Wilco and atheism

[caliber66]

Have you seen some of the shit these people have been writing? Apparently Neon holds my dick for me when I piss. Or maybe he shakes it, I don't quite remember. Either way, I think "opponent" fits pretty nicely given the gradual decline of this discussion.

This is fucking hilarious.

[kwall]

It's not a leap of faith at all, actually. And neither did I assert that it was true.

you asserted that "it stands to reason that on a long enough timeline we'll prove smart enough to answer them". i take issue with the reasonableness of that assertion. i think it stands to reason that a creative force is at work in the universe. these are our competing beliefs. neither one has any proof.

[Spawn's dad]

Okay, could you, like... contribute something of substance? Soon? Please?

 

Before I just add you to my ignore list? Because the meter is running at this point. (In more explicit terms, this means that your next post really needs to include something besides an ad hominem attack.)

 

And just for the record, I'll entertain a lot of things, but I WILL NOT dispute the reality of evolution. Even if my opponent were willing to meet me halfway by discussing the relative instability of the theory of gravity, I still couldn't be bothered.

 

Yeah, well it's Friday and I just got north and I'm going to put my kid to bed. The truth is you've been ignoring my posts for quite some time

and it's mainly because you're not interested in discussion so much. so you could just go to whole nine yards and hit that ignore switch. Still, I'm

the guy with the real life philosophy degree and I engaged all these arguments 20 something years ago. I'm also a religious teacher, though not of any of the god fearing deity brands. Whatever truth or sense you make is far overshadowed by your inflexibility and your absolute inability to even remotely engage anything other than what you perceive to be the doctrine of truth. Not sure where you got the idea I would dispute evolution, or what that brain of yours has convinced yourself what I believe or understand to be true. Have you actually read any of your drunken attacks posts? Let the hilarity ensue as we discuss the gradual decline of the discussion.

[TheMaker]

For somebody who has absolutely nothing to say, caliber66 sure posts a lot. I guess that helps explain his 13,000+ posts on these boards. I don't like being the de facto moderator of this discussion any more than you guys like seeing me kick people's legs out from beneath them, so hey, let's maybe step this shit up a bit, okay? No more stupid ad hominem attacks, how's that sound? If you want to kick me in the balls, I'm okay with it. Just make sure you're actually have a fucking point to make when you do it.

 

you asserted that "it stands to reason that on a long enough timeline we'll prove smart enough to answer them". i take issue with the reasonableness of that assertion. i think it stands to reason that a creative force is at work in the universe. these are our competing beliefs. neither one has any proof.

 

Okay, the most obvious problem here is that in no way are those competing beliefs. Sheesh! If your belief is that a creative force is at work in the universe, then what prevents us from eventually isolating and explaining it? Conversely, my secular hypothesis precludes the existence of a "creator" not definitively, but through a total absence of available proof. It's not often I'll issue a concession when it comes to the religion vs. science debate, but this aspect of it syncs up rather harmoniously. One is still far more logical than the other, mind you, but... y'know.

 

This next part isn't a problem for me at all, but I suspect it will prove rather irksome for you: if I'm proven wrong thousands of years from now, and humankind's potential is less than I have estimated it to be, I would be more than fine with that. My entire worldview is based on the evaluation of evidence and the application of intelligence. It makes no grand claims unless they are rooted in evidence.

 

Flipside of that coin: are you okay with the probability that there is no god?

[caliber66]

For somebody who has absolutely nothing to say, caliber66 sure posts a lot. I guess that helps explain his 13,000+ posts on these boards. I don't like being the de facto moderator of this discussion any more than you guys like seeing me kick people's legs out from beneath them, so hey, let's maybe step this shit up a bit, okay? No more stupid ad hominem attacks, how's that sound? If you want to kick me in the balls, I'm okay with it. Just make sure you're actually have a fucking point to make when you do it.

[Central Scrutinizer]

I rest my case.

So be it. You'll have to await the verdict along with the rest of us. It is completely out of your hands.

 

Peace be with you.

[bobbob1313]

I love evolution as much as the next guy, but it says nothing about 'why' this stuff happens the way it does. This is why religion is still relevant for many people. The 'why', not the 'how'.

[TheMaker]

You still haven't said anything substantive, Spawn's dad.

 

What am I ignoring, exactly? Just what do you want me to address, specifically? Tell me, and I'll address it, since it's apparently my sole responsibility to address every single fucking question, anecdote, challenge and rejoinder thrown at me in this thread, in spite of the fact that the faithful (and their advocates) outnumber the secular by a pretty impressive margin.

