Non spiritual people with dogmatic beliefs

[spinmaster]

This is just something that has been on my mind for a while. But from personal experiences, I've noticed a lot of rabid Non-religious people (Athiest or otherwise) will condem people's beliefs, but will in turn blindly cling to a certain Political/social group or belief. It's like this tribal need to belong just over takes them but in a more material way.

[TaoSandwich]

Spinmaster,

It is like they are trying to get rid of a weed by cutting off the sprout. The real root of dogmatism is inflexibility of thought and the desire to be "right" or to hold a "correct opinion". They think that they have ended this bias because they have clipped off religious dogmatism, but they haven't gotten to the root of the matter.

Whether this sense of moral superiority comes from abandoning religion or from religion itself (i.e. believing that you have chosen the right path, so you won't be open to experiences that counsel otherwise) this is one of the most spiritual diseases, as you are not only deluded, but you will be deluded while remaining confident that you have cut off all delusion!

Religious or non-religious, we must all be careful about this. It is such a problem, in fact, that in Buddhism, it is mentioned that Buddhists who fall into such self righteous delusions because they feel like they've cut off ignorance when they haven't are actually damned to continue to suffer, because not only are they accumulating bad karma, but they are doing it, while refusing to believe they are doing anything wrong!

Best Wishes,
-TaoSandwich

[Baile]

Spiritual, religious, political, philosophical... Whatever the chosen belief paradigm, guaranteed each one of us has some serious dogmatic beliefs of one kind or another whirling round in that pesky noggin of ours. :wink:

[Gem]

This is just something that has been on my mind for a while. But from personal experiences, I've noticed a lot of rabid Non-religious people (Athiest or otherwise) will condem people's beliefs, but will in turn blindly cling to a certain Political/social group or belief. It's like this tribal need to belong just over takes them but in a more material way.

There are examples where condemning religious beliefs are valid, because 'what is written' can interpreted in various ways, and used to justify radical hurtful or harmful courses of action. The same applies to political ideals. In both instances, there must be some kind of 'tribal need', which means a sense of belonging to something.

Of course, religions and political movements were invented by Man, and they are wholly imagined structures which are fortified by symbols and physical apparitions such as holy Books, temples or political offices, as making them tangible makes them seem more realistic.

Philosophy is a different thing because it's very difficult to identify with, and it's a school of thought that requires a broad understanding of the evolution of human thought, a grasp of many points of view, and a deeper understanding of ethics, and this ethical component would explain why there's never been a war between philosophical factions where religious and political wars are the predominant conflicts.

[Ummon]

http://youtu.be/NNwbB0NWe-Y

Sebastian represents all the sane voices, all the voices of reason and sensibility that tell us that we must be insane if we believe that we are special, that we have a destiny. More than the voices of anger or opposition or criticism, for an artist of any sort, the most lethal voice is the quiet voice of reason that makes us forget who we are and what we can do, that lulls us to sleep and keeps us safe, since to follow our dreams as we intend can lead only to disappointment. However well intentioned, that voice is the enemy and always will be.

[spinmaster]

Spinmaster,

It is like they are trying to get rid of a weed by cutting off the sprout. The real root of dogmatism is inflexibility of thought and the desire to be "right" or to hold a "correct opinion". They think that they have ended this bias because they have clipped off religious dogmatism, but they haven't gotten to the root of the matter.

Whether this sense of moral superiority comes from abandoning religion or from religion itself (i.e. believing that you have chosen the right path, so you won't be open to experiences that counsel otherwise) this is one of the most spiritual diseases, as you are not only deluded, but you will be deluded while remaining confident that you have cut off all delusion!

Religious or non-religious, we must all be careful about this. It is such a problem, in fact, that in Buddhism, it is mentioned that Buddhists who fall into such self righteous delusions because they feel like they've cut off ignorance when they haven't are actually damned to continue to suffer, because not only are they accumulating bad karma, but they are doing it, while refusing to believe they are doing anything wrong!

Best Wishes,
-TaoSandwich


Yeah, that's how I've felt for a while. I've been afraid of being considered 'wrong' or 'right' in the eyes of others, just because of my spritual and philosophical beliefs. I guess I need to just go with the flow. Emerson put it best: "Every man has his own courage, and is betrayed because he seeks in himself the courage of other persons"

[Lorelyen]

This is just something that has been on my mind for a while. But from personal experiences, I've noticed a lot of rabid Non-religious people (Athiest or otherwise) will condem people's beliefs, but will in turn blindly cling to a certain Political/social group or belief. It's like this tribal need to belong just over takes them but in a more material way.

It's like (mundane) people are and, to me, another symptom of the collapse of what was once a cohesive society. The mechanisms that once allowed people to engage easily in dialogue are failing thanks to the rise of consumerism and individuality. But without that dialogue people are less likely to interact to form their views, share their orientations. They'll more likely pick up the components that lead to their dogma from media, picking and choosing to fit their wants and needs.

