Why I lack belief.

[Morpheus]

Originally Posted by Dwerg

This one is obviously aimed at people who believe. The main reason I lack belief is not because I reject it, but because it narrows me from seeing other points of view. I'm interested in comprehending the width and the depth of life and this world, and cutting conclusions short with beliefs doesn't promote open-mindedness.

I'll also tell that navigating this world isn't easy when I'm constantly bombarded with people who wish to lock me down in their belief systems. Being locked down like that isn't exactly my idea of freedom.

As for spirituality and science I don't see a big difference. Both deals with growth and the hard questions, and I like science because it simply says "I don't know, but I'd like to figure out". It aims at the object of study rather than just hand out the ultimate answer. To me the ultimate answer is exactly just to keep learning, I might never really know, but the activity keeps me satisfied.

There are things science can't explain, but that I can't deny to have happened. This is why we do science in the first place, to figure out what we don't understand.

What???

Some 70 years ago...

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistant one."

"Time and space are modes in which we think,and not conditions in which we live"

"In this new physics, there is no room for both the Field, and matter. The field is the only reality".

Einstein.

Here's a term that the disaffected tend to hate. "Quantum Physics".

http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=51113

You think "Inurement" or habituation to the small spectrum of the physical and sensory world is "Freedom"? That it?
Or, is it you just have a problem with morality supported by "Organized Religion". - Authority.

"Can't tell ME what to do."

?

[organic born]

Originally Posted by SkyeSpitfire

What science are you referring to exactly?

Two books you can start with (along with descriptive blurbs from their web sites):

What Makes Your Brain Happy And Why You Should Do The Opposite

This book reveals a remarkable paradox: what your brain wants is frequently not what your brain needs. In fact, much of what makes our brains "happy" leads to errors, biases, and distortions, which make getting out of our own way extremely difficult.

Author David DiSalvo presents evidence from evolutionary and social psychology, cognitive science, neurology, and even marketing and economics. And he interviews many of the top thinkers in psychology and neuroscience today.

And

The Ego Tunnel: The Science of the Mind and the Myth of the Self
We’re used to thinking about the self as an independent entity, something that we either have or are. In The Ego Tunnel, philosopher Thomas Metzinger claims otherwise: No such thing as a self exists. The conscious self is the content of a model created by our brain—an internal image, but one we cannot experience as an image. Everything we experience is “a virtual self in a virtual reality.”

But if the self is not “real,” why and how did it evolve? How does the brain construct it? Do we still have souls, free will, personal autonomy, or moral accountability? In a time when the science of cognition is becoming as controversial as evolution, The Ego Tunnel provides a stunningly original take on the mystery of the mind.

And don't miss these titles:

Bruce Lipton - "The Frequency That Is You"

"You Are the Placebo" by Dr. Joe Dispenza ... Dr Joe also wrote "Evolve your Brain" and "Breaking the Habit of Being Yourself"

Lynne McTaggart wrote a great book entitled "The Field"

and then another great read "The Genie in our Genes" by Dawson Church, PHD

as well as "The Epigenetics Revolution" by Nessa Carey.

There are many more that are well worth the study! How we think and what we think about composes the core of our continual experience. These core thought habits are at work when we consider our spiritual orientations as well.

Richard Dawkins is an absolute moron!

Originally Posted by organic born

Lynne McTaggart wrote a great book entitled "The Field"

and then another great read "The Genie in our Genes" by Dawson Church, PHD

as well as "The Epigenetics Revolution" by Nessa Carey.

There are many more that are well worth the study! How we think and what we think about composes the core of our continual experience. These core thought habits are at work when we consider our spiritual orientations as well.

Richard Dawkins is an absolute moron!

What is Dawkins doing to be thought of a moron?

Some of those references you're using are highly biased information sources so it seems odd to calling Dawkins a moron?

I've read both of Lynn Mctaggart's books on intention and "physics".
They are interesting but to take them as gospel would be really misleading. I was inspired after reading her work but before I got too crazy with the new age I investigated some of her sources and looked for other types of similar and contradicting scientific studies.
Turns out there are many other studies that show negative results and some of her interpretations are sketchy.