 

And speaking of the faithful, I've repeatedly asked them to address the LaPlace/Napoleon example, to no avail. I've repeatedly asked the faithful to defend the many contradictions found in scripture. When no challenges ever manifested themselves, I was more than content to move on and entertain yet another tack. And you know what? I still haven't run out of things to say, and I still haven't been caught in a logic trap. That's a hell of a lot more than I can say for the supporters of Bog the Great and Dingus Christ, Jr.

 

I'm not attacking anything other than the stupid lies and astonishing leaps of logic that fuel every religion to which I have ever had the misfortune of being exposed. If you feel offended by that, well hell, I'm genuinely sorry. I'll buy you a beer the next time you're in southern Ontario. I'll sit here and exchange jabs with you guys, but don't ever expect me to respect any fucking cults, because it ain't gonna happen. Believe it or not, I tried doing that for a whole lot of years. It didn't work, and the main reason why is because the faithful never seem remotely willing to meet me even halfway. Where's my incentive? You're not even willing to answer any of my unaddressed points, for fuck's sake!

 

If you've got a "real life philosophy degree," that's absolutely fantastic. I mean, I don't particularly care - would you like me to scan my CV? It has nothing to do with philosophy, but if academic dick-swinging is what this conversation has truly been reduced to, I think I'd rather continue to play along than be accused of slinking out the back door.

[Central Scrutinizer]

I'm not convinced I have any "belief" insofar as this is concerned. None of us knows the origin of man, so all any of us really has is a collection of testable hypotheses. Some are ridiculous on their face (flimsy religious non-explanations, for instance), whereas others seem to point to further questions (evolution, for instance, or the Big Bang theory, each of which sufficiently answers at least one important question but in so doing introduces a few of its own).

 

Since religious attempts to address man's origin are completely unsatisfactory (we can boil them down to a single one-word answer that would not even prove sufficient to a curious child: "Because"), I am forced to continue asking questions and looking for answers elsewhere. Once again, Ockham's razor cuts clean and true: follow the crumbs, eventually you'll find the cookie. Year after year after year, science continually yields astonishing new discoveries to explore, whereas religion ran out of ideas hundreds of years ago. It's time to roll up our sleeves and attempt to answer our own questions. If we're smart enough to ask them, it stands to reason that on a long enough timeline we'll prove smart enough to answer them. It's simply a matter of being patient, humble and waiting for evidence to present itself.

 

If that doesn't float your boat, there's always religion, which offers snappy answers to life's trickiest questions, as well as a plethora of easy pseudo-explanations for the pious, the judgmental and the terminally stupid.

 

P.S., "Creator" is still a loaded term. Again, my apologies.

So now you backpedal. A creator does not exist because this is what you believe. You look for facts to disprove him, you weigh different philosophies and theologies and they don't hold up to your scrutiny. What makes you think that those who, just as truly ignorant of the truth as you, do not continue this mode of inquiry.

 

This is where you spout heifer dust. You presume and accuse and you hold this up as your proof. I don't know, you don't know. You pursue the answer, I pursue the answer from a different direction, both of us based on our knowledge, experience, beliefs, opinions, defense mechanisms, biases, all funneled through the neurological road show that Joe refers to. That we're withstanding these slings and arrows shows that we are exploring this line of inquiry as well.

 

That you belittle any responses, any questions, any countering of your biases, is where you become troubling to those who debate with you. You claim people don't follow your reasoning and then you cherry pick any response. Faithful is as faithless does.

[Central Scrutinizer]

if you believe that evolution explains how and why life came into existence, that's a leap of faith. there's no proof of that.

I completely believe in evolution. But I don't think it and of itself disproves a creator. I'm putting thoughts behind kwall's response that maybe he doesn't intend, but I think that the wonders of how everything evolves and survives is wondrous. Again, the whats are amazing, but we're still scratching at the whys. That fact that everything happens for a reason

[Central Scrutinizer]

I certainly can't disagree with this. Five senses aren't nearly enough to even identify the vast majority of matter in the universe, let alone parse it in a way that makes absolute sense to us. This does not invite wild speculation, but rather focused researched and diligent experimentation.

