What was before the big bang?

[st.bot.32]

no restin i think you will find that atheism is a lack of belief rather than a philosophy although there are many philosophies involving atheism

Then atheism = nihilism?

nope, nothing to do with nihilism. plenty of the popular atheist writers in the 20th century were humanists

as the quote goes..

atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby

A lot of people I know call themselves atheists because it is en vogue.

agreed, a lot of people who call themselves atheists are really agnostic

 

[maxfreakout]

Dawkin's book 'the God delusion' didnt provide a single philosophical argument for atheism, the whole book boils down to ONE incredibly simpleminded and invalid argument, basically "religious people sometimes do bad things, therefore God doesnt exist"

At least we can agree on that.

8)


There had to be some common ground somewhere


There was a TV program about religion/atheism where they had a mask that was designed to give people religious experiences via some kind of electromagnetic stimulation of the brain. They put Dawkins in it to see if it would affect his atheist stance, which of course it didnt, he just said it made him feel a bit strange but not anything remotely religious. Now what I would LOVE tosee, is if that exact same kind of experiment was carried out, but instead of some stupid mask, Dawkins would take a big dose of LSD or shrooms in a shamanic type of setting, and THEN see if that had some kind of effect on his atheism



the core of REAL religion, is religious experience, and by far the most ergonomic way to have a religious experience, is to take entheogens

The meaning of religion, is the state of 'loosened' cognition triggered by entheogens, which transforms the individual's mental worldmodel

 

[restin]

nope, nothing to do with nihilism. plenty of the popular atheist writers in the 20th century were humanists

as the quote goes..

atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby

This is not my understanding of atheism, I just wrote that as a reaction to Crimzen. I already wrote what I understand with atheism. Humanism and atheism are not consequences, there can be humanism and theism as well.

the core of REAL religion, is religious experience, and by far the most ergonomic way to have a religious experience, is to take entheogens

Not necessarily. But yes.

 

[maxfreakout]

the core of REAL religion, is religious experience, and by far the most ergonomic way to have a religious experience, is to take entheogens

Not necessarily. But yes.

which part are you saying 'not necessarily' to?

ie are you saying that religious experience isnt necessarily the core of real religion? Or that entheogens arent necessarily the most ergonomic way to trigger a religious experience?

 

[restin]

I referred to the etheogens. :wink: I don't see what you mean with ergonomic...(I know what ergonomic means)

 

[maxfreakout]

I referred to the etheogens. :wink: I don't see what you mean with ergonomic...(I know what ergonomic means)

entheogens are a safe, reliable, repeatable (ie ergonomic) way to have an INTENSE mystical/religious experience, is there alternative way that is as ergonomic as entheogens?

 

[restin]

okay probably you are right about the ergonomy.

Nonetheless IMHO this is not as important. I think that life itself is a great teacher and the observation of life, nature etc. is an experience per se. :wink:

 

[maxfreakout]

IMHO this is not as important. I think that life itself is a great teacher and the observation of life, nature etc. is an experience per se. :wink:

right but i think it is necessary to draw a total distinction between ordinary states of consciousness, and intense mystical/religious states of consciousness. Observing life/nature while in the ordinary state can never give you religious insight

 

[Meduzz]

Observing life/nature while in the ordinary state can never give you religious insight

hmmm....

 

[maxfreakout]

Observing life/nature while in the ordinary state can never give you religious insight

hmmm....

to clarify:

.......can never give you religious insight BECAUSE of the total distinction between ordinary states of consciousness, and intense mystical/religious states of consciousness.

Intense religious/mystical experience is a necessary component of the attainment of religious/mystical insight

 

[Meduzz]

A better clarification would be a definition of "ordinary state".

 

[Forkbender]

^and how it differs from the mystical state.

 

[restin]

dito.

If I understand, you want to say "you must open your eyes to see Beauty", but then the question is, how do you open your eyes?

Maybe, just a thought, it is a circle - observation of beauty leads to the opening of the eyes and this is followed by the realization of beauty (resp. "religious experience").

 

[maxfreakout]

A better clarification would be a definition of "ordinary state".

Day to day, ordinary consciousness. The state of consciousness you are in when you arent tripping on entheogens

Phenomenologically, the ordinary state can be characterised by 'tight' cognitive association binding. The best way to explain what this means is with reference to the distinction between appearance and reality (and incidentally this is very relevant to the subject of HPPD). In ordinary consciousness, appearance and reality are so tightly binded to each other (within the individual's system of mental representations) that they can be conflated in the individual's belief system - ie the individual can believe, completely convincingly, that they are the same thing, ie that appearances actually ARE the relaity that they point to.

