Seeking god.

Originally posted by jiggerj
Oh I'm right there with ya.

It's just easier to say I'm an atheist, when in reality I'm a truth seeker. And, you're right, both camps leave a lot to be desired.

No, god did not create the universe.
No, the universe was not created from nothing.

Is it possible to be a christian but not believe in Genesis and still think the Big Bang theory is right and that singularity, all 4 forces and inflation are products of God? Or one can not simply chooses as it fits him and must take the whole package?

reply to post by AdamLaw

I would not judge any man for what appears to be but only that which the man admits to believe. In other words I don't believe that you do not believe in the Creator of Christ but only that you are still searching for the truth. Personally I do not believe anyone can be a Christ Follower (true Christian) without the Genesis account. I base this upon the New testament which says --- " John 5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me." --- Moses is credited with writing the first five books of the Genesis account so I understand that to disbelieve Moses and his work is to disbelieve Jesus' account.

Science has turned into a religion of its own without their realizing that they themselves have morphed into a club mentality. They have become intellectually crippled into the belief that everything existing must have proof of that existence and in the manner of which they understand. Yet they themselves cannot prove their very own tools of their trade. Not one biologist can prove that a Creator does not exist and yet they demand a Christian to prove that a Creator does exist.

What if I told you that I can prove that a Creator does exist and not only does exist but that I would write you a legal draft of that fact? Would you believe me? Would you then do exactly as I tell you? I doubt that you would believe me much less do as I say, but I can and would write you a guarantee that I can show you the Creator in person if you would pay the legal expense for the draft first and then do exactly as I would tell you. I would absolutely guarantee you that you would not only see the Creator but speak to the Creator in person.

You see that when the shoe is on the other foot how difficult it becomes to spout foolish demands. My conditions are no more absurd than an atheist demanding proof of a Creator from me. Regardless of whether you believe me or disbelieve me the day will come that you will see exactly what I know for a fact. As the atheist biologist dies where are all of the elements that he or she uses to prove the non existence of the very elements that they return to? And then believing that one day they will be those same elements that another biologist uses to prove that they themselves had never existed. They have become a cow chip in a barnyard and that is their end. That is the unintelligent design that the poor fools believe. That is till they suck the last breath of life.

Originally posted by Seede
Not one biologist can prove that a Creator does not exist and yet they demand a Christian to prove that a Creator does exist.

Biology is a natural science concerned with the study of life and living organisms. It's not the aim of biology, or any other science for that matter, to prove or disprove the existence of supernatural beings. Biologists concern themselves with things that can be studied, like, for example, structure, function, growth, origin, evolution, distribution, and taxonomy of species. Now, if you're one of those people who insist that evolution is not real, (because it goes against genesis) then once and for all, explain why whales have hip bones. While at it, also explain the second pic (A is modern chimpanzee, N is modern human, the rest are classified as hominids and arranged by age from the oldest to the most recent).

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum

Why should they be looking? Is there a genuine, objective reason to suppose there is any such thing?

Doesn't matter if they're not looking, because if God exists he will eventually be found scientifically, especially in the study of consciousness. Once there are tools/instrumentation sensitive enough to measure the immaterial. then we will make leaps and bounds in findings. Why shouldn't we be looking. This would be HUGE!!!!

In fact many of the experiences which lead people to these beliefs can be replicated artificially.

We can also replicate the experience of sensation of happiness, sadness, memories, etc ...so by your logic none of these are real when we have them.

There is no real reason (beyond anecdotes) to suppose there is any body/soul duality or really any such thing as a soul.

NDE's, OBE's, Testimonies throughout history and geography of such experiences.

The religious notion of the soul (IMO) seems based on the fear that we won't be "us" any more at the end of it.

My discovery of Soul is when I popped out of the body and was independent of it, then later, as soul, I merged with an infinite omnipresent consciousness. This was at a time where I did not lean one way or another. I've since shown how to get to these experiences to 2 other Atheists, and they are no longer atheists.

n fact I doubt whether it is something that exists separately to matter and (personally) see no reason to believe in the body/soul duality.

Like myself, there are quite a few folks who remember pre-existing prior to, and independent, of a body.

I do agree though, that perhaps consciousness (for me same as soul) also evolves through experiences here on earth.

Though I agree that no one, as yet, has really understood or quantified exactly what consciousness is. This leads to many fascinating possibilities and I feel that one day these answers will not only put an end to popular religion and it's notions, but the truth we do find could possibly (very likely IMO) be far more wondrous.