Each of us tries to rationalise some purpose why we're here - we all have different answers. But the people you're talking about have simply firmed up a set of views and cling to them as a matter of identity.

♫

[TaoSandwich]

Beautiful quote, Spinmaster. I had never heard that one before!

Best Wishes,
-TaoSandwich

[TesseLated]

It is such a problem, in fact, that in Buddhism, it is mentioned that Buddhists who fall into such self righteous delusions because they feel like they've cut off ignorance when they haven't are actually damned to continue to suffer, because not only are they accumulating bad karma, but they are doing it, while refusing to believe they are doing anything wrong!



I have thought about the possibility of Buddha saying he himself was in any way ignorant...having been enlightened...There are quite a bit of teachings that he put forth..

Also, in ref. to OP-I think people that believe in Science only are the most intractable of people with those kind of beliefs...lol.

[wstein]

This is just something that has been on my mind for a while. But from personal experiences, I've noticed a lot of rabid Non-religious people (Athiest or otherwise) will condem people's beliefs, but will in turn blindly cling to a certain Political/social group or belief. It's like this tribal need to belong just over takes them but in a more material way. Fundamentalism (rabid adhering to beliefs) can apply to any belief. Though religious and political beliefs tend to be most visible, there are many more. Take gender roles for example.

It is a fear based approach as much requiring attacking other beliefs as defending one's own. The beliefs in others that are targeted tend to be group/tribally aligned because externally expressing any other belief in a group of fundamentalists would result being attacked. The only 'safe' expression is to reflect what others are pushing. The core fear is more individual however. Engaging in fundamentalist behavior tends to reenforce the fear and justify/rationalize the behavior (a reinforcing situation).

[spinmaster]

I have thought about the possibility of Buddha saying he himself was in any way ignorant...having been enlightened...There are quite a bit of teachings that he put forth..

Also, in ref. to OP-I think people that believe in Science only are the most intractable of people with those kind of beliefs...lol.

Interesting, I've heard of a Buddhist teacher (Can't quite remember his name right now.) who said that enlightenment wasn't just a single state of being, but rather an ongoing journey/process.

Yeah, stubborn is as stubborn does.. :tongue:

[spinmaster]

Beautiful quote, Spinmaster. I had never heard that one before!

Best Wishes,
-TaoSandwich

Ralph waldo Emerson was on point.

[Tanemon]

This is just something that has been on my mind for a while. But from personal experiences, I've noticed a lot of rabid Non-religious people (Athiest or otherwise) will condem people's beliefs, but will in turn blindly cling to a certain Political/social group or belief. It's like this tribal need to belong just over takes them but in a more material way.
Well, the most profound experiences, insights, and understandings are something materialistic people can't take away from you. And the most beautiful things that happen between or among individuals, in my experience, happen at non-philosophical (wordless) levels - when it matters not what each person believes.

Problem is, in a huge "mass society" mass actions take place, often on the part of government at various levels (national, regional, local). Or on the part of mass movements (religions, "trends", etc). And attitudes and verbal formulations are involved in these mass actions - whether official government, economic, mass-movement, whatever.

[Greenslade]

This is just something that has been on my mind for a while. But from personal experiences, I've noticed a lot of rabid Non-religious people (Athiest or otherwise) will condem people's beliefs, but will in turn blindly cling to a certain Political/social group or belief. It's like this tribal need to belong just over takes them but in a more material way.
Not just non-religious, or have you missed the news lately? It's been happening with religious groups throughout history and it's just as widespread to day. There's a saying - "God made man, man made religion." Some Spiritual people do it too, often not as fervently granted but it still happens. Sometimes (most times) good old human nature isn't as far away as people would like to think it is.

[BlueSky]

This is just something that has been on my mind for a while. But from personal experiences, I've noticed a lot of rabid Non-religious people (Athiest or otherwise) will condem people's beliefs, but will in turn blindly cling to a certain Political/social group or belief. It's like this tribal need to belong just over takes them but in a more material way.
The tribal need you notice, be it spiritual or in a material way, is the need to relate to something in order to have a sense of self. This is a built in process which is designed to bring a sense of a much larger self. Defending ones sense of self is survival.
It's all good.

[TesseLated]

Interesting, I've heard of a Buddhist teacher (Can't quite remember his name right now.) who said that enlightenment wasn't just a single state of being, but rather an ongoing journey/process.




It can also be referred to as 'Attainment'

Siddhartha then continued with his meditation until dawn, when he attained the varja-like concentration. With this concentration, which is the very last mind of a limited being, he removed the final veils of ignorance from his mind and in the next moment became a Buddha, a fully enlightened being.

“Dharma” means “protection”. By practicing Buddha’s teachings we protect ourself from suffering and problems. All the problems we experience during daily life originate from ignorance, and the method for eliminating ignorance is to practice Dharma.

Geshe Kelsang Gyatso’s book, Introduction to Buddhism

So yes there is the thought from him of 'the path' ...but the 'final veil' indicates achievement of the goal-to remove ignorance...for the sake of others.