So take the example of a table (classic examples given in philosophy classes are tables and chairs :lol: ). There is a table in front of me, the light reflects from the surface of the table onto my retina, the light pattern is transduced into my brain, and my mind creates an internal representation of the external/material table based on the reflected light pattern on my retina. So the table that i 'see' is NOT the same thing as the 'real' table. But I am able to believe, when i look at the table in the ordinary state, that i am seeing a real table.

Contrasted with this is the visual perception of a table when i am in the 'loose' state of cognition (ie the mystical/religious experience, the dissociated state), when you take LSD then look at a table, it does not have the same degree of coherence that it does during ordinary consciousness, for example the surface of the table is rippling and warping, covered in dynamic geometric patterns. The effect of this visual effect on LSd, is to 'dissociate' the appearance of the table, with the reality of the external table, in the intense mystical experience, it is impossible to mentally conflate appearance with reality.

 

[Forkbender]

Visual distortion doesn't define the mystical state.

 

[maxfreakout]

If I understand, you want to say "you must open your eyes to see Beauty", but then the question is, how do you open your eyes?

Not exactly, im saying that in order to attain religious insight, it is absolutely necessary to have religious experience. And in response to the quesion 'how' - by far the most ergonomic way to have religious experience, is to take entheogens

Maybe, just a thought, it is a circle - observation of beauty leads to the opening of the eyes and this is followed by the realization of beauty (resp. "religious experience").

you can observe beauty in the ordinary state of consciousness, for example by looking at a flower, or a painting, or whatever.

But this is an observation of beauty on the 'ordinary' level, and completely distinct from this, is the observation of transcendental beauty, ie observing the 'higher' level of beauty, that can only be done during the course of a religious experience

 

[maxfreakout]

Visual distortion doesn't define the mystical state.

No it doesnt

'loosened cognitive association binding' defines/characterizes the mystical state. Visual distortion is a very common feature (among other features) of the mystical state

The reason i used it as an example, is because i think it is the easiest way to explain the meaning of 'loosened' cognition


LooSeneD :evil:

 

[Pariah]

"Block universe fails to account for so much of reality: direction of time,entropy, past present and future among other things,"

"that ^ is just 3 different ways of saying "the direction of time" "

...erm, no, I think you'll find they're different.

As an example: direction of time is shown with entropy, but entropy cannot be used to "measure" time (unlike repetative events).

***

I said:

"what is it that makes time a true dimension in the sense of the other commonly experienced three?"

You said:

"time is a spatial dimension just like the other 3 dimensions are"


That isn't an answer, it's begging the question:

"What makes time a true dimension (read as "spatial" dimension)"
"time is a spatial dimension"
"but what makes time a spatial dimension"
"time is a true dimension"

Etc...

I'm looking for justification. not a restatement of my question as an answer. Please try again.

If I remember correctly, you only have the possibility of fixed time under *Newtonian* physics - Einstien; the very guy you've been quoting, makes the things you state irrelevant. Assuming time is just a relative measurement compared to the progress of light, observability doesn't affect the sequence.


"How does it make people feel secure?"

It implys that "everythings alright" - you don't need to do anything its already happened, just light up another doobie, it was meant to happen, don't worry about helping other people - reality's just an illusion. Its yet another way of people pretending to be right, without all of the effort of weighing up evidence - its a snug little worldview that allows you to be lazy. Just another soundbite philosophy used as a comforter by the willfully ignorant.


***


Just call it a wild and crazy idea, but:


What if the psychedelic experience is a pathological one.

Let me further this outrageous idea:

What if our senses are the result of evolutionary adaptation to communicate some kind of *real* environment - Imagine that!!

Further; what if molecules from other evolved organisms were developed which had a pathological affect on predatory organisms - the molecules were very similar to those used in producing percieved sense experience of this real environment - and if a predator *did* consume the organism, its own sense experience would be altered to a non-adapted, pathological state.

Oh, I'll need to leave it there - some men in white coats are at the door. Have fun, and I'll see you all after the lobotomy!

 

[Forkbender]

'loosened cognitive association binding' defines/characterizes the mystical state.

I don't understand what you mean by that. Can you explain?

 

[restin]

Oh, I'll need to leave it there - some men in white coats are at the door. Have fun, and I'll see you all after the lobotomy!

Oh c'mon Pariah. Why are you just demonstrating that what I wrote is right? As long as I can smash the other one everything is alright.everything is alright.everything is alright.everything is alright. I am right.I am right.I am right.I am right.

Max, I think we have a different view on what a religious experience is...

- by far the most ergonomic way to have religious experience, is to take entheogens

Probably. But what are the other ways?

But this is an observation of beauty on the 'ordinary' level, and completely distinct from this, is the observation of transcendental beauty, ie observing the 'higher' level of beauty, that can only be done during the course of a religious experience

That isn't a clear conclusion,
"what is religious experience"
"a higher observation"
"how can a higher observation be obtained?"
"by religious experience"

But I know that it is very difficult/impossible to form it is words and base it on logic.