Yes I agree once we figure out Consciousness (though I think it may take another 100-500 years to do so), it will be incredible!!!. As far as religion though, I think if anything it will just prove that all of them were right about certain things, but that none of them have a patent on truth. It will prove esotericism to be true but exotericism to be false.

Regardless, because I'm not dead yet, i'm 99% sure the Soul (pre-existent, nonlocal, and having a source) will be eventually scientifically quantified

Originally posted by dominicus
We can also replicate the experience of sensation of happiness, sadness, memories, etc ...so by your logic none of these are real when we have them.

No, they are real, they are states of mind. See what I'm getting at? You seem to have picked one process of the psyche and inferred notions of "soul" and "god" from it.

NDE's, OBE's, Testimonies throughout history and geography of such experiences.

A fascinating subject. Did you know that many who think themselves spiritual/special and teach such techniques actually use it as a tool of psychological manipulation? A little subtle manipulation goes a long way. Then people magically have "obe" that confirms the claptrap they have been fed. There are as many different "obe" experiences as there is belief. This doesn't hint at a "soul" leaving the body at all, as much as a fascinating, subjective psychological process.

There are very many differences in nde experiences also. One aspect has been popularised by new age type religious/ pseudo science which doesn't give the whole picture.

Obe is a very simple and natural thing that anyone can study if they persist. The only difference with dreams is the amount of clarity. I agree there is an element to it that hints at more than science knows just yet. But they are psychological processes.

My discovery of Soul is when I popped out of the body and was independent of it, then later, as soul, I merged with an infinite omnipresent consciousness. This was at a time where I did not lean one way or another. I've since shown how to get to these experiences to 2 other Atheists, and they are no longer atheists.

Who can say you are wrong? Not I. I can say I don't believe you based on many decades of experience. I find it a shame that religious and new age nonsense is so far reaching. If people had no preconceived ideas of "soul" and the like and took known science (neuro science/psychology etc.) more into account, I feel they might reach very different conclusions.

This is only IMO. Perhaps the truth beyond this is waiting to be found, but obscured by beliefs and all sorts of resulting ideas and complications. The notion of individuality inherent in this clump of cells and rambling stream of thoughts we call "intellect" is a product of evolution and for all practical purposes correct. At the end of it all this won't be so. Though I can see there is something that has been overlooked, or better said not "discovered" yet (something fundamental to matter and the universe itself). Something that puts all notions of individuality, "souls" and god etc. into perspective, as being the very inferior and primitive superstitions that they are.

It will be left to science to understand it because at least it is, for most part, a system that has a self correcting mechanism that tries to prevent bias and is less likely to be subject to delusion and religious dogma. When they understand more about what matter is and why/how it can become conscious, I feel all religions and other such control mechanisms will become irrelevant.

Like myself, there are quite a few folks who remember pre-existing prior to, and independent, of a body.

I know someone who is adamant he was Julius Caesar previously. Another who knows he is a Pleiadian because he remembers the Pleiades quite well. Should I take this seriously?

Regardless, because I'm not dead yet, i'm 99% sure the Soul (pre-existent, nonlocal, and having a source) will be eventually scientifically quantified

I don't necessarily disagree, except in what this implies.

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum

Originally posted by dominicus We can also replicate the experience of sensation of happiness, sadness, memories, etc ...so by your logic none of these are real when we have them.

No, they are real, they are states of mind. See what I'm getting at? You seem to have picked one process of the psyche and inferred notions of "soul" and "god" from it.

I have not picked one process and inferred notions to it. To me soul = consciousness which is pre-existent, non-local, and does not need the physical brain or body to exist. All of the experiences of these things that I, and others have had, have happened prior to what the mind can think of them. Only later does the mind come in and start to label. I'm talking about states completely outside of mind.

Did you know that many who think themselves spiritual/special and teach such techniques actually use it as a tool of psychological manipulation?

Did you know that to reach the state of Enlightenment, one requirement is to completely rid one's self of delusions of "spiritual/special" or not to think of one's self as anything? That's a pretty big prerequisite if you ask me considering that once it is discovered that everyone is ultimately a "soul" from the Source, it sure does tend do destroy any illusuory sense of "special" and at the same time there is a seeing happening that in fact everyone truly is special, the ultimate paradox.

There are as many different "obe" experiences as there is belief. This doesn't hint at a "soul" leaving the body at all, as much as a fascinating, subjective psychological process.

There are as many places to visit in this world that are different as well, that doesn't make this world not real because of the many differences.

Who can say you are wrong? Not I. I can say I don't believe you based on many decades of experience. I find it a shame that religious and new age nonsense is so far reaching. If people had no preconceived ideas of "soul" and the like and took known science (neuro science/psychology etc.) more into account, I feel they might reach very different conclusions.

