Latest News Article

[MiracleMouse]

CosmicSpore, on 08 November 2012 - 08:02 PM, said:

Would you all please get out of my own head and just leave me alone? I can never get any privacy!

Nevar!!!  I love you too much bro!

[CreATiveHippo]

Metadigital, on 08 November 2012 - 08:31 PM, said:

This wasn't needed. Please these kinds of baseless insults out of here. The religion thread has been remarkably friendly lately, and I'm sure nobody wants to get involved in a pointless flame war over nothing.

Didn't want to be mean.Sorry.

In any case,the main religions of the world(Christianity,Hinduism,Buddhism,Jainism,Islam,Judaism,etc.),including a few other sects accept the "soul" idea.The soul is the essence of the person and many consider it to be synonym to "mind".

[Travis]

Habanero, on 08 November 2012 - 09:29 PM, said:

Sight is not the only way to gather evidence, you know.

Revolutionary idea. Probably won't catch on

[Yourself]

haloreachcp123username, on 08 November 2012 - 01:06 PM, said:

Strange that you think that a full fledged life and soul can come from chemicals.

A living organism is composed of the same matter and obeys the same physical interactions and laws that governs all matter in the universe.  Life is in this sense no different from anything else.  The universe makes no intrinsic distinction between life and non-life, that's a human distinction, one that we try to impose on the universe.

And I do not have a concept of a soul.  I don't know what it is, and I don't understand what people mean when they talk about it.  To me the concept of a soul has pretty much only been used by people who don't care to try and understand how humans work.

[Metadigital]

CreATiveHippo, on 09 November 2012 - 02:27 PM, said:

In any case,the main religions of the world(Christianity,Hinduism,Buddhism,Jainism,Islam,Judaism,etc.),including a few other sects accept the "soul" idea.The soul is the essence of the person and many consider it to be synonym to "mind".

The problem here is that, though the term "soul" may be used in almost all of these belief systems, that doesn't mean they're actually talking about the same thing.

Take, for instance, one of the differences between the Eastern and Western traditions. In the East (such as in Buddhism, Jainism, and Hinduism), the soul is not the personality. In Buddhism, there isn't really an independent aspect called the "self" at all. In Hinduism there is the ātman (the true unit of the self), but that unit is not your identity or personality. In fact, it's the Brahman (God, roughly). The soul of Jainism is similar, but relates to the world in a very different manner. Through one's dharma, one attracts karma. In Hinduism, good karma is necessary for transcendence. In Jainism, the secret is to collect no karma at all. As a result, the soul of the Jain ends up being a very basic unit, perhaps comparable to a quark or some other "fundamental" particle.

In the West, the soul is quite a different thing. Rather than being nonexistent (such as in Buddhism), almost nothing at all (like Jainism), or mostly a collection of deeds (Hinduism), the Judeo-Christian-Islamic soul is actually one's personality. Generally, there's not a lot of distinction between the concepts of the soul between Judaism, Catholicism, Protestantism, and Islamic beliefs, yet there are still some notable distinctions between some of the sects in each. Of course, these are too numerous to really go through quickly.

Even then, let's not forget the concepts of the soul that don't fit into these religions, as there are many other religious beliefs that have had almost universal acceptance in the past, and it would be rather biased not to consider them just because they are no longer practiced (many of them were practiced for longer than Christianity, after all). The Egyptians believed that life went on pretty much uninterrupted after death, so the soul wasn't all the much unlike the body. The early Mesopotamians didn't believe in the existence of a soul at all, they were staunch materialists for generations before the early pantheons which would eventually evolve into Judaism first arose. The Zoroastrians believed in a soul very much like the Jews (and was probably the origin of that and other Jewish concepts). The ancient Greeks had a variety of beliefs. Some believed in a singular soul, whereas others believed that the self was actually composed of several souls, each responsible for different capacities (such as rational, appetitive, or vegetative). The Roman soul (the genius), was something shared by natural forces as well, such as rivers or volcanoes. They got this from the Greeks. This sort of animism also existed as far as Japan in the Shinto religion. Animism was also common in indigenous cultures all over the world, and took many different forms. The important thing about animism is that it doesn't distinguish between the fundamental "self" of a person and that of a plant, animal, ocean, mountain, or other aspect of nature.

So, let's not do the concept of the soul a disservice by collapsing it down into one unified idea. It's anything but, and just goes to show how much variety there is among the worlds religious ideas, including the major players today.

Yourself, on 09 November 2012 - 02:46 PM, said:

And I do not have a concept of a soul.  I don't know what it is, and I don't understand what people mean when they talk about it.  To me the concept of a soul has pretty much only been used by people who don't care to try and understand how humans work.

It's one of the most mysterious of human concepts, like concepts of divinity. Really, it's the concept of divinity as it exists in humans (and sometimes the rest of nature as well).

