at least sort of.  I ended up thinking that I Am is not really god, since there is no god (and not even Unity persuaded me into thinking or believing there was one), but one's best (or highest if one prefers) possible self.  And even then, the measuring would be done by one's self, based on self assessed values and ideals. 
As for this being the best possible universe because it is the only possible universe--I can see that if one is striving to 'live in the moment' or 'in the now'.  That can be a good state to achieve.  At one time I strove to do that.  What realization I came to was that it helped me appreciate what I was, where I was and all that I have and am.  But I realized that living in the now means the past has no value and the future is never going to come.  Only the 'now' exists.  I found that made it impossible for me to plan for the future or to use the past to evaluate what (if anything) I would like to work on changing or adding in my life.

Why? What is stopping you right now from, say, evaluating your past menu and planning for your favorite meal tomorrow?

That would allow for you, tomorrow, to be able to say that this day is better than yesterday thanks to the meal I planned yesterday.

That thinking is why I can print this Gnostic Christian saying any time and any day.

Gnostic Christian Jesus said, "If those who attract you say, 'See, the Kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you.
If they say to you, 'It is under the earth,' then the fish of the sea will precede you.
Rather, the Kingdom of God is inside of you, and it is outside of you.
[Those who] become acquainted with [themselves] will find it; [and when you] become acquainted with yourselves, [you will understand that] it is you who are the sons of the living Father.
But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."

Regards
DL

Quote from: trdsf on April 13, 2018, 07:16:35 AM
Anecdotal evidence is not evidence.

Not to you, but if real, it certainly is to the one who experienced it. The fact that I have a witness/victim makes it real, just as your experiences were if you had a coroberating witness to prove that it is not a figment of your imagination.

Regards
DL

Quote from: Unbeliever on April 13, 2018, 01:59:39 PM
I'm just curious, are you familiar with the Egyptian god Nuk pu Nuk? The term seems to translate as "I am what I am," or "I am who I am":

http://spentamainyu.tripod.com/moses3.htm

The concept of "I am" seems to be in many older traditions and I would not be surprised to find it in Egypt as the Jewish myth is a rewrite of myths from both Egypt and Sumer.

I think all the ancients who were writing scriptures were all cherry picking from each other the same way Gnostic Christianity used the Christian myth as a base for us to create our myths to put against theirs.

Debate and discussions were more important when all were God seekers and not idol worshipers which spoiled the soup later.

http://bigthink.com/videos/what-is-god-2-2

That creation of debate points is likely why the hate your mother and father line was put into the bible to contradict the love your mother and father lines.

On the name of God, please listen from the 9 min . mark and see how crazy the Hebrew language is and how the name of God and his main attribute of androgyny has been handily forgotten by the current misogynous mainstream religions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TndLzFZI9A

Regards
DL

Quote from: Greatest I am on April 16, 2018, 05:38:56 PM
Why? What is stopping you right now from, say, evaluating your past menu and planning for your favorite meal tomorrow?

That would allow for you, tomorrow, to be able to say that this day is better than yesterday thanks to the meal I planned yesterday.

That thinking is why I can print this Gnostic Christian saying any time and any day.


Regards
DL

What do you mean, 'why"?  You just paraphrased what I said.

Quote from: Greatest I am on April 16, 2018, 05:38:56 PM

Gnostic Christian Jesus said, "If those who attract you say, 'See, the Kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you.
If they say to you, 'It is under the earth,' then the fish of the sea will precede you.
Rather, the Kingdom of God is inside of you, and it is outside of you.
[Those who] become acquainted with [themselves] will find it; [and when you] become acquainted with yourselves, [you will understand that] it is you who are the sons of the living Father.
But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."

Regards
DL
You really like that little paragraph it seems.  I find it rather off-putting.  I am a bit puzzled why you like to use the term 'Christian' with gnostic.  You are not a classical christian for Jesus is not a real figure, but a mythical one.  Why not use Aesop Gnostic or Cynic (for the wandering Cynics) Gnostic?  Why Jesus.  Why not just Gnostic.  In a sense any thoughtful atheist would be (or more properly, could be) a gnostic for the answers to the all those questions that bug people--all the why's and what purpose is there to life, type questions are found inside us.  I could be labeled a gnostic--or a Campbell Gnostic in that he suggested that the purpose of life is life; and the key to happiness is to follow one's bliss.  And life and bliss are internal states.  For me Jesus is simply a myth among many myths.  To single him out is rather limiting--and for me, misleading for I am firmly convinced (in a very gnostic way) that Jesus is/was a myth who happens to be used by millions to control billions for their own gain. 


Regards
DL

Quote from: Mike Cl on April 16, 2018, 06:31:27 PM
What do you mean, 'why"?  You just paraphrased what I said.

The why was to this.

" I found that made it impossible for me to plan for the future"

Perhaps I should have said why is it impossible for you ---- " to plan for the future or to use the past to evaluate what (if anything) I would like to work on changing or adding in my life."

That is why I showed you could plan ahead to add to your life.

Regards
DL

Quote from: Mike Cl on April 16, 2018, 06:42:41 PM

The way Christians use and abuse Christ, you are correct in your evaluation.

Gnostic Christians use the archetypal good man differently. Not to slave us to a religion, but to free us from religions.

You will not see Christians quoting the following.

Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Allan Watts explain those quotes in detail.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alRNbesfXXw&feature=player_embedded

Regards
DL

Quote from: Greatest I am on April 16, 2018, 06:50:22 PM
The why was to this.

" I found that made it impossible for me to plan for the future"

Perhaps I should have said why is it impossible for you ---- " to plan for the future or to use the past to evaluate what (if anything) I would like to work on changing or adding in my life."

That is why I showed you could plan ahead to add to your life.

Regards
DL
I don't find it impossible for me to plan for the future.  I found that if I stuck to attempting to stay in the 'now' all the time, that I would have to be blinded to both the past--for that is not in the 'now'; and to the future for that has not happened yet.  So, instead of looking at life that way, I use the phrase 'stay in the now' to simply mean to appreciate what is happening right here and right now.  That does not cut off the past, nor keep me from looking toward the future.  I do as you suggest--plan away!  (but don't become too attached to any outcome or anticipated outcome)

The best way. We all know what they say about the best laid plans.

Regards
DL

Quote from: Greatest I am on April 16, 2018, 07:04:47 PM
The best way. We all know what they say about the best laid plans.

Regards
DL

Yes, we are Elohim .. collectively, not individually ... the first is piety, the second is blasphemy.  Alan Watts was a bodhisattva (an missionary angel).

To think a thing is not to know a thing.  To know a thing is not to understand a thing.  I had to become an old man before I understood anything!  And like the Ancient Mariner ... the cost of understanding has been high.  But I won't have wisdom, until I reach the end.

Quote from: Greatest I am on April 16, 2018, 04:32:33 PM
The word God has a number of definitions and has been used in many ways.

Primarily, it mean last word in terms of authority.