The first concept of the Atom was theorized by a Mystic named Kanada over 2000 years ago, who also claimed to have left his body and had "spiritual sight" which allowed him to see into the nature of reality. Alot of the religious and new age views aren't necessarily nonsense, but they don't have scientific terms to put into words because science doesn't know yet, what they have seen.

The notion of individuality inherent in this clump of cells and rambling stream of thoughts we call "intellect" is a product of evolution and for all practical purposes correct.

Being 99.99999% sure of spiritual reality, the physical realm has evolved from the spiritual reality. Sure intellect evolves, but the soul/consciousness has pre-existed, and perhaps also evolves through experience here.

Something that puts all notions of individuality, "souls" and god etc. into perspective, as being the very inferior and primitive superstitions that they are.

I would say the shoe's on the other foot. Buddha, Jesus, and many Mystics throughout history have given birth to Philosophy, which spawned the sciences and intellect. Ideas of the sub, supra, super conscious go back thousands of years and were intertwined with the spiritual ideas and experiential realities.

It will be left to science to understand it because at least it is, for most part, a system that has a self correcting mechanism that tries to prevent bias and is less likely to be subject to delusion and religious dogma.

IF you think there is no bias, dogma, or politics in science, boy are you in for a surprise. Not too long ago, the study of consciousness was deemed psuedo science and taboo. It's going to take a while for science to break it's inner bias and begin to study areas they consider psuedo, which actually are vital for our progress.

I know someone who is adamant he was Julius Caesar previously. Another who knows he is a Pleiadian because he remembers the Pleiades quite well. Should I take this seriously?

There are cases of folks/kids remembering past lives so well, they are able to give such details of people, places, things, an so forth. I always remain neutral about all positions until I can experience them for myself. I remember pre-existing as a unit of consciousness but not as a previous person, so for me it's it remains as a mere possibility amongst many.

reply to post by dominicus

Originally posted by dominicus

I have not picked one process and inferred notions to it. To me soul = consciousness which is pre-existent, non-local, and does not need the physical brain or body to exist. All of the experiences of these things that I, and others have had, have happened prior to what the mind can think of them. Only later does the mind come in and start to label. I'm talking about states completely outside of mind.

Ok, so you had no concept of the "soul", nor any definition, before you experienced it? I find this difficult to believe.

Others have postulated that the intellect, our "logic", "intelligence" and seeming individuality are a product of our nervous system and biological evolution, the fact that we are separate in the physical sense.. Though the very basic thing that allows for the underlying awareness to begin with is something far less individual and more universal (consciousness). Seems to make sense based on the experiences claimed, also seems to have far more potential to be verified/disproved one day scientifically. It's a bit like gravity, we know it is exists, but don't know exactly what it is yet. Though I'm not necessarily saying it's true, how would you debunk this conflicting idea (that seems derived from similar experience) to fit in your notions of individual "soul" and "god"?

Did you know that to reach the state of Enlightenment, one requirement is to completely rid one's self of delusions of "spiritual/special" or not to think of one's self as anything? That's a pretty big prerequisite if you ask me considering that once it is discovered that everyone is ultimately a "soul" from the Source, it sure does tend do destroy any illusuory sense of "special" and at the same time there is a seeing happening that in fact everyone truly is special, the ultimate paradox.

Did you know there is no such thing? Therefore, no paradox.? Though of the very many that I have known so far who were "enlightened", delusion describes it quite well. Exaggeration, extreme narcissism, hypocrisy (a favourite being feigned humility) etc. figure in there also... It will take far more than claims of enlightenment, for it to be factual. At best such a psychological state would be an opinion. We could probably put such claimsunder appraisal already, using the latest neuroscience technology, wouldn't that be fun. Idols have feet of clay.

There are as many places to visit in this world that are different as well, that doesn't make this world not real because of the many differences.

Ok, should be quite easy for you to prove the validity of obe then. Perhaps you will be the one to take the million dollars from the Randi organisation?

We have believers of all types with some subjective experience (usually quite minimal) which they use to slot into or reinforce their belief, or infer all sorts of beliefs as being true, who think they know. We have sceptics who ask for proof they are unlikely to get.

All the while very few ever study these things to get at the truth of them. I feel both sides are wrong, yet science would be closer to the truth and are not being unreasonable.

The first concept of the Atom was theorized by a Mystic named Kanada over 2000 years ago, who also claimed to have left his body and had "spiritual sight" which allowed him to see into the nature of reality. Alot of the religious and new age views aren't necessarily nonsense, but they don't have scientific terms to put into words because science doesn't know yet, what they have seen.

