Posts by rune

160

Why ? Why? WHY???

by rune in

jw
friends

this topic has been rolling around in my head for some time.

i don't expect that i'll write it perfectly as it needs to be articulated in different ways for different people...but i will do my best.

and worst of all, i am not expecting any kind of response that will satisfy me.

kitties_and_horses_oh_my!: Naw, I only said I wasn't expecting any kind of response that would satisfy me (that is, where I would go: "hmm ok that sounds right, thanks I'm done"). Excellent point using karma as an example...I hadn't quite thought of it that way! As I mentioned, all of those mystical ideas on "things coming back to you" do in a sense relate to common sense, but just as you mentioned, perhaps not in a way we would expect or a way that would cause a surprisingly significant impact. Your answer to #2 was completely new to me, though I had considered infancy in a few ways, never as simple as that before.

Perhaps then our selfishness roots from survival instincts that are a part of us. You definitely don't want to find a way to make humans not have survival instincts - an altruistic race would doubtless be problematic (however maybe not as problematic as the way humanity sounds.) Though I guess I'm getting off on a wild idea here, since as you can probably guess this would require modifying the human genome to engineer everyone to be a certain way other than how they are now. Yikes. Like that will ever happen...

I never meant to imply there aren't already a lot of people who do that. I'm just speaking on the ranks of those caught up in mysticism (though I suppose primarily the mainstream ones and the cults with memberships). I see a distinction between feeling in love with a moment and thinking mystical about it though. Though perhaps as this conversation is turning - the mystical directly relates to the emotional. In which sense: 'Mysticizing' (look look I made up a word) the moment may merely be a way to emphasize how truly special it is to you. Since this is a personally generated thing rather than one fed to you by money-grubbing freedom-stealing creeps, I don't see any reason to consider it foolish...but that will come in the next thread.

As for those questions you mentioned to show you can't help but wonder at life - that's true, but making educated guesses can't hurt. I agree...striving for more is what keeps some of us going.

To step back for a minute to the other bold text here about survival instincts making us selfish, this is one of the few guesses I have about why we are selfish and why we cannot just all 'change'. For some it may be next to impossible just because of the experiences of their life and the chemical configuration of their brain. If this is not a totalitarian change, what do we do with the people who wouldn't participate in our (well, me, frenchbabyface & maybe Marx's) utopian society? Imprison them, evict them from their homes to live in some isolated place, or kill them? Naturally if one's concern is that of fairness for all, there are only two ways of looking at it: The 'greater' good (or evil), or the view of neutrality.

The 'greater' good (or evil) idea would consist of doing one of those three awful things to any who did not wish to participate in the utopia. The 'greater' good would be that everyone willing to participate (hopefully the majority but...who knows) would get to exist in a world where no one is on top, where all are equal. No one with more than you to snub you and make you feel bad, no one under you to curse you for being so filthy rich. This is not a good example of the benefit (or even the point) of utopia, but you get what I mean. But the utopia can't work without everyone participating willfully. Democracy then becomes absurd - but as I see it there shouldn't even be a human head of state. People then are not really free except to leave society and be outcast to the fate society decrees for them. This can be considered unjust. The greater 'good' is served however - those who want to live in a world free of many of today's problems get it. Those who don't well...this is where the greater 'evil' part comes in to play.

The idea of neutrality would mean that since you rob people of their freedom, it is wrong to even attempt such a change. No good or evil should be served - let people to their own devices. In a sense this is no better or worse than being forced to live in a utopia - when you live in a 'free' society you are still restricted by laws and your situation - finances, family, geographical area, etc. You will not be equal to everyone else, at least not in your quality of life - and probably not in your enjoyment of life. It's up to you to adapt or to aspire for more through the routines necessary. But many of certain dominations may find it nigh-impossible to ever reach that level where the quality of their life improves.

To put it bluntly, everyone would have to willingly adopt frenchbabyface's optimism and energy for this utopian future to even be possible. But if not everyone will stop being selfish - not everyone will look for a common good - then this is likely to be impossible. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why I see the world staying the same as it always has been - the strong rule, the weak suffer. Class and denominational 'warfare' (both literally and metaphorically) will persist. My hope is not extinguished however. Here's what it would take:

- inhumanly servient soldiers using non-lethal debilitating force; this would require robots or genetically modified beings to enact
- a leader or central mind free of corruption - since a human cannot be trusted for this (and humans die), the natural choice is a leader crafted in a shell of metal and electronics that only fulfills its programming, wanting nothing more because it was built only to do a certain thing.
- someone with enough power, money and conviction in this system to actually attempt something like this
- the victory of these soldiers over the governments of the world
- possibly, the brainwashing of people who persistently resist (or form resistance cells with the misguided belief the old system was better)

Uhm, naturally, this seems a touch too sci-fi to even consider a possibility right now. To change a world, you need otherworldly ideas. (The preceding statement is not meant to be taken out of context to infer that religion is a good idea.) Unfortunately believing in something like this happening is no less misguided than a Witness waiting for Armageddon so the bad old world will go away.

