Do you believe in God and why

[VincentRJ]

3 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

I've already told you that yogic practice has a very clear goal: shut down the external senses to activate the internal sense. If feeling is a product of the 5 external senses, logically it will disappear along with them. 

And I've already told you that the sense of 'feeling' can apply to both external and internal situations. Do you really think when you feel sick that the cause is from a lower 'devil consciousness' that has mysteriously entered your mind, and if you feel exceptionally good, calm and enlightened, the cause must be from a higher consciousness, or God-type spirit, that has entered your mind?

 

That's certainly what ancient, tribal people used to think, but surely you don't place yourself in that category. ????

 

Do you really think that the great masters who dedicated their lives in practicing union with God, could not differentiate between a simple feeling and the eternal, unconditional love of God?

 

Absolutely! You've nailed it. Although I wouldn't describe such feelings as 'simple', from a scientific perspective. The neural network of the brain is very complicated.
 

[VincentRJ]

3 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

I must be an exception to your rule.  My dreams can be chock full of other-worldly creatures, never seen or encountered or even imagined in the physical.  What possible explanation would fit?

Perhaps you've been looking at too many cartoons and reading too many comics. ????

[Sunmaster]

40 minutes ago, luckyluke said:

A = It is my opinion, but I may be wrong.

B = It is my opinion, and in no way I am wrong.

 

I am like A.

You ?

C = It is my opinion, and I believe I'm right until you can show me that I may not see the full picture. Then I'll gladly change my mind.

 

I know what I know and I refuse to pussyfoot around for fear I might hurt someone's feelings. If you think that makes me an arrogant knowitall, so be it. I will not lose any sleep over it.

Edited February 23, 2020 by Sunmaster

[tifino]

 waaalll.... Praise the Lord! 

 

for protection?

 

[luckyluke]

35 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

C = It is my opinion, and I believe I'm right until you can show me that I may not see the full picture. Then I'll gladly change my mind.

 

I know what I know and I refuse to pussyfoot around for fear I might hurt someone's feelings. If you think that makes me an arrogant knowitall, so be it. I will not lose any sleep over it.

You are what you want to be, and if you are happy with this, up to you.

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, VincentRJ said:

Perhaps you've been looking at too many cartoons and reading too many comics. ????

That was good, Vince.  LOL  If you don't know you can always pretend.

 

BTW, just curious.  Don't your legs cramp up living in that tiny box of yours?  I can help you make it bigger.  Truly.  5555555555

[Tippaporn]

Hey!  BTW, Vince, how long do I need to wait for your reply to my post of this morning in which I replied to you?  Lost your tongue?  I kinda figured.  Hard to reply when you're left speechless.  555555555

[Tippaporn]

Vince, where did you go?  You were there just a minute ago!

[Sunmaster]

1 hour ago, VincentRJ said:

And I've already told you that the sense of 'feeling' can apply to both external and internal situations. Do you really think when you feel sick that the cause is from a lower 'devil consciousness' that has mysteriously entered your mind, and if you feel exceptionally good, calm and enlightened, the cause must be from a higher consciousness, or God-type spirit, that has entered your mind?

 

That's certainly what ancient, tribal people used to think, but surely you don't place yourself in that category. ????

 

 

 

 

Absolutely! You've nailed it. Although I wouldn't describe such feelings as 'simple', from a scientific perspective. The neural network of the brain is very complicated.
 

Now your twisting what I said and putting stuff in my mouth. "Devil consciousness"? Are you seriously asking me?

That's certainly what ancient, tribal people used to think, but surely you don't place yourself in that category. ????

I would like to remind you of the pre/trans fallacy I explained several pages ago and you clearly are still falling for it. Pre-modern/pre-rational stages are not the same as post-modern/trans-rational stages. (We are currently at the rational/modern stage).

Please read this to avoid similar faux pas in the future. ????