[r6r6]

There exists no non-spiritual humans i.e. all humans are of spirit ergo inherently spiritual to one degree or another.

Religion is just a set of beliefs that may be practiced/expressed outwards toward the environment of the Universe that embraces each individual and the whole set of individuals.

Rabidity occurs with all peoples belief systems and expressions thereof, to some varying degree.

Let those who have not been rabid to some degree cast the first rabbit. :alien:

r6

[Greenslade]

There exists no non-spiritual humans i.e. all humans are of spirit ergo inherently spiritual to one degree or another.

Religion is just a set of beliefs that may be practiced/expressed outwards toward the environment of the Universe that embraces each individual and the whole set of individuals.

Rabidity occurs with all peoples belief systems and expressions thereof, to some varying degree.

Let those who have not been rabid to some degree cast the first rabbit. :alien:

r6

This is a little (big little) off topic but I had to say it with absolutely no disrespect intended. I've seen some of your posts and while they obviously make sense for you, equations as Spiritual understandings make no sense to me. I hate maths :smile: If they work for you then all power to you, they're just not my cup of tea. This is so on the nose it's bleeding. Well said and it made me smile.

[r6r6]

I've seen some of your posts and while they obviously make sense for you, equations as Spiritual understandings make no sense to me. I hate maths :smile:.

You will need to be more specific, as I dont recall the "equations" that are specific referenced to any of my defined 'spirits' usage.

I do recall my posting of definitions of spirit and spiritual beginning some many months or year ago, and here or there since in various threads. Maybe that is what your refering too. I dunnno.

Spirit-1 = metaphysical access to mind/intellect ergo resultant spirit-of-intention and does not occupy space, rather, is concepts of space ex polgygonal 2D area or polyhedral 3D volume.

---^--above--^--the-line-of-demarcation---v--below--v-----

Spirit-2 = physical/energy ergo fermions, bosons and any combinations thereof that occupy space.

Spirit-3 = ultra-micro gravity also occupies space and sometimes referred to as space, or spacetime or fabric of space, or spacetime membrane etc....

I've seen others give mathematical equations at SF also. IF you think I'm the only one then your missing some posts by others.

All physical/energy occupied space is complemented by metaphysical concepts ergo mathematics is one of the highest faculty resultants of humans access-ability to mind/intellect.

To best of my knowledge I have only posted two kinds of relatively simple equations in all of my months here.

Equation for all primes and powering of Pi and again both are relatively simple as far as complex equations go.

All humans are inherently spiritual and are inherently a soul/biological.

Our spirit-of-intent is what varies from day to day and person to person over time ergo space is inherently associated with time, and to whatever degree, that goes for our mind/intellect access-abliities also.

No spirit and nno complex soul = no access to mind/intellect and our ability to communicate on this forum. imho

r6

[Gem]

You will need to be more specific, as I dont recall the "equations" that are specific referenced to any of my defined 'spirits' usage.

I do recall my posting of definitions of spirit and spiritual beginning some many months or year ago, and here or there since in various threads. Maybe that is what your refering too. I dunnno.

Spirit-1 = metaphysical access to mind/intellect ergo resultant spirit-of-intention and does not occupy space, rather, is concepts of space ex polgygonal 2D area or polyhedral 3D volume.

Spirit-2 = physical/energy ergo fermions, bosons and any combinations thereof that occupy space.

Spirit-3 = ultra-micro gravity also occupies space and sometimes referred to as space, or spacetime or fabric of space, or spacetime membrane etc....

I've seen others give mathematical equations at SF also. IF you think I'm the only one then your missing some posts by others.

All physical/energy occupied space is complemented by metaphysical concepts ergo mathematics is one of the highest faculty resultants of humans access-ability to mind/intellect.

To best of my knowledge I have only posted two kinds of relatively simple equations in all of my months here.

Equation for all primes and powering of Pi and again both are relatively simple as far as complex equations go.

All humans are inherently spiritual and are inherently a soul/biological.

Our spirit-of-intent is what varies from day to day and person to person over time ergo space is inherently associated with time, and to whatever degree, that goes for our mind/intellect access-abliities also.

No spirit and nno complex soul = no access to mind/intellect and our ability to communicate on this forum. imho

r6

I'll just chuck one out there: If dimension is denoted D then D=n-1 where n is it number of vertices of a simplex. teehee.

[r6r6]

I'll just chuck one out there: If dimension is denoted D then D=n-1 where n is it number of vertices of a simplex. teehee.

H,mmm, I need an example for clarity.

In higher dimensional maths, a tetra(4)ehdron is referred to as a 'simplex', if I recall correctly.

Maybe we cold have dimemsion of spirit, a dimension of mind, a dimension of love, a dimension of time, a dimension of space, a dimension of sou, a dimension of divine, a dimension of song, a dimension of sound, a dimension of money etc........

I dunno, as I've not had these kind of thoughts before. I think it was Rod Sterling who origiated those kinds of thoughts with his show the Twilight Zone. I dunno.

r6

[TaoSandwich]

I have thought about the possibility of Buddha saying he himself was in any way ignorant...having been enlightened...There are quite a bit of teachings that he put forth..