Some make claims about Kanada, similar to what you have. Even if we accept what is claimed, it might be an exaggeration to say he was the first to conceptualize the atom, re our modern understanding. There are a lot of things attributed to him and other mystics, some which are still adhered to by the faithful and are pure pseudo science at best. At any rate, I had a better concept of the atom as a child. Science isn't such a burden.

Being 99.99999% sure of spiritual reality, the physical realm has evolved from the spiritual reality. Sure intellect evolves, but the soul/consciousness has pre-existed, and perhaps also evolves through experience here.

Perhaps if you reflect, you might arrive at a percentage figure that shows how much of this is belief, or inferred (from experience). Belief by extension. I have experienced a, therefore b c d e f g and h must all be correct. Perhaps it would be better to understand the experience itself before inferring other "mystical" concepts.

I would say the shoe's on the other foot. Buddha, Jesus, and many Mystics throughout history have given birth to Philosophy, which spawned the sciences and intellect. Ideas of the sub, supra, super conscious go back thousands of years and were intertwined with the spiritual ideas and experiential realities.

I doubt there was a Jesus. In the way he is portrayed, I'm certain there wasn't. Using mythology to support your view isn't very persuasive. Buddhism could have been a very practical system of self discovery and experiential psychology. I like certain ideas from people like Gurdgeiff also. Instead they revert to dogmatic cults where normal humans are venerated and all sorts of notions then become entrenched in people's minds. Did Buddha teach of the soul, of god?

IF you think there is no bias, dogma, or politics in science, boy are you in for a surprise. Not too long ago, the study of consciousness was deemed psuedo science and taboo. It's going to take a while for science to break it's inner bias and begin to study areas they consider psuedo, which actually are vital for our progress.

"For the most part" does not equate to "totally". You seem to have exaggerated what I said to support your position. If you think new age/religious philosophy and the scientific method are in any way comparable, I guess we will just have to leave it there.

I also think you will find the study of consciousness was deemed psuedo science because that is exactly, by very definition, what it was and mostly still is ie. Deepak Chopra. A mountain of new age claims, unsupported in the scientific sense, doesn't sound very scientific. I doubt science ever claimed that there was no such thing as consciousness, or a scientific study couldn't be done. I see it being more in the "too hard basket". This is changing mostly at the prompting of science philosophers like Dennett and Chalmers. The notion of a separate "soul" is something science is generally very sceptical of for good reason. Very few so far claim there is a duality, those that do cannot really support such a position.

There are cases of folks/kids remembering past lives so well, they are able to give such details of people, places, things, an so forth. I always remain neutral about all positions until I can experience them for myself. I remember pre-existing as a unit of consciousness but not as a previous person, so for me it's it remains as a mere possibility amongst many.

Yet you seem to be arguing that the soul and god is more than a possibility. That your obe's have proved this to you. Fair enough, I doubt that. I don't see any of this as proving, or even necessarily inferring there must be a soul (in the religious sense) or a god. I can see where they might have simply led you to acquire more new age beliefs.

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum

Perhaps if you reflect, you might arrive at a percentage figure that shows how much of this is belief, or inferred (from experience). Belief by extension. I have experienced a, therefore b c d e f g and h must all be correct. Perhaps it would be better to understand the experience itself before inferring other "mystical" concepts.

The vital thing here, is these experiences are beyond labels and concepts, and happen prior to mind/intellect, which in a way trumps all labels/concepts/mind. The experiences speak for themselves and don't need belief to be inferred to them in retrospect.

I doubt there was a Jesus. In the way he is portrayed, I'm certain there wasn't.

I disagree and we can't both be right in regards to this. I took his teachings, as blueprints, tried them out for myself, and they resulted in various ego deaths and enlightenments. On your end, you've already made your conclusion without trying the blueprints he left, and therefore speculate. I'd say however, were I a betting man on the existence of Christ as a factual person and Enlightenment being, I'd bet my house, savings account, and everything I own. Same goes for Buddha. I read a koan, and as a result, directly experienced that I, am not my mind/ego.

Using mythology to support your view isn't very persuasive.

Mythology to you, but not to me. We can't both be right. In my case, I am using direct experience of Mystical realities of Consciousness states and so on. Direct experience is very difficult to deny and trump, as you yourself would never deny your direct experience of reading this thread, replying to it, going to work on monday, being alive, etc.

