For former Mormons who became atheists

[_Lightworker]

Mysticism and Mystics Seriously?
Surely such a true art would be adopted by universities and educational establishments, practiced and taught as science?
Or is it shared in secret societies behind closed doors?

You make an assumption that is not logical. Why do you think there are different schools and areas of expertise? Many of these philosophies taught at these schools disagree with each other. Many schools of thought that consider themselves modern are actually quite primitive and barbaric considering they don't look at reality at a macro level. They tend to specialize. As a result, they don't integrate their paradigm with the whole. Modern medicine is one example. Allopathic versus homeopathic. Allopathic doctors seem to be quite ignorant of how the body heals itself. For example I just went to the doctor for something and was given advice that was blatantly wrong according to science, but it was right according to their school of thought. The two schools of thought need to communicate to each other a little better and integrate the truths from each.

With mysticism, we are dealing with the inner subjective experience of individuals. This is typically brushed aside by scientists, as it is hard to prove. The other problem with it is modern western culture has a problem with mysticism because it is confused with religion, and religion is dogmatic, not scientific. Mysticism is actually quite scientific by nature, because it deals with observable phenomena and evidence. For example, telepathy is observable and very scientific if you are the one experiencing it.

It seems to me that the philosophies in the east, such as China and India, are more advanced in the areas of scientific mystical study. They don't make erroneous assumptions such as "there is no such thing as spirit". They try to integrate spirit with the scientific method. However, this is difficult because mysticism deals with the intentions of the heart and how can this be measured by science? It can be observed by personal practice in ones own life.

Like I said, our schools are more primitive than we would like to believe. We need to evolve our education and integrate differing specialties. A typical Ph.D. is very skilled in their particular subject, but ask them to compare it with another specialty and they will be completely uneducated in their response. They don't know the other specialty.

To get a good view of mysticism, a macro study needs to take place. Don't study the dogma, but the direct experience of individuals separated by centuries and continents. This Unity experience is universal and cross cultural. It is often described by those experiencing it in the terms of mythology though. It is where myth and religion originate.
There are many educational establishments that offer training in mystical arts.

Have you been inhaling or ingesting substances that claim to alter and or expand your mind?

Are you familiar with the pen and teller tv show called "b***s***!"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_%26_Teller:_Bullshit!

I love Penn and Teller, they are great! Skepticism is a good thing but just use it in moderation. Most of the skepticism I have seen with regard to God makes assumptions about God that are not rational. Straw man arguments typically.

I respect an atheist who sincerely believes in their atheism. They provide balance in this world by pointing our the hucksters. What they fail to do is sincerely integrate a spiritual practice themselves so that it can be subjectively tested. This is the only way to really find out.

Mormonism is a good spiritual practice for some as it helps people love each other better. Some people need structure in their lives in order to be wise and loving. Others don't. I found the Mormon teachings a great source of truth and inspiration but also I could not be a sincere believer in the dogma. Too many contradictions and too much spiritual darkness and confusion. It does not give credence to other spiritual practices. I do like the mystical teaching of trust no mortal only trust spirit though. That is the key teaching in my opinion.

As for the esoterica, I don't know how to answer that. I think this evolved simply due to ignorance and persecution. Jesus taught his disciples more in depth than the general public because the public couldn't handle his teachings. Too much corruption.

Humanity is evolving as spiritual beings. I look forward to the day when mysticism can be studied more openly and scientifically. I don't think we are quite there yet. To much ego in the world presently.

[_PrickKicker]

You don't get it, do you???

It is not the 'Humanitarian-harmony' philosophy of religious people,
that people like me dislike.

It is the unprovable bull crap, magic and mystiscism.

Which you clearly will not share your insight into, along with your enlightenment on a site like this, with swine like us.

We by word magic turn people like you back into your natural form which is a manipulatively deceptive habitual pathological compulsive delusional sociopath with empty promises of spiritual guidance and enlightenment.

BE TRUE TO YOURSELF AND OTHERS BY KEEPING IT REAL!
STOP TRYING TO CONVINCE PEOPLE YOU KNOW MORE THAN THEY DO ABOUT THE - UNKNOWN!

[_Drifting]

Subgenius, please prove that being a member of Mormonism is objectively "better" than not being a member of it.

I did not make that claim did I?

No, but you claimed that self-contradiction doesn't make something false. You also appear to be a believing member of Utah's wealthiest sect of Brighamite Mormonism, so I assume that you think that being a member is objectively "better" than not being one. . . otherwise you wouldn't be one.

why should that burden be upon me? its your claim - you prove it!

I don't claim that being a member of Mormonism is "better" than not being one.

Where did subby go?

[_subgenius]

No, but you claimed that self-contradiction doesn't make something false.

which was in response to your claim that self-contradiction does make something false...which for being the original claim...has yet to be proven by you and since i have given you examples of how my response was accurate.
as they say...the ball is in your court.

[_Alfredo]

No, but you claimed that self-contradiction doesn't make something false.

which was in response to your claim that self-contradiction does make something false...which for being the original claim...has yet to be proven by you and since i have given you examples of how my response was accurate.
as they say...the ball is in your court.

Examples I explicitly rebutted. You dismissed them and avoided returning a direct and point-by-point response. As a matter of fact, you haven't shown that you understand the content of the objection itself or even why my thoughts are mistaken.

I'd very much appreciate it if you respectfully and fully addressed my point. Or poke fun. I like that, too.

