Daylightstar
Philosopher
Split Thread Scorpion's Spiritualism
- Thread starter Scorpion
- Start date
Donn
Philosopher
Okay, so Spiritualism (the religion) tells you that you can see into the spirit world by using your third eye. Your third eye, upon seeing the spirit world, would confirm that Spiritualism is true.
There is a god because the bible says so. You learn about the reality of god from the bible.
The third eye is a circular argument:
Even if you do not succeed with your third eye attempts, all that you will learn is that
The third eye is the (or a) proof of Spiritualism and if Spiritualism wasn't true then the third eye stuff would be a fable, and it's clearly not because Spiritualism says it's real, therefore one of two things will happen:
1. You fail and must rationalize your failure to open your third eye somehow. You did not try hard enough, or you did something wrong, or you don't have enough chakra yadda ghost oomph voodoo juice, or you blame it on interference from skeptics/atheists, or something to get you off the hook.
2. You appear to succeed but without any evidence and no way to avoid explanation by hallucination/delusion.
Let us know which it was.
PartSkeptic
Illuminator
Hi Scorpion,
Welcome to the hornets nest. I am not going to read through all of this thread.
But I support your viewpoint that mystical experiences happen to some of us. The world of science accepts that this happens to some of us. It is a matter of explaining them.
You have your theory, which I think may have some validity because I too have had some mystical experiences. Mine just happen - and I have no control over them.
Most of the members of this forum belong to the religion of secular humanism. That is - they have an unwavering belief that only the materialistic world exists. They cannot prove it - they just believe what they see and experience. Some may have had some mystical experiences, but dismiss them as a brain malfunction. And for many, they may be right. The mind is indeed subject to delusion.
But to say that there were no prophets, no spiritual inspiration, and souls do not exist, is an opinion based on their belief that science can prove everything, and if it cannot be proven in a scientific manner, it does not exist. They are entitled to their beliefs.
Just watch the stingers swarm!
Relevant to recent posts. The third eye is akin to lucid dreaming while still awake. The mind "sees" things are not physically there. While many times one may not learn anything of value, it is the occasional gem of truth that makes it all worth while.
Welcome to the hornets nest. I am not going to read through all of this thread.
But I support your viewpoint that mystical experiences happen to some of us. The world of science accepts that this happens to some of us. It is a matter of explaining them.
You have your theory, which I think may have some validity because I too have had some mystical experiences. Mine just happen - and I have no control over them.
steenkh said:
Most of the members of this forum belong to the religion of secular humanism. That is - they have an unwavering belief that only the materialistic world exists. They cannot prove it - they just believe what they see and experience. Some may have had some mystical experiences, but dismiss them as a brain malfunction. And for many, they may be right. The mind is indeed subject to delusion.
But to say that there were no prophets, no spiritual inspiration, and souls do not exist, is an opinion based on their belief that science can prove everything, and if it cannot be proven in a scientific manner, it does not exist. They are entitled to their beliefs.
Just watch the stingers swarm!
Relevant to recent posts. The third eye is akin to lucid dreaming while still awake. The mind "sees" things are not physically there. While many times one may not learn anything of value, it is the occasional gem of truth that makes it all worth while.
Last edited:
Daylightstar
Philosopher
This is a euphemism for "can not be shown to exist".
The spiritualists believe in stuff which can not be shown to exist. They're entitled to their beliefs of course, but they persist in forcing their belief onto others.
A belief for which there is not a shred of meaningful evidence.
I Ratant
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2008
- Messages
- 19,258
.
It wasn't all that long ago we weren't, and had to publicly acknowledge the spirit world or be barbecued!
And the god-shouters were equally capable of burning each other over the fictions each held dearly.
Thank god most of us today are not saddled by the fear of death at their hands.
True critical thinkers do not say that such things don't exist. They say there is no evidence of such things. (Most will have no problem with your beliefs either...until you state that your beliefs are factual and actually exist)
Once there is evidence the mindset will change. Until then, what is the difference between Scorpion's third eye and the invisible unicorn in my cupboard?