What you call "myth" while surely there is alot of actual myth out there, there is also truth to be found, which actually is true but the uninitiated see still as myth, but is indeed truth. Mysticism is basically Perennial Wisdom. It was true back then, is true now, and will always be true and it's in the hands of science to figure it out for it's self. If science is putting labels on things as "psuedo", then tit's basically inhibiting it own progress by hard lined skepticism.

Similar to the way the majority of Science was once skeptical and considered Psuedo, the branch of Quantum Mechanics, the possibility of flight, or the possibility of a combustion engine. Hard lined skepticism can be a prison cell to progress.

Instead they revert to dogmatic cults where normal humans are venerated and all sorts of notions then become entrenched in people's minds.

That's human nature. It's some kind of psyche deal that a majority of Humans look to venerate something, however many times its misdirected.

Did Buddha teach of the soul, of god?

Difficult to answer. I would say yes, however the terminology is different. Buddha referred to an Ultimate Reality that is Non-iIlusion based, which penetrates all of reality. Also spoke of crystal clear awareness and many other things. The Buddhist system is like a very beautiful scientific journal of the accounts of what happens when one goes within and penetrates the depths of self, mind, illusion, and reality.

If you think new age/religious philosophy and the scientific method are in any way comparable, I guess we will just have to leave it there.

Semantics. Many of the key teachings in new age/religious philosophy go back to as long as mankind as been around. Scientific method, to a certain degree, can be applied to going within and having experientially repeatable results. You are just dividing the two because science does not understand direct experience and consciousness. The results of some experiences can be that they only remain within the confines of direct experience.

I also think you will find the study of consciousness was deemed psuedo science because that is exactly, by very definition, what it was and mostly still is ie. Deepak Chopra...........

....... I see it being more in the "too hard basket". This is changing mostly at the prompting of science philosophers like Dennett and Chalmers.

We can speak of "the study of consciousness" without ever going into "Deepak Chopra" or "Psuedo". Science merely uncovers facts and details about fragments of reality, that have always been true. Since I am 99.9999% sure of myself in the existence of nonlocal consciousness and its source, I'm fine with realizing we'll probably have to wait another few hundred years until science catches up to this.

The notion of a separate "soul" is something science is generally very sceptical of for good reason.

If your skepticism about something, prevents you from studying it, I'd say you went past the unbiased neutral point.

Yet you seem to be arguing that the soul and god is more than a possibility. That your obe's have proved this to you. Fair enough, I doubt that. I don't see any of this as proving, or even necessarily inferring there must be a soul (in the religious sense) or a god. I can see where they might have simply led you to acquire more new age beliefs.

It's quite simple really, symbolically the majority of folks is tuned in to say 101.1 a.m. when the Spiritual dimension and realities of individual Nonlocal Consciousness and it's source is the whole F.M. band of frequencies, each station therein revealing a different spiritual aspect.

Well all of our modern notions of academia, is completely built on the understanding and the rules of the one Station of the A.M. band, and anyone who talks about the realities of F.M. is scoffed at and labeled as psuedo.

1 Day someone bold enough in academia, who is working under the auspices of the A.M. fields, while tuned into the F.M. stations will finally prove F.M. exists.

These experiences have proven to me that the real me has existed as a unit of Consciousness, outside of the bod, previous to having a body, and having a source which I came from that is also consciousness based. Everyone else that I have spoken to, who has had these experiences as well, is also completely convinced that the Spiritual realities are real.

Yet once upon a time, I was a skeptical Atheist and laughed at these things. They were delusional imaginations made up for psychological reasons.

That is until these things happened to me and transcended delusion and psychology.

So there are 2 camps. Those who haven't experienced these things, and those who have. The latter camp has been both a person who hasn't experienced these thing, and a person who has, eventually at a later time, experienced these things. While the former has only, not experienced these things.

Well the majority of Academia is made up of the non-experiencers of these things and these are the folks running around saying what we should and should not study, what is and isn't psuedo, and what bias should or shouldn't be upheld.

Like I said, at least a few more hundred years until science eventually comes around and proves all this to be true. It's inevitable. The spiritual experiences seem to have increased my IQ after doing tests, and activated parts of my brain that never were before.

If you look around, there are distinct limits placed on reality and life. Life spans of about 100 or less, 3-5% of brain use, disease, etc. Science is figuring out the genes to turn of for higher life spans, mapping the brain and electronically interacting with it, which means the percentage of brain used will go up, and figuring out how to conquer disease.

We will eventually get there then because with the increase of the percentage of Brain use, will uncover areas of the brain the are specifically use to experience directly nonduality, transcendence, infinity, and nonlocal consciousness.