[_subgenius]

Examples I explicitly rebutted. You dismissed them and avoided returning a direct and point-by-point response. As a matter of fact, you haven't shown that you understand the content of the objection itself or even why my thoughts are mistaken.

your feeble rebuttals do not remove the burden for Dr Shades with regards to his claim.
Nor are your rebuttals necessarily negating of my examples, they are for the most part illegitimate and only exemplified your misunderstanding of the concept. Fundamentally there exists an ability for something to be self-contradicting and true - which contrasts Dr Shades' claim, which to date as been unsupported by logic, reason, and reality.

[_subgenius]

Examples I explicitly rebutted. You dismissed them and avoided returning a direct and point-by-point response. As a matter of fact, you haven't shown that you understand the content of the objection itself or even why my thoughts are mistaken.

your feeble rebuttals do not remove the burden for Dr Shades with regards to his claim.
Nor are your rebuttals necessarily negating of my examples, they are for the most part illegitimate and only exemplified your misunderstanding of the concept. Fundamentally there exists an ability for something to be self-contradicting and true - which contrasts Dr Shades' claim, which to date as been unsupported by logic, reason, and reality.

[_Alfredo]

your feeble rebuttals do not remove the burden for Dr Shades with regards to his claim.

Why should I care?

Nor are your rebuttals necessarily negating of my examples,

Another indirect dismissal.

they are for the most part illegitimate and only exemplified your misunderstanding of the concept.

Another indirect dismissal.

Fundamentally there exists an ability for something to be self-contradicting and true - which contrasts Dr Shades' claim, which to date as been unsupported by logic, reason, and reality.

Restatement of an unsupported claim.

I absolutely negated any self-contradiction in any ontological sense. When there's no accuracy, there's no confirmation of self-contradiction. Only it's appearance given by a misapplication of language.

If you provided better examples I'd be happy to concede whatever point it is you're trying to make but, for the 3rd or 4th time without any direct or point-by-point response...

Any "self-contradiction" in the examples you gave are the result of inaccurate language. This can be demonstrated by using more accurate language.

Because........ the "self-contradiction" magically disappears after you modify the statements to more accurately reflect the case.

Let's start again and slower this time and define our terms as we go. Let me make the direct rebuttal to the room example a bit clearer:

"Dr Shades is in the room" and "Dr Shades is NOT in the room" are innaccurate statements.

You can't say "The first half of Dr Shades is the room" and "The first half of Dr Shades is NOT the room". One is clearly false, when according to you... they both must be true at the same time. "Half of Dr Shades" is still "Dr Shades", right?

You're using slippery language. Why don't you clearly define "Dr Shades"?

The statements "The first half of Dr Shades is NOT the room" and "The second half of Dr Shades IS in the room" are clearly false. The only true and accurate statements now are "The first half of Dr Shades is the room" and "The second half of Dr Shades is NOT in the room".

Both of these new statements are more accurate than your two, as far as we can tell. Plus, they're still talking about the same thing. So, where's your contradiction now? Why should defining terms more accurately negate a real "self-contradiction", if there was one? The only explanation is that language is the problem and any "self-contradiction" is purely imaginary.

[_subgenius]

Any "self-contradiction" in the examples you gave are the result of inaccurate language. This can be demonstrated by using more accurate language.

Because........ the "self-contradiction" magically disappears after you modify the statements to more accurately reflect the case.

ambiguity does not have any relevance to the accuracy of either statement. They are both, quite simply, accurate and truthful.
The third statement is merely another perspective...linguistically as ambiguous as any other...and its ability to coincide with the other 2 while maintaining the truthfulness of all three statements simply confirms the point.

Let's start again and slower this time and define our terms as we go. Let me make the direct rebuttal to the room example a bit clearer:

no matter how slow we go, you still refuse to admit you were wrong. Your ego seems to be relentless on this matter, and i do not know why - you have nothing vested in this and its not like there are any cash prizes. Nevertheless, you seem to insist on accentuating how difficult it is for you.
your "direct" rebuttal (as opposed to an indirect one?) is just simply inadequate...it is unfortunate, but yet it is still true.
now you can continue to tell yourself otherwise but that reality will not change.

"Dr Shades is in the room" and "Dr Shades is NOT in the room" are innaccurate statements.

no, those statements are, in reality, accurate.
A person could utter either of those statements in life and no one would take exception or be confused.

You can't say "The first half of Dr Shades is the room" and "The first half of Dr Shades is NOT the room". One is clearly false, when according to you... they both must be true at the same time. "Half of Dr Shades" is still "Dr Shades", right?

wrong.
"according to me", those statements are absurd.
my original statements are still accurate and valid...your attempt to re-write them is nothing short of moving a goal post and frankly is quite foolish.

You're using slippery language. Why don't you clearly define "Dr Shades"?

the 2 halves of Dr Shades are your language, not mine....ergo....you are the user of slippery language.

The statements "The first half of Dr Shades is NOT the room" and "The second half of Dr Shades IS in the room" are clearly false. The only true and accurate statements now are "The first half of Dr Shades is the room" and "The second half of Dr Shades is NOT in the room".

grasp at your straw man all you want. I never made any statement about half of this or half of that.

Both of these new statements are more accurate than your two, as far as we can tell.

no, they are not more accurate. You really want them to be more accurate, but they are just silly in and of themselves.

Plus, they're still talking about the same thing. So, where's your contradiction now? Why should defining terms more accurately negate a real "self-contradiction", if there was one? The only explanation is that language is the problem and any "self-contradiction" is purely imaginary.

straw man complete
your logic is flawed
your reasoning is absurd
your conclusion is inadequate


in short you have no counter argument to the rather clear rather accurate and rather truthful statements i posted.

so, if you want to amuse yourself further then due describe where the floor in one room becomes the floor in the other room....because it seems that geometry is what you are concerned about.

spoiler alert: bottom line to follow


your first half and second half are not contradictory as they are both wrong.

[Guest]

...