We must adapt to our environment...

160

Why ? Why? WHY???

by rune in

jw
friends

this topic has been rolling around in my head for some time.

i don't expect that i'll write it perfectly as it needs to be articulated in different ways for different people...but i will do my best.

and worst of all, i am not expecting any kind of response that will satisfy me.

rune

frenchbabyface: You made great points on the problems of mainstream religion (or really, any organized religion/cult) - about how it skews people from 'unconditional love' (not senseless / mindless love), how the followers are being victimized by the religious leaders, and how it causes nothing good (on the whole). Also you touched on the why - with those four points. You spoke about it in a different way than I've thought about these things before...but I'd like to further some things a bit, sort of like a question / something to consider...towards the questions I asked.

Now if these people are in an organization that causes trouble, they have reasons (reasons like what you said). But in my mind, these points tend to make me think that whole problem here rests on selfishness. These people (especially the leaders) don't want a world where all can exist as equals - such as Marx's humanist conception of communism - true communism. I think this is the same reason true communism under human rule (who says we can't make an unbiased artificial intelligence to oversee people? lol) is impossible - corruption. This a big allegation to make against such a great number of people however, so I will go into detail.

There culture (most often Dad and mom beliefs)
There specific need (not really love - see how they can go crazy about how they love in JWLand for instance just because their belief even with their own kids) ... and truly they wouldn't if only they could be objective on the matter ... (very important here)
The need to feel special on a higher level
and well life is so short

1. When we grow up, Mommy & Daddy [hopefully] have little to no say in how we think or choose to run our lives. However, some people value their families greatly, and wouldn't want to push themselves away from them by leaving the religion they were brought in. This extends further than family - a religion opens up a community for you, one that is often kept seperate from the public. To break free of a religion on grounds of 'what you see is right' may pale in comparison to staying in the religion to continue socializing and enjoying time with your friends there. It's hard to leave religion or change your views even if only because you can lose/distance friends/family.

2. Lack of objectivity - or worse yet, willful ignorance, gullibility or plain old stupidity - holds some to a faith that has given them all the answers they seek. To leave would mean to be cast adrift in a world of unanswered questions and unknowns - this is stress some people can't or don't want to handle. Tied to point #4, this is too needless a concern for them to ever leave. It is easier and much more comfortable to stay put than to think radically different, especially if the one's customs please them greatly. It's a bother, or stressful, to leave a way of life behind to start a new one that operates radically different.

3. It's true...many people want to feel important, special...I won't go so far as to say all, but I don't know. There could be a great many reasons for this, and whether they are different for everyone or fall under some unified lumped set of categories for all of humanity is uncertain. Those who don't necessarily have an easy break for feeling this way already in life (or desire it to the maximum potential) are told they are in league with the Divine (depending on the faith...but something more or less equivalent to this). It is another way of being told 'you are the best'. There may be restrictions or rules that they will have to follow to maintain this status as one of the faith, but generally that is part of religion's control. You follow the rules to stay in the group and feel special. People are so arrogant and self-righteous, while similtaneously being fools, that they will adhere to a system of rules that brings them no 'real' value (an emotional need - whatever value you place on this - I am going to be starting another thread that relates to this somewhat later) and may in fact detract from their enjoyment of life.

4. Life is short - that is to say, life is finite. People know that they are not going to be around forever. Aging is only a reminder of this, though earlier for some than others. Life is too short to be flopping around between ideas instead of gaining esteem in one organization. Life is too short to 'waste' it helping others instead of just feeling good in whatever way possible. After all, concerning our survival, we pride ourselves and our kindred first and foremost - why not extend this to all parts of life? You can even offset this by dropping a few coins in a donation box for some vague charity that will help some starving children in some faraway land you'll never have to lay eyes on. Almost no human being spends the majority of its time giving what it has away to others, spending its time to make others' lives better. Such a task, is, for one, difficult to discern, and furthermore it is harder to even know how much impact it will have. But is that because one person can barely make a scratch in the problem, or is it because there are too many unwilling to do the right thing? People are scared and/or so self-absorbed to bother with working to make things equal and good for everyone (especially the ones with more than others).

1 + 2 + 3 + 4 = CORRUPTION. "I come first, you come second" is the reason that I think true communism (or at least a truly united community) will never happen. It is not that I have no hope for it, I just see the likelihood is that this preference of people to themselves will simply not change (only because it never has before), nor do I see any alternative for changing everyone's mind. Things like religion will most likely always exist as testaments to the problem with most of humanity. But realizing this, would a person who would prefer the world to be a truly good place commit to such a thing? IMO, no, I don't think so. I don't see anything wrong with having spiritual views in this sense (asides from them being unnecessary - ...except for emotional value...see next thread), however they should come from within rather than the teachings of others - that is to say, others who want to control your life and take your money (your livelihood).

