patrick.net

Heraclitusstudent says

experienced a spiritual awakening. Campbell also abandoned his faith. You can't
adhere to a dogma and experience spirituality.

But that's what I don't get. What is "experiencing spirituality"? Is it an emotion? Is it simply another word for "joy" or "happiness?" Is it "loving a free and feelin' spirit, hugging a tree when you get near it?"

I remember that NPR had an article titled "Is This Your Brain on God?" a few years ago:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=110997741

freak80 says

But that's what I don't get. What is "experiencing spirituality"? Is it an emotion? Is it simply another word for "joy" or "happiness?" Is it "loving a free and feelin' spirit, hugging a tree when you get near it?"

It can't be told in words.

That's why metaphors are needed.

To keep with the thread premise: "Unfortunately, no one can be told what The Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself. "

leo707 says

Who am I to argue and split-hairs with how someone who wants to define themselves even if I disagree.

Exactly. Even if you "disagree," it isn't that you disagree with how they define themself and their frame of reference on spiritual matters.

(speaking of splitting hairs)

Rather than "disagree" it's probably more accurate to say that your experience and the way you interface with the world and experience the spiritual aspects of life is different then how they do.

If you listen to nothing else of the Bishop SPong video, I would recommend 17:00 - 24:00. He even talks about Dawkins.

I can understand not being able to comprehend Spong's point of view, and I can understand if one has never had the kind of spiritual experience he has. But what I can not comprehend is an atheist that condemns his point of view.

Heraclitusstudent says

To keep with the thread premise: "Unfortunately, no one can be told what The Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself. "

+1

marcus says

In fact I just yesterday took you off ignore

Please put me back on ignore.

Does anyone else get the impression that Marcus never actually puts people on ignore and just says that he does as a way of whining? It seems that he's constantly responding to the people he's ignoring and it's just an amazing coincidence that he took them off ignore the day they post something.

Either really ignore a person or respond intelligently to his posts with well thought out counterarguments.

leo707 says

I have read writings of "Christian" Unitarian Universalist that pretty much boil down to looking at everything in the bible metaphorically, yet they still call themselves Christian. They take the stories in the bible to heart, try and follow the lessons, observe Christian rituals and traditions, etc. Hmmm...sounds a little bit like someone who realizes the force is not real, yet still goes through the motions of the occasional force-choke. ;)

Sounds more like people who dress up as Jedi, Storm Troopers, and Klingons while not at Comicon.

I find it highly illogical that someone would sit, stand, kneel, pray, and go through rituals for an hour a week with others if they didn't believe in an imaginary supernatural being watching them do this. Do these "Unitarian Universalist" pray to a spirit they don't think literally exists but simply symbolizes good? Are they praying ironically?

leo707 says

Who am I to argue and split-hairs with how someone who wants to define themselves even if I disagree. It is kind of like the people who identify as straight, yet have the occasional same-sex encounter. I would call that bi-sexual, but *eh*...

What I don't get is all the butt sex in prison by alleged heterosexuals. I know there are no women, but going without a woman for ten years isn't going to make me want to play naked leapfrog with other guys. Does anyone have an explanation for that?

Or is the whole prison rape thing a myth?

leo707 says

Then there are the people who never have experienced spiritual ecstasy, and don't believe any of the superstitious mumbo-jumbo but believe in the community surrounding a particular religion and identify as a member.

Ecstasy is the perfect word. Just like with the drug, the experience you get from religion is fake. Sure it feels like the whole world or some unseen being loves you, but it's just a delusion brought on by the drug ecstasy/religion. It's not real and not knowing that is dangerous.

Before the War on Drugs, religion and drugs went hand in hand. Somehow I suspect there's a connection between all those spiritual visions and mind altering drugs. Didn't hippies in the 1960s call LSD a spiritual experience?

Speaking of drugs. Someone should found a church that uses pot as a sacrament. That would make the War on Drugs unconstitutional.

Heraclitusstudent says

The pope thinks Genesis is metaphorical.

When he thinks that the resurrection of Jesus is a metaphor, we can talk.

Heraclitusstudent says

Prayer is not a myth either.

But it is a lie. Praying for a cure to a terminal disease isn't going to help. Western medicine can.

Didn't South Park do an episode on this with Mexicans posing as Native Americans? Same idea. Snake oil is snake oil.

freak80 says

It's a lot of "beliveing what you know ain't so" as Mark Twain put it.