Daylightstar
Philosopher
PartSkeptic
Illuminator
Forced? Are you being water-boarded while ghostly music is played in the background. Maybe at night when "they" invade your dreams?
We all exchange information about our mental experiences. How else do we deal with the mind problem? I did not believe the stories of others - I had to go through my own in order to doubt the non-existence of the supernatural.
Evidence? Are you not over-looking the bit about personal experience?
Anecdotes - look at history and see how many anecdotes came first - and then science found an explanation. The Koi bushmen in African had many cures from local plants - the pharmaceutical companies have made a fortune by finding out how they worked. Too bad that practical cures do not constitute a patent.
PartSkeptic
Illuminator
I am against the excesses of old-fashioned religion where clerics use fear for their own ends. I am also thankful that age has ended.
But today Islamaphobia is another fear-mongering tactic that allows death to be dispensed by hi-tech means, and without trial. Too bad if you happen live next to a target. What difference is there to priests roaming about looking for witches, and drones buzzing over one's head. The enemy must be destroyed - morally and/or ethically right? Justifiable?
If secular humanists are out to destroy the religions they despise most, and support such anti-religious hatred, then are such persons "more enlightened"?
PartSkeptic
Illuminator
Straw man argument. Unless you really think you have a unicorn in your cupboard?
Intelligent and honest people know that unicorns, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny are all nice stories for little children.
Vivid dreams are a fact. Just because they exist in the mind and cannot be measured does not means they do not exist. NDE's are accepted mental phenomena - the issue is the explanation. There are people who see ghosts, despite the many who falsely make such claims.
To say that every person who says that they have seen a ghost is lying is to stick your head in the sand. Until science knows more about these phenomena and how to measure them, any outright denial has to be taken as a statement of faith that the ultimate reality is that only the material universe exists.
PartSkeptic
Illuminator
It happens all the time that people think they know the truth, and want to help others.
Take the seventh episode of Cosmos - A Spacetime Odyssey "The Clean Room" where one man fights the establishment to prove that lead is a toxin being introduced into the environment and is poisoning people.
I would say to Scorpion - why is your "truth" superior to their "truth". Have you considered that God (who appears to want to remain unproven) has given the world all these religions and they may all have a piece of the universal truth.
I met two women who were Christians (and were spiritual) who went to foreign lands to convert the people. One to Israel and one to India. Both heard a clear voice telling them not to be so arrogant as to think they had the only truth.
Scorpion - research the religions and discard the obvious contradictions, then discard any self-serving rituals, and look for the essence and the spirituality. Read the English version of the Koran and see how it is based on the Bible - and how just the actual pronouncements are. Yes, they need to get up to date - as do many religions. And yes, there are many groups who distort the message - just as there are many pseudo-Christians.
A reasonable Christian is tolerant of others - and despite my doubts about the Ultimate Reality, I find that the basics of the teachings of Jesus (who I cannot accept as God) are quite profound, and good for society when not taken to extremes.
Last edited:
Daylightstar
Philosopher
Not at all. That bit falls under:
The effects of a pharmaceutically active substance are measurable ... provide data .... can be shown to exist.
Your personal experiences are not, do not and can not.
snoop_doxie
Graduate Poster
PartSkeptic,
Who are these secular humanists who want to "destroy" (in what way? asking questions?) any religion?
These SH's have anti religious hatred and claim to be "more enlightened"?
Please explain who you are talking about in your question above.
You say you are thankful the excesses are over, but in the next paragraph mention being a target and dying by high tech means without trial.
I do not think you will convert anyone here.
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
You mean like the anecdotal evidence that convinced early doctors that bleeding and purging their patients was an effective treatment?
Or the anecdotal evidence that convinced our ancestors that doing a rain dance made it rain?