 

The Pre/Trans Fallacy

Ken [Wilber] noticed a core confusion that made it very difficult to discern between the lower stages and the higher stages. Trans-rational mystical experiences were often being dismissed as pre-rational fantasy, postmodern values were being erroneously projected onto pre-modern cultures, and pre-modern impulsiveness and hedonism were being celebrated by the postmodern counterculture. Rather than viewing psychology as a developmental process running from pre-rational to rational to trans-rational (or pre-differentiated fusion to differentiation to post-differentiated integration), a person was seen as being either rational or not—resulting in the trans-rational baby getting thrown out with the pre-rational bathwater. [this one's for @mauGR1 ???? )

This misconception between “pre-” and “trans-” became known as the pre/trans fallacy, one of Ken’s most popular and profound theoretical contributions, and one that continues to help us make sense of many of the central conflicts and confusions running through Western psychology and academia.
[This paragraph is for @Tippaporn and you]

The pre/trans fallacy actually formed one of the major fault lines between two of modern psychology’s greatest founders, Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung, both of whom stood on opposite sides of this fallacy—Freud would reduce spiritual states to a resurrection of infantile feelings, while Jung would elevate pre-rational mythology to trans-rational glory. The pre/trans fallacy allows us to put the pieces together into a more comprehensive whole, to liberate and integrate the genuine insight offered by these two pioneers, and to detangle their brilliance from the misunderstandings that were so rampant before this developmental view finally emerged.

Edited February 23, 2020 by Sunmaster

[Tippaporn]

LOL.  I think some people here are going to have a tough time on their deathbeds.  I can see them now making their transitions.  There are "helpers" for these types of people.  They help those recently departed with their disorientation.  "Where am I?"  "You're dead."  "That's impossible.  I'm still here."  "Yes, and you're still dead, too."  "But that's against the laws of Science!"  LOL  Pity the "helper."

 

Edited February 23, 2020 by Tippaporn

[Tippaporn]

5 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Now your twisting what I said and putting stuff in my mouth. "Devil consciousness"? Are you seriously asking me?

That's certainly what ancient, tribal people used to think, but surely you don't place yourself in that category. ????

I would like to remind you of the pre/trans fallacy I explained several pages ago and you clearly are still falling for it. Pre-modern/pre-rational stages are not the same as post-modern/trans-rational stages. (We are currently at the rational/modern stage).

Please read this to avoid similar faux pas in the future. ????

 

The Pre/Trans Fallacy

Ken [Wilber] noticed a core confusion that made it very difficult to discern between the lower stages and the higher stages. Trans-rational mystical experiences were often being dismissed as pre-rational fantasy, postmodern values were being erroneously projected onto pre-modern cultures, and pre-modern impulsiveness and hedonism were being celebrated by the postmodern counterculture. Rather than viewing psychology as a developmental process running from pre-rational to rational to trans-rational (or pre-differentiated fusion to differentiation to post-differentiated integration), a person was seen as being either rational or not—resulting in the trans-rational baby getting thrown out with the pre-rational bathwater. [this one's for @mauGR1 ???? )

This misconception between “pre-” and “trans-” became known as the pre/trans fallacy, one of Ken’s most popular and profound theoretical contributions, and one that continues to help us make sense of many of the central conflicts and confusions running through Western psychology and academia.
[This paragraph is for @Tippaporn and you]

The pre/trans fallacy actually formed one of the major fault lines between two of modern psychology’s greatest founders, Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung, both of whom stood on opposite sides of this fallacy—Freud would reduce spiritual states to a resurrection of infantile feelings, while Jung would elevate pre-rational mythology to trans-rational glory. The pre/trans fallacy allows us to put the pieces together into a more comprehensive whole, to liberate and integrate the genuine insight offered by these two pioneers, and to detangle their brilliance from the misunderstandings that were so rampant before this developmental view finally emerged.

Hope you don't have to wait as long as I've been waiting for a reply from Vince.  Good luck, brother!

[sirineou]

4 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

LOL.  I think some people here are going to have a tough time on their deathbeds.  I can see them now making their transitions.  There are "helpers" for these types of people.  They help those recently departed with their disorientation.  "Where am I?"  "You're dead."  "That's impossible.  I'm still here."  "Yes, and you're still dead, too."  "But that's against the laws of Science!"  LOL

I don't understand your above post.

but I know this, I will certainly not have any worry on my deathbed other than the regret that I will no longer be there for my loved ones . As an Atheist I know where I am going it is those who are not sure of the temperature of their destination that will be worried. 