160

Why ? Why? WHY???

by rune in

jw
friends

this topic has been rolling around in my head for some time.

i don't expect that i'll write it perfectly as it needs to be articulated in different ways for different people...but i will do my best.

and worst of all, i am not expecting any kind of response that will satisfy me.

rune

LittleToe:

FormerOut rightly pointed out that some of us avoid using "absolutes" - remember we've all been part of the JW's too, and have tasted that particular bad apple.

Actually, if you've been reading my posts carefully, I've been saying this all along too? No one is speaking in absolutes; at least, not me. I have already stated that anything I make a statement upon is just how I see it being the most likely way it is - I never intend it to be absolute. Isn't this how anyone throws ideas out though? Therefore, if you follow this point, even mentioning anything you say isn't absolute is completely pointless and irrelevant since it should be assumed by the reader...that is, unless it's a belief.

Sometimes there's more growth to be had by being given the next step, rather than having it all laid out.

It is pompous and arrogant to think that anything you say simply won't be understood by who is listening. Furthermore, this is a forum, and the ability to post gives you almost unlimited capability to state your opinion in complete detail from start to finish, so this is no excuse for not laying out your ideas in full.

The very nature of being a "believer" on an exJW discussion forum is fraught with all sorts of peril, the greatest one being the accusation of proselytization. For that reason I rarely "go there", and was quite happy to overlook this thread as I've contributed to more than my fair share in the past and get tired of coming out with all the same reasonings to a fresh batch of posters.

Ok, if you won't contribute meaningfully, then don't post. You're turning formerout on.

I'm talking about having a personal brush with the "Divine", which can involve the senses I mentioned but goes far deeper.

Please define what 'goes far deeper' means in this case. Remember, it is more than the senses - something else - so please don't be circular by making sensory stimulation the primary method of explaining what this 'brush with the "Divine"' feels like. (Just to be clear and avoid a bunch of clarification posts as we've had to endure in the past.)

You can't prove that I have or have not.

See, the thing is, no needs to prove you have not. The burden of proof falls on the person making the claim.

There are others that claim such an experience and by comparing notes we can come to the conclusion that we "have", but there's no real way of proving this to someone who has not.

And it's impossible and far less likely that you are all just saying it because you are all self-convinced/deluded? Think logically for a moment and pretend you're anyone who doesn't make the claims you do. What sounds more likely? I assume this will just lead to the 'oh you have to experience it to even recognize it exists if you are a rational person' argument. When a dishevelled crazy man runs up to you on street spewing gibberish about his relationship with the moon, do you believe him? Yes, the possibility always exists (albeit infintesimally small), but the likelihood is that he is deluded. You are not a raving bum, nor are most believers in new age or mainstream faiths. But does that make the claims any more believable simply because a group of well-to-do citizens believe it?

What about those with spiritual beliefs that contradict yours? Do you rule them as 'correct' too? Doubtful, since you say the "Divine" exists. You would then require proof of their belief to change your ideas. Do you understand this whole "burden of proof" idea?

This is one reason that even ancient spiritual literature has such a fascination to the "believer", because in it they see a reflection of some of what they too have experienced.

That statement is too vague. The Bible, for instance, is a collection of stories from the creation of the world, to the tyranny of God, to the discrimination/murder/rape of many peoples, to a downright acid trip at the end. Oh and there's morals in there somewhere. A small part may reflect the actual experiences of the believer, what about the rest? This statement is incomplete. It needs detail to even be considered properly.

It enlarges their understanding.

Or, it reinforces their conviction by: 1) giving them a shared text that many other believers will tote as true, 2) give them more ideas to adopt and phrasings to interpret than what they could come up with on their own, 3) teaches them to think more like how the book tells them to, whether by example or outright declaration

It's a form of gnosis wherein you're trying to get me to describe the indescribable, for which we might arrive at some common symbols and nod our heads at each other, but to answer your question to your satisfaction would likely prove impossible.

Indescribable? Isn't it convenient all of this belief stuff is completely inaccessible to those who won't begin by openly giving up logic? Funny thing...it makes for a pretty airtight shell to protect the illogical from a logical thinker. Golly, because if it was even the slighest bit describable maybe we could compare it to something, or make it out to be something other than brushing the "Divine".

It's as frustrating for the believer and unbeliever alike.

It's really not frustrating at all. It's pretty clear what's most likely going on here. Perhaps if you could answer each and every argument in here with something to knock them over we could start with a little frustration.

formerout:

You make so many unfounded statements about me. I think you are still missing my bigger point.

No listen, I don't need the pop psychology. Stop it, and stop denying saying things like they aren't permanently written into the thread. It is up to me to tell people to stop polluting my thread with rambles about my personality and writing style that doesn't relate to my questions. I started the thread. Make your own thread about "rune's terrible mind that hurt my tender feelings and drove me insane" if you feel the need to post on this.

God does not exist exclusively outside of you.

How do you know? And where is he/she/it?

He exists as a part of your being as well.

Oh, your God is a male. Interesting a divine being needs a gender. Since we're on the topic of strict monotheism now (I don't recall starting a thread only about God and Christianity), why do you think your God has a penis? If you're going to assign God a gender, wouldn't it make more sense to pick it as female, since females give birth? You do believe God made the universe after all, do you not? Men just ... well I'm sure you know. If God is genderless, then why not use neutral/neuter pronouns - it, itself?