It's not a lie if you believe it. - George Cantstandya

Well, actually lying to yourself can be very dangerous. It leads to making important decisions on false information. And why lie to oneself anyway? What can you gain from it that you could not gain through a better way?

Heraclitusstudent says

Religion, in a way, is how the right brain rationalizes what the left brain is saying.

Not sure I buy that, but in any case, as Penn stated, reality is not affected by your own personal desires and perspectives. The tree is still there if you look away. And this is important if you happen to be driving straight towards it. Another example... Looking away isn't going to make that train heading towards disappear. Better to acknowledge reality and get your ass off the track.

Heraclitusstudent says

Jung described the role that myths played.

I have no problem with myths as long as people understand that they are myths, not historical facts and not unquestionable doctrine for driving laws.

I happen to enjoy many myths from Star Wars to Harry Potter to Legend of the Seeker to Xenomorphs to Skynet to zombies. However, I'm not going to advocate using the military to round up and execute Death Eaters or make FEMA set up zombie refugee camps. And I'm sure as hell not going to elect politicians to make witchcraft a capital offense.

The religious, by contrast, greatly lobby politicians to use the violence of the state to impose their will and ideology on others. Just look at the marriage equality debate. Only those whose minds have been corrupted by religion want homosexuals to have fewer civil rights and financial opportunities and a higher tax burden than straights. These aren't arguments about nomenclature, but extremely important rights and legal powers and tax codes.

Such things should not be based on someone's mythology. It would be like me demanding not to pay real estate taxes because I practice force chocking in my living room and that my neighbors can't get married because I had a vision that it would cause a great disturbance in the Force.

freak80 says

What is "experiencing spirituality"? I

Whenever people say they had a "spiritual" experience, what they really mean is they had an "emotional" experience. It all happened in their mind whether or not they believe that. And quite frankly, it is both more honest and more productive to acknowledge that such experiences are psychological not supernatural.

Heraclitusstudent says

It can't be told in words.

That's why metaphors are needed.

1. Just because you cannot express something in words, does not mean it cannot be expressed in words. Great poets and playwrights have expressed emotions and experiences that others said could not be expressed in words.

I am highly skeptical that there is anything humans can experience, or anything in the universe, that cannot, in principle, be expressed in language. I would suggest that people consider that language might be far more powerful, extensible, and wonderful than they currently realize.

2. Most metaphors, and all metaphors in religious texts, are composed of words.

3. Even if something could not be expressed with language, even in principle, that would not make it supernatural. Nor would a supernatural substitute for the truth be any less of a lie.

Heraclitusstudent says

"Unfortunately, no one can be told what The Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself. "

Except, of course, you can be told what the Matrix is using words.

Not to get to sci-fi, but the entire human brain could be represented by an XML file. Granted, it would be a big ass XML file, but it would be finite and we certainly have sufficient storage space available for it today.

So, one could build any human brain that has every existed or will ever exist from an XML file that describes the current state of that brain. This is just like taking a snapshot of a virtual machine.

Thus, anything that a human brain could experience, can be rendered in XML. I just made a constructive proof that anything you experience can be rendered by language. Think about that.

Dan8267 says

Please put me back on ignore.

Okay. I took you off because I read (in chrome incognito window (easiest way to read an ignored post if you are curious from the front page - or from partial quotes of ignored comment in thread I am active in)**. I actually agree with and liked some of the points you made in another thread (regarding race)).

But I got you, and you're right. You prefer I ignore you and I understand what that means. As I have shared before, I understand your point of view on religion very well, as I was where you are some 40 years ago as an adolescent. Well, never quite to the degree you are. You have no idea where I'm coming from, and interestingly don't want to or dare I say, even arrogantly need to not understand where I'm at.

Heraclitusstudent says

Religion, in a way, is how the right brain rationalizes what the left brain is saying. In that framework, "praying" is the right brain getting in tune with and experiencing the left brain. In that sense, praying, "talking to God" can in fact still be a metaphor of what is actually happening.

This makes sense, but will not be comprehended by some, and also maybe it's backwards, ie how the left brain rationalizes what the right brain is saying.

Protip: Never argue religion with an atheist that is excessively left brain dominant to such an extent that either the right brain barely exists or where the communication between the hemispheres is somehow retarded compared to normal.

Note: Edited because I had right and left reversed above.

