For former Mormons who became atheists

[_Lightworker]

Oh, one more thing about the spiritual nature of drug induced states. I have a friend who has taken a lot of acid, followed the Grateful Dead around for a while. He seems to have experienced what could be termed "God consciousness" or a realization that everything is connected. This is a basic realization. However, he does not look at these things with the reverence that another person I know does. The other person is a peyote medicine man. He does not use recreationally at all, only during healing ceremonies. He is able to channel healing spirits, such as plant and animal helper spirits, to assist in the healing work, whereas the acid tripper might think this is weird.

Both people are taking mind expanders but each has a different way of working with it. Different intentions. This makes all the difference. I have more respect for the one who uses it with sacred reverence, intention set on channeling healing energies, than the party guy. However, even the acid head says it has helped spiritually. To each their own. The acid tripper guy told me a story about someone (Ram Dass, perhaps? I don't recall) who gave acid to their guru. The guru took it and said it didn't really do anything. He was used to this state of consciousness already through yoga meditation. Like I said, to each their own. I like sacred sexuality personally. It is powerful energy that can be channeled up the spine to the crown chakra. Totally natural and not an ascetic practice at all. I'm working on mastering sexual kung fu presently.

What you risk is VD, HIV, ruined health and a shallow life.

How is that the case with say, a peyote medicine man? Or an ayahuascero? You seem to be looking through the lense of the 60's. This may cloud your judgement. I look at the 60's like kid who found a gun. Yeah, fun to play with huh? This doesn't mean guns cannot be used to stop a charging bear. There is a proper use and an improper use of all tools.

[_Lightworker]

Lightworker,

I am a former Mormon and an atheist. There are gillions of electrons who give their lives every day in arguments over what "atheist" means. It means that I don't believe in any god. No more. No less.

You sound like a very happy person who reached some conclusions about her place in the universe and are very comfortable with those conclusions. I have no desire to dissuade you from them.

But please, don't be sad for me. Be happy for yourself. This is how I understand some of the things you describe. All of the emotions, the feelings, the love, you describe, I feel too. The mysticism, the feeling of connectedness, the emotions you describe seem to be universal. You understand those feelings as coming from someplace outside yourself. I understand these common experiences in this way: we all have brains, and the feelings are simply part of how the brains work.

That explanation is completely satisfactory for me. My life is rich, happy, and fulfilled. I don't need anything outside of myself for that. I feel awed and amazed and completely lucky that I get to have those experiences and those emotions.

So, really, don't spend time feeling sad for me.

I am not sad for you if you are happy with your chosen belief. Sounds like you are a great person. I hold no judgement. What I think is sad is simply missing out on all of the spirit channeling that I am blessed with due to atheist skepticism. Being an atheist though, you probably wouldn't look at it as missing out you would likely think of it as a blessing that you aren't foolish enough to buy into such nonsense. I have spirit guides that I can communicate with, and you probably don't. I don't understand why, but I am sure it is perfectly ok with God since that is the way it is apparently. If God is ok with it, I am ok with it.

Oh, and about finding it outside myself, that is the big paradox. Nothing is outside of yourself. The entire cosmos is within you according to many mystics. I don't look at God as something "out there" (although when I am hungry it is soothing to think of a large flying spaghetti monster up there looking after me). I look at it as Jesus: "the kingdom of heaven is within you". My understanding of God is that God is found in the innermost core of your being, not by looking for something outside of yourself. Subject and object are One. There really is no separation, (yet there is, and that is the paradox).

Also, even the most advanced neuroscientist does not know what consciousness is. All they can do is explain what happens to consciousness when chemicals and electrons are manipulated. As with all things in this paradox of 2 things that are not 2, it is in fact chemicals and electrons and it also is in fact not only that. All things are interconnected, including brain chemistry and consciousness, but consciousness is not limited to brain chemistry. There is too much evidence in psychology and anthropology for an existence that transcends these limits.

[_Alfredo]

Lightworker,

I think you're simply confusing atheism with hardcore scientific skepticism.

[_Lightworker]

Lightworker,

I think you're simply confusing atheism with hardcore scientific skepticism.

I love hardcore scientific skepticism, and I wish it could be applied to mysticism. I would love to reconcile the two, science and spirit. They seem quite opposed to each other though, science dealing with objective verifiable evidence that is repeatable, and mysticism dealing with inner subjective experience. However, there may come a time when we get past all the dogma nonsense (I consider it spiritual immaturity) and that mysticism can be studied openly and evidence gathered scientifically. So far too many scientists consider the spiritual taboo and not worthy of study due to it's previously unprovable nature. It is a waste of time and resources according to them. Therefore mysticism is closed off for research.

Perhaps with this stigma removed, a cross study of psychology, anthropology, and brain chemistry as well as history (well I guess that is included in anthropology) can provide evidence for transcendent realities. The Chinese I have read have studied chi extensively. We need more studies like that.

I don't think my experiences can be replicated in any kind of scientific manner due to the personal nature of my spirit guides. They have free will and are not going to play games with scientists I don't think. They are also with me because they are what I personally need, one size does not fit all. My girlfriend has different guides than I do, she has different needs, although she channels some of mine too. Like I said, if scientific study of mysticism wasn't so taboo among scientists we might actually make some progress in the objective proof problem. We need to get rid of the atheist dogma in order to get past the prejudice against mysticism. Agnosticism is a better approach, in my opinion.