Also, in ref. to OP-I think people that believe in Science only are the most intractable of people with those kind of beliefs...lol.

Tesselated,

I'm not sure I understand your comment on Buddha mentioning his ignorance. However, the ignorance of a Buddha is an interesting question, especially since many sects of Buddhism say that there is work to be done (purification, so to speak) even after enlightenment. In my imaginings, I tend to think of Buddhas as having a deep, almost unfathomable connection with everything in existence... However, when it comes to mundane knowledge, there is probably much in the way of what Buddhas don't know (did Gautama know quantum physics? Although his enlightenment may have provided him with the tools to understand it had it been taught to him, I'd guess not!). I also think that whatever mundane knowledge a Buddha did not know, they were wise enough to never speak on it.

I would actually beg to differ on those who believe in science only. I feel like those who are truly scientifically minded are open to any experience, as long as it is repeatable and be examined. Actually, a couple of the people that I count among my teachers were originally scientifically minded atheists who reached spiritual understanding by combining this skeptical way of thought with the inquiry into the thought that there might be something more to this world than what meets the eye! Those who claim science, but are entirely close minded to anything (skepticism is a different thing than being closed) cannot truly claim science.

Best Wishes,
-TaoSandwich

[blackraven]

This is just something that has been on my mind for a while. But from personal experiences, I've noticed a lot of rabid Non-religious people (Athiest or otherwise) will condem people's beliefs, but will in turn blindly cling to a certain Political/social group or belief. It's like this tribal need to belong just over takes them but in a more material way.

spinmaster - Welcome to the forum. I think it's the essence of being human that creates the desire in us to belong to something bigger than just ourselves, be it a family, a group of like-minded friends, religion or political parties.

Blackraven

[Neville]

seems to me, like some spiritual people can also be very dogmatic. In my estimation it's probably best for you to follow your own light irrespective of where other folks lights are leading them.

[Eudaimonist]

This is just something that has been on my mind for a while. But from personal experiences, I've noticed a lot of rabid Non-religious people (Athiest or otherwise) will condem people's beliefs, but will in turn blindly cling to a certain Political/social group or belief. It's like this tribal need to belong just over takes them but in a more material way.

I would be careful about that sort of statement. At least some people that you believe are "blindly clinging" to a belief might not be so blind after all. They could have reasons for taking the position that they have.

As for blind people, you can find them everywhere, not just among the non-spiritual. Yes, I think that tribalism is involved.


eudaimonia,

Mark

[guthrio]

There exists no non-spiritual humans i.e. all humans are of spirit ergo inherently spiritual to one degree or another.

Religion is just a set of beliefs that may be practiced/expressed outwards toward the environment of the Universe that embraces each individual and the whole set of individuals.

Rabidity occurs with all peoples belief systems and expressions thereof, to some varying degree.

Let those who have not been rabid to some degree cast the first rabbit. :alien:

r6

It is nice to see your quirky sense of humor, r6! and I agree with your post 100%.

....though I suspect those who seek escape down a "rabid" hole are usually afraid of the "dog"-matism that chased them there!

Hare, hare !!

....in the rabbit sense, not in the shaven head, drum-beating, dancing while chanting sense :smile:

(Har, har!!)

[bartholomew]

This is just something that has been on my mind for a while. But from personal experiences, I've noticed a lot of rabid Non-religious people (Athiest or otherwise) will condem people's beliefs, but will in turn blindly cling to a certain Political/social group or belief. It's like this tribal need to belong just over takes them but in a more material way.



It's a result of fear which is an important step in the process of spiritual growth because it provides a solid "jumping off point" from which advancements may be made. Please remember that all humans are not of the same spiritual age. Our bodies and personalities are of the Earth only but our souls may be newly created or they may be hundreds of housands of years old. Further there is no necessary correlation between how a man behaves in a life and the seniority of his soul. A very old soul may have a few remaining nagging lessons to learn which are facilitated by what fervent religious beliefs have to offer.

I often feel the same way you do and have to remind myself.... We may all be here on Earth together but lessons are learned in solitude.

[TesseLated]

.. We may all be here on Earth together but lessons are learned in solitude.



I agree...

....and ironically............All men's miseries derive from not being able to sit in a quiet room alone. ~Blaise Pascal



lol.

[r6r6]

guthrio--It is nice to see your quirky sense of humor, r6! and I agree with your post 100%.
...though I suspect those who seek escape down a "rabid" hole are usually afraid of the "dog"-matism that chased them there!

Ha good one Guthrio! Reminds me of the kar-ma that ran over my dog-ma...:D

Hare, hare !!.....in the rabbit sense, not in the shaven head, drum-beating, dancing while chanting sense :smile: (Har, har!!)