** Dan: It's fine if you don't believe this it about me taking you off of ignore yesterday.
It wasn't just because I liked what you said in that other thread, it's also because this thread had come back up, and from the incognito window, I saw that you had not been in it. But I get it. Hey, people come to these forums for different reasons. In your case one of the reasons is something I can't relate to. And I'm not talking about religion now.
Hint: I'm not a teacher and I don't have a masters degree in Math, and you're so much smarter than me because you learned what a priori knowledge or reasoning is etc etc etc.

marcus says

I actually agree with and liked some of the points you made in another thread (regarding race)

I think that if you two could learn to act civil on the topic of religion you would agree on many topics.

leo707 says

marcus says

I actually agree with and liked some of the points you made in another thread (regarding race)

I think that if you two could learn to act civil on the topic of religion you would agree on many topics.

There's no need to be insulting. :)

Actually, I don't really care whether or not I agree or disagree with someone on a topic as long as it's not a deal killer like:
- honor killing rape victims is good
- slavery was justified
- the lives of foreigners are worthless

What I don't stand for is
- trolling
- disingenuous arguments (Straw Man, deliberate misrepresentation of facts, twisting a person's words to mean something you know they don't, etc.)
- complete lack a emotional maturity

I can't stand those things even if the person is agreeing with me.

But I certainly wouldn't dislike a person simply because that person
- believed in superstitions/religions
- thinks Reaganomics is a good economic policy
- is on Team Edward
- thinks Zimmerman is a hero
- loves or hates guns
- thinks Star Wars is overrated
- can't do math to save his life
- thinks Obama or Bush was a good president

Actually, I know I'm friends with people who are at least one of the above (except maybe the Zimmerman thing because I've never discussed that outside of Patrick.net).

My dislike of Marcus is based on his willful refusal to engage in mature, adult debate rather than juvenile name calling. Granted, I've chewed out many a troll in my life (perhaps more than I should), but I consider that different than bucking someone who's willing to engage in an adult debate.

Of course, I'm always willing to give someone another chance if I think there's a decent chance they are willing to play along nicely.

Dan8267 says

The tree is still there if you look away.

I share this assumption.

Dan8267 says

The religious, by contrast[...]
Such things should not be based on someone's mythology.

Agreed.

Dan8267 says

Whenever people say they had a "spiritual" experience, what they really mean is they had an "emotional" experience.

Ok I'll let that stand.

Dan8267 says

I am highly skeptical that there is anything humans can experience, or anything in the universe, that cannot, in principle, be expressed in language.

Since we are talking of emotions, let's take an example: beauty.

Can you describe the feeling of beauty in words? Well you can try.
If the person across has experienced something similar to beauty, she may get a sense of what you are trying to say.

Since you haven't experienced the spiritual "emotion", there is no word that would be meaningful to you to describe it. It's like trying to explain Leonardo to someone blind from birth.

Dan8267 says

Just like with the drug, the experience you get from religion is fake.

In what sense is it fake? Because you don't experience it? Well others do.

Or because it's not something something physical or tangible or shared?
Beauty is not something physical either, or tangible. People don't all agree on where it is.

Or does it mean it shouldn't be relevant in people's life?
Here goes beauty. It's not rational, so the great Dan8267 decided it should be eliminated.
Thank you very much!

Dan8267 says

Thus, anything that a human brain could experience, can be rendered in XML. I just made a constructive proof that anything you experience can be rendered by language. Think about that.

Yeah right.
The problem you are still apparently not getting, is that having this file will never give you experience of beauty you described in it. You can't inject it back neither in you, nor in someone else, and therefore you have failed to communicate it and you have failed to render it in a useful language.

Heraclitusstudent says

It can't be told in words.

I don't know...there is no secret spiritual mystery, only available to cloistered masters. People either experience spirituality or they don't, sure there are triggers -- prayer, meditation, ritual, etc. --, but no order/church/individual has a special truth. It is like being able to see colors, some women's eyes have an extra color receptor and can see colors that we don't even have words for. Others can't see color at all. There are levels of being able to see color.

Some people are just unable to feel the extremes of spiritual ecstasy, for some it peaks at an "emotional" level. We can't (to my knowledge) let the colorblind see colors, but those incapable of spiritual experience can always tryout a God Helmet.

Anyway, I think that we do have the vocabulary to explain it in words.