So do emotion and many other personality traits exist within you.

So what? Does this relate to your God being present? You make your distinction between God, and emotions/personality traits very clear here.

As much as you try to suggest that you are the only one here who is capable of separating emotion from this debate, from what I have seen I think the opposite is true. You have not acknowledged a single point that I have made regarding emotion being a very part of our spirit and therefore impossible to be left out of debate.

Wait a minute, I thought you were going to relate this to the topic questions? You just start rambling about me again. I have no suggested I am the only one separating emotion from this debate, I have really meant to infer the ones who are guilty of it so far - mainly, LittleToe and you. If you want to make a point about emotion being a part of your spirit, you need to:
- Define spirit and prove we have one, demonstrating it consists of many parts of the things that are thought by others inside our brains ( by the way, if your brain & nervous system don't perform tasks like emotion, what exactly are they for? )
- You still need to prove why it's impossible to be objective in a debate. Just because you aren't able to do it doesn't mean others aren't. I have seen some fine examples in this thread besides myself. I'm not going to be an apple polisher and kiss everyone's bum just to make a point to you though. It's pretty obvious to all who prefers to make serious points that sound valid (for example, backed up with various points/examples from their experience that sound reasonable) and who wishes to express only what they feel. As I have stated numerous times, this thread is not intended for the latter. Answering my questions with, "oh um people are mystical because they love" for instance provides me with...what? Nothing to think about. There needs to be a detailed thought for something to even be considered, not even argued. Most of the opinionated baseless posts have had some substances that flounders in 'oh you'd never understand' for one reason or another. If I won't understand, then it won't help me or anyone foreign to those ideas think will it? You need to back up what you say.

Yet you do make denigrating comments about people 'flaunting their own qualities'. Denial does not eliminate the actual evidence; quite often it only reinforces the fact that the person has some character flaws, which IMHO should be addressed as a part of this exercise of yours. qualities'. Denial does not eliminate the actual evidence; quite often it only reinforces the fact that the person has some character flaws, which IMHO

........................You realize I was asking for the actual evidence you say I was denying here? Perhaps I am making a mistake even replying to you. You don't sound as though you understand my English very well. Maybe my dialect is too strange.

frenchbabyface: As much as this is going to sound like a grudge of some sort - it doesn't matter if he comes back with open arms apologizing. I was never angry or upset with LittleToe. I imagine now, though, my posts are bleeding with the annoyance of having to repeat myself countlessly. I didn't want friendships to be built or destroyed with this post. I just wanted an objective discussion. I am beginning to take this as proof some (not all) people just can't argue objectively.

formerout (again ...):

I can understand how you can perceive that I am attacking or insulting Rune, even though that is not my intention. IMO we all have tendencies that lean towards the "borderline personality disorder" traits that I have experienced in people, but some display these tendencies more than others. It is basically a disorder where we can't seem to admit that we have made a mistake. Quite a few posts ago I invited Rune to Google it and see if he felt that any of it applied to him. I got no response on it so it is up to him as to what he does about that.

Right... Um, as for that Big Tex example? It was obvious I was wrong? As far as I know most of us are all adults reading this forum. If it will make you feel better though you can print out a banner saying 'RUNE WAS WRONG' to hang on your wall. I won't take offense to that either. Judging by the condescending tone and use of winking smileys I assume the rest means you were rather pleased about this. Congratulations :D I have to admit your post made me laugh. I never intended to say we should all become emotionless robots btw, just when it comes to making posts and arguing them, even with a condescending tone, one shouldn't take personal offense to it. That's all? What would be the point of meaning we should rip the emotion 'from our spirit' or whatever... lol.

160

Why ? Why? WHY???

by rune in

jw
friends

this topic has been rolling around in my head for some time.

i don't expect that i'll write it perfectly as it needs to be articulated in different ways for different people...but i will do my best.

and worst of all, i am not expecting any kind of response that will satisfy me.

rune

kitties_and_horses_oh_my!: The criticisms were merely an attempt to evoke another reply that would perhaps some kind of response to challenge mine. I definitely don't consider myself immune to being deluded, at least, not over some issues in my life. Nor was I lashing out; this thread is an intellectual pursuit. After all, the words that I say to anyone are not going to make anyone drop their faith, correct? That is, unless, I was so convincing that they saw the reasoning I used as sound and adopted it as their own - but I am not vain enough to ever expect this or even desire it, and still, that would be their choice and their own thoughts, regardless of the original source of the information. Changing the lives of other people that I am not more than vaguely acquainted with would accomplish no purpose for me. But I will take this as you wrote it - not directed solely at me - and you make very good points about how people will crash through life. One thing I should point out, though, that I feel is important; nothing you can simply say to someone , such as in a discussion like this, will ever control them. Stating opinions and refuting others' opinions with hopes of a debate exerts no control on anyone. It's their choice to participate, and it's their choice to just consider it, take it to heart, or ignore it completely. Nothing I or anyone can say will change that... Thanks for the warm regard, too.