That is a fact. I'm not saying she's completely wrong but it's not in any way a fair look at those concepts of intention and her interpretations of quantum physics.



On her website she's selling all kinds of quack devices and cancer cures. She's taking advantage of open minded people.

So what would you have Dawkins do? He simply understands that those phenomena have not held up well under scientific testing. Why would he be expected to endorse non-science?

[organic born]

Originally Posted by joelr

What is Dawkins doing to be thought of a moron?

I've been reading and watching him closely for some time. I liked him at first but the more that I studied him the more that I was repulsed by his approach. He's got a game that he plays and an audience to appeal to. In some very real ways he's a hit-man on behalf of the status quo. It's one thing to tear down old tired institutions but it's best to remain curious as to what takes it's place. He tends to assault most all things that are explorative and unique, meaning he's not a very curious person. He's in it for the fame and the money. In my book that makes him a moron.

Originally Posted by joelr

I've read both of Lynn Mctaggart's books on intention and "physics".
They are interesting but to take them as gospel would be really misleading.

Take nothing anyone says as "bible". In fact the very nonsense of biblical assertion appeals to the notion that there's a one size that should be fitable to all. There is only one person in the world who can see through your eyes so the leads you must follow are your own. In which case you may now find Dawkins appealing because he proportionally fits with the outlook on life that you currently experience as sustaining. This may change, it did for me.

Another thing on the biblical assumption is that these scientists, like McTaggart, will tell you up front, that they are noticing something different and are looking-into this new angle of inquiry. They will tell you this is "new" and that the ramifications of what they study will require some time to flesh out. Unlike those who espouse concepts as biblical certainty, they approach what they offer with caution. Beats the heck out of anything that religion has been up to, while it also helps to dissolve those egocentric certainties of many sciences that have been trapped in the past.

So read these things openly, and read often and all over (I'm currently jumping among bookmarks of around 100 books at the moment) The science we accept today almost certainty will not be the science-of-normal just a few short years from now, so the pathway will be fed with all sorts of assumptions until "observable predictability" can adjust and reform.

The new science that's emerging has yes, yes, yes, written all over it's implications. I've distrusted science for as long as I can remember, while this new stuff has ushered me on-board.

Originally Posted by organic born

I've been reading and watching him closely for some time. I liked him at first but the more that I studied him the more that I was repulsed by his approach. He's got a game that he plays and an audience to appeal to. In some very real ways he's a hit-man on behalf of the status quo. It's one thing to tear down old tired institutions but it's best to remain curious as to what takes it's place. He tends to assault most all things that are explorative and unique, meaning he's not a very curious person. He's in it for the fame and the money. In my book that makes him a moron.

As far as tearing down old tired institutions, which is one of his main goals, he's doing a decent job. He admits atheism is also impossible to prove and he's not of that group. He generally says he's non-theist but occasionally will use the term atheist just to get people riled up.

I dont' see how giving lectures and such in order to market ones book is a negative thing. He represents his ideology well enough and fame and money are great things to achieve. It helps spread his ideas and allows him to quit his day job so he can focus on what he does best.
Good gosh, what about Lynn Mctaggart? Selling "cancer cure" phone sessions?
That type of stuff is what Dawkins is trying to educate people about.

Why would Dawkins need to be curious about metaphysical aspects of reality?
How would that help him?

Originally Posted by organic born

Take nothing anyone says as "bible". In fact the very nonsense of biblical assertion appeals to the notion that there's a one size that should be fitable to all. There is only one person in the world who can see through your eyes so the leads you must follow are your own. In which case you may now find Dawkins appealing because he proportionally fits with the outlook on life that you currently experience as sustaining. This may change, it did for me.

I don't totally agree with Dawkins I just don't understand why he gets bashed so hard just because he doesn't believe most supernatural ideas are true?
Most of those things have failed scientific testing anyways. Why do new agers even need validation from Dawkins? Most of his critics don't even understand what his message really is.

He mostly argues against creationists and for evolution. Beyond that he argues against religious concepts of theism. I'm pretty sure I'm not going to switch to saying the Earth is 6000 years old or start worshipping mythological figures like Hercules.