[mauGR1]

2 minutes ago, sirineou said:

As an Atheist I know where I am going

I am very curious now, and depending on your answer i could choose to become an atheist, or maybe not..

[canuckamuck]

18 minutes ago, sirineou said:

I don't understand your above post.

but I know this, I will certainly not have any worry on my deathbed other than the regret that I will no longer be there for my loved ones . As an Atheist I know where I am going it is those who are not sure of the temperature of their destination that will be worried. 

Being an atheist gives you special insight does it?

[sirineou]

2 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

I am very curious now, and depending on your answer i could choose to become an atheist, or maybe not..

Only in the sense of a biblical Deity .

I suspect that many of you are also Atheists but don't know it yet. 

God? what is God, ask a thousand people and you will get a thousand answers, 

You are all suspect there is something greater than yourselves and with good reason, you would want to know what it is and so do I. The only difference between me and some of them I like  to use reason rather than faith. Science is simply a process that applies reason towards a goal, If God is ever to be found it will be reason (science) that will find it.  Faith limits the search to the scope of that faith, Reason expands horizons, and if we are to find God whatever that is, we need to look far and wide. 

So Keep on looking my friend don't let faith, me, or anyone else  limit your scope.  This is your show, we are all actors in it, as you are in mine. 

[sirineou]

2 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

Being an atheist gives you special insight does it?

No just broader, and not limited by the scope of my faith

Edited February 23, 2020 by sirineou

[mauGR1]

5 minutes ago, sirineou said:

God? what is God, ask a thousand people and you will get a thousand answers, 

You are all suspect there is something greater than yourselves and with good reason, you would want to know what it is and so do I.

For me, God is everything.

I can see only an extremely tiny part of that everything, and i don't mind whatever name you like to call it

It exists.

As you suspect many of us believers are atheists without knowing it, i also suspect that you are a believer, but you don't want to admit it ????

[sirineou]

2 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

For me, God is everything.

I can see only an extremely tiny part of that everything, and i don't mind whatever name you like to call it

It exists.

As you suspect many of us believers are atheists without knowing it, i also suspect that you are a believer, but you don't want to admit it ????

Pantheism is more reasonable than anything else. Do I believe that everything exists, you bet I do.  

[Tippaporn]

32 minutes ago, sirineou said:

41 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

LOL.  I think some people here are going to have a tough time on their deathbeds.  I can see them now making their transitions.  There are "helpers" for these types of people.  They help those recently departed with their disorientation.  "Where am I?"  "You're dead."  "That's impossible.  I'm still here."  "Yes, and you're still dead, too."  "But that's against the laws of Science!"  LOL  Pity the "helper."

I don't understand your above post.

but I know this, I will certainly not have any worry on my deathbed other than the regret that I will no longer be there for my loved ones . As an Atheist I know where I am going it is those who are not sure of the temperature of their destination that will be worried. 

Well, being an atheist then obviously my post is nonsensical in a literal sense.  Nothing to understand.  Of course, you could enjoy the humour of it and be satisfied.  Providing humour was my intention.

[mauGR1]

1 minute ago, sirineou said:

Pantheism is more reasonable than anything else. Do I believe that everything exists, you bet I do.  

Perhaps our view is quite similar after all.

[canuckamuck]

21 minutes ago, sirineou said:

No just broader, and not limited by the scope of my faith

And how did you measure the breadth of your insight?

Is it not logical that someone who believes in a realm far greater than the physical realm has less limitations, not more?

[sirineou]

6 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

And how did you measure the breadth of your insight?

Is it not logical that someone who believes in a realm far greater than the physical realm has less limitations, not more?

True,

but faith in a  particular dogma limits the breadth of one's scope.  The breadth of my scope is limited by the Physical as I have no access to the metaphysical. So far no one has demonstrated any access also, all they have demonstrated is opinion, as soon as someone demonstrates access I promise to be the first one to jump in. 

[mauGR1]

1 minute ago, sirineou said:

So far no one has demonstrated any access also,

Because you are looking outside, the access is inside yourself.

..But of course, you need to believe it.

[Sunmaster]

9 minutes ago, sirineou said:

The only difference between me and some of them I like  to use reason rather than faith.