formerout: I'm...not quite sure what to say. I think you should stop trying to psychoanalyze me. I really don't understand why you are going on like this. I'm glad you have grown from this discussion, but perhaps if you could limit your posts to trying to contribute to it rather than examining the interpersonal dynamics of it we could all have a more productive read.

ringo5: The nature of this discussion (or at least one of the questions) is to examine why people are involved with mysticism at all instead of nothing particular. No answers are final - including the crutches idea. Several points have been put forth as to why people use mysticism, regardless of whether their belief is in something real or fictional...good points, but perhaps there are more yet to be shown.

ringo5 (again): I don't think he understands that I have been out for seven years, that I barely know anyone and I am just trying to have a debate on the questions I asked. He'll come around, I hope.

formerout: As much as I don't want to stir up more analyses of my wonderful or horrible mind, may I point out that giving me respect is completely irrelevant. I don't care if you respect me, I just want an objective thread. Going on like this isn't achieving that... You make so many unfounded statements about me. Don't bother, whether you think they are true or not. No matter what I say, if the content doesn't make sense, argue the content back with something to see if what I said stands up when I reply. Making needless judgements about my personality accomplishes nothing useful, nor does stating distinctions between people. This means mentioning age, or saying someone is a 'teacher'. If they are so wise, let them argue my or anyone else's points and exemplify it rather than talking about their flaunted qualities. As for "evasiveness":

Rune's subconscious does not want absolutes but his conscious mind has been imbedded with the opposite so that his reaction has seemed to be rejecting our fairly wise thoughts.I'm sorry, which ones? :)

Very witty, but I don't think you would have posted the other comments if you truly felt that there were no "wise thoughts" here.

He was asking you to give specific examples of which of your thoughts you stated were 'wise' and why you think so.

ringo5: That's very vague, and also, are many of the religions people join really a mystery with 'clues' to be put together? I argue they are a prepackaged set of beliefs for someone to simply adopt as their own. The main 'thought' put into these beliefs is convincing yourself more and more that the things you have been told are true, without proof. This, I feel, is the vessel of faith. As for completely original sets of beliefs constructed by someone (or a group together at once)...are these clues solid and logical, or are they more likely subjective? Talking about it this way is probably too general.

LittleToe: Like formerout, you seem hung up on the social aspects of this conversation rather the information. Why?

There truly is more to life than facts and that which you take in with your eyes, ears and nose. My own experience has led me to believe that if that were all that life were about I would be experientially impoverished.

More to life such as what? There is the information gathered by your senses, and then there are your own thoughts. You declare the assumption that you aren't "experentially impoverished" - lacking in 'sufficient' experience, whatever that means - and go on while failing to even detail what you're talking about.

Perhaps if I take your last post as an example of what I mean about your "style" affecting the way people view what you say:

Pardon me if I fail to care any further about topics like this. It's nitpicking.

You appear to be assuming that "God" is merely a theological contruct to everyone, based solely on mythology, fantasy, and dusty writings. That would fly in the face of some of the expressions that you've already received about folks personal "connections".

No, I am not assuming that. I was trying to follow Narkissos' idea of the 'symbolical' level using "God" as an example since he did too. And furthermore, I think if you argue this then you should refer back to Narkissos' post, regarding the level between "real" and "imagination" as he so clearly said. In other words, no, in this sense "God" is not being considered just a bunch of mythology. "God" would stand for something 'more' without being given form on this symbolical level. With further speculation we could consider just what this 'more' is. These are just hypothetical suggestions:

God represents certain things to people, a certain definition, a set of qualities and characteristics, is what I think you are saying. In which sense, as one is not declaring God 'real', God is a construction of the human mind. Try getting a believer to admit to this one... there is so much mythology to get past.

frenchbabyface: You hit the nail on the head...nice post. Narkissos: Simple and well put... There is really nothing I can think to argue on the basis of this idea. This doesn't explain why people jump into the mystical, but it helps to understand that is isn't such a far leap from not doing it. All the same, I am still curious. The symbolic level is how we think, we all need that regardless of our outlook. All of this ties back to a theory I had run over a few times - that, regardless of the mythology, the extraneous ideas surrounding "God", that the real 'substance' of "God" is found in the collective minds of humanity (those who consider there to be only a singular "God", i.e. those who are Christian for the most part). It seems somewhat ironic when, if you read the part of the bible that says man was made in "God"'s image, when it as actually "God" who was made in ours - the omnipotence rooting from what is a seemingly limitless symbolic realm to some. In the mythology, "God" actually behaves like a tyrant, yet people still profess "God" to be pure goodness and love. This of course, only blankets some of the human race, and probably not even the majority - for the "God" idea I mean - but it does show some interesting groundwork to analyzing other faiths too...