That is what I am. I have chosen to be my own authority because I have earned that right. Not just due to my apotheosis but by my level of thought.

Do I or be I good or evil, I stand as responsible for my actions. No one speaks for me but me.

I am the ideal and the fittest thinking man I know. That does not mean that there are none better, and as an esoteric ecumenist, I perpetually seek those out.

If you can say what I just did for yourself, who is your God?

I don't have one.  I don't need one.  I find that reality is enough.  It is, at least, amenable to examination that can in principle be independently confirmed by others.  I have found more of a sense of awe in the eyepiece of a telescope or at the end of a mathematical derivation than I ever got sitting in a pew or chanting in a circleâ€"to borrow from Douglas Adams, I find the garden sufficiently lovely to not need to imagine it has fairies in it as well.

I need to ask, then, if you're your own authority, why label that with the syllable 'god'?  As a meditational focus?  As a shorthand for the concepts involved?  Force of habit?

Quote from: Greatest I am on April 16, 2018, 04:32:33 PM

Quote from: trdsf
In the long run, though, it's probably not useful to refer to 'atheist churches'

I can appreciate your distaste.

In the old days, before the mainstream religions went stupid on us and started reading their myths literally, the temples and churches were mystery schools, read that as atheist schools, where people sought God, as defined as the best laws and rules to live life by.

In a sense, the brain dead religions based on the supernatural usurped the old atheist churches and temples. Think of atheists returning the favor and now getting pay back and reclaiming what was once yours from the literalist fools.

I don't read 'mystery schools' as 'atheist schools'.  In my experience, most atheists prefer to spread knowledge, not hide it under mummery and ritual.  I'd recommend you to some Richard Carrier lectures on cults of two millennia agoâ€"the sort of cult that he surmises originally grew up around the character later known as Jesus, even before the literalists took command, still preached the standard religious fare of life after death.  They were in no way atheistic.

Atheism isn't an 'atheology' to be taught in a church anyway.  It's a method to be taught in school: skeptical inquiry and the scientific method.

Quote from: Greatest I am on April 16, 2018, 05:49:00 PM
Not to you, but if real, it certainly is to the one who experienced it. The fact that I have a witness/victim makes it real, just as your experiences were if you had a coroberating witness to prove that it is not a figment of your imagination.

I even have a corroborating witness to my eventâ€"but since it is non-reproducible, I cannot in good conscience count it as evidence.  It definitely happened... but odd coincidences happen.  It would be weirder if nothing weird ever happened to me.  Instead, something inexplicable happens once in a very great while... and that's in accord with statistics.

Quote from: Greatest I am on April 16, 2018, 06:55:32 PM
Allan Watts explain those quotes in detail.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alRNbesfXXw&feature=player_embedded

Cool cloud pictures

Quote from: trdsf on April 16, 2018, 11:29:59 PM
I even have a corroborating witness to my eventâ€"but since it is non-reproducible, I cannot in good conscience count it as evidence.  It definitely happened... but odd coincidences happen.  It would be weirder if nothing weird ever happened to me.  Instead, something inexplicable happens once in a very great while... and that's in accord with statistics.

but...but... If you believe it in your heart, you don't need anything else.  Everyone should take your word for it, and believe it.  One time a guy told me he could tell a person's future by feeling the bumps on his/her head.  Before he told me that, I would not have believed it, but now that he told me, I know that it is true, just like everyone knows that Martians live among us.

Quote from: Baruch on April 16, 2018, 10:22:44 PM
Yes, we are Elohim .. collectively, not individually ... the first is piety, the second is blasphemy.  Alan Watts was a bodhisattva (an missionary angel).

To think a thing is not to know a thing.  To know a thing is not to understand a thing.  I had to become an old man before I understood anything!  And like the Ancient Mariner ... the cost of understanding has been high.  But I won't have wisdom, until I reach the end.

I was about 39 before I knew a thing, and yes, the cost was high, but I am please I had the payment.

Regards
DL

Quote from: trdsf on April 16, 2018, 11:22:44 PM
I don't have one.  I don't need one.  I find that reality is enough.  It is, at least, amenable to examination that can in principle be independently confirmed by others.  I have found more of a sense of awe in the eyepiece of a telescope or at the end of a mathematical derivation than I ever got sitting in a pew or chanting in a circleâ€"to borrow from Douglas Adams, I find the garden sufficiently lovely to not need to imagine it has fairies in it as well.

I need to ask, then, if you're your own authority, why label that with the syllable 'god'?  As a meditational focus?  As a shorthand for the concepts involved?  Force of habit?
I can appreciate your distaste.

In the old days, before the mainstream religions went stupid on us and started reading their myths literally, the temples and churches were mystery schools, read that as atheist schools, where people sought God, as defined as the best laws and rules to live life by.

In a sense, the brain dead religions based on the supernatural usurped the old atheist churches and temples. Think of atheists returning the favor and now getting pay back and reclaiming what was once yours from the literalist fools.

I don't read 'mystery schools' as 'atheist schools'.  In my experience, most atheists prefer to spread knowledge, not hide it under mummery and ritual.  I'd recommend you to some Richard Carrier lectures on cults of two millennia agoâ€"the sort of cult that he surmises originally grew up around the character later known as Jesus, even before the literalists took command, still preached the standard religious fare of life after death.  They were in no way atheistic.

Atheism isn't an 'atheology' to be taught in a church anyway.  It's a method to be taught in school: skeptical inquiry and the scientific method.

In other words, a mystery school which as I put above, in todays terms, is an atheist church.

You say atheists want to spread their knowledge and wisdom yet are too hung up on words and their meaning to support atheist churches.

I use the word God for the reasons I put above. To show that I am the final arbiter and judge for myself.

Regards
DL

Quote from: trdsf on April 16, 2018, 11:29:59 PM
I even have a corroborating witness to my eventâ€"but since it is non-reproducible, I cannot in good conscience count it as evidence.  It definitely happened... but odd coincidences happen.  It would be weirder if nothing weird ever happened to me.  Instead, something inexplicable happens once in a very great while... and that's in accord with statistics.

Share your experience.

Regards
DL

Quote from: Greatest I am on April 17, 2018, 10:27:18 AM
In other words, a mystery school which as I put above, in todays terms, is an atheist church.

You say atheists want to spread their knowledge and wisdom yet are too hung up on words and their meaning to support atheist churches.

I use the word God for the reasons I put above. To show that I am the final arbiter and judge for myself.

The fact that those mystery cults preached a life after death immediately precludes them from being an atheist anything.  They taught the existence of divine figures, the existence of a soul, miracles, the whole nine yards.  That is emphatically not an "atheist church".

I'm not hung up on words, I'm hung up on meanings.  If you want to use 'atheist church' to mean some sort of secular fellowship, why not say 'secular fellowship' rather than use a word that's guaranteed to provoke a response in a subset of that very group?  And what's next?  An atheist synagogue?  An atheist mosque?