Dan8267 says

freak80 says

What is "experiencing spirituality"? I

Whenever people say they had a "spiritual" experience, what they really mean is they had an "emotional" experience.

Ummm...maybe...*er*...sort of. I think that it can be just an emotional experience.

Dan8267 says

Ecstasy is the perfect word. Just like with the drug, the experience you get from religion is fake. Sure it feels like the whole world or some unseen being loves you, but it's just a delusion brought on by the drug ecstasy/religion. It's not real and not knowing that is dangerous.

Yeah, drugs and religion often go hand-in-hand, but I believe drug experiences are somewhat different. Drugs can give a somewhat reliable experience, and each drug experience is different. Alcohol is going to put one in a different emotional state than marijuana or cocaine. They all can feel good, but they are different. I believe that some drugs may get close to the religious experience, but it is still different. Kind of like how runners-high is like being on cocaine, yet not quite the same.

I don't think that the religious experience itself a lie-fake-metaphor-delusion, it really does happen to people. But, yeah, I don't think anyone here would argue that it can not be dangerous.

I believe that the full-blown experience can include hallucination (auditory, visual, kinetic), but unlike insanity or a drug one is in-control and somewhat lucid. It comes and goes, but generally not on it's own -- unlike mental illness. I think people can bring it on themselves through prayer, meditation, rituals, whatever (dogmatic or otherwise)...

Imagine knowing that God(s)/spirits/angels exist...feeling, hearing, seeing...just a surely as you see your own hands, or the clothes you put. There is no empirical proof of the spiritual, but people know the truth they have seen, felt and touched the evidence. People grasp for answers as to what causes this and the religion de jour.

This is what the atheist is up against. There are people that they will never convince that prayer is a waste of time, because prayer does work, just not in the way that the person praying thinks that it does. Through prayer they can see, hear, and/or feel God(s), they know that their prayer holds weight. And...because coincidence is much more common that most people realize they often get real life confirmation of what they already know.

I think that the lie is that the pure joy one can derive from spiritual experience has any greater truth, or makes people inherently happier. People who feel the ecstatic joy of true faith can't imagine living without it, and don't understand why others don't feel the same (Of course you can see colors, you just have not tried hard enough yet!). Plenty of people who's lives are devoid of spirituality are perfectly happy -- or perhaps more happy and fulfilled than that of many people who take religion too seriously. The idea that everyone has a spiritual void/hole that needs filling is a myth.

Ah--anyway that is my first stab at explaining it a bit...

Heraclitusstudent says

See Karen Armstrong for example. She was a nun, had a crisis, abandoned her faith, but then studied other religions and experienced a spiritual awakening. Campbell also abandoned his faith. You can't adhere to a dogma and experience spirituality.

I am not so sure about this. It sounds a bit to me like, “they are not doing spirituality right.”

I don’t think that there is any “right” way to get in touch with ones spirituality. There are many ways one can connect and open the spiritual part of themselves, and I would be willing to bet that the live of a dogmatic fanatic is steeped with intense spiritual experience.

leo707 says

I think that the lie is that the pure joy one can derive from spiritual experience has any greater truth, or makes people inherently happier.

I disagree. There is something about finding a center point in oneself that makes people psychologically more healthy and stress free.
It's been shown people who meditate live longer and control stress better.

leo707 says

Plenty of people who's lives are devoid of spirituality are perfectly happy

Yes - until bad things happen and they are unhappy. Life is such that good things happen, and bad things happen. Spirituality is there to elevate you above the vicissitude of life.

leo707 says

I don’t think that there is any “right” way to get in touch with ones spirituality.

What I meant was that dogma is not a good way to teach spirituality. On the contrary it's a good way to prevent people from accessing it. Once they are stuck with the concepts and rules of the dogma, they never go beyond them.

Heraclitusstudent says

leo707 says

I think that the lie is that the pure joy one can derive from spiritual experience has any greater truth, or makes people inherently happier.

I disagree. There is something about finding a center point in oneself that makes people psychologically more healthy and stress free.

It's been shown people who meditate live longer and control stress better.

From what I understand those studies focus on mindful meditation. This type of meditation is not inherently "spiritual", and can be practiced entirely as a mental exercise. But, yes it is beneficial and can trigger spiritual experiences (some "masters" would view such experiences as distractions to be worked through). There is no "magic" to it. People use all kinds of mental exercises in their daily lives.