Hare-ye hare-ye!,let all of thse of rabid-rabbit-mind an on occasion have spouted dogie doo, seek ye truth via rationality, logic and common sense, to the best of your abilities........amen, awomen, ahumanity, ahumorous......etc.....

r6

[Napoleon]

All Dogmas shall be kept on a Leash!

[Moonglow]

Hello,

Just noticed, dogma backwards is amgod.
Could be for some that some may have it backwards.

(Running away now:smile: )

[r6r6]

All Dogmas shall be kept on a Leash!

Leashes come in many lengths....and of differrent quality...:wink:

r6

[guthrio]

Adam Doug Leash---British Detective

....spying an odd figure receding backwards in the moonlight after observing a broken leash carelessly left by someone's untethered dogma, sullenly "mutt"-erred to himself, "I kinna wait to catch whatever left this steaming heap on my lawn" :icon_eek:

....and then jumped into his kar-ma to do just that (after hosing off his shoes) !!

To the OP's excellent observation, one does not have to be non-spiritual to be afflicted by dogmatic beliefs. Consider the contents of the threads fervently espoused and defended by many throughout these SF discussions.

Truth needs no defense by dogmatic beliefs, spiritual or otherwise....because Truth cannot change or be changed.

...only perceived, experienced, and applied.

If you believe what is false, you will only be able to see what is false. If you know what is True, you will be able to see what is false and what is True.

In this manner, you can deduce an even more astonishing, but unchangeable Truth...."Perfection does not come from projecting our own ideas but from awakening to the knowledge that it is already the established order of things.", as indicated in the reference.

....don't believe me? Try MAKING 2+2=5. Doesn't work, does it?

Hope this helps...."untether" the immutable Truth waiting to be found within us all.

Reference: http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/showpost.php?p=873925&postcount=18

[lemex]

This is just something that has been on my mind for a while. But from personal experiences, I've noticed a lot of rabid Non-religious people (Athiest or otherwise) will condem people's beliefs, but will in turn blindly cling to a certain Political/social group or belief. It's like this tribal need to belong just over takes them but in a more material way.

Though I don't think you mean the garden variety dogma, so I stay small here, in my own experience and part of it's discussion, maybe some part of the blame seen began a long time ago when a question first arose and another dogma was used which added to no answer. I think we should see the seed that caused it yet we complain when we see the results. I think the search can lead to confusion and many times I see senseless defending of dogma which is not even noticed.

How far does cause and effect reach out....

[r6r6]

guthrio----...and then jumped into his kar-ma to do just that (after hosing off his shoes) !!

Yeah, youve sniffed this one out fairly well.

....."because Truth cannot change or be changed....only perceived, experienced, and applied....In this manner, you can deduce an even more astonishing, but unchangeable Truth[COLOR="Blue"]"

I would amend to say that there is absolute truth--- ex cosmic laws/principles ---and relative truth that can be both true and false at same time ex from differrent perpsectives, and changebale.

....don't believe me? Try MAKING 2+2=5. Doesn't work, does it?

I suppose so, but we can say that one man plus one woman can give resultant of 15 children, however, barring that biological synergetic case, I would offer another non-biological case;

1 triangle + 1 triangle = 4 triangles via synergy (http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s01/figs/f0801.html).

Hope this helps...."untether" the immutable Truth waiting to be found within us all.

Or at least any human access to mind/intellect has apportunity to access metpahysical, absolute truths.

r6

[spinmaster]

Woah, these were some pretty heavy responses. I wish I could effectively respond to them all. But I'm still new to all this.

I guess all I have to say is that whatever you believe or don't believe in..


Who cares baby..

[r6r6]

[QUOTE]I would amend to say that there is absolute truth--- ex cosmic laws/principles ---

These are facts, not just beliefs to best of human knowledge i.e. we no evidence to believe otherwise.


and relative truth that can be both true and false at same time ex from differrent perpsectives, and changebale.

Ditto the above


I suppose so, but we can say that one man plus one woman can give resultant of 15 children, however, barring that biological synergetic case, I would offer another non-biological case;
1 triangle + 1 triangle = 4 triangles via synergy (http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s01/figs/f0801.html).

Ditto the above.

r6

[Moonglow]

Hello,

Just throwing this out there.

Isn't saying that someones belief is dogmatic because one disagrees with it or has a different view, dogmatic in and of itself?

To me if one does agree or follow what another may, then simply let each go their way.

[r6r6]

Moonglow, if your infering/imply that no cosmically absolute principles, I would repeat, we have no evidence that such absolutes do exist, as so many scientists and other do believe.

Ex there can only exist 5 regular polyhedral in all of one finite Universe, and to be clear, Universe includes ideas of a finite bunch of local universes identified as Multi-verse, Omniverse etc.....

There are many other examples of absolute truths but this one of the simplest that Ive seen around.

r6

[Moonglow]

Hi r6,

"Evidence" can be debatable in and of itself. Say this on the basis of what the "evidence" may be based on and what one may understand so far.

How can one "prove" an experience to another that has not had the experience?