160

Why ? Why? WHY???

by rune in

jw
friends

this topic has been rolling around in my head for some time.

i don't expect that i'll write it perfectly as it needs to be articulated in different ways for different people...but i will do my best.

and worst of all, i am not expecting any kind of response that will satisfy me.

rune

You knew? Then perhaps you should not be so full of conviction. I 'know' facts and figures, knowing full well that they are not 100% absolute. You are just stressing the word to the point where knowing means you have no consideration for the validity of the information being off. That's silly. No one should be that self-assured IMO... but ahh yes, what you were saying is that losing this conviction and realizing what you actually know for certain is completely minimal (if even that) is what you were getting at. Good show then, I agree

160

Why ? Why? WHY???

by rune in

jw
friends

this topic has been rolling around in my head for some time.

i don't expect that i'll write it perfectly as it needs to be articulated in different ways for different people...but i will do my best.

and worst of all, i am not expecting any kind of response that will satisfy me.

rune

Big Tex: Recognizing how little you actually know != deciding you know nothing, ok. Yes, definitely subtle, but explain how it is important please?

160

Why ? Why? WHY???

by rune in

jw
friends

this topic has been rolling around in my head for some time.

i don't expect that i'll write it perfectly as it needs to be articulated in different ways for different people...but i will do my best.

and worst of all, i am not expecting any kind of response that will satisfy me.

rune

Narkissos: Is the "religious attitude" truer to the nature of it only because the 'rewards'/feelings of it come from inside rather than the world? Why does the "materialistic attitude" cheat on the very nature of desire? Is it because you can accomplish something, and then you no longer miss it, so you do not desire it anymore? I am not so sure I agree with this 100%, and the reason for that is not everything in the world you accomplish necessarily eliminates your desire completely. I think a great example of this would be a husband loving/lusting for his wife and vice versa. If they are true to one another - keep their love alive and the sentiments strong in their marriage - is the desire for another still there? Perhaps desire runs dry for some people who do not possess enough appreciation and that is why marriages begin to fail. You strive for what you desire - if it is a person, you strive to please them or impress them, and you are considerate of them. If this desire becomes thin or disappears, then you are not going to treat them like that anymore, and the apparent love would appear to be gone, at least in the original sense (perhaps replaced with something else). But some marriages last... However I could be getting off on a tangent that is not properly connected to what you were meaning so I won't write too much on this one.

Ok, to relate back to the questions now. I must say this example of desire was definitely a worthwhile one to use in this discussion, it has given me some thoughts to consider. But before I do, I wonder: Does my unbelief necessarily mean that there is no other world? I am waiting for another world to be opened to me through proof. Until that time, I see no reason to consider it as real as something that I can interact with in some way or at least see. I think this symbolical level is ever-present in all people, connected in much the same way as we assign words to objects and ideas for communication. God represents certain things to people, a certain definition, a set of qualities and characteristics, is what I think you are saying. In which sense, as one is not declaring God 'real', God is a construction of the human mind. Try getting a believer to admit to this one... there is so much mythology to get past. And then, perhaps, this just cycles back to my question, since the believer is taking in all this mythology as 'real' rather than just relying on this symbolical level you have introduced to our discussion. I hope I have not run off course with your idea, though. How am I doing so far?

160

Why ? Why? WHY???

by rune in

jw
friends

this topic has been rolling around in my head for some time.

i don't expect that i'll write it perfectly as it needs to be articulated in different ways for different people...but i will do my best.

and worst of all, i am not expecting any kind of response that will satisfy me.

rune

frenchbabyface: True, but I did warn them several times and it just kept happening - that's what I don't understand... Oh well, no use crying over spilled milk. What you say is pretty easy to understand, or I think so... Hm, is what I write a bit confusing? Do I phrase it strangely or something? IMO you are right about the community -> fanatcism. There are probably several reasons for why people end up there though - personal tragedy, for instance. Yes, it was clearly visible that you believed in some kind of energy in one of your previous posts regarding Dansk...yes...maybe mild beliefs that don't rule your whole life are the best ones to have if one must have them at all.

160

Why ? Why? WHY???

by rune in

jw
friends

this topic has been rolling around in my head for some time.

i don't expect that i'll write it perfectly as it needs to be articulated in different ways for different people...but i will do my best.

and worst of all, i am not expecting any kind of response that will satisfy me.

rune

kitties_and_horses_oh_my!: Yes we do dream about a great many thing, I agree, as well about our desire colouring what we see. But even so, there is more than one way to attempt to fill an emotional need, rather than blindly jumping into something. If you're hopeless about life, you can seek a support group, take up a new hobby, anything to encourage you and/or get you around people who are motivated - but instead, some sign up with a religion like the Witnesses. Are you saying that making what I see as huge mistakes like these is unavoidable for some? I suppose you wouldn't be wrong there... I'm just not sure if what you said was just a statement (in which, ok, it was pretty good IMO)...or was it an argument for just letting people do what they do because they're going to make huge mistakes in their lives no matter what?