Yes, a more balanced stress-free life, but mystical secrets? No.

Heraclitusstudent says

What I meant was that dogma is not a good way to teach spirituality. On the contrary it's a good way to prevent people from accessing it. Once they are stuck with the concepts and rules of the dogma, they never go beyond them.

I agree that it is not a good way to teach spirituality -- particularly for those that disagree with the dogma. However, dogmatic traditions can be very effective at getting people to trigger spiritual experiences. This is why they often can not go beyond the dogma, they begin to believe that the priest-prophet-master...whoever is "guiding" them has the one-true way of triggering the spiritual experience. And they want more...

Heraclitusstudent says

leo707 says

Plenty of people who's lives are devoid of spirituality are perfectly happy

Yes - until bad things happen and they are unhappy. Life is such that good things happen, and bad things happen. Spirituality is there to elevate you above the vicissitude of life.

Yep, life has its ups and downs. Spirituality is one of many coping mechanisms that people can use to deal with this. However, it is not the only -- or I would say even best -- tool in humanity's toolbox to handle (un)happy times.

Okay DAn, I did put you back on ignore.

Dan8267 says

My dislike of Marcus is based on his willful refusal to engage in mature, adult debate

Says the guy who is ignored by 9 people. I'm ignored by one.

marcus says

Okay DAn, I did put you back on ignore.

Dan8267 says

My dislike of Marcus is based on his willful refusal to engage in mature, adult debate

Says the guy who is ignored by 9 people. I'm ignored by one.

So, close!

Dan8267 says

Of course, I'm always willing to give someone another chance if I think there's a decent chance they are willing to play along nicely.

Heraclitusstudent says

Can you describe the feeling of beauty in words?

No, but Shakespeare can.

And even if "natural" languages could not, which I don't agree with, certainly the information can be captured in XML as I've shown. Of course, a book and the experience of reading a book are two different things and so is an XML file of a neural network and an operating neural network printing from the specs in that XML file. But let's not argue semantics.

I don't think were disagreeing except perhaps on how powerful, expressive, and extensible language is. I, for one, tend to be impressed that the essentially same language, English, spoken a hundred or a thousand years ago can describe digital circuits, the Theory of Relativity, the construction of life through genetic instructions, the routing of packets across the Internet, and a myriad of other things English was never designed to handle.

That's what so great about languages is that the are extensible. You are not limited to discussing subjects or concepts by what you can discuss today. Languages adapt and advance as needed without having to rewrite them. When you think about it that way, language is a damn impressive technology.

As such, I do not think it praises beauty to say that beauty cannot be expressed in words; rather, I think it disparages language unfairly and inaccurately. The value of beauty is not diminished if you can express it in words. The value of a baby has not been diminished by the fact that we can and have described in words and great detail all the processes involved in turning a sperm and egg into a child. Does understanding the gestation of humans make having a child any less spectacular? No, but it does greatly reduce stillbirths, infant mortality, and maternal deaths.

Expressing or describing something accurately and truly does not diminish the thing described. If anything, it exposes deeper beauty. A rainbow is pretty even if you don't know what it is, but it is magnificent if you do understand what it is.

Heraclitusstudent says

Since you haven't experienced the spiritual "emotion", there is no word that would be meaningful to you to describe it.

What makes you sure I haven't experienced the same emotions that religious people attribute to "spirituality"? Most likely, I have many times. I just have enough respect for nature to give her credit for them.

Heraclitusstudent says

It's like trying to explain Leonardo to someone blind from birth.

Take a digital photo of Leonardo's work. Essentially, that's a written form of the information. Wire up electrodes to the right location in the human brain of the blind person to transcode the data. It's a high tech way of translating from one language to another. Then the blind person will experience the painting.

Even if human languages are limited, languages in general need not be.

However, the above example isn't really necessary even. Leonardo's works inspire emotions in a person. That is the whole point of art. Granted, the emotions that one person feels while looking at the art may differ from another, but the blind person can feel those emotions. One simply needs to identify what experience you want to convey and do so using sensory input the blind person can accept, for example, by using music to convey the same emotional orchestra.

The Master Artist, Leonardo

Heraclitusstudent says

Dan8267 says

Just like with the drug, the experience you get from religion is fake.

In what sense is it fake? Because you don't experience it? Well others do.