Regardless we are heading there and skeptics of the spiritual realm are content to be floating on a ship that will be sinking soon, but not soon enough for my likes.

Originally posted by dominicus

The vital thing here, is these experiences are beyond labels and concepts, and happen prior to mind/intellect, which in a way trumps all labels/concepts/mind. The experiences speak for themselves and don't need belief to be inferred to them in retrospect.

Then why do you use all sorts of labels and concepts (soul, god etc) as unequivocal facts, due to having these experiences? I am not doubting the experience itself, only the resulting baggage. That you have arrived at beliefs, which are not the experience itself, but beliefs resulting from them. This has spawned thousands of differing and often conflicting belief systems (of which yours appears to be another one).

I disagree and we can't both be right in regards to this. I took his teachings, as blueprints, tried them out for myself, and they resulted in various ego deaths and enlightenments. On your end, you've already made your conclusion without trying the blueprints he left, and therefore speculate.

I doubt you can know what I have/haven't tried, beyond complete assumption and see the possibility of more than one of us doing a little "speculating".

Apart from that let's see, claims from a book that we already know (yes know) contains untruths. A man without any known existence beyond rumours of illiterate peasants, in an age steeped in superstition, who were there to see none of it. Claimed feats that would render just about every observation we have of how our universe works, as meaningless, or simply open to the whim of some being or other. To need more before dismissing such outlandish claims requires "speculation"?

As to the "blueprint", I can only say Marshall Applewhite's followers did the same thing, just as convinced. As have countless others verified countless versions of truth. Heard of the anomaly called "meaningful coincidence"?

Surely then, you must also believe Sai Baba is every bit as wise and divine as Christ? His miracles are greater and his teachings every bit as good as the object of your devotion, to his followers. We can ask any of the millions of modern educated people who followed his blueprint and some who were there first hand to observe his miracles. We even know for sure he was a real person. Sounds far more convincing.....

Again, idols have feet of clay. There is a reason why James Randi's money is still safe.

they resulted in various ego deaths and enlightenments

Sounds fascinating. Care to explain further?

I am using direct experience of Mystical realities of Consciousness states and so on.

It seems you are assuming that I am not. "Speculating" as they say. Because I don't necessarily agree with you?

If science is putting labels on things as "psuedo", then tit's basically inhibiting it own progress by hard lined skepticism.

Similar to the way the majority of Science was once skeptical and considered Psuedo, the branch of Quantum Mechanics, the possibility of flight, or the possibility of a combustion engine. Hard lined skepticism can be a prison cell to progress.

Wisdom it may, or may not, be. Science it definitely isn't, unless derived by scientific method.

Personal testimony isn't so highly valued in science, a good thing IMO. Fallible it may be and like it or not, it seems to be the best method we have for weeding out the charlatans. I not only have doubts regarding your statement, I also can't help note that science no longer considers these things pseudo science ( assuming the whole of "science" ever did) for a reason. It follows what can reasonably be verified, using scientific method. I doubt it denies every possibility it hasn't yet verified, it isn't the boogyman you seem to make out.

Originally posted by dominicus

Difficult to answer. I would say yes, however the terminology is different. Buddha referred to an Ultimate Reality that is Non-iIlusion based, which penetrates all of reality. Also spoke of crystal clear awareness and many other things. The Buddhist system is like a very beautiful scientific journal of the accounts of what happens when one goes within and penetrates the depths of self, mind, illusion, and reality.

If you get "individual soul" and "god" from this, I would say you might be interpreting things to suit what you already believe.

Semantics. Many of the key teachings in new age/religious philosophy go back to as long as mankind as been around. Scientific method, to a certain degree, can be applied to going within and having experientially repeatable results. You are just dividing the two because science does not understand direct experience and consciousness. The results of some experiences can be that they only remain within the confines of direct experience.

No semantics required. Science has it's methods that don't rely solely on personal testimony. There are many claims, even some of yours, that could be verified scientifically. Why haven't they been?

We can speak of "the study of consciousness" without ever going into "Deepak Chopra" or "Psuedo". Science merely uncovers facts and details about fragments of reality, that have always been true. Since I am 99.9999% sure of myself in the existence of nonlocal consciousness and its source, I'm fine with realizing we'll probably have to wait another few hundred years until science catches up to this.

Deepak Chopra was just one example. I doubt your view of science. It seems more to look for explanations, it is always refining itself. There may be many things arrived at scientifically which will prove to be innacurate. There already has been. This is why science uses what it calls "scientific theories" to explain things. I wonder what "fragment of reality" allows people to walk on water, or how you arrived at the"few hundred years" figure?