Big Tex: All right, you got a point there. Someone with an enormous wealth of knowledge might still be a complete idiot when it comes to their decisions, simply because they are childish. I still don't think deciding you know nothing would further your wisdom. I want to point out something to you about your stab at my questions though... you say:

Ultimately though the existence of God/Allah/Higher Power/the mystical cannot be empirically proven or disproven.

For something to be thought to exist, one must prove it. It is the same for any claim. The only people who do not require this proof are ones who are willing to believe without it - those with faith. This process does not work backwards. You don't say God/Allah/Higher Power/the mystical exists because you can't disprove it, you can only say it possibly exists.

As for your description of people using the mystical to explain things as being "fairly intelligent and creative", I must point out that when these people encountered things they didn't understand or wondered about the universe at large (another thing they didn't understand), they made stuff up to explain it. Naturally, it's possible that something secret was revealed to them that not everyone that can just plainly see, but until they prove it it is only creative IMO. Perhaps the original creation of these beliefs is intelligent (for instance, how the Witness faith and so many others use denial as a powerful tool in their belief system). From how I see it, it doesn't take any intelligence to just believe some views you are told and convinced of by others. The point being that your average believer who didn't invent all their own beliefs completely from scratch is neither all that intelligent or creative.

Faith is belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. Atheists, in my opinion, make the same mistake as believers, only perhaps not quite to the same degree. Atheists deny the existence of God/Allah/Higher Power/the mystical completely. Although it is true that if you cannot prove a belief to someone then it cannot be shown to be true to them, likewise they cannot say that your belief is absolutely invalid. The most accurate response that I think they could give would be that 'since you can't prove that belief to me, it is most likely wrong'. But without completely proving that it is false, there is always the slight possibility that God/Allah/etc could exist. A slight possibility among countless possibilities of what could be. Not everyone carries beliefs of absolute truth and certainty though. Yay for agnostics. You're right, no one can know (at least not now) how the universe came to be.

Not everyone just guesses at why things work. Scientists use experimentation to collect empirical data as to how some things work. That is to say, they experiment with things in a controlled setting and monitor how things work out. They repeat this several times to ensure that the data is consistent. That's how the data becomes empirical. Confusing religion with science is a big no-no that a lot of misguided people make the mistake of doing. Science is not a new religion, nor is it an absolute truth like a religion claims to be. It is just our best guess, for now. That is not faith. That is completely in line with an agnostic/faithless method of thinking. Sure, the theory of gravity could be completely wrong - perhaps there's a weird quirk in gravity we don't know about, and someday for a fraction of a second, all gravity will increase a hundredfold and crush us all of the sudden. Empirical data simply tries to get the best most accurate information we can collect about things at this time. Science itself is just a method of discovery - discovery, not just learning information from a pre-written book or being told by someone. Scientific discovery is about uncovering things that were not previously known to anyone. It is not like joining a religion and being told God exists, blah blah, here are the rules and here is how you serve. People who use science as the best guess to explain some things in the world are not like those with faith, as long as they recognize that no scientific data is meant to be taken as absolutely for certain and could be changed/improved in the future.

Yes, I agree, humans are innately curious. But not all of us are believers.

160

Why ? Why? WHY???

by rune in

jw
friends

this topic has been rolling around in my head for some time.

i don't expect that i'll write it perfectly as it needs to be articulated in different ways for different people...but i will do my best.

and worst of all, i am not expecting any kind of response that will satisfy me.

rune

LittleToe: ... No, you didn't upset me - no apology needed. Impatience with your lack of comprehension is what fueled that long reply. Strong words are necessary when one is trying to be direct. Just dump all the ideas of emotional vendettas, it's just not happening for me. Next time put up a huge banner saying 'kiss my friends asses so I won't badger you in a mindlessly repetitive fashion' so I'll know. At least you're giving me the benefit of the doubt now, though that really isn't necessary, since if you just read my last reply in full, I went into painfully meticulous detail what I meant.

Well, as frenchbabyface pointed out, since objectivity has been dropkicked out the window I'll just lose it for this next part:

........as for your Africa stuff: Look, write a romance novel on your love affair with Africa ok? Yes I've travelled a little, and I live in a very beautiful part of Canada. Do I feel like the 'fibre of my being' has been saturated by it? No. Do you understand your whimsical fancies aren't experienced by everyone? I take my world literally. I see beauty, I feel pleasure from it. Raw fucking pleasure, it's wonderful and I can never get enough of it. Unless I want to shape a story of something I've experienced for someone, I don't paint my own judgements with fancy ideas, I just remember the experience exactly as it was, nothing more. Heck, for all I know that's what you're doing, just to make your trip to Africa sound like you had sex with it rather than just a nice visit. Telling me the experience of your visit to Africa has nothing to do with sensory experience just indicates you are once again, deluding yourself, changing/enhancing your own experience & memory of Africa into something better. That's just great, but like I said, it really has nothing to do with me. Yes this is a lot like Dansk's point, since we have to keep bringing it up: Delude yourself enough and you can make yourself feel something really magical and special. Congrats. :) Ok I am not going to say this again. In fact, if my replies have to constitute repeating myself to you anymore, I'm just not gonna make them. I'm just trying to help you understand my position but you just don't get it! I didn't 'go for the jugular', remain objective & do not 'pour your heart' into an objective discussion. I have been saying this all along and frenchbabyface even repeated it a few times as well.