Not saying there are no physical laws or interactions and perhaps in and of themselves they may have an absolute principle, but to me this only holds "evidence" for those principles and IMO, does not disprove/prove other possibilities or views upon existence.

As the OP seems to introduce, to me, it seems in ones attitude. To me, to generalize it to be so for all and insist it is so for all can be dogmatic (in any field of belief, study, or observation).

We base "evidence" on what one may observe or how things may interact, but what was considered "evidence" in the past seems to change and some have even been dismissed. Which for me brings into question as to if anything in this physical understanding is absolute and if this is applicable to all or if it is just as it may be understood at the moment. At least as far as attempting to explain it and to apply to everyone.

This is not directed towards you personally, just responding to what you present.

[r6r6]

Heaven has forbidden me from entering into debate at SF.

Again, there is no evidence and no rationally logical common sense to counter some examples I've given and others I've mentioned. Those were meant as absolute truths.

That we have previously observed, that, the universe expanding is not cosmic law/principle, just what was observed then.

There is differrence between those two. Sure, what we believe, in regards to cosmic law/principles, may indeed change. May not. If we are to wait till eternity to arrive, in order to believe that any cosmic truths is.........> oo > oo > etc....> oo >.......etc..........

r6

Hi r6,
"Evidence" can be debatable in and of itself. Say this on the basis of what the "evidence" may be based on and what one may understand so far.

How can one "prove" an experience to another that has not had the experience?

Not saying there are no physical laws or interactions and perhaps in and of themselves they may have an absolute principle, but to me this only holds "evidence" for those principles and IMO, does not disprove/prove other possibilities or views upon existence.

As the OP seems to introduce, to me, it seems in ones attitude. To me, to generalize it to be so for all and insist it is so for all can be dogmatic (in any field of belief, study, or observation).

We base "evidence" on what one may observe or how things may interact, but what was considered "evidence" in the past seems to change and some have even been dismissed. Which for me brings into question as to if anything in this physical understanding is absolute and if this is applicable to all or if it is just as it may be understood at the moment. At least as far as attempting to explain it and to apply to everyone.

This is not directed towards you personally, just responding to what you present.

[Moonglow]

Hi r6,

Yeah, imagine that a debate in a forum.:D

I think that is the bottom line what is held as "evidence" and what is held as belief. To me, throw in ones attitude and/or persistence and presto dogma.

Sometimes though what is observed gets formed into principles that is told how it happens or what it is and this in some circles held as "evidence". Which to me where some debates may occur and some "dogmatic" attitudes may arise.

btw: Find nothing wrong with a healthy debate.

[Gem]

Hi r6,

Yeah, imagine that a debate in a forum.:D

I think that is the bottom line what is held as "evidence" and what is held as belief. To me, throw in ones attitude and/or persistence and presto dogma.

Sometimes though what is observed gets formed into principles that is told how it happens or what it is and this in some circles held as "evidence". Which to me where some debates may occur and some "dogmatic" attitudes may arise.

btw: Find nothing wrong with a healthy debate.
I reckon there's blind faith which is pretty useless, and there's evidence that gives good enough reason to believe something might be true, and In the third category, there is the direct experience, which can result in irrefutable insight.

[r6r6]

HI Moonglow, what is observed may lead too ergo a resultant cosmic law/principle. Again, one is not the same as the other.

Scientist first instituted cosmic 1st law of conservation in late 1800's, and no evidence has surfaced to change our minds on that prinicple.

I'm not sure when it was first accepted by most mathematicians, that, there cannot exist conceptually/metaphysical-1, or physical regular polyhedra beyond the known 5.

1) euclidean triangle--sum of angles is eternally 180 degrees when base unity is 360 degrees

2) riemann triangle---sum of angles is eternally more than 180 degrees, when base unity is 360 degrees.

3) Lobviskian(sp) triangle---sum of angles is eternally less than 180 degrees when base unity is 360 degrees.

Here is the thing, we have so many humans believing nonsense based/derived from and irrational and illogical basis,

we have humans beliefs based on what I state above.

So your thoughts are both are dogmatic based on how persistent someone is in presenting them, expressing them etc....?

Tis true that I fall off into agument and debate easily, so, does that make my beliefs dogmatic? I guess dogmatic is likened to automatic i.e. if somebody states something more than once in a disscussion, debate, argument, threaded topic etc..then there being dogmatic?

r6



Hi r6,
Yeah, imagine that a debate in a forum.:D
I think that is the bottom line what is held as "evidence" and what is held as belief. To me, throw in ones attitude and/or persistence and presto dogma.
Sometimes though what is observed gets formed into principles that is told how it happens or what it is and this in some circles held as "evidence". Which to me where some debates may occur and some "dogmatic" attitudes may arise.
btw: Find nothing wrong with a healthy debate.

[Moonglow]

HI Moonglow, what is observed may lead too ergo a resultant cosmic law/principle. Again, one is not the same as the other.

Scientist first instituted cosmic 1st law of conservation in late 1800's, and no evidence has surfaced to change our minds on that prinicple.