I know there already are atheist "churches", and I think the idea is kind of silly trying to emulate the Sunday morning routine that many of us grew up with.  I appreciate that they're about fellowship and community, and many of them even host lectures in place of sermons, but I think it's time better spent volunteering, being out there in the public and demonstrating that you don't need a god to be good.

You use words that have a lot of built-in baggage ('church', 'god') in ways that not many other people are going to grasp the way you're using them without a lot of unpacking.  You talk about 'god' when you mean yourself, and 'churches' for church escapees.  I mean, if you want to spend the time explaining your meaning over the commonly held meanings, that's your decision, but if I can offer some advice, until and unless language swings around your way, using the standard terminology and standard meanings will lead to much more fruitful conversations.

Quote from: trdsf on April 17, 2018, 10:46:28 AM
The fact that those mystery cults preached a life after death immediately precludes them from being an atheist anything.  They taught the existence of divine figures, the existence of a soul, miracles, the whole nine yards.  That is emphatically not an "atheist church".

I'm not hung up on words, I'm hung up on meanings.  If you want to use 'atheist church' to mean some sort of secular fellowship, why not say 'secular fellowship' rather than use a word that's guaranteed to provoke a response in a subset of that very group?  And what's next?  An atheist synagogue?  An atheist mosque?

I know there already are atheist "churches", and I think the idea is kind of silly trying to emulate the Sunday morning routine that many of us grew up with.  I appreciate that they're about fellowship and community, and many of them even host lectures in place of sermons, but I think it's time better spent volunteering, being out there in the public and demonstrating that you don't need a god to be good.

You use words that have a lot of built-in baggage ('church', 'god') in ways that not many other people are going to grasp the way you're using them without a lot of unpacking.  You talk about 'god' when you mean yourself, and 'churches' for church escapees.  I mean, if you want to spend the time explaining your meaning over the commonly held meanings, that's your decision, but if I can offer some advice, until and unless language swings around your way, using the standard terminology and standard meanings will lead to much more fruitful conversations.

The mystery schools had all kinds of beliefs that they played with. To say they all had any given view on the afterlife is foolish.

Gnostic Christians, for one, had a number of ideas that they played with non the afterlife.

We have no supernatural beliefs and you have packet our myths in with our beliefs.

Gnosis means, basically, to know. Only the most foolish will say they know something of the supernatural.

As to atheist churches. Who am I to tell atheists what to call their churches?

Regards
DL

Quote from: trdsf on April 17, 2018, 10:46:28 AM
The fact that those mystery cults preached a life after death immediately precludes them from being an atheist anything.  They taught the existence of divine figures, the existence of a soul, miracles, the whole nine yards.  That is emphatically not an "atheist church".

I'm not hung up on words, I'm hung up on meanings.  If you want to use 'atheist church' to mean some sort of secular fellowship, why not say 'secular fellowship' rather than use a word that's guaranteed to provoke a response in a subset of that very group?  And what's next?  An atheist synagogue?  An atheist mosque?

I know there already are atheist "churches", and I think the idea is kind of silly trying to emulate the Sunday morning routine that many of us grew up with.  I appreciate that they're about fellowship and community, and many of them even host lectures in place of sermons, but I think it's time better spent volunteering, being out there in the public and demonstrating that you don't need a god to be good.

You use words that have a lot of built-in baggage ('church', 'god') in ways that not many other people are going to grasp the way you're using them without a lot of unpacking.  You talk about 'god' when you mean yourself, and 'churches' for church escapees.  I mean, if you want to spend the time explaining your meaning over the commonly held meanings, that's your decision, but if I can offer some advice, until and unless language swings around your way, using the standard terminology and standard meanings will lead to much more fruitful conversations.

^This^  Why use charged words that will be misunderstood by almost all audiences?   

Quote from: Greatest I am on April 17, 2018, 11:37:17 AM
The mystery schools had all kinds of beliefs that they played with. To say they all had any given view on the afterlife is foolish.

Gnostic Christians, for one, had a number of ideas that they played with non the afterlife.

We have no supernatural beliefs and you have packet our myths in with our beliefs.

Gnosis means, basically, to know. Only the most foolish will say they know something of the supernatural.

As to atheist churches. Who am I to tell atheists what to call their churches?

Regards
DL

Why use the label 'Gnostic Christian'--why not just gnostic?

Quote from: trdsf on April 16, 2018, 11:29:59 PM
I even have a corroborating witness to my eventâ€"but since it is non-reproducible, I cannot in good conscience count it as evidence.  It definitely happened... but odd coincidences happen.  It would be weirder if nothing weird ever happened to me.  Instead, something inexplicable happens once in a very great while... and that's in accord with statistics.

Indeed, if a thing has a 1 in a billion chance of happening in any given year/month/day - whatever - then it should be happening about 7 times in a year/month/day. So yeah, it would be much more weird if weird things didn't happen.

Quote from: Greatest I am on April 17, 2018, 10:28:32 AM
Share your experience.

Sure.  This was about 20 years ago, my then-BF had been with me less than a year at that point, and I was still a practicing Neo-Pagan.  The topic of conversation had turned to the subject of spirit guides, with both of us professing belief in having one.  At which point he just blurted out the name I used for mine.  We had not discussed the subject before, and I certainly hadn't mentioned the name, least of all in connection with an alleged spirit guide I believed I had.

I don't deny that it well and truly blew my mind.  He had no idea where the name came from, he said it'd just popped into his head.

This is, of course, exactly the kind of anecdote that triggers most of our bullshit meters; the only reason it doesn't get mine going is because it happened to me.  The only evidentiary value it has depends not on your judgment of the probability of the event, but on your judgment of my word.

So really, what you're actually judging is here is what's more improbable: the events that I related, or that I would make this up.  I can't fault anyone here for choosing the latter, despite my word that it did happen, because I know I can't prove it.

Quote from: Mike Cl on April 17, 2018, 12:18:27 PM
Why use the label 'Gnostic Christian'--why not just gnostic?

As I understand the tradition, we have always considered ourselves to be an ideology based on the Christian myths, from the times before Christianity became idol worshipers and literal readers of those myths. That is why our myths posit a God above Yahweh and call him a demiurge.

Further, there are Gnostic Muslims, etc. who, like us, analyse and criticise not only their own religion but all religions and ideologies.

We are quite close to agnostic but in the past, there was no agnostic or atheist churches and we recognize the good that local churches can do. We do not like the larger religious hierarchies because they are just there to lord it over people and not really word towards their enlightenment.

Further, a Gnostic Christian, as history shows, are charged not only with growing our religion but also to try to help the poor religions like Christianity to shrink. We live by the for evil to grow, all good people need do is nothing motto.

Regards
DL

Quote from: trdsf on April 17, 2018, 03:36:52 PM
Sure.  This was about 20 years ago, my then-BF had been with me less than a year at that point, and I was still a practicing Neo-Pagan.  The topic of conversation had turned to the subject of spirit guides, with both of us professing belief in having one.  At which point he just blurted out the name I used for mine.  We had not discussed the subject before, and I certainly hadn't mentioned the name, least of all in connection with an alleged spirit guide I believed I had.