I like to use reason rather than faith too. But for those parts where neither reason nor faith are able to provide answers, I don't just sit back and take a guess. I like to get down and dirty so to speak, and do whatever I have to, to get my answers. If you're waiting for others to tell you whether your just a piece of meat or an angel in disguise, you will never truly know.
 

 

14 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Science is simply a process that applies reason towards a goal, If God is ever to be found it will be reason (science) that will find it.  Faith limits the search to the scope of that faith, Reason expands horizons, and if we are to find God whatever that is, we need to look far and wide. 

It's nice of you to try to portray science as open and open-minded. The reality is quite different though. 
Scientist still can't agree on objective reality, imagine the confusion when it comes to subjective reality.

 

As for faith, intended as complete trust and confidence in a particular religious belief system, it has never been enough for me. I agree with you that faith alone can limit the search for Truth.

To summarize...in my opinion, both science and faith are good approaches, but can be limiting in finding answers. Both of them need another ingredient to truly get them going in the right direction. They need your personal effort to look within. 
Without that, all you got are rigid belief systems (yes, materialism is a BS too) with no room for improvement and development.

 

[canuckamuck]

12 minutes ago, sirineou said:

True,

but faith in a  particular dogma limits the breadth of one's scope.  The breadth of my scope is limited by the Physical as I have no access to the metaphysical. So far no one has demonstrated any access also, all they have demonstrated is opinion, as soon as someone demonstrates access I promise to be the first one to jump in. 

Why would you criticize limitations when you so gladly apply them to yourself. Your dogma is materialism. We all cling to our worldviews

 

[sirineou]

1 minute ago, Sunmaster said:

I like to use reason rather than faith too. But for those parts where neither reason nor faith are able to provide answers, I don't just sit back and take a guess. I like to get down and dirty so to speak, and do whatever I have to, to get my answers. If you're waiting for others to tell you whether your just a piece of meat or an angel in disguise, you will never truly know.

It is admirable that you would be proactive. But of course you are taking a guess anything not supported by evidence is guess work by definition. But I understand what you are saying, as soon as you have some evidence I will join you. 

 

6 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

It's nice of you to try to portray science as open and open-minded. The reality is quite different though. 
Scientist still can't agree on objective reality, imagine the confusion when it comes to subjective reality.

It is absolutely open minded, there is no confusion just a search for the truth based on objective evidence subject to pier review.   , It is personal opinion such as the metaphysical  that is subjective. 

[mauGR1]

1 minute ago, canuckamuck said:

Why would you criticize limitations when you so gladly apply them to yourself. Your dogma is materialism. We all cling to our worldviews

 

Not sure that applies to ole buddy @sirineou, but it's an unfortunate reality imho, that those who refuse the concept of a Higher Being end up adoring money and physical gratifications.

[sirineou]

2 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

Why would you criticize limitations when you so gladly apply them to yourself. Your dogma is materialism. We all cling to our worldviews

 

I don't apply limitations on myself, these limitations are applied to me by the nature of my environment, as they are applied to everyone else.   

[Sunmaster]

12 minutes ago, sirineou said:

It is admirable that you would be proactive. But of course you are taking a guess anything not supported by evidence is guess work by definition. But I understand what you are saying, as soon as you have some evidence I will join you. 

 

It is absolutely open minded, there is no confusion just a search for the truth based on objective evidence subject to pier review.   , It is personal opinion such as the metaphysical  that is subjective. 

Psychology explores the subjective and non-physical, does it not? And it's treated as a scientific field....well, soft science.

They are working hard, but are still miles from mapping out the inner spectrum the way the yogis have, because even though it's subjective, they treat it more like a mechanism, a machine.

...as soon as you have some evidence I will join you. 
I could talk about my evidence, but that wouldn't make sense to you anyway. You should believe only your own evidence, and rightly so. How about you start gathering that evidence? I can give you a few hints as to how.

Edited February 23, 2020 by Sunmaster

[Sunmaster]

8 minutes ago, sirineou said:

I don't apply limitations on myself, these limitations are applied to me by the nature of my environment, as they are applied to everyone else.   

Sorry, but your limitations don't apply to me. ????