 

Again, I believe I've stated quite definitively that I have no strong "belief" concerning mankind's latent ability to explore anything. The best I, or any of us, can do is speculate. One of my theories is that as our knowledge increases, so too does our ability to make sense of our environment. Unlike, say, the Christian flock, I have no pressing desire to know absolutely fucking everything about the universe. I certainly don't feel the need to pretend to have access to knowledge which no man in truth possesses. I am rather content to explore that which can be explored.

 

See this is exactly the point a number of people make. You paint the "Christian flock" as one collective mind. So your bias stands as the whole proof of whatever you believe. You belittle those to continue to explore and speculate as long as they approaching it from a theological standpoint.

 

About two-dozen posts ago you said "religion is a lie," but now you're backing away from that.

 

You're content to explore what can be explored and yet you claim to know what scientists agree at this point can't be known.

[TheMaker]

So now you backpedal.

 

Hardly.

 

A creator does not exist because this is what you believe.

 

Again, hardly.

 

I have never even come close to arguing this line, One Wing. I'm surprised you can still type from your position, having bent over backwards to obfuscate my actual argument with your fuzzy, backwards psychology.

 

My logic is as follows: a creator does not exist because no evidence points to the existence of a creator. Yours is a classic argumentum ad consequentiam. You see matter, and you assume that it must have been created by a being or a thing. You already know you want to introduce the notion of a "creator," and so you begin with your hypothesis rather than any actual evidence.

 

You look for facts to disprove him, you weigh different philosophies and theologies and they don't hold up to your scrutiny. What makes you think that those who, just as truly ignorant of the truth as you, do not continue this mode of inquiry. This is where you spout heifer dust. You presume and accuse and you hold this up as your proof.

 

I can have a grand old time weighing philosophies. Theologies I haven't any time for, since they're all light as featherdust and rooted in fantasy.

 

I don't know how many times you people want me to type this, but one cannot reasonably be expected to prove a negative. The best one can do is attempt to disprove an illogical belief by producing evidence which strongly suggests said belief is irrational and untrue. I have produced a mountain of rather damning evidence that conclusively proves, as far as any lucid mind need be concerned, that Christianity, Islam, Judaism, et al. are little more than wild rubbish.

 

I don't know, you don't know. You pursue the answer, I pursue the answer from a different direction, both of us based on our knowledge, experience, beliefs, opinions, defense mechanisms, biases, all funneled through the neurological road show that Joe refers to. That we're withstanding these slings and arrows shows that we are exploring this line of inquiry as well.

 

This is beautifully worded, Wing. I will grant you that. (I would definitely like to see your degree, once we start scanning and posting them in this thread!) It's also a bit dishonest, though, isn't it? We can talk about "exploring roads" and "experiential beliefs" until the cows come home, but we are doing ourselves an intellectual disservice if we don't shine the harsh light of objective evaluation on the fantastic claims made by all religions. In most cases, sufficient evidence exists to disbelieve the truth claims made by the books of the Bible, the Koran, the Tanakh, the Gita, or indeed any text along those lines. As a registered social-democrat and a person who self-identifies as a progressive (because "liberal" just ain't a strong enough tonic for me), I believe in being open-minded (how many left-wing atheists do you know who generally lend their support to the war on terror? Probably one, including me), but I also can't be bothered to lend credence to any idea that is false on its face.

 

That you belittle any responses, any questions, any countering of your biases, is where you become troubling to those who debate with you. You claim people don't follow your reasoning and then you cherry pick any response. Faithful is as faithless does.

 

I rarely cherrypick my responses, actually. I would have finished my work for the day hours ago were it not for the fact that I've been going out of my way to address most of what's been discussed in this thread today.

 

I have no beef with you, One Wing. You've said some interesting things here, and you haven't yet stooped to ad hominem attacks (although the statement "faithful is as faithless does" comes pretty close to the mark, given the pair of sentences which immediately precedes it), but when I read your posts I can't help seeing a lot of philosophical dithering and tolerance for the sake of tolerance. I understand that not everybody will respond to what I have to say because of how I tend to say it, but I'm not here to play nice, and I'm sure not here to support ideas that are fractured, divisive and false on their face.

[TheMaker]

Shit. I somehow double-posted when I meant to slap up something new.

 

Long story short, I agree that evolution isn't something that rules out the existence of a "creator," but it sure plays havoc with organized religion, doesn't it? Many evangelicals still quibble with the reality of evolution, but most Christians accept that it's precisely as legitimate as the scientific theories which explain, say, the complexity of gravity or the laws governing thermodynamics.