I don't deny that it well and truly blew my mind.  He had no idea where the name came from, he said it'd just popped into his head.

This is, of course, exactly the kind of anecdote that triggers most of our bullshit meters; the only reason it doesn't get mine going is because it happened to me.  The only evidentiary value it has depends not on your judgment of the probability of the event, but on your judgment of my word.

So really, what you're actually judging is here is what's more improbable: the events that I related, or that I would make this up.  I can't fault anyone here for choosing the latter, despite my word that it did happen, because I know I can't prove it.

Knowing telepathy is real, I have no problem believing you.

Yours was a light touch as compared to what I did to my wife. That is why she calls my mental touch an assault.

This might be showing the cosmic consciousness I found the second and last time I activated my telepathy. I don't know for sure because in that situation which is purely mental, I could not identify where I was.

The part I want you to see is at about the 20 min. mark.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qM6yLngNnDY

I was quite skeptical of ESP in those days while still having an itch about telepathy. I think/hope the cosmic consciousness, whatever it's nature, either knew or wanted my contact but knew that if I only had the one experience with it, I would not have believed and would have called it a mental fart or something. I think that that might be why I had my first experience with my wife. Without her to witness and confirm it, I would not have believed the reality of the second.

I call my wife my souls mate since. Not that I believe in the usual soul.

I hope you are still BFF with your partner.

Regards
DL

Quote from: trdsf on April 17, 2018, 03:36:52 PM
Sure.  This was about 20 years ago, my then-BF had been with me less than a year at that point, and I was still a practicing Neo-Pagan.  The topic of conversation had turned to the subject of spirit guides, with both of us professing belief in having one.  At which point he just blurted out the name I used for mine.  We had not discussed the subject before, and I certainly hadn't mentioned the name, least of all in connection with an alleged spirit guide I believed I had.

I don't deny that it well and truly blew my mind.  He had no idea where the name came from, he said it'd just popped into his head.

This is, of course, exactly the kind of anecdote that triggers most of our bullshit meters; the only reason it doesn't get mine going is because it happened to me.  The only evidentiary value it has depends not on your judgment of the probability of the event, but on your judgment of my word.

So really, what you're actually judging is here is what's more improbable: the events that I related, or that I would make this up.  I can't fault anyone here for choosing the latter, despite my word that it did happen, because I know I can't prove it.

I believe it happened, and quite easily at that, but remain unimpressed.  If you explain how, that's when the bullshit meter goes off, because it's an unexplainable event.  The how part is pure conjecture.  The correct answer is, "I don't know."  Telepathy is a possible explanation, but there are more beyond that, so it doesn't represent actual knowledge.  It's an opinion.

Quote from: Greatest I am on April 17, 2018, 04:54:03 PM
As I understand the tradition, we have always considered ourselves to be an ideology based on the Christian myths, from the times before Christianity became idol worshipers and literal readers of those myths. That is why our myths posit a God above Yahweh and call him a demiurge.

Further, there are Gnostic Muslims, etc. who, like us, analyse and criticise not only their own religion but all religions and ideologies.

We are quite close to agnostic but in the past, there was no agnostic or atheist churches and we recognize the good that local churches can do. We do not like the larger religious hierarchies because they are just there to lord it over people and not really word towards their enlightenment.

Further, a Gnostic Christian, as history shows, are charged not only with growing our religion but also to try to help the poor religions like Christianity to shrink. We live by the for evil to grow, all good people need do is nothing motto.

Regards
DL

Who is the 'we'?  As far as I know, there is not one agreed upon version of Gnostic --much less Gnostic Christian.

I think gnostics are much like mystics, in that they have an independent means of acquiring "knowledge." But I have little confidence that their acquisitions are reliable.

Quote from: Unbeliever on April 17, 2018, 07:37:22 PM
I think gnostics are much like mystics, in that they have an independent means of acquiring "knowledge." But I have little confidence that their acquisitions are reliable.

Ideally in a discussion, all parties need to agree on criteria necessary to determine validity.  Once unsupported claims are introduced and accepted as the standard for verification, it resets the bar to a lower standard.  This is where things get really fun, since the door has now been opened to an infinite number of explanations, all of equal validity, and we can think up explanations for the rest of the night, as long as we don't need to support them.

Quote1.  Trdsf's spirit guide told the boyfriend's spirit guide the name he had been given,
     and boyfriend's spirit guide simply told the boyfriend.

2.  etc, ect,

We can also think up more logical explanations, like rare coincidence, that do not rely on logical fallacies for their support, but we must always be careful to recognize that these explanations are also unsupported and don't constitute actual knowledge either.  This is perfectly OK, there will always be unexplained observations.  We don't have to "know" everything.  We don't even need to know everything.  Reality will go on, with or without our knowledge.  It's a wiser man that recognizes what he does not know than the man who is compelled to accept mystical answers to avoid the shame of not knowing.

Quote from: SGOS on April 17, 2018, 06:16:36 PM
I believe it happened, and quite easily at that, but remain unimpressed.  If you explain how, that's when the bullshit meter goes off, because it's an unexplainable event.  The how part is pure conjecture.  The correct answer is, "I don't know."  Telepathy is a possible explanation, but there are more beyond that, so it doesn't represent actual knowledge.  It's an opinion.

The 'how' that I subscribe to is 'damn improbable guess'.  I don't think there was anything psychic or supernatural going on.

Quote from: Greatest I am on April 17, 2018, 05:09:59 PM
Knowing telepathy is real, I have no problem believing you.

Yours was a light touch as compared to what I did to my wife. That is why she calls my mental touch an assault.

This might be showing the cosmic consciousness I found the second and last time I activated my telepathy. I don't know for sure because in that situation which is purely mental, I could not identify where I was.

The part I want you to see is at about the 20 min. mark.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qM6yLngNnDY

I was quite skeptical of ESP in those days while still having an itch about telepathy. I think/hope the cosmic consciousness, whatever it's nature, either knew or wanted my contact but knew that if I only had the one experience with it, I would not have believed and would have called it a mental fart or something. I think that that might be why I had my first experience with my wife. Without her to witness and confirm it, I would not have believed the reality of the second.

I call my wife my souls mate since. Not that I believe in the usual soul.

I hope you are still BFF with your partner.

We drifted apart, but very gently.  Thank you for the thought, though.

The fundamental problem I have with resorting to telepathy as the explanation is that telepathy remains undemonstrated in any sort of repeatable, quantifiable way.  I would be more willing to credit that you believe it's telepathy than that you know it is.  Knowledge is demonstrable; if you want to assert telepathy is the explanation, you need to be able to demonstrate that it is.