Are you talking about the emotional high from ecstasy or from religion? The point is that it doesn't matter. It's based on a lie. Lying to your brain chemically or verbally is still lying to your brain.

I thought we already agree that the tree exists whether or not I experience it. Reality is what it is whether or not you are alive and around to experience it.

Heraclitusstudent says

Or because it's not something something physical or tangible or shared?

Beauty is not something physical either, or tangible. People don't all agree on where it is.

Money is not tangible, but it exists, even as data. Beauty exists as data in the brain. I have no problem with the existence of "intangible" things, but all intangible things, all things that exist at all, exist in the physical universe. I.e., they are physical things in some sense.

Whether or not beauty is in the eye of the beholder is irrelevant. You are confusing the concept of an opinion with the concept of the supernatural. Of course opinions exist and they differ. But whether or not the Christian god created the universe, interfered in human history, and will judge you when you die is not an opinion. It is either true or false.

Opinions are completely explained by natural laws. The wiring of brains, chemistry, valuation models, etc. There is nothing supernatural about opinions.

Heraclitusstudent says

Here goes beauty. It's not rational, so the great Dan8267 decided it should be eliminated.

Thank you very much!

Wow, you really don't understand me or science at all.

1. Beauty most certainly is rational. Biologists have modeled it and the reasons it exists as it does extensively. For example, Human Beauty and the Golden Ratio.

2. I never said that all irrationality must be eliminated. I've said we shouldn't embrace irrationality and let it take over our governments, laws, educational system, morality, and ethics. I stand by that, if you care to take the opposing side. I'm ok with poets and lovers being irrational. Crazy hate sex can be the best kind of sex.

3. I see beauty in the natural explanations for things. And the beauty I see in a star or the universe at large when I realize exactly what it is and how it works is both true and far greater and deeper than the pseudo-beauty of religious lies.

Heraclitusstudent says

Yeah right.

The problem you are still apparently not getting, is that having this file will never give you experience of beauty you described in it.

You missed my point. But read the second paragraph of this post to get a clearer picture.

leo707 says

I think that the lie is that the pure joy one can derive from spiritual experience has any greater truth, or makes people inherently happier. People who feel the ecstatic joy of true faith can't imagine living without it, and don't understand why others don't feel the same

Yep, and this is exactly what ecstasy and other such dopamine releasing drugs do. The lie, as you said, is that there is a greater truth to the emotional high or that some supernatural being is responsible for it.

The danger of the lie is that it affects important decision making such as
- whether or not gays can marry
- whether or not we invade Iraq
- how are children are taught
- what civil rights and laws we pass
- whether or not we protect the environment
- and so much more

The kind of lie that religions tell will always have consequences far greater than simply comforting a person who has lost a love one. The movie, The Invention of Lying, illustrates this point very well.

leo707 says

marcus says

Okay DAn, I did put you back on ignore.

Dan8267 says

My dislike of Marcus is based on his willful refusal to engage in mature, adult debate

Says the guy who is ignored by 9 people. I'm ignored by one.

So, close!

I know! I open up an olive branch to the guy -- as I have several times before -- and he always does the juvenile thing and in the most juvenile way.

I try to give people the benefit of a doubt even when a discussion becomes heated, but after a while, you just reach the conclusion that some people aren't worth your time and that the only reason to respond to anything they say is to make sure their bad ideas don't spread like a virus, herpes in Marcus's case. Now, to clarify, I'm not saying Marcus has herpes; I'm saying his ideas are like herpes.

leo707 says

Yes, a more balanced stress-free life, but mystical secrets? No.

I'm not sure there is anything mystical to be found. Just a different mental state, that includes an elevated awareness of the present, and mindfulness exercises are likely part of getting there.

leo707 says

However, dogmatic traditions can be very effective at getting people to trigger spiritual experiences.

Maybe but I doubt it. People become brainwashed and exalted yes, but spiritual? They are stuck with the metaphor taken as fact and are not looking beyond that for it actually means. Unless they find it in themselves, text books won't help.

Dan8267 says

One simply needs to identify what experience you want to convey and do so using sensory input the blind person can accept, for example, by using music to convey the same emotional orchestra.

First the brain circuitry that forms the emotion differs from person to person. So what one person experiences cannot exactly be experienced by an other. Communication in this context is approximative at best. And there is no basis to the belief that you could put electrodes in someone's brain and reproduce the experience of an other person.