 

It remains in religion's best interest to roll with the punches science delivers on a fairly regular basis. This is why Christianity, the religion of choice in much of the free world, has been so heavily self-edited over the years. Moderation spares contemporary Christians the embarrassment of having to stone faithless wives to death, murder homosexuals and non-believers, and avoid wearing poly-cotton blends at all costs. Conversely, it stands to reason that the Islamic world is such a beastly place precisely because of the fact that Islam has been allowed to spread mostly unfettered across several centuries.

 

Also, I would argue that evolution does much to address the "why" even as it explains the "how." What is evolution? The process of change in the inherited genetic traits of an organism from one generation to the next, ad infinitum (presumably). Why does this change occur? Because organisms need to better adapt to their environment. Why? Because their earliest iterations made survival difficult. Maybe because their environment has changed over time.

 

There is a philosophical "why" that evolution does not attempt to answer, of course

 

Of course, it is not up to evolution to address philosophical concerns. This reminds me of the earliest bits of this discussion, when believers still expected "atheism" - literally, a lack of belief in god - to address unfounded metaphysical concerns. "Give me a substitute!" they moaned. It's pretty absurd. In fact, it makes no sense whatsoever.

[austrya]

I completely believe in evolution. But I don't think it and of itself disproves a creator.

 

QFT

 

I also don't take the bible as literally as most, which explains the contradictions. A lot of that is just metaphors.

 

I'm still happy being Catholic, so keep trying...

[myboyblue]

one could make the argument that this thread is no longer about Wilco.

[TheMaker]

See this is exactly the point a number of people make. You paint the "Christian flock" as one collective mind.

 

This charge is absolutely, unequivocally false. In fact, in my most recent post I was careful to differentiate between the more radical elements of evangelical Christianity and what has gradually evolved to become mainstream Christianity.

 

Please don't feel pressured to issue an apology; I'd be more than content if you would simply start paying attention to the things I say, instead of merely how I say them.

 

So your bias stands as the whole proof of whatever you believe.

 

I really don't know how you could begin to assert such a petty false charge. (Fine, so I'm being disingenuous; it follows from your earlier false charge.) It would be closer to the mark for you to say that the evidence I have examined stands as the whole proof of the conclusion at which I have arrived. The many irreconcilable contradictions of scripture hardly stand as proof of my bias. The outlandish and impossible physical claims of virtually all religions are not examples of my bias. Nor are the even more absurd metaphysical claims of religion examples of my bias. The unrelenting insistence on the part of the faithful that an omniscient deity exists, in spite of zero evidence to support this belief, is certainly not an example of my bias.

 

About two-dozen posts ago you said "religion is a lie," but now you're backing away from that.

 

I'm not backing away from it at all.

 

Religion is a lie.

 

Its metaphysical claims are false. Its "miracles" are hardly sophisticated, and tailored to impress audiences who would have read the Bible when it was still relevant and might have had something valuable to impart. Its ludicrous hucksterism is nothing like an alternative for genuine knowledge and wisdom.

 

What's true is that I've clarified my position after several parties rather unsuccessfully attempted to block me into a corner using semantics. Look: we can reasonably conclude, even though we cannot categorically prove, that the legend of Jesus fuckin' Christ is a massive lie, a bullshit story, that Jesus never existed, and that he was probably a huge asshole if he did exist. We can't prove that Allah doesn't exist, because it's impossible to prove a negative. But what we can do is consider God and Allah and the rest (and yes, I'm aware that they are mostly one in the same) in a realistic context and allow ourselves to arrive at the conclusion that religion is bullshit.

 

You're content to explore what can be explored and yet you claim to know what scientists agree at this point can't be known.

 

This is an idiotic statement, One Wing. Put simply, you're lying. I have NEVER in my life made any such truth claims. Lies of this scope are strictly in the domain of faith. I have only ever advocated free inquiry, skepticism, evidence-weighing and open-mindedness. I have speculated that mankind may one day be able to provide satisfactory answers to life's trickiest questions, and I have admitted that I may be wrong just as easily as I may be right.

 

Congrats. Your self-serving obfuscation and deliberate mischaracterization of my remarks has succeeded in pissing me the fuck off. If you're smart, and I can tell by reading your stuff that you are, you'll think twice before doing it again. Because if you try, I'll just show up to tear your absurd charges apart.

[TheMaker]

I also don't take the bible as literally as most, which explains the contradictions. A lot of that is just metaphors.