I'm not sure when it was first accepted by most mathematicians, that, there cannot exist conceptually/metaphysical-1, or physical regular polyhedra beyond the known 5.

1) euclidean triangle--sum of angles is eternally 180 degrees when base unity is 360 degrees

2) riemann triangle---sum of angles is eternally more than 180 degrees, when base unity is 360 degrees.

3) Lobviskian(sp) triangle---sum of angles is eternally less than 180 degrees when base unity is 360 degrees.

Here is the thing, we have so many humans believing nonsense based/derived from and irrational and illogical basis,

we have humans beliefs based on what I state above.

So your thoughts are both are dogmatic based on how persistent someone is in presenting them, expressing them etc....?

Tis true that I fall off into agument and debate easily, so, does that make my beliefs dogmatic? I guess dogmatic is likened to automatic i.e. if somebody states something more than once in a disscussion, debate, argument, threaded topic etc..then there being dogmatic?

r6
Hi r6,

What I presented is not directed towards you, just to be clear.

It is more looking at, in my view, what may be held as "evidence" and how such in some circles can be persistent and demanding that others follow or believe it as absolute. Which to me, can create a "dogmatic" belief.

In the physical sense there is indisputable "evidence", yes. There are forces that keep us from flying off the planet (for example). This is felt and experienced by all.

In the experience of the ethereal/metaphysics it seem to become more complex as to what the "evidence" may be or should be. To place such into words is not as easy, for others may not view such or have not experienced such. But because one has not experienced such or does not have such views, does not "prove" that such is not real or possible.

This is not to say everything humans believe is necessarily true and that there is no fantasies we may like to entertain, IMO.

I think many (including me) can be persistent in his/her view point. The difference, for me, is in the attitude. Is there a demand that all should follow such view point or other view points are wrong? When it is projected out with such attitude, then to me, it drifts into a "dogma" of sorts.

Again this is not directed at anyone's personal belief, but more looking at how these can in some circles/groups manifest, IMO.

[Moonglow]

I reckon there's blind faith which is pretty useless, and there's evidence that gives good enough reason to believe something might be true, and In the third category, there is the direct experience, which can result in irrefutable insight.

Hi Gem,

Well stated and simplifies what I was looking at, nicely.

[Morpheus]

Originally Posted by Gem
I reckon there's blind faith which is pretty useless, and there's evidence that gives good enough reason to believe something might be true, and In the third category, there is the direct experience, which can result in irrefutable insight.

Since science today is telling us that what we experience directly is, illusory?

That, our organic senses are limited, with respect to what we Experience, and in contrast to what is the greater reality and truth is?

Your reasoning is faulty.

Einstein:
"Reality is merely and illusion, albeit, a very persistant one." - So, your reasoning is flawed.

[r6r6]

We have faith/trust, that, the auto coming toward us in the other lane, will not cross the line for and extended period of time, or at the time we happen to be passing them.

It is not totally blind because we have personal experience and experience of others communicated to us in those regards.

Cosmic laws/principles are based on our personal experiences or experiences of others communicated to us.

All humans are spirit and spiritual to whatever degree, whether or not the acknowledge the use of the word spirit as being valid.

Heart( body ) and mind( intlellect ) is what shapes our soul( shape )

I'm in good shape, for the shape I'm in.

r6

[VisionQuest]

This is just something that has been on my mind for a while. But from personal experiences, I've noticed a lot of rabid Non-religious people (Athiest or otherwise) will condem people's beliefs, but will in turn blindly cling to a certain Political/social group or belief. It's like this tribal need to belong just over takes them but in a more material way.

EGO is EGO no matter whose head it has taken over~

Study Vernon Howard if you wish to see more clearly~

[Morpheus]

Fundamentalism (rabid adhering to beliefs) can apply to any belief. Though religious and political beliefs tend to be most visible, there are many more. Take gender roles for example.

It is a fear based approach as much requiring attacking other beliefs as defending one's own. The beliefs in others that are targeted tend to be group/tribally aligned because externally expressing any other belief in a group of fundamentalists would result being attacked. The only 'safe' expression is to reflect what others are pushing. The core fear is more individual however. Engaging in fundamentalist behavior tends to reenforce the fear and justify/rationalize the behavior (a reinforcing situation).

Question WS.

Do you feel that there is healthy fear, and unhealthy, both?
Or fundamentally, and dogmatically, do you feel that all fear is unhealthy..?
I'm asking.

[wstein]

Question WS.

Do you feel that there is healthy fear, and unhealthy, both?
Or fundamentally, and dogmatically, do you feel that all fear is unhealthy..?
I'm asking. I'm not so sure about being fundamental or dogmatic. My view is that all fear is unhealthy. However, having no response to danger is even more unhealthy. Simple animals/plants with limited mental capacity are more likely to survive with fear than nothing. For those with sufficient capacity, concern and recognition of danger are much more effective without the negative side effects of fear. I could go with calling them 'healthy'.