As for the video, I have always found 'Through the Wormhole' to be much too willing to leap to the sensational "... but could it be THIS?!" than a science show should be.  Telepathy remains undemonstrated; the responsible thing for the program to have done would be to say whether those experiments have been confirmed or denied by other experimenters.

A video much more to the point is this TED Talk by James Randi, and the reminder that constant vigilance is not just the price of freedom, but also the price of truly living in the real world.  What is true doesn't care what I want to believe is true.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcPuRaSEq1I

Quick, GreatestIAm, I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 50.  I've even written it down in front of me.  Take a shot at it!

Quote from: Hydra009 on April 17, 2018, 10:22:10 PM
Quick, GreatestIAm, I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 50.  I've even written it down in front of me.  Take a shot at it!

I'm getting something.  Wait...wait... I got it!  Is it 114?

Quote from: SGOS on April 17, 2018, 10:34:33 PM
I'm getting something.  Wait...wait... I got it!  Is it 114?

Holy Shit Batman!!!  That's exactly what I was thinking!!

SGOS - I agree we don't need explanations for this, or for anything else for that matter.  But people being people, we do it anyway.

An advanced natural explanation is sufficient anyway.  We know there is "spooky action at a distance" aka quantum entanglement.   Consilience is the scientific method term for apparent contradiction with known facts ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consilience

However in psychology, there is the idea of synchronicity, discussed under coincidence ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coincidence

The whole human idea of causality is a pre-scientific notion.  But it works for us as a heuristic to survive Cavebears ;-)

Quote from: Mike Cl on April 17, 2018, 11:15:22 PM
Holy Shit Batman!!!  That's exactly what I was thinking!!

It's inevitable that we would both know this.  This is all accounted for by Karl Jung in his explanation of the collective unconscious. :)

@Greatist I am
Another widely held belief, based on the claim of a person who has first hand "knowledge"  It is not only a widely held belief, but as valid as any other unsupported belief:

Quote
Word of a mystery planet lurking in our solar system, on some wide orbit around the Sun that takes thousands of years to complete...

Images show up from time to time...

It all started with references to a "Planet X", made by a woman named Nancy Lieder, who had been contacted by aliens who she called Zetas. These Zetas spoke through Lieder, via an implant, saying that all the official reports of 1997 encounter with Comet Haleâ€"Bopp were false, and that these reports were spread to cover up the approach of "Planet X", which was to cause widespread upheaval on our planet and destroy human civilization...

Nancy Lieder was a nice lady, who wouldn't make something up.  But until May 27, 2003, when Planet X didn't show up as scheduled, her story made sense to many who don't process information the way many others do, and who's standard for "knowing" does not demand the inconvenience of supportive evidence.

https://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/nibiru-hoax-rears-ugly-head-again-what-you-need-to-know-about-this-persistent-myth/99534

Quote from: SGOS on April 18, 2018, 06:16:16 AM
It's inevitable that we would both know this.  This is all accounted for by Karl Jung in his explanation of the collective unconscious. :)

Jordan Peterson is a Jungian ... but he uses the term Archetypes.  As I see it, people think similarly, not because of telepathy, but because they react the same way to similar stimuli, because they just happen to share the same POV.  Basically cultural stereotyping as manifested in individuals.  What Peterson claims is that part of this is evolutionary, not just cultural.  And there are certainly aspects of psychology that are inherited ... the Blank Slate model isn't accurate.  Experts will argue, what parts are inherited and which are social.  The old nurture vs nature argument.

A thorough analysis of our Jungian predicament ...

https://medium.com/@michaelaaron3684/the-jordan-peterson-complex-1da2d4a2e519

A key line from inside the article ...

Note: the collective unconscious has to a vast degree been technologically digitalized as the World-Wide-Web.

Aka our postings are part of the realization of de Chardin's Omega Point.

Quote from: Hydra009 on April 17, 2018, 10:22:10 PM
Quick, GreatestIAm, I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 50.  I've even written it down in front of me.  Take a shot at it!

37?

Quote from: Hydra009 on April 17, 2018, 10:22:10 PM
Quick, GreatestIAm, I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 50.  I've even written it down in front of me.  Take a shot at it!

I always go with 42.  Force of habit.  :)

Quote from: Baruch on April 18, 2018, 01:21:03 PM
Jordan Peterson is a Jungian ... but he uses the term Archetypes.  As I see it, people think similarly, not because of telepathy, but because they react the same way to similar stimuli, because they just happen to share the same POV.

That's probably an improved theory if one doesn't want to outright scrap it.  As I recall, Jung struck me as a mystic.  I called myself a  Christian back then, but even I thought Jung tried too hard and unnecessarily to tie up psychological principles with some kind of woo. It's been a long time since I read him.  I'd have to reread to see if I'm remembering this right, but I remember not being impressed by Jung, and downright bored at the same time.

Quote from: Baruch on April 18, 2018, 01:21:03 PM
Jordan Peterson is a Jungian ... but he uses the term Archetypes.  As I see it, people think similarly, not because of telepathy, but because they react the same way to similar stimuli, because they just happen to share the same POV.  Basically cultural stereotyping as manifested in individuals.  What Peterson claims is that part of this is evolutionary, not just cultural.  And there are certainly aspects of psychology that are inherited ... the Blank Slate model isn't accurate.  Experts will argue, what parts are inherited and which are social.  The old nurture vs nature argument.

A thorough analysis of our Jungian predicament ...

https://medium.com/@michaelaaron3684/the-jordan-peterson-complex-1da2d4a2e519

A key line from inside the article ...

Note: the collective unconscious has to a vast degree been technologically digitalized as the World-Wide-Web.

It's not so much nature versus nurture any more. More like nature plus nurture. While some human traits are the result of one or the other, it's usually a combination of both that results in the variables of human behavior.

Quote from: SGOS on April 18, 2018, 05:16:10 PM
That's probably an improved theory if one doesn't want to outright scrap it.  As I recall, Jung struck me as a mystic.  I called myself a  Christian back then, but even I thought Jung tried too hard and unnecessarily to tie up psychological principles with some kind of woo. It's been a long time since I read him.  I'd have to reread to see if I'm remembering this right, but I remember not being impressed by Jung, and downright bored at the same time.

You couldn't have seen his Red Book back then, it wasn't public yet.  Yes, the inner recesses of the psyche are woo, but it is woo you really are ;-)

Quote from: Blackleaf on April 18, 2018, 08:29:02 PM
It's not so much nature versus nurture any more. More like nature plus nurture. While some human traits are the result of one or the other, it's usually a combination of both that results in the variables of human behavior.

A mystic would agree that all dichotomies are false.  Words are just apes trying to categorize things, and label categories ... badly.

Quote from: trdsf on April 18, 2018, 03:35:44 PM
I always go with 42.  Force of habit.  :)

Always the best answer.  And keep your towel handy.

Quote from: Cavebear on April 19, 2018, 01:12:07 AM
Always the best answer.  And keep your towel handy.