 

I'm still happy being Catholic, so keep trying

 

Can I ask you a totally honest question? If you're a Catholic and you don't take the Bible literally (or at least not "as literally as most"), then why do you bother? "Oh, this bunch of nonsense really makes sense to me! Yeah, it speaks to me!" Is there some sort of psychological workaround that you've devised to get around this rather incredible sticking point, or...?

 

Also, how do you go from the reality of evolution to the "metaphor" of Adam and Eve? I have always been terribly curious about this. Is there an apocryphal text I haven't read, or...?

 

Edit: and that's me done for a while. I'll drop in again a few pages from now. Don't have too much fun without me.

[caliber66]

This charge is absolutely, unequivocally false. In fact, in my most recent post I was careful to differentiate between the more radical elements of evangelical Christianity and what has gradually evolved to become mainstream Christianity.

 

Please don't feel pressured to issue an apology; I'd be more than content if you would simply start paying attention to the things I say, instead of merely how I say them.

I'm sure there is a psychological diagnosis for your pathological need to belittle people, but sadly my education did not include Psychology. You are a piece of work. Yeah, ad hominem, ad shmominem. Though the bit I quoted above is not specifically identified (to my, again, limited knowledge) as a logical fallacy, your continual and pervasive derision of the people you ostensibly wish to engage in debate should be.

[Panther]

saying there is no creator is less logical than saying there is one simply by virtue of existence, prove that wrong buddds.

(Im not saying its a he or she or an it even but we do exist duh! and don't say the onus of proof is on me)

[M. (hristine]

I certainly can't disagree with this. Five senses aren't nearly enough to even identify the vast majority of matter in the universe, let alone parse it in a way that makes absolute sense to us.

Add to that cognitive closure and bias and one realizes that even the most rational and intellectually astute of us are limited in ability to even ask the right questions.

 

The empirical limit of science is my philosophical starting point, not my concession.

 

Again, I believe I've stated quite definitively that I have no strong "belief" concerning mankind's latent ability to explore anything. The best I, or any of us, can do is speculate. One of my theories is that as our knowledge increases, so too does our ability to make sense of our environment. Unlike, say, the Christian flock, I have no pressing desire to know absolutely fucking everything about the universe. I certainly don't feel the need to pretend to have access to knowledge which no man in truth possesses. I am rather content to explore that which can be explored.

 

You are content to explore the realm of the material and you seem well suited to that. My exploration extends a bit further. It puzzles me why you would need to denigrate that.

[kwall]

Okay, the most obvious problem here is that in no way are those competing beliefs. Sheesh! If your belief is that a creative force is at work in the universe, then what prevents us from eventually isolating and explaining it?

nothing, i suppose.

 

Conversely, my secular hypothesis precludes the existence of a "creator" not definitively, but through a total absence of available proof. It's not often I'll issue a concession when it comes to the religion vs. science debate, but this aspect of it syncs up rather harmoniously. One is still far more logical than the other, mind you, but... y'know.

i guess i'm not really sure what you're saying here. i never claimed that your hypothesis required a creator.

 

would you be more comfortable if i called my belief a "hypothesis"? my hypothesis is that there is a creative force at work in the universe. your hypothesis is that science will eventually answer every question that we are capable of asking. these are competing in the sense that yours precludes the existence of a creative force.

 

is there a concession in here somewhere?

 

One is still far more logical than the other, mind you, but... y'know.

my hypothesis is more logical to me.

 

This next part isn't a problem for me at all, but I suspect it will prove rather irksome for you: if I'm proven wrong thousands of years from now, and humankind's potential is less than I have estimated it to be, I would be more than fine with that. My entire worldview is based on the evaluation of evidence and the application of intelligence. It makes no grand claims unless they are rooted in evidence.

 

Flipside of that coin: are you okay with the probability that there is no god?

i seek the truth just as you do. obviously, whatever the truth turns out to be is ok with me.

[Spawn's dad]