I don't think these concepts come from laziness or a lack of desire to understand ourselves and the world around us. They just come out of methods which either predate or aren't covered by empiricism.

[FireroseNekowolf]

Metadigital, on 09 November 2012 - 03:15 PM, said:

In the West, the soul is quite a different thing. Rather than being nonexistent (such as in Buddhism), almost nothing at all (like Jainism), or mostly a collection of deeds (Hinduism), the Judeo-Christian-Islamic soul is actually one's personality. Generally, there's not a lot of distinction between the concepts of the soul between Judaism, Catholicism, Protestantism, and Islamic beliefs, yet there are still some notable distinctions between some of the sects in each. Of course, these are too numerous to really go through quickly.

In Heathenry, we subscribe to the idea of our Nordic ancestors. The soul was not a singular thing but a collective of numerous pieces that make up the whole.

[Dr_Axe]

CreATiveHippo, on 08 November 2012 - 08:17 PM, said:

Do you need evidence for absoloutely everything?

We can't see air.So,this means it doesn't exist?
There are milions of galaxies and stars,unknown to us.Does that mean it doesn't exist?

We can sense that other humans exist, galaxies exist and air exists because they react with the four forces. And yes, we do need proof, especially if we're talking about a concept such as the soul.

Speaking of the soul, I don't really believe it exists in a theistical term. The soul, even if it did exist would just be indistinguishable from the mind and the body, as it's impossible to separate them all.

[MiracleMouse]

@ Cosmic Spore

It was asked what is my religion, what do I believe?  Well that is truly complicated as what I believe makes absolutely no sense in a conventional sense.

Another thing, I am not sure why I believe as I do, just that I do believe it.  The more I talk about what I believe the more it makes since to me as to why I believe it.

Let me start by addressing reality.  I fully believe that this world we live in is a mere model designed by us, me.  I believe that it exists as a extension of belief made objective.  What I am unsure of is if I am alone or not.  I could be alone, or I could be one of many thoughts derived by a demiurge.  But that part is somewhat still set aside for now.

This sets the foundation for my understanding of how all things come together in the end.

It is my belief that the reason science cannot understand certain things is because we do not yet fully believe those things to be possible therefore we have not set into motion such things that science does not understand.

History has shown that as revolutionary ideas are generally sparked in a quick moment they, as well, become quickly absorbed into our society.  This leads me to believe that when one man believed the world was round more enough, it became round to suit his belief.  The demiurge created a round world from a flat one, placed the evidence there and all of a sudden it all made sense.

This process is no different that a quick shift in a dream in which you may find yourself in a strange place one second then your mind tells you "no, its ok, its all familiar" so you accept that notion and carry on as if there was never anything strange to begin with.

But the point is that I believe that the universe will change according to what we believe the universe is, and adapt itself to have always have been that way.

Ok, the big question, do I believe in a God?  Not in the conventional sense.  Much like in Anton Lavey's Satanism I believe we are our own Gods.  We pave our own way though existence.  But, I also believe there is a Demiurge, and that is us.  Not, as individuals, but us as a whole.  I believe that either who we are as individuals represents one aspect of the demiurge, or I am the sole creator and the rest of you are images within a very elaborate dream.  Which one I am unsure what to believe.  But it will make the following true.

I do not believe in karma, but only that to harm you is to harm myself, so why do it?  I believe that if I push the limits of this universe it will inevitably push back on me with much greater strength, because that is precisely what I want it to do in order to maintain this illusion in which, we / I exist.

I know this is a very vague idea of my belief, but this is the first time I have ever attempted to verbally reproduce my thoughts on belief.

Edit: I think its worth noting that I favor few religions, among them are Taoism (which I am currently reading a lot about), Christianity (for their morality), Judaism (simply because their deity is so human), and Greek religion (for the same reason as Judaism).

[CosmicSpore]

Haha, a true subjectivist...

So how do you deal with the factual accounts of fully believing in something and then having those beliefs shattered?

For instance, it's a rather common belief that people only use a small percentage of their brain (the myths all have a different percent), and it's still believed today... but in truth we use pretty much all of it, but not all of it at once.

There are tons of other rather common beliefs that are still held as true by the great majority of people, yet they simply aren't true.

Of course, nothing I can say can cause you to believe that reality is real... You could simply just reason it away by believing whatever you'd like to.
So what would actually be harder to do then, and actually break your current beliefs? To be satisfied with them and reason everything else away, or to actually accept that they aren't true?
For as long as you accept they are true, then you most definitely will live in that sort of reality... Where everything you believe is true, because you force it upon yourself.

It would be only until you could break yourself of that mindset when you come to realize that it's not, by creating a reality where it isn't.


... Personally, I'm more of a trivialist... Everything is true! Even false.

[MiracleMouse]

CosmicSpore, on 13 November 2012 - 10:23 PM, said:

Haha, a true subjectivist...