Originally Posted by organic born

Another thing on the biblical assumption is that these scientists, like McTaggart, will tell you up front, that they are noticing something different and are looking-into this new angle of inquiry. They will tell you this is "new" and that the ramifications of what they study will require some time to flesh out. Unlike those who espouse concepts as biblical certainty, they approach what they offer with caution. Beats the heck out of anything that religion has been up to, while it also helps to dissolve those egocentric certainties of many sciences that have been trapped in the past.

So read these things openly, and read often and all over (I'm currently jumping among bookmarks of around 100 books at the moment) The science we accept today almost certainty will not be the science-of-normal just a few short years from now, so the pathway will be fed with all sorts of assumptions until "observable predictability" can adjust and reform.

The new science that's emerging has yes, yes, yes, written all over it's implications. I've distrusted science for as long as I can remember, while this new stuff has ushered me on-board.

Modern physics does have some interesting implications for sure. But a lot of authors have also taken advantage of that and over-interpreted things, reported bias studies and taken advantage of the trends. Largely since that movie The Secret became popular.

Sounds like you are actually in agreement with Dawkins criticisms on religion.

You must trust science enough now since your using a science-machine to communicate with others?

Could I ask please..Is not believing an oxymoron? a belief in not believing?

[organic born]

Originally Posted by joelr

Sounds like you are actually in agreement with Dawkins criticisms on religion.

I'm every bit in agreement with his criticisms on religion! Of the Four Horsemen: Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens, by far my favorite is (was, god rest his soul) Hitchens. I've spent hours in the past watching Christopher tangle with religious apologists in his most decisive and eloquent manor.

I am not a new age proponent in the ways that simply embraces everything that begins with the word "love" and ends with the word "believe". My beef with Dawkins has more to do with his desire to go after "everything", even results that were emerging from serious scientific investigations. He refused to study the very things he was looking to debunk. I had finally had it when he tried to set Rupert Sheldrake up as a hit piece in one of Dawkins aired segments some time ago. I've studied Sheldrake and find his observations well worthy of consideration, while Dawkins just wanted to try and make him look foolish in the public's eye. Dawkins lied to get Sheldrake on the show. The truth came out before the interview got underway and thankfully Sheldrake removed the mike and left. Rupert Sheldrake doesn't mind being challenged in an honest debate, while Dawkins had no such thing in mind. Said tons about Dawkins integrity.

Religion has earned the right to be ridiculed and dismissed. Religion has been ridiculing and dismissing the heart of the individual for over 2000 years now. Dawkins was going after an individual who cares about what he studies and does do diligence to keep it honest and clean. While Dawkins himself behaved no better than the religions he condemns!

Also, as a ponderous thought , I'm not big on the word "Atheist". It unconsciously ties the individual back to the religious paradigm, as though religious was the default position and the said "Atheist" was in contrast to this condition. I suggest that if we don't believe in fairy tails then we simply don't believe. Period. I don't care to be compared to a religious person while so being this way. I suspect you'd agree.

Originally Posted by joelr

You must trust science enough now since your using a science-machine to communicate with others?

Now that's just silly. I'm sure there is much we can easily agree on. You just asked me about Dawkins, it would have been impolite of me to not have elaborated further.

Originally Posted by organic born

I'm every bit in agreement with his criticisms on religion! Of the Four Horsemen: Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens, by far my favorite is (was, god rest his soul) Hitchens. I've spent hours in the past watching Christopher tangle with religious apologists in his most decisive and eloquent manor.

I am not a new age proponent in the ways that simply embraces everything that begins with the word "love" and ends with the word "believe". My beef with Dawkins has more to do with his desire to go after "everything", even results that were emerging from serious scientific investigations. He refused to study the very things he was looking to debunk. I had finally had it when he tried to set Rupert Sheldrake up as a hit piece in one of Dawkins aired segments some time ago. I've studied Sheldrake and find his observations well worthy of consideration, while Dawkins just wanted to try and make him look foolish in the public's eye. Dawkins lied to get Sheldrake on the show. The truth came out before the interview got underway and thankfully Sheldrake removed the mike and left. Rupert Sheldrake doesn't mind being challenged in an honest debate, while Dawkins had no such thing in mind. Said tons about Dawkins integrity.