Second the emotion of observing a painting is irreducibly link to perception of this painting and this brain circuitry differs massively between different senses. So a blind will never experience Leonardo though music.

The same goes with your XML example. A language by definition serves to communicate. You are able to *describe* in XML an experience. This is not the same as communicating this experience because you are unable to reinject that experience in someone else or even yourself. yes, you can write this XML file, but it's like giving a picture to a blind person. What you transmit is data, not an experience.

Dan8267 says

You are confusing the concept of an opinion with the concept of the supernatural. Of course opinions exist and they differ. But whether or not the Christian god created the universe, interfered in human history, and will judge you when you die is not an opinion. It is either true or false.

I have already agreed that there is nothing supernatural about it and that myths should be taken as metaphorical.

Dan8267 says

I have no problem with the existence of "intangible" things, but all intangible things, all things that exist at all, exist in the physical universe. I.e., they are physical things in some sense.

Beauty doesn't exist as a physical thing outside the brain.
So I assume that by the above you mean beauty exists physically in the brain...
So it goes with a spiritual experience.

Dan8267 says

Are you talking about the emotional high from ecstasy or from religion? The point is that it doesn't matter. It's based on a lie. Lying to your brain chemically or verbally is still lying to your brain.

I thought we already agree that the tree exists whether or not I experience it. Reality is what it is whether or not you are alive and around to experience it.

I'm talking of the spiritual experience, (taken as an emotion, i.e. a not religious metaphor.)
In what sense is it a lie? because it exists only in the brain?
So does beauty.
Would you say experiencing beauty is the same as being on drugs? Or "lying to your brain"?
What difference you see with 'beauty'?

leo707 says

Yep, life has its ups and downs. Spirituality is one of many coping mechanisms that people can use to deal with this. However, it is not the only -- or I would say even best -- tool in humanity's toolbox to handle (un)happy times.

I got more "into" the religion I was raised in when my grandfather passed away in October 2001. It was right after 9-11, which made the experience even worse. I really didn't have any other way to cope.

The problem is, deep down I knew it was b.s. I was essentially deluding myself. I couldn't handle the idea of my own eventual death or the death of the people I love.

It wasn't until last October that the "why won't god heal amputees" website finally "broke" my delusion.

Dan8267 says

Only those whose minds have been corrupted by religion want homosexuals to have fewer civil rights and financial opportunities and a higher tax burden than straights.

If there was a distinction made between "religious" marriage and "secular/civil" marriage, there would probably be less conflict over the gay marriage issue. It's probably a smart strategy for politicians to use the term "civil unions" instead of "gay marriage."

Rightly or wrongly, the religious see gay marriage as an attack on what they see as a sacred religious institution. They don't see marriage as a secular tax/financial/hospital visitation issue. Hence the bitter conflict.

freak80 says

If there was a distinction made between "religious" marriage and "secular/civil" marriage, there would probably be less conflict over the gay marriage issue.

No, because churches don't have to recognize legal marriages as religious ones. Even the Christian right isn't so fucking retarded as to think that recognizing secular same-sex marriages means the state will force their local pastor to marry two guys in gay biker outfits while all the kids are made to watch them consummate the marriage. Then again, I could be wrong.

Dan8267 says

Even the Christian right isn't so fucking retarded as to think that recognizing secular same-sex marriages means the state will force their local pastor to marry two guys in gay biker outfits while all the kids are made to watch them consummate the marriage. Then again, I could be wrong.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486340

Some of that seems to skirt the edge. The state forced a church to allow for gay marriage on its own property.

I really don't have a dog in that fight anymore, but I can understand the concern.

freak80 says

The state forced a church to allow for gay marriage on its own property.

I really don't have a dog in that fight anymore, but I can understand the concern.

"The judge determined that the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association breached its agreement to make the pavilion available to the public on an equal basis. The association was also required to make the pavilion public in exchange for a state tax exemption it received that requires equal access on a non-discriminatory basis. Metzger also noted that while the association is free to practice its mission without government oversight, it had never attached any religious ministry to the wedding venue until it received Paster and Bernstein’s application."

As churches have acquired more property, they have sought to produce revenue while at the same time avoiding taxes. In this regard, they have behaved quite similarly to other businesses. Nothing required the church to buy a beach pavilion and rent it out as a public accommodation, but having gone into that business, they were required to follow the same rules as everyone else in that business. The same would apply if they bought a restaurant but didn't want to comply with the health code: if they invest in a line of business to make money, they have to follow the same rules as anyone else in that business.

leo707 says

Ummm...maybe...*er*...sort of. I think that it can be just an emotional experience.