So how do you deal with the factual accounts of fully believing in something and then having those beliefs shattered?

I see the same as with the opposite.  I believed for the longest time "consider" meant to account for, however Habanero pointed out it can also mean to believe.  Again, a part that which is the whole already knew that, therefore the illusion was already broken, just merely spreading to the rest of the pieces that make the whole.  Once the whole agrees, it becomes objective.  

Quote

Of course, nothing I can say can cause you to believe that reality is real... You could simply just reason it away by believing whatever you'd like to.

Spoken like a prince of words.  I could not agree more.  

Quote

So what would actually be harder to do then, and actually break your current beliefs? To be satisfied with them and reason everything else away, or to actually accept that they aren't true?

Sadly, I don't believe in truth objectively.  I see all things as equally true and false.  

Quote

For as long as you accept they are true, then you most definitely will live in that sort of reality... Where everything you believe is true, because you force it upon yourself.

It would be only until you could break yourself of that mindset when you come to realize that it's not, by creating a reality where it isn't.

The obvious escape from the matrix is to deny it exists.  Eventually you will learn it does not and overcome the program.  Or merely create a new subroutine in which you will remain thinking you have escaped.

[Milikeny]

Miracle, if I might interject, if we truely live in a false reality then how is it possible to project this reality into the minds and senses of the human body? It seems rather impossible to me, even with advanced technology to pack an infinite space with infinite possibilities would be infinitely impossible. Of course I am non-religious for the most part and mostly believe in what is presented to me, as a reaction to what I am asked. I guess I have no philosophy on purpose other than helping eachother ourselves and life.

[Machiavel]

MiracleMouse, on 13 November 2012 - 11:05 PM, said:

Sadly, I don't believe in truth objectively.  I see all things as equally true and false.  

That's a tad silly, considering there is a self-evident example of objective truth.

I refer, of course, to the existence of the self -which is completely objective, and is so a priori. Whether you want to believe you exist or not, you exist, and this is shown to be an inescapable facet of existence itself.

I mean, you cannot convince yourself that you do no exist because, in all actuality, the only way you can be convinced of anything is for you to exist. Despite your views on the matter, you exist, simply and emphatically you are.

Whether that's the end of objective existence is another matter of discussion entirely, and there are some great philosophers who have built a great many systems on that one fact, but I believe it will be readily held that, at the very least, the existence of the self (not its nature mind you, but the simple question of whether it is real or not) is an objective truth -an absolute one.

[MiracleMouse]

Machiavel, on 15 November 2012 - 03:57 AM, said:

I refer, of course, to the existence of the self -which is completely objective, and is so a priori.

I exist because I believe I exist.  If I ever reached a point in which I was alone. Truly alone just the me which is without form, then I would eventually forget who, what, when I am and I would cease to be because I will no longer believe I exist.  Thus I must believe in me to exist.

The self can be viewed as subjectively as anything else.  Also if the demiurge exists as a collective of the parts then I view myself objectively through my own senses, as well I view myself subjectively through your senses.  After all you are an extension of my will. just another aspect of the creator, or another random thought.

Again, its important to know, that I do not believe in the past or the future.  There is only the now, which has never changed.  But evolves at a variant pace.  In other words what I am doing now, I have always been doing.  Like the dream my past never was until needed and changes as my now changes.   There is no time.  Merely the illusion.

[Machiavel]

MiracleMouse, on 15 November 2012 - 04:12 AM, said:

I exist because I believe I exist.  If I ever reached a point in which I was alone. Truly alone just the me which is without form, then I would eventually forget who, what, when I am and I would cease to be because I will no longer believe I exist.  Thus I must believe in me to exist.

Like I pointed out earlier, the nature of this self is irrelevant; the fact of the matter is that if you conflate yourself and existence, i.e. that you are the creator of, or the sum of, everything, then you exist a priori. Your very essence is existence, in effect, for you the two meanings of the word "is" are conflated and there will never be nothing.*

A coherent conception of the self is not needed for its existence; it fulfills this whether it knows what it is or not -even as an immutable featureless 'blank' it's still something.  

Moreover, you've said that

MiracleMouse, on 15 November 2012 - 04:12 AM, said:

I do not believe in the past or the future.  There is only the now, which has never changed.  But evolves at a variant pace.  In other words what I am doing now, I have always been doing.  Like the dream my past never was until needed and changes as my now changes.   There is no time.  Merely the illusion.

And, when the purple prose is peeled back, it becomes clear that an imminent reality exists -things which have been, are, or will be done all existent simultaneously; each one being brought into the forefront by your mind, granted, but each one existent nonetheless.

You existed, you exist, you will exist; regardless of whether you're conscious of it or not.