Quick, your babel fish needs replacing ;-)

Quote from: Mike Cl on April 17, 2018, 07:26:09 PM
Who is the 'we'?  As far as I know, there is not one agreed upon version of Gnostic --much less Gnostic Christian.

No Gods are the same but the we is all those who call themselves Gnostic Christians.

We are close to agnostics, so even if they do not take my label, we are close in ideology.

Agnostic is related to the word Gnosis and Gnostic in the Greek language.

Regards
DL   

Quote from: Unbeliever on April 17, 2018, 07:37:22 PM
I think gnostics are much like mystics, in that they have an independent means of acquiring "knowledge." But I have little confidence that their acquisitions are reliable.

No more and no less than any of the meditative religions. You get out of it what you put into it.

That is why we are perpetual seekers. No idol worship allowed.

Regards
DL

Quote from: trdsf on April 17, 2018, 08:28:16 PM
The 'how' that I subscribe to is 'damn improbable guess'.  I don't think there was anything psychic or supernatural going on.

We drifted apart, but very gently.  Thank you for the thought, though.

The fundamental problem I have with resorting to telepathy as the explanation is that telepathy remains undemonstrated in any sort of repeatable, quantifiable way.  I would be more willing to credit that you believe it's telepathy than that you know it is.  Knowledge is demonstrable; if you want to assert telepathy is the explanation, you need to be able to demonstrate that it is.

As for the video, I have always found 'Through the Wormhole' to be much too willing to leap to the sensational "... but could it be THIS?!" than a science show should be.  Telepathy remains undemonstrated; the responsible thing for the program to have done would be to say whether those experiments have been confirmed or denied by other experimenters.

A video much more to the point is this TED Talk by James Randi, and the reminder that constant vigilance is not just the price of freedom, but also the price of truly living in the real world.  What is true doesn't care what I want to believe is true.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcPuRaSEq1I

"you need to be able to demonstrate that it is."

No.

All I need for my belief is a victim who can confirm the event. I have that.

You might need a demonstration, but I and my victim do not.

Regards
DL

Quote from: Greatest I am on May 05, 2018, 09:37:09 AM
"you need to be able to demonstrate that it is."

No.

All I need for my belief is a victim who can confirm the event. I have that.

You might need a demonstration, but I and my victim do not.

Regards
DL

All theisms are equally idiotic to me. 

Quote from: SGOS on April 18, 2018, 08:41:49 AM
@Greatist I am
Another widely held belief, based on the claim of a person who has first hand "knowledge"  It is not only a widely held belief, but as valid as any other unsupported belief:
Nancy Lieder was a nice lady, who wouldn't make something up.  But until May 27, 2003, when Planet X didn't show up as scheduled, her story made sense to many who don't process information the way many others do, and who's standard for "knowing" does not demand the inconvenience of supportive evidence.

https://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/nibiru-hoax-rears-ugly-head-again-what-you-need-to-know-about-this-persistent-myth/99534

My claim is supported by a witness/victim.

Regards
DL

Quote from: Cavebear on May 05, 2018, 09:39:11 AM
All theisms are equally idiotic to me. 

Ditto. Save agnosticism.

That is, Gnostic Christianity to me.

Regards
DL

Quote from: Greatest I am on May 05, 2018, 09:43:22 AM
Ditto. Save agnosticism.

Regards
DL

Quote from: Greatest I am on May 05, 2018, 09:40:33 AM
My claim is supported by a witness/victim.

Regards
DL

Unless it is externally witnessed by 100 atheists who are not drunk at the time, it never happened ;-)  I have come to think that atheism as a psychology is driven by phobia of the inner voice that we all have.  See "Breakdown Of the Bicameral Mind".  The opposite pathology is thinking that the inner voice is G-d (I am special egomania) that we see in prophets.  Many people 1400 years ago in the Arabia desert may have had auditions (hear voices) or visions (see things) ... but not all were egomaniacs.  Empires and new religions aren't built by the humble.

Religious behavior is people acting out auditions and visions etc.  A "happening" or "acting out".  Religious institutions are the institutionalization of that behavior (rather than spontaneous behavior of the Volk).  Atheists deny psychology, because they deny subjective experience.  They are anti-social in general, opposing all institutions.  They are geeks who have no poetry in their soul, because they don't have any "soul".

Quote from: Baruch on May 05, 2018, 09:44:37 AM
Unless it is externally witnessed by 100 atheists who are not drunk at the time, it never happened ;-)  I have come to think that atheism as a psychology is driven by phobia of the inner voice that we all have.  See "Breakdown Of the Bicameral Mind".  The opposite pathology is thinking that the inner voice is G-d (I am special egomania) that we see in prophets.  Many people 1400 years ago in the Arabia desert may have had auditions (hear voices) or visions (see things) ... but not all were egomaniacs.  Empires and new religions aren't built by the humble.

I hear you. I am often chastised for my arrogance and assertiveness. I call it assuredness in what I say since I always tell the truth that can be known.

It is not my fault that so few ever force their apotheosis.

Regards
DL

Quote from: Greatest I am on May 05, 2018, 09:49:04 AM
I hear you. I am often chastised for my arrogance and assertiveness. I call it assuredness in what I say since I always tell the truth that can be known.

It is not my fault that so few ever force their apotheosis.

Regards
DL

Peak experience happens usually spontaneously.  I don't think it can be forced ... but one can be ... seeking it, ready for it.

I don't think you are creating any empires or religious institutions ... no really not very egotistical at all.

Quote from: Baruch on May 05, 2018, 09:53:19 AM
Peak experience happens usually spontaneously.  I don't think it can be forced ... but one can be ... seeking it, ready for it.

I don't think you are creating any empires or religious institutions ... no really not very egotistical at all.

You see apotheosis properly.
Many see it as bragging or point to the secret knowledge that the ancients spoke of but it is not secret. It is just hard to find it as most do not go within themselves deeply enough.

Even Jesus chastised the religious hierarchy for separating God from man.


Luke 11:52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.

Mark 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

By forcing my apotheosis, I meant that I both desired it and was ready for it, so we see it the same way.

Few can discern or think the way you and I do.

Strange that given that your education is a lot more extensive than my self teaching.

I guess that that is the difference between being formally educated and being smart.

Many are educated but few are smart.

Regards
DL

Quote from: Greatest I am on May 05, 2018, 09:30:10 AM
No Gods are the same but the we is all those who call themselves Gnostic Christians.

We are close to agnostics, so even if they do not take my label, we are close in ideology.

Agnostic is related to the word Gnosis and Gnostic in the Greek language.

Regards
DL

If you believe the label of Gnostic Christian is what you want to wear, then by all means, wear it.  It does not suit me (the christian part repelled me) even tho we both share many thoughts that are the same.  I went through a fairly long search/journey in the gnostic area.  I thought of it as a time of intensive 'soul' searching more than knowing.  Unity uses that term, 'knowing' quite a bit and some of it resonated with me.  But at the end of that particular phase of my life I came to the conclusion that there is no soul, no god, no supernatural powers of any kind--therefore there is no otherworldly gnosis except within myself.  And that is the realization (and being okay with that) that there is no supernatural anything.  All is nature--and that is not for your nor against you, it just is.  The purpose of life is life.  And that's it.  All the meaning of that is what you give it.  It's all on you and you alone.  I don't 'believe' anything; I no longer think there is gnosis nor supernatural anything.  What you see is what you get and it is up to you to make sense of it or not.