Religion bases itself on inflexible dogmatic beliefs that should never be challenged, usually relying on things like personal testimony. There seems no way to rule out delusion, a very common predisposition amongst humans (all of us). As they say... one man's delusion is a mental illness, mass delusion is a religion. Worse still, they usually begin from the basis of denying knowledge we do have (ie. gravity/walking on water).Which is why I see religion and spirituality as 180 deg. opposites.

It seems you are describing a personal belief, yet claiming it as if it as a fact. This allows for no possibility of you being wrong. Socretes went to pains to warn about this.

If your skepticism about something, prevents you from studying it, I'd say you went past the unbiased neutral point.

Then I wonder what I have been doing for so long.....? If my differing opinion infers to yourself that the only possibility could be that "I don't study it", perhaps objectivity has been replaced with assumption? Perhaps I have studied such things for a very long time and still do.

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum

Then why do you use all sorts of labels and concepts (soul, god etc) as unequivocal facts, due to having these experiences?

you ever heard of a thing called "language". I mean it's rather self evident we're using it right now. How can I possibly explain ineffable things using language? You ever had a walk in the park and weather is just right, breeze across your face, day off of work, and you just experience this relief/relaxation ...then try to tell someone else about the experience ...but end up saying ...You just had to be there ...other wise we're lost in translation.

I am not doubting the experience itself, only the resulting baggage.

WHo says it's baggage. To you it my be so, but to me their just words.

That you have arrived at beliefs, which are not the experience itself, but beliefs resulting from them. This has spawned thousands of differing and often conflicting belief systems (of which yours appears to be another one).

Beliefs are ideas/concepts and are not substantially real. All I'm saying is that I've explored Christianity, Buddhism, Mysticism, and various Philosophies and have had gigantic transcending utterly life changing experiences from them, and have found others who also have had this. It destroyed my atheism. Now you can consider all those as "belief systems", but I know there is real substance in all of those and not everyone "gets it."

I doubt you can know what I have/haven't tried, beyond complete assumption and see the possibility of more than one of us doing a little "speculating".

Perhaps I am assuming, however I feel justified to do so because anyone who has experienced some mystical realities would usually come to the conclusion that Jesus was around and was a mystic, that Buddha's system of inner life blueprints' have merit. If you've seen behind the proverbial veil, you'd know that the esoteric core of most religions are mystically experiential in nature, and have some substance, but that the exoteric core is the resulting surrounding belief system. I think you are looking at the exoteric outer and making your mind up based on that.

A man without any known existence beyond rumours of illiterate peasants, in an age steeped in superstition, who were there to see none of it.

We have illterate peasants today just like back then. Also today, the majority of those in power, historians, educators, etc, are educated and literate. The same was the case back then.

Claimed feats that would render just about every observation we have of how our universe works, as meaningless, or simply open to the whim of some being or other. To need more before dismissing such outlandish claims requires "speculation"?

I don't know about the "science" of miracles. However I do know that I tried penetrating the depths of myself within, and found the source of consciousness and the nature of illusion. I've also doctor friends who have seen miraculous overnight recoveries of people who were doomed to die, prayed, recovered ,and they can't wrap their heads around how that's possible...... I know others who prayed but died anyway. It's not all black & white.

As to the "blueprint", I can only say Marshall Applewhite's followers did the same thing, just as convinced. As have countless others verified countless versions of truth.

So you take 1 bad example and try to imply? I can do the same thing with science, which gave us the atomic bombs and the invention of weapons, all of which results in hundreds of millions of deaths since their advent. But I know better. I know science is ultimately neutral, and its people who can do good or bad with it. Same thing with Ultimate Truth, if you've seen it then you see there are no divisions and we are all united and Love is king ...so there is no killing. Someone else can see that Religion is an archetype, power and $ can be gained from it, learn the lingo, and manipulate the crap out of people. You can tell a tree by it's fruit ....and in Marshall's case, well it speaks for itself.

Surely then, you must also believe Sai Baba is every bit as wise and divine as Christ? His miracles are greater and his teachings every bit as good as the object of your devotion, to his followers.

Idk about Baba. Some say his miracles were slight of hand. I don't know his motivations or where his mind was at. I have not studied him thoroughly and am neutral on him as a subject.

reply to post by dominicus

they resulted in various ego deaths and enlightenments

Sounds fascinating. Care to explain further?

I diligently studied, practiced, and genuinely penetrated the depths of the teachings of Jesus, including going within and it resulted in being mystically destroyed by a Loving presence, having all my divisions, and ego tendencies destroyed and replaced by sheer ecstasy, transcendence, timelessness, and obe experiences. That also resulted in me falling in love with the beauty of scientific discoveries realizing how grand and majestic the details of existence are.