[_subgenius]

OK, sub...

All you have to do is tell us exactly what you mean by "Dr. Shades" and your debate with me can be over. I'll tell you what I think of your definition as it relates to the determining the truth value of the statement.

Just so you can be sure to address my point properly, I'll put it to you this way:

"Dr. Shades is in the room" and "Dr. Shades is not in the room" are both true statements if you mean "(part of) Dr. Shades is in the room" and "(part of) Dr. Shades is not in the room".

If our goal is to determine whether the statement is true or false, I can't think of any other way to define "Dr. Shades" to accomplish this goal. If you are claiming both statements are true, you haven't accomplished anything until you tell us what you mean. All you can really say is that the statements could be true.

if nothing else you are incessant in defeat.

again, you insist on moving the goalposts. You would try to impose "part of" as a qualifier for my statements but that is unnecessary. Again, to say "part of" Dr Shades or to further say "73.5 percent of Dr Shades" is simply a game you are playing alone. Those quasi-measurements have absolutely no influence on the truth of my original statements. The statements are just true...perhaps you would like one statement to be more true and another to be less true in order for you to claim some sort of ego victory from this...but the reality is otherwise.
You can propose your own statements and dissect them all you want....but they do not negate my original statements.

Here is an example (similar to one given before)
I state that a shirt is Blue.
Another person states that the same shirt is Carolina Blue.
and then you state that the shirt is reflecting the 475 nm wavelength (blue) of visible light while absorbing all other wavelengths.

or more to the point at hand

Dr Shades states that a shirt can not be both red and blue at the same time
I state that a shirt can be purple.
Then you state that it may depend on whether the shirt has long sleeves or short sleeves...or that it may even be a vest.


what i mean by "Dr Shades" is blatantly obvious by the statements i made. Your "after the fact" dissecting is a needless distraction.

[Guest]

...

[Guest]

...

[_Res Ipsa]

And that being that Atheism = critical thinking . Does it seem like some people mistake useing critical statements about theism as useing critical thinking?

It would seem a lot of people are atheistic and following science because its the new hip thing to do ... rather than actually using their brain. But such is the lot of the adolescent brain ... and who am I to buck the system
I suppose its working out

I completely agree that atheist does not equal critical thinker. One can disbelieve in god for any number of reasons -- it doesn't have to be the result of any kind of critical thinking. I also don't believe that there are "critical thinkers." There are people who do engage in critical thinking, but no one does it all the time. It's a process, not a personal attribute.

I think you have the causal connection between atheism and following science backwards. You certainly do in my case.

[_Res Ipsa]

I am not sad for you if you are happy with your chosen belief. Sounds like you are a great person. I hold no judgement. What I think is sad is simply missing out on all of the spirit channeling that I am blessed with due to atheist skepticism. Being an atheist though, you probably wouldn't look at it as missing out you would likely think of it as a blessing that you aren't foolish enough to buy into such nonsense. I have spirit guides that I can communicate with, and you probably don't. I don't understand why, but I am sure it is perfectly ok with God since that is the way it is apparently. If God is ok with it, I am ok with it.

Why feel said at all? I have a brain full of "spirit guides:" memories of people and experiences that I can "communicate" with. I can carry on whole conversations with people I've known in my head, gaining wisdom by seeing things through their eyes. The only difference between us is that I believe my spirit guides exist completely within my brain.

Oh, and about finding it outside myself, that is the big paradox. Nothing is outside of yourself. The entire cosmos is within you according to many mystics. I don't look at God as something "out there" (although when I am hungry it is soothing to think of a large flying spaghetti monster up there looking after me). I look at it as Jesus: "the kingdom of heaven is within you". My understanding of God is that God is found in the innermost core of your being, not by looking for something outside of yourself. Subject and object are One. There really is no separation, (yet there is, and that is the paradox).

One thing we won't find common ground on is the meaning of paradox. In my view, paradox does not equate to some sort of deep meaning. In fact, it doesn't equate to meaning at all. To say "there is no separation" and "yet there is a separation" is meaningless.

Also, even the most advanced neuroscientist does not know what consciousness is. All they can do is explain what happens to consciousness when chemicals and electrons are manipulated. As with all things in this paradox of 2 things that are not 2, it is in fact chemicals and electrons and it also is in fact not only that. All things are interconnected, including brain chemistry and consciousness, but consciousness is not limited to brain chemistry. There is too much evidence in psychology and anthropology for an existence that transcends these limits.

What you describe here is the basic "god of the gaps" fallacy, only you are filling it with mysticism. You also are simply assuming that consciousness is something that exists separate from brain activity. When we observe a person moving in a particular way at a particular speed, we label that as "walking." That doesn't mean that "walking" is some kind of entity separate from the action of the human. Similarly, consciousness can be understood as a process of the brain -- not a thing that exists independent of the brain. A neurologist named Steven Novella blogs frequently on this topic, and can explain the evidence much more thoroughly than I can. http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/another-philosopher-jumps-into-the-dualism-frey/

[_subgenius]

The glass is half full ... The glass is half empty ...

nicely done for the win (though Alfredo will still take exception to it)