Ok, back to being objective.

LittleToe (again): The crux of the matter is that the things you & Dansk have suggested rely solely on faith. I will not submit to faith because I will end up self-convincing / deluding myself. That is why I need proof, because it is a clue external to myself that tells me something is more likely true. If you don't need proof, that is your choice, but don't expect me to sympathize with delusion (more than I already have) or to abandon logic.

Narkissos: Another interesting point - you're good at those. Hmm... Those Attitudes aside for a moment: Is believing in what might not exist mentally healthy? These desires for those under Hypothesis 0 root from an emotional basis do they not? And an emotional need is caused by a possible emotional defecit (for instance, someone may not be lacking at all if their needs are supposedly met by their faith, reinforced by family/friends/whoever, from a very young age and still remain with it). If someone is lacking for something emotionally in some respect, and their desires weave (or take in) something that mostly likely cannot be, are they not dangerously setting the bar to a place that mostly likely cannot ever be reached? I suppose I am just speaking from a mental health perspective. If disillusionment occurs, any number of things can happen, because that emotional need once again gapes open, this time with the gruesome realization that it was all a dream and the world is much 'harsher' than the subject was prepared for. Look at ex-Witness behavior for examples. But anyway... All in all, the desire itself is not in any way a bad thing, especially not the way you put it for Hypotheses 0. It is the fanaticism that may result; desire, or the structuring of one's life based on one's beliefs, can run rampant when it is given no boundary in 'the real'. People imposing views on their children, or being treated with sexual discrimination because of their beliefs are some examples of where I see this to be a problem - but there have been far worse and bloodier examples throughout history. Witnesses for instance have their desires flared up by meetings, assemblies, literature and one another about a happy existence later, after a long period of their servitude/donations. However, one may argue that these detrimental effects actually root from human nature rather than the belief structure, in which case are just going to be as harmful to one another with or without this. (Perhaps people just take on beliefs that align with the way they are going act anyway, is my other point, which would make sense, even if they change and later realize those beliefs no longer lie in accordance with them.)

Mental health aside; the very center of the matter is whether the central idea of Hypothesis 0 is wrong or not: Hypothesis 0 is phrased in a way that is not in accordance with belief; a believer will not admit that what they believe in cannot be. Is what the believer believes in really there? Well, it could be, but we can take a look at people as whole. So many people have different beliefs, many of which contradict one another in a fashion that it will end up that, if any are right, most definitely some will be wrong. Perhaps then, all of them are wrong. Who is to know, without proof? This is the basis for my agnostic outlook; there are simply too many possibilities to consider, and it is very difficult or perhaps impossible to be absolutely certain one is true. Since I will not use faith to supplement lack of evidence, 'I sit on the fence.' The only clues we have then, are probability. What sways probability? The only thing that can - the world around you. That which you can actually see, hear, touch, smell etc. Everything that is taken in by the senses. David Hume was a great man in some respects. Thereby, if I see creatures die, and rot away - I am swayed to think that creatures die and rot away. I do not however, see their soul, or experience their spirit, so I have no indication to sway my views towards thinking such things exist. This is really simply common sense, and as I have said in the past to others, relates to how we learn, from the moment we begin learning. It is comparable to how we repeat behaviours that have a beneficial or pleasant effect for us, and avoid those that have detrimental or unpleasant effects wherever possible - learning. It is a bit of a stretched comparison, I must admit: But when I experience something with my senses, it is like that positive effect of an action reinforcing a behaviour, only it reinforces my idea of the probability of reality being a certain way instead. When I do not, and I only hear of it from the words of others, I do not have that sensory reinforcement - I do not have anything to go on. Hence I don't believe. But simply because my senses have not detected something yet (or ever) is not the be all and end all of the universe. I simply still cannot know for certain whether something is true. Hence, I am swayed, but never fully absolute on my views, which helps for remaining open so long as proof is supplied to improve them. My views will only be changed out of proof or emotional necessity, and I feel this may be the case for others too - perhaps everyone. (I am not trying to sell my belief system to anyone by speaking about myself by the way, I am just the most readily available example to myself - so, anyone who reads this may rest assured I am not trying to steal your faith from you.)

Big Tex: I disagree. Wouldn't 'wisdom' - common sense, good judgement, the ability to discern what is true or right - root from an extensive amount of knowledge about the world around you? The more the better I'd say, since the more details and factors you can consider, the more precise your judgement - your wisdom - can be. The only problem would be possessing incorrect knowledge, in which your judgement would be flawed. The best chance of not having incorrect knowledge would be to acquire knowledge that has been empirically demonstrated to be sound.

frenchbabyface: Haha! Thanks for your support. I really don't know why people don't just debate without getting their emotions involved. It's easier on everyone, and much simpler too!

under74: Not yelling. Debating.

xochsi: No frickin way.