IT's an experience, that has an emotional component to it. You could say that for some there might be an element of dishonesty in the experience that they are having if it is for the sole purpose of tricking themselves in to having the positive emotions that flow from it.

So ? What's all this judging about anyway ?

If it's that some take this line of thinking to the question, is it real ?
Is this experience real ? (or is it emotion ?) To me that's not very far from saying, "am I real ?" Aren't I comprised of my experiences ?

curious2 says

if they invest in a line of business to make money, they have to follow the same rules as anyone else in that business.

Damn straight. This church would have been in hot water had they tried to ban blacks from getting married on the pavilion as well, and rightfully so for the exact same reasons.

Personally, I don't think that churches should get any special treatment when it comes to land and property taxes.

marcus says

dishonesty in the experience that they are having if it is for the sole purpose of tricking themselves in to having the positive emotions that flow from it.

As I think about it this doesn't make sense. An experience is just an experience and can not be dishonest. Maybe the reflection on the experience or the communicating about it can be.

I often wonder if there is a law of the universe which explains why trolls are so delusional.

9

sbh says

Dan8267 says

Personally, I don't think that churches should get any special treatment when it comes to land and property taxes.

Or any special tax treatment at all. We've just returned from a road trip through the bible belt and I'd wager there is a church per every 5.6 people. What a scam! If the rest of us are "taxed enough already" why should this underground black market go unscathed?

LOL. Schools (many universities occupy huge land plots) and churches are exempt due to their non-profit status conducting non-profit activities. Some argument can be made that school dormitories and church rectories should face property tax just like any other residential housing.

Reality says

Schools (many universities occupy huge land plots) and churches are exempt due to their non-profit status conducting non-profit activities.

For profit institutions that do some non-profit work should still be taxed. If I buy a McMansion and hold a weekly scout meeting in my backyard, would I still get taxed on my McMansion?

Dan8267 says

Reality says

Schools (many universities occupy huge land plots) and churches are exempt due to their non-profit status conducting non-profit activities.

For profit institutions that do some non-profit work should still be taxed. If I buy a McMansion and hold a weekly scout meeting in my backyard, would I still get taxed on my McMansion?

Yes, you'd still be taxed because the non-profit use of the property is not exclusive or even predominant, and you are not a recognized non-profit organization. Many born-again churches run into that sort of problem with the IRS precisely because they can not prove the residential buildings that they own is exclusively or predominantly used for non-profit purpose. That's why I suggested that some argument can be made for collecting property tax on dormitories owned by colleges and rectories owned by churches, as they are the parts of the property that are predominantly used for residential purpose, not the school's teaching or church's religious gathering purpose, which are tax exempted due to non-profit.

Under existing tax laws, for-profit institutions usually don't get property tax exemption at all even if they occasionally make the property available for non-profit use.

Reality says

not the school's teaching or church's religious gathering purpose,

Ah, but the "religious" gathering purpose should not be treated specially by the tax code.

Dan8267 says

The lie, as you said, is that there is a greater truth to the emotional high or

What comes first?:
1 - the physical world, in which the brain exists, and in which we are, as a whole, but a phenomenon explained by the laws of physics, or
2 - the sensory perceptions and the emotions that we experience, and in which the physical world exists only as a perception.

Yes we perceive an external world in which we feel immersed, as the scenery changes when we turn the head. And this world is an incredibly consistent experience. But first, all this exists as a sensory perception.

Thus we assume that the tree exists whether we experience it or not. But this is always an assumption. We can never be certain that this is not an illusion as the matrix is or a deception by a demon as Descartes would have it. The consistency of the world is also an assumption. It's inductive logic. The cloudless sky was always blue, and so it will be tomorrow.

Dan8267 says

. I've said we shouldn't embrace irrationality and let it take over our governments, laws, educational system, morality, and ethics. I stand by that,

Not irrationality, but emotions like beauty are typically affecting our governments and laws. There are investments in art etc... Even as beauty doesn't exist in the physical world outside our brains. Whether we like it or not, human beings are emotional beings, not robots. Emotions can sometime be irrational if we look at things purely materialistically, but they still make sense to us.