Quote from: Mike Cl on May 05, 2018, 11:01:14 AM
If you believe the label of Gnostic Christian is what you want to wear, then by all means, wear it.  It does not suit me (the christian part repelled me) even tho we both share many thoughts that are the same.  I went through a fairly long search/journey in the gnostic area.  I thought of it as a time of intensive 'soul' searching more than knowing.  Unity uses that term, 'knowing' quite a bit and some of it resonated with me.  But at the end of that particular phase of my life I came to the conclusion that there is no soul, no god, no supernatural powers of any kind--therefore there is no otherworldly gnosis except within myself.  And that is the realization (and being okay with that) that there is no supernatural anything.  All is nature--and that is not for your nor against you, it just is.  The purpose of life is life.  And that's it.  All the meaning of that is what you give it.  It's all on you and you alone.  I don't 'believe' anything; I no longer think there is gnosis nor supernatural anything.  What you see is what you get and it is up to you to make sense of it or not.

As you say, we share the same basic thinking.

There are no supernatural beliefs in Gnostic Christianity and I liked that part of our ideology that says we have to fight what we see as evil.

I hope that is also a part of your ideology.

That is hard to do from here and I hope you go to more religious sites to -----

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roqoA08QdbA

Regards
DL

Quote from: Greatest I am on May 05, 2018, 10:13:24 AM
You see apotheosis properly.
Many see it as bragging or point to the secret knowledge that the ancients spoke of but it is not secret. It is just hard to find it as most do not go within themselves deeply enough.

Even Jesus chastised the religious hierarchy for separating God from man.


Luke 11:52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.

Mark 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

By forcing my apotheosis, I meant that I both desired it and was ready for it, so we see it the same way.

Few can discern or think the way you and I do.

Strange that given that your education is a lot more extensive than my self teaching.

I guess that that is the difference between being formally educated and being smart.

Many are educated but few are smart.

Regards
DL

The basis of my comment was the "un-controversy" between "sudden" and "slow" enlightenment in Chinese Buddhism.  There are smart people all over, all thru history.  Some are alive today.  Such people should be sought out, and listened to (yeah for YouTube etc) ... because one life isn't long enough for someone to invent civilization from scratch.  We have to stand on the shoulders of others to see farther.

However that doesn't accrue to my credit, that I see farther, because I know why I can (that human pyramid I am temporarily at the top of).  On the other hand, lexicographer Samuel Johnson said he could learn something new from anyone.  So don't despise the village idiot standing next to you ... he may be Zeus in disguise ;-)

We are comparable in age, I don't have much time left.  So I work like a Trojan at improving myself.  People like Champollion (decipherer of Hieroglyphic) inspire me.  I am reading a biography of him now, to complement my ancient Egyptian study.

I studied Hebrew (presently teaching it), Aramaic, Babylonian, Canaanite (Ugaritic), Arabic and ancient Egyptian over the last 12 months alone.  And I have studied those before, I benefit from re-study.  I am an Indiana Jones of words/ideas.  And I have the official movie hat to prove it!

Quote from: Greatest I am on May 05, 2018, 09:37:09 AM
"you need to be able to demonstrate that it is."

No.

All I need for my belief is a victim who can confirm the event. I have that.

You might need a demonstration, but I and my victim do not.

As long as you remember that what you do and don't believe is of no relevance to anyone but yourself.

I won't argue that you believe in telepathy, or that you believe you've experienced it, but that's not the same as myself or anyone else accepting the idea that it actually happened.  It's not knowledge or evidence if it's not independently repeatable and verifiable by any observer.

@GreatestIAm, just out of curiosity, what evidence would it take for you to reconsider the historical existence of Jesus?  I mean, IF here COULD be some thing that proved there wasn't such a person, what would it be? 

Quote from: trdsf on May 05, 2018, 10:21:45 PM
As long as you remember that what you do and don't believe is of no relevance to anyone but yourself.

I won't argue that you believe in telepathy, or that you believe you've experienced it, but that's not the same as myself or anyone else accepting the idea that it actually happened.  It's not knowledge or evidence if it's not independently repeatable and verifiable by any observer.

This also applies to your ideas and feelings too.  I don't believe you, because a scientific community didn't verify them.

Quote from: Baruch on May 05, 2018, 03:13:57 PM
The basis of my comment was the "un-controversy" between "sudden" and "slow" enlightenment in Chinese Buddhism.  There are smart people all over, all thru history.  Some are alive today.  Such people should be sought out, and listened to (yeah for YouTube etc) ... because one life isn't long enough for someone to invent civilization from scratch.  We have to stand on the shoulders of others to see farther.

However that doesn't accrue to my credit, that I see farther, because I know why I can (that human pyramid I am temporarily at the top of).  On the other hand, lexicographer Samuel Johnson said he could learn something new from anyone.  So don't despise the village idiot standing next to you ... he may be Zeus in disguise ;-)

We are comparable in age, I don't have much time left.  So I work like a Trojan at improving myself.  People like Champollion (decipherer of Hieroglyphic) inspire me.  I am reading a biography of him now, to complement my ancient Egyptian study.

I studied Hebrew (presently teaching it), Aramaic, Babylonian, Canaanite (Ugaritic), Arabic and ancient Egyptian over the last 12 months alone.  And I have studied those before, I benefit from re-study.  I am an Indiana Jones of words/ideas.  And I have the official movie hat to prove it!

"So don't despise the village idiot standing next to you ... "

I hear you.

Many times I hear people bad mouth the bible and would scrap it. Even though I come down hard against religions of the Abrahamic traditions, I would not suggest we scrap the bible/village idiot.

On the contrary, I tell people that the best way to lose belief or faith is to read the bible.

Doing so shows to the honest reader what a prick Yahweh is and that that knowledge is quite good in developing a moral sense.

Regards
DL

I agree, I'm all for people reading the Bible, it's what made me quit believing in the Christian version of God. Logic made me quit believing in the other types of gods.

Quote from: trdsf on May 05, 2018, 10:21:45 PM
As long as you remember that what you do and don't believe is of no relevance to anyone but yourself.

I won't argue that you believe in telepathy, or that you believe you've experienced it, but that's not the same as myself or anyone else accepting the idea that it actually happened.  It's not knowledge or evidence if it's not independently repeatable and verifiable by any observer.

True.

Here is an example where it is being repeated, granted, at a much lower level or intensity than what I claim. Not to convince you. Just for your files and to bring you up to date.