*To further clarify and to avoid confusion, what I was referring to here was the two uses of "is," namely that something simply "is" as in its existant, or that something "is" something like "that is red." The nature of the self is that its essence is its existence: it simply "is" existent.

[Kata]

CreATiveHippo, on 08 November 2012 - 08:17 PM, said:

Do you need evidence for absoloutely everything?

We can't see air.So,this means it doesn't exist?
There are milions of galaxies and stars,unknown to us.Does that mean it doesn't exist?

Your argument is selfish,ignorant and clumsy.

....Dude. We can't 'see' air but we can test it, we can check its chemical properties, we can see its effects, YOU CAN FEEL IT.

You can't test a soul.
You can't check the chemical properties of a soul.
You can't break a soul down to atoms.

Therefore a soul doesn't exist; air does.

I can choose to believe in a soul. It's my belief. I can't choose to not believe in air. IT'S THERE.

[CosmicSpore]

Machiavel, on 15 November 2012 - 03:57 AM, said:

That's a tad silly, considering there is a self-evident example of objective truth.

I refer, of course, to the existence of the self -which is completely objective, and is so a priori. Whether you want to believe you exist or not, you exist, and this is shown to be an inescapable facet of existence itself.

Existence is not necessarily objective....
Many religions and philosophies had escaped that ideology long, long before Descartes would ever express 'Cogito Ergo Sum' in any form.

Take Buddhism for example... The concept of 'self' does not exist at all in Buddhism. Many people came to the Buddha and asked him whether a 'self' exists, and he denied answering. They also asked him whether a 'self' does not exist, and again he did not answer. He explained that the concept of 'self' is merely a hindrance to understanding how reality really works. That if anyone is to truly understand the universe, the 'self' neither exists nor does not exist.
In Buddhism it is referred to as 'anatta', the 'no self': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta

Within Buddhism, "Reality" as we might call it, and therefore this 'self', is merely a perspective of an iteration of the universe... Merely a byproduct of the overall universe.

It is philosophies like these that do not allow us to determine that even 'self' is 'objective truth'.

Basically, the 'self' might be entirely an illusion created by other processes... You only think you exist, because something made you that way... and there is no way to determine whether you exist or not.
For example, you could merely be a program 'in the matrix'. You do not really exist, but you were designed to think that you do.

*shrug* Nothing is truly objective until you define axioms, and axioms themselves can never be objective.

MiracleMouse, on 13 November 2012 - 11:05 PM, said:

I see all things as equally true and false.

What for?
I personally think it's a lot easier to believe all things are true and false, but not equally so.

The Enlightenment was not so enlightened.... They knew many things, but they did not often understand them.

[souljabri557]

Discuss.
Do you agree with this guy? I sure as hell do.

[Milikeny]

souljabri557, on 16 November 2012 - 02:06 AM, said:

Discuss.
Do you agree with this guy? I sure as hell do.

Yes, exceedingly believable and even proven by my experiences.

[Metadigital]

souljabri557, on 16 November 2012 - 02:06 AM, said:

Discuss.
Do you agree with this guy? I sure as hell do.

Nope. That video is full of misinformation under the guise of being "informed". A simple look at Wikipedia discredits much of this:
http://en.wikipedia....f_Islamic_texts

Extremists, like Al Qaeda, often quote violent passages from the Sunnah, not the Quran. Unlike the Quran, these texts are often debated, with entire passages being considered not divinely inspired. It's from here that Shari-ah law comes, at least in the form associated most by people from the West. The vast majority of Muslims don't consider many of these ideologies to be part of their religion.

The truth is that Islam is no more or less violent or intolerant than any other religious institution. In fact, if one looks at it historically, the Muslim world is one of the most tolerant and progressive. For centuries, the Muslim world was the center of learning in the world, as well as more egalitarian than their neighbors to both the East and West. The image of the Islamic religion today doesn't account for most of its history and practices even today.

Where we in the West sometimes hail ancient Rome as the preservers of knowledge (see the painting of Academia by Raphael for instance), Rome actually burned down the Library of Alexandria, destroying all our records of the ancient Greek philosophers, playwrights, scientists and mathematicians. They even skinned and killed the head librarian (who was a woman, no less). The only reason we know anything about Ancient Greece today is because the Islamic world preserved their writings. We have them to thank for a great many things, from Plato and Aristotle, to the concept of the number 0 (which came to the West from India through the Muslim world), to even silk and tea.

So, let's put this Islamaphobia to rest, because it really is a phobia. Sure, there are dangerous organizations in the Muslim world, as are there tyrannical governments, but these things are not any more the fault of Islam (the religion) than atheism to blame for Stalin's Russia or Christianity to blame for Nazi Germany.

Sheesh.

[lolpierandom]

Metadigital, on 16 November 2012 - 02:51 AM, said:

What religions would you argue to be among the most progressive- not that I disagree with you, just curious as to what other religions you would put in that list.