The problems with fear (mostly a emotional response) are first that it triggers release of stress hormones. Though they may help in immediate danger situations, they cause long term bodily damage especially if in circulation for long periods of time (in short doses the body fixes the damage before it becomes permanent). Fear tends to be in play far longer than danger causing a build up over time of damage. Another major problem with fear is that it usually overrides the 'higher' mental functions which are the ones that can find ways to avoid the dangers in the first place. In that capacity while fear helps get you out of danger, it blocks finding ways to avoid danger. A related problem with fear it at it polarizes responses making many little or moderate issues seem like huge problems. Over reaction follows. This both uses up more resources than necessary and often causes other collateral damage.

In short, I view as healthy dealing with danger in proportion to the actual danger. Fear is almost always over reacts to danger both in duration and intensity and does so in ineffective ways, thus I consider it unhealthy.

[Morpheus]

I'm not so sure about being fundamental or dogmatic. My view is that all fear is unhealthy. However, having no response to danger is even more unhealthy. Simple animals/plants with limited mental capacity are more likely to survive with fear than nothing. For those with sufficient capacity, concern and recognition of danger are much more effective without the negative side effects of fear. I could go with calling them 'healthy'.

The problems with fear (mostly a emotional response) are first that it triggers release of stress hormones. Though they may help in immediate danger situations, they cause long term bodily damage especially if in circulation for long periods of time (in short doses the body fixes the damage before it becomes permanent). Fear tends to be in play far longer than danger causing a build up over time of damage. Another major problem with fear is that it usually overrides the 'higher' mental functions which are the ones that can find ways to avoid the dangers in the first place. In that capacity while fear helps get you out of danger, it blocks finding ways to avoid danger. A related problem with fear it at it polarizes responses making many little or moderate issues seem like huge problems. Over reaction follows. This both uses up more resources than necessary and often causes other collateral damage.

In short, I view as healthy dealing with danger in proportion to the actual danger. Fear is almost always over reacts to danger both in duration and intensity and does so in ineffective ways, thus I consider it unhealthy.

W.S. ?
So here, you are saying that yes, there is a "Healthy Fear", as well as "Unhealthy". No?

I agree, though, that one ought to take action to avoid situations where unhealthy fear is a manifested consequence.

Regarding the thread topic - Examples:
Matthew-10
"Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul ... Rather, fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna..."

Proverbs, 9:
"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom..."

Isaiah 66:
"2 For all those things has my hand made, and all those things have been, saith the LORD: but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word."

Psalm 134:
"Surely his salvation is near those who fear him, that his glory may dwell in our land."

[wstein]

So here, you are saying that yes, there is a "Healthy Fear", as well as "Unhealthy". No? I am saying that fear is better than nothing. However, it has serious drawbacks. Other tools to deal with danger should be used if one has that option. Most humans have that option.

[whoguy423]

W.S. ?
So here, you are saying that yes, there is a "Healthy Fear", as well as "Unhealthy". No?

I agree, though, that one ought to take action to avoid situations where unhealthy fear is a manifested consequence.

Regarding the thread topic - Examples:
Matthew-10
"Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul ... Rather, fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna..."

Proverbs, 9:
"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom..."

Isaiah 66:
"2 For all those things has my hand made, and all those things have been, saith the LORD: but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word."

Psalm 134:
"Surely his salvation is near those who fear him, that his glory may dwell in our land."

Hello Morpheus,

I see your point about fear.

This is what I understand about fear.

There is logical fear which is fear of being hurt (by a bus say).

There is illogical fear ( fear of the dark say ).

Your above quotes can fall into one or the other depending on the individual's beliefs.

In the end... it doesn't matter. What makes you a better person is all that matters. If it takes FEAR to make you a loving and beautiful human being.... so be it!

Cheers :blob3:

[Gem]

Since science today is telling us that what we experience directly is, illusory?
I'm not sure if that's scientific or philosophical but some physicists (Einstein, famously) have hinted at it. The most accepted scientific paradigm is that 'all mass is interaction' (as Feynman said).

That, our organic senses are limited, with respect to what we Experience, and in contrast to what is the greater reality and truth is?
That a philosophical question. The senses reveal the truth of the experience as it is experienced by any person. That's not the 'greater reality'. 'Greater reality' refers to the essence of existence. Being.

Your reasoning is faulty.
Like I give a damn.

Einstein:
"Reality is merely and illusion, albeit, a very persistant one." - So, your reasoning is flawed.
I have never once seen a citation for that quote, but would be happy for anyone to provide it.

There was this, which can be cited accurately.

His most descriptive testimony to this faith came when his lifelong friend Besso died. Einstein wrote a letter to Besso's family, saying that although Besso had preceded him in death it was of no consequence, "...for us physicists believe the separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion, although a convincing one."
http://everythingforever.com/einstein.htm (http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/redir.php?link=http%3A%2F%2Feverythingforever.com% 2Feinstein.htm)

I think the famous line that they say is a 'quote' (but don't cite) is a misrepresentation of what Einstein said in this letter... otherwise, provide a citation.