A start at the 20 min. mark will save you some time although it all relates.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qM6yLngNnDY

Regards
DL

Quote from: Cavebear on May 05, 2018, 10:40:31 PM
@GreatestIAm, just out of curiosity, what evidence would it take for you to reconsider the historical existence of Jesus?  I mean, IF here COULD be some thing that proved there wasn't such a person, what would it be? 

There is evidence of a historic Jesus but not as described in the bible. Let me rephrase. There are more than one archetypal Jesus shown in the bible. One created by Rome and the other created by the scribes or copied elsewhere. That one is more of an Eastern mystic.

They have found a bone box that they think came from his family crypt, so a Jesus did live, but not a miracle working Jesus. That Jesus floated into heaven body and all so I don't know what Christians are making of his bone box. Likely saying it must be a forgery. Lies over lies over lies.

In short, to answer your ----"just out of curiosity, what evidence would it take for you to reconsider the historical existence of Jesus?"

If that miracle working Jesus appeared in front of me, and since I think Yahweh/Jesus, God or not was near me, I would do my best to kill the son of a bitch.

As to proving that a miracle working Jesus did not exist, that is a logical fallacy and is impossible to prove.

Regards
DL

Quote from: Unbeliever on May 07, 2018, 01:42:22 PM
I agree, I'm all for people reading the Bible, it's what made me quit believing in the Christian version of God. Logic made me quit believing in the other types of gods.

Part of your reply is why I sometimes us this song.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjRy29R4gP8

Regards
DL

Quote from: Greatest I am on May 07, 2018, 01:45:12 PM
True.

Here is an example where it is being repeated, granted, at a much lower level or intensity than what I claim. Not to convince you. Just for your files and to bring you up to date.

I've already pointed out my problem with 'Through the Wormhole' as a source.  And thank you, but I am up to date.  As it happens, I do keep half an eye on parapsychological research, from some research I did when I was trying to work out as plausible a way as I could to have telepathy work in a science fiction story I was working on.

Please stop assuming that I don't agree with you because I'm incompletely informed.  I don't agree with you because the evidence points away from your assertion.

Quote from: Greatest I am on May 07, 2018, 01:53:32 PM
In short, to answer your ----"just out of curiosity, what evidence would it take for you to reconsider the historical existence of Jesus?"
As to proving that a miracle working Jesus did not exist, that is a logical fallacy and is impossible to prove.

Well, that's my point, thank you.  Do you still believe in a religious Jesus?

Quote from: trdsf on May 07, 2018, 03:49:26 PM
I've already pointed out my problem with 'Through the Wormhole' as a source.  And thank you, but I am up to date.  As it happens, I do keep half an eye on parapsychological research, from some research I did when I was trying to work out as plausible a way as I could to have telepathy work in a science fiction story I was working on.

Please stop assuming that I don't agree with you because I'm incompletely informed.  I don't agree with you because the evidence points away from your assertion.

Have you seem the mental control toys they are coming out with?

That is how telepathy works.

I think that all of our minds can pick up those waves but have blockers set up as, at full intensity, melding minds is quite disturbing. That may be why what is usually reported is just a light touch.

Regards
DL

Quote from: Cavebear on May 09, 2018, 06:47:41 AM
Well, that's my point, thank you.  Do you still believe in a religious Jesus?

I think Jesus is an archetypal good man as depicted in the Chrestian religion that existed before Christianity absorbed/destroyed that thinking system when they stupidly separated God from man and put him in the sky instead of leaving the God concept in us.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=rAt-PAkgqls

You might have noted that the bible shows more than one Jesus.

One is a Rome created pacifist wimp and another, that I like, who is more of an Eastern mystic type that wants to free us from religions and supernatural Gods while the other Jesus that Christians see tries to slave us to religions and God.

Regards
DL

Quote from: Greatest I am on May 09, 2018, 08:51:48 AM
Have you seem the mental control toys they are coming out with?

That is how telepathy works.

I think that all of our minds can pick up those waves but have blockers set up as, at full intensity, melding minds is quite disturbing. That may be why what is usually reported is just a light touch.

What waves?  What telepathy?

Quote from: Cavebear on May 09, 2018, 09:01:15 AM
What waves?  What telepathy?

I will let you google those mental controlled toys.

Even the military is playing with mental control of firing systems etc.

Regards
DL

Quote from: Greatest I am on May 09, 2018, 09:07:00 AM
I will let you google those mental controlled toys.

Even the military is playing with mental control of firing systems etc.

Regards
DL

In other words, you haven't got a shred of support for your posted claim.

Im not surprised.  There really isn't any.

If you DO come up with anything resembling evidence, please do post it for our amusement.

Hmmm. was "our" meant in the royal or in the collective sense?  I'm not sure after looking at it.  LOL, "waves hand limply to the crowd)...

Quote from: Cavebear on May 09, 2018, 10:18:44 AM
In other words, you haven't got a shred of support for your posted claim.

Im not surprised.  There really isn't any.

If you DO come up with anything resembling evidence, please do post it for our amusement.

Hmmm. was "our" meant in the royal or in the collective sense?  I'm not sure after looking at it.  LOL, "waves hand limply to the crowd)...

You are too lazy to do your own leg work and have to have others guide your thinking.

You are worse than a child.

I have no more time for you here or elsewhere. Please ignore me if your childishness will let you.

Regards
D

Quote from: Greatest I am on May 09, 2018, 11:21:14 AM
You are too lazy to do your own leg work and have to have others guide your thinking.

You are worse than a child.

I have no more time for you here or elsewhere. Please ignore me if your childishness will let you.

Regards
D

Uh uh. You make claims, you support it. You don't get to delegate that responsibility on your skeptics and call THEM lazy when they refuse. The laziness is on you.

Quote from: Greatest I am on May 09, 2018, 11:21:14 AM
You are too lazy to do your own leg work and have to have others guide your thinking.

You are worse than a child.

I have no more time for you here or elsewhere. Please ignore me if your childishness will let you.

Regards
D

Ahhh....  The old "demand I prove your argument before destroying it" cop-out.

Nope, won't be bothered.  You made a claim.  Defend it or be humiliated...

Quote from: Cavebear on May 09, 2018, 09:01:15 AM
What waves?  What telepathy?

Oh, that's really just applied electroencephalography.  There used to be a thing called a 'mind mouse' that would let you control your mouse and certain games with your mind -- I once used one set up for a demonstration, about 20 years ago, and it was only marginally functional.  It's a pity the technology never matured; imagine the freedom it would've given Professor Hawking.

Quote from: trdsf on May 09, 2018, 03:50:53 PM
Oh, that's really just applied electroencephalography.  There used to be a thing called a 'mind mouse' that would let you control your mouse and certain games with your mind -- I once used one set up for a demonstration, about 20 years ago, and it was only marginally functional.  It's a pity the technology never matured; imagine the freedom it would've given Professor Hawking.

One might say he came pretty close.  I'm not arguing against you, just saying that things are getting better in that regard than a century ago.
and less than they will be.