Or the anecdotal evidence that is still convincing people today that astrology and homeopathy work, even though we can demonstrate that they don't?
Given the percentage of cases in which the scientific explanation for the anecdotes turned out to be cognitive biases and/or faulty perceptions and memories, the need to verify anecdotal evidence before accepting it should be clear to any rational person.
Who says that?
Sceptics say that lying and (far more likely) being honestly mistaken are more plausible explanations of such anecdotes than that ghosts are real, and in the absence of objective evidence the null hypothesis that ghosts are not real stands.
Insisting that anecdotal evidence alone is a reliable guide to reality despite the numerous examples that show otherwise is to stick your head in the sand.
Last edited:
Donn
Philosopher
It just happened to you.
An excellent question, as long as you're measuring fantasy against fantasy.
God actually is unproven. No appearance necessary.
None of the religions have any science in them making them all universal bunk.
Methinks they spoke with your voice.
I wonder if Scorpion will feel like accommodating? Maybe he will.
Fast Eddie B
Philosopher
I took the liberty of reordering part of your post.
In this new arrangement, I agree!
Last edited:
Fast Eddie B
Philosopher
A good point.
Anecdote and personal experience can be the starting point for scientific exploration.
Starting point.
People found, anecdotally, that chewing on a willow bark seemed to ease pain. The scientific method first confirmed through double-blinded placebo-controlled tests, that it did seem to be effective. It then ferreted out the active ingredient, acetylsalicylic acid, and confirmed it's effectiveness and optimal doses.
Other people found, anecdotally, that like cures like and that diluting an ingredient 30c resulted in a substance with curative power. The scientific method confirmed, through physics and Avogrado's Number that the prior plausibility of such claims was nil, and then confirmed through double-blinded placebo-controlled tests, that it was not, in fact, effective.
And, don't forget, people in Salem found, anecdotally, that there were witches in their midst. And burned them.
Last edited:
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
It's perfectly reasonable to say that souls don't exist. It's not just that there's no evidence for their existence (though this is of course true), or that there is no known mechanism whereby the soul can interact with the brain (though this is also true).
For a soul to exist, either it needs the be made of normal matter - which it can't be, because with modern technology we'd spot it immediately - or it needs to be made of exotic matter which is less readily detectable. If it's made of exotic matter, it still needs to interact with normal matter, and there, either we'd detect the interaction, or it's something exotic again.
And here's the problem: For this interaction to connect our mundane normal-matter bodies with our souls, it would have to be based on physics of an energy level easily reached by particle accelerators. Which means that whatever souls are, we'd have seen these interactions in experiments at CERN and Fermilab. And we haven't.
We know enough about the Universe at this point that claims of souls or ghosts are equivalent to claims of thirty-foot fire-breathing man-eating and entirely visible dragons in your garage. There is no longer any escape clause. We've opened the garage, and it contains zero dragons.
And the physics that tells us that souls and ghosts are fiction is exactly the same physics that gives us advanced microprocessors, fibre-optic networks, and GPS. If you own an iPhone, you literally have no soul.
Fast Eddie B
Philosopher
PartSkeptic...
About your "handle"...
If you're part "Skeptic", how do you define the other part?
I would hold that the antonym is roughly "credulous". Agree?
And if you're not in stasis, do you see yourself over time becoming more or less skeptical?
Not making fun - genuinely curious.
About your "handle"...
If you're part "Skeptic", how do you define the other part?
I would hold that the antonym is roughly "credulous". Agree?
And if you're not in stasis, do you see yourself over time becoming more or less skeptical?
Not making fun - genuinely curious.
Scorpion
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2013
- Messages
- 3,812
Partskeptic. I have read the quran, in fact I have three english translations in book form and access to many other translations online. Not that this does me much good because muslims argue that I cannot know the quran unless I read it in Arabic. But I do not want to take this thread any further off the topic of spiritualism, as I have already been warned against doing that.