Religion has earned the right to be ridiculed and dismissed. Religion has been ridiculing and dismissing the heart of the individual for over 2000 years now. Dawkins was going after an individual who cares about what he studies and does do diligence to keep it honest and clean. While Dawkins himself behaved no better than the religions he condemns!

Also, as a ponderous thought , I'm not big on the word "Atheist". It unconsciously ties the individual back to the religious paradigm, as though religious was the default position and the said "Atheist" was in contrast to this condition. I suggest that if we don't believe in fairy tails then we simply don't believe. Period. I don't care to be compared to a religious person while so being this way. I suspect you'd agree.



Now that's just silly. I'm sure there is much we can easily agree on. You just asked me about Dawkins, it would have been impolite of me to not have elaborated further.

I loved Hitchens also.

Yes I agree with what you say. Atheist means no god, no spiritual realm no anything. Which is silly to say because no one knows about that for sure. I just don't believe mythology is a real thing. No one would call me an atheist because I don't worship other redeemer demigods (virgin birth, sky father) like Hercules or Osirus or Horus. Christianity is just greek and Egyptian mythology.
Starting with Moses who is Dionisis who were both associated with wine, speaking with god in a tent for 40 days accompanied by arron, same wife, same exodus, same battle with a snake-rod and 40 more similarities.

[Morpheus]

So, what would it take for us to leave our disaffections, our bias', and subjective attitudes behined? To see the actual and true situation as it is, in objective manner? Curious.

We have a tripod of supporting evidence. The ancient spiritual teachings , in the Bible and elsewhere. We have today the conclusions of much research in Physics, since Einstein. We have the many annecdotal NDE accounts which we can review.
Which same show a pattern. "What is real", then?
---------------------------------------------------

"We review the idea, due to Einstein, Eddington, Hoyle and Ballard, that time is a subjective label, whose primary purpose is to order events, perhaps in a higher-dimensional universe.
In this approach, all moments in time exist simultaneously, but they are ordered to create the illusion of an unfolding experience by some physical mechanism. This, in the language of relativity, may be connected to a hypersurface in a world that extends beyond spacetime.
Death in such a scenario may be merely a phase change."

Paul S. Wesson, Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
Subjects: General Physics (physics.gen-ph); General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc)
Cite as: arXiv:0905.0119v1 [physics.gen-ph]

Parhamensa Yogananda ~ Author of, "Autobiography of a Yogi"...

"Death is only an experience in which you are meant to learn a great lesson. You cannot die."

Originally Posted by Morpheus

So, what would it take for us to leave our disaffections, our bias', and subjective attitudes behined? To see the actual and true situation as it is, in objective manner? Curious.

We have a tripod of supporting evidence. The ancient spiritual teachings , in the Bible and elsewhere. We have today the conclusions of much research in Physics, since Einstein. We have the many annecdotal NDE accounts which we can review.
Which same show a pattern. "What is real", then?
---------------------------------------------------

"We review the idea, due to Einstein, Eddington, Hoyle and Ballard, that time is a subjective label, whose primary purpose is to order events, perhaps in a higher-dimensional universe.
In this approach, all moments in time exist simultaneously, but they are ordered to create the illusion of an unfolding experience by some physical mechanism. This, in the language of relativity, may be connected to a hypersurface in a world that extends beyond spacetime.
Death in such a scenario may be merely a phase change."

Paul S. Wesson, Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
Subjects: General Physics (physics.gen-ph); General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc)
Cite as: arXiv:0905.0119v1 [physics.gen-ph]

Parhamensa Yogananda ~ Author of, "Autobiography of a Yogi"...

"Death is only an experience in which you are meant to learn a great lesson. You cannot die."

This is also called "block time". One thing with block time though is the problem of freewill. If everything already exists in a 4D block then everything is predestined to the extreme.

To a higher level being we would be a movie. They could watch the end first then start at the beginning knowing what happens.