I don't think anyone would argue that organized religion is a flawed system. They start off, perhaps, with the best

of intentions--that of carrying on the helpful words of a teacher--but eventually slip into the typical human pattern

of aggrandizement and the desire for ever increasing levels of power. So yes, many ills occur in the name of

religion. But the same can be said of any organization. Enron wasn't a religion (though one could argue that capitalism

is in fact a religion {speaking of which the local Hummer dealer closed so did the religion lose a minor god?}) The fact that we,

as humans, screw things up doesn't negate the power or even the needs for teachings that help root us in morality or provide solace

in difficult times. What the Maker repeatedly points to does contain elements of this, it just lacks a deity, is a

wholly humanistic moral path, but most importantly it lacks any soft edges in his explanation as he's too busy

belittling and tearing down others. Maker, if you're to be our new religious father you really need to soften

the presentation a bit. All this really points to, which I've pointed out time and again throughout these threads (and

which Old Neon declares too invalid to even acknowledge) is that spiritual practice is personal, experiential,

and the truths realized fall outside the methodologies most commonly used by science. A different paradigm

is needed to explore them, and there are in fact those who are creating these newer avenues of inquiry. So yeah,

it's easy to piss on the Muslim religion, or Catholicism. Neon seems to have a hard time dumping on the eastern

religions, though I could (and have actually) pointed to many aspects that would require the same sort

of experiential knowledge to understand. But the real question would be what is to be gained from dumping

on real people who are here talking about their lives and what role religion or spirituality plays in their lives?

It's quite a flawed world outlook that is so devoid of humility or compassion that ones only role in a community

is to be proven correct all the time. So yes, you have disproven the existence of god. I did it when I was 19

with honors. By logical extension anyone who believes in god, or questions how or why they're here is a retard.

Yes. And yet still there's more to it all than that. And it's from that place that I personally begin my own

inquiry. It's where I teach from, and it's that path that orients my life and world view. It's one that inclines

me towards tranquility, compassion and humility. Perhaps there is nothing more to this existence (though

why pursue anything at all in this world) and we just end up worm food and most likely forgotten within

a generation. But even if that's true, my personal path makes that existence, for me, more joyful and rich.

[M. (hristine]

Can I hold it for you when you pee?

[austrya]

Can I ask you a totally honest question? If you're a Catholic and you don't take the Bible literally (or at least not "as literally as most"), then why do you bother? "Oh, this bunch of nonsense really makes sense to me! Yeah, it speaks to me!" Is there some sort of psychological workaround that you've devised to get around this rather incredible sticking point, or...?

 

Also, how do you go from the reality of evolution to the "metaphor" of Adam and Eve? I have always been terribly curious about this. Is there an apocryphal text I haven't read, or...?

 

Edit: and that's me done for a while. I'll drop in again a few pages from now. Don't have too much fun without me.

 

 

I answered this in another thread on here. The whole part of the bible that deals with creation says that it took God 7 days. But who's to say that was 7 literal days, as in one week. Maybe those 7 days were actually millions of years. The bible also says people lived to be 900 years old, which we know isn't possible. The deacon at my church is actually the one who opened my eyes to this.

 

I go to church because I feel it keeps me in balance. It gives me an outlet to voice my frustration with every day life and I feel a sense of peace as soon as I walk through the doors. I can pray and feel that God is listening to what I'm saying. It's like instant therapy for me. I've always been Catholic, but lapsed as a child. It wasn't until about 5 years ago that I was confirmed and started attending regularly. When my dad died unexpectedly 4 years ago, my faith held me together like nothing else. I think if it were not for that, I would be in a pretty bad place right now. I see where my mom and my sister are, both of which are atheist. I'm not saying that an atheist can't get through some bad times on their own, but I think some faith would really have helped my mom and my sister. They both became atheist the day my dad died. How could there be such a thing as God when someone you love so much is taken from you? I had a sense of peace knowing that one day I would be reunited with him and they just see him as gone. My mom used to get angry that I went to church. Kind of like a "how could you?" I've never tried to get them to change their mind about their decisions. I leave them alone about it and I expect them to do the same for me.

 

My mind can't grasp why someone wouldn't want to believe there is something greater out there. I don't look down on anyone for believing that, just as I wouldn't look down on anyone who is Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, etc. I say to each his/her own, I just don't understand it. I'm not going to try to convert anyone, but I'm not going to lie about who I am to make anyone happy either.

 

This thread has been interesting for me, even if I think it gets a little over the top sometimes. I hope this post made sense.

[kwall]

All this really points to, which I've pointed out time and again throughout these threads (and

which Old Neon declares too invalid to even acknowledge) is that spiritual practice is personal, experiential,

and the truths realized fall outside the methodologies most commonly used by science. A different paradigm

is needed to explore them, and there are in fact those who are creating these newer avenues of inquiry.

it seems that, for neon and maker, science is their god. in that, science has all the answers. "It's simply a matter of being patient, humble and waiting for evidence to present itself". to suggest to them that a different paradigm is needed is heresy.

 

even the atheist has a belief system. even the atheist takes a leap of faith.