Yet there still remained some mental clinging to things. Eventually I read a Zen Koan, "Just like the thought of a rock, is not an actual rock, so too, who you think you are is not who you are." I wrestled with this, and after 20 minutes, I saw the illusuory nature of the mind/ego, and penetrated into the depths of the source of consciousness, where there was no me, there just was the ever present Infinite Beingness. I have at least 40 more examples but it's neither here nor there.

I am using direct experience of Mystical realities of Consciousness states and so on.

It seems you are assuming that I am not. "Speculating" as they say. Because I don't necessarily agree with you?

It's ok, my old atheist self would have never agreed as well.

Wisdom it may, or may not, be. Science it definitely isn't, unless derived by scientific method.

Scientific method does not account, by its own rules, results, that by their own nature, will always be non-repeatable, nor account for anomalies (which usually get shelved), and does not know much yet about consciousness. SO we are not yet at a place where science can quantify spirit.

Personal testimony isn't so highly valued in science, a good thing IMO.

Yet all of reality is based on direct subjective experience, including scientists getting together and observing subjectively the results of experience, yet subjective consciousness and experience is not fully understood and just recently stepped out of the "psuedo" label in the last 20 years.

You're basically saying your own direct experience of life isn't highly valued in science ....which means science doesn't take it serious, so the study of it is lacking. Interesting.

Fallible it may be and like it or not, it seems to be the best method we have for weeding out the charlatans.

This method was originally based on material and physical sciences, and set up based on the rules of a physical realm. Quantum realities and dimensions, may not operate by the rules of physical reality which means the way the scientific method is set up, would have to be adjusted to the rules of those realities.

I also can't help note that science no longer considers these things pseudo science ( assuming the whole of "science" ever did) for a reason. It follows what can reasonably be verified, using scientific method. I doubt it denies every possibility it hasn't yet verified, it isn't the boogyman you seem to make out.

Many branches of science were once considered psuedo, but now are factual. It's part of hive mind/group think. Eventually someone thinks outside the box and proves that status quo wrong, and the rest of academia shifts into an acceptance of the new field. This is what will happen with spirituality.

If you get "individual soul" and "god" from this, I would say you might be interpreting things to suit what you already believe.

soul = individual consciousness, God = source of consciousness, i.e. a drop of water and the ocean. Antiquity did not have the word "consciousness" until recently. Semantics.

No semantics required. Science has it's methods that don't rely solely on personal testimony. There are many claims, even some of yours, that could be verified scientifically. Why haven't they been?

Because the study of consciousness is still young. They will get there eventually and quantify what I'm saying. It's inevitable.

Which is why I see religion and spirituality as 180 deg. opposites.

Big dif between dogmatic fundamental belief systems and direct experience of the nature of reality wouldn't you agree. You might be grouping the together in your thinking ...big no no.

It seems you are describing a personal belief, yet claiming it as if it as a fact.

I am claiming my direct experiences to be fact. Is not your direct experience of reading this thread not fact?

If my differing opinion infers, that the only possibility could be that "I don't study it", perhaps objectivity has been replaced with assumption?

You've taken the exoteric, and made up your mind. If you went within the core, a direct experience of God would change you & your stance forever.

Originally posted by dominicus
you ever heard of a thing called "language".

I doubt "it's just language" really covers this one and it seems an attempt to evade the point. I am not doubting that experience can be beyond words, I know this is true. I once heard "to attempt to describe it, is to defile it" regarding certain experience, which I agree with.

You are stating as fact direct concepts such as "individual soul" and "god" from such experiences. If such things can be derived and understood, surely they can be explained. If they cannot, why claim them as facts? As yet I have found only because... you believe so.

WHo says it's baggage. To you it my be so, but to me their just words.

True, to me they are fairy tale notions (soul, god) which might have nothing to do with your experience. At least you have given no reason as to why they are relevant, beyond...just because...belief.

Beliefs are ideas/concepts and are not substantially real. All I'm saying is that I've explored Christianity, Buddhism, Mysticism, and various Philosophies and have had gigantic transcending utterly life changing experiences from them, and have found others who also have had this. It destroyed my atheism. Now you can consider all those as "belief systems", but I know there is real substance in all of those and not everyone "gets it."

I think Buddha "got it". Yet when asked for the truth, he simply turned his back and walked away. In contrast, you come up with all sorts of notions that you think are facts, soul, god...

Perhaps I am assuming

No perhaps about it, you most definitely are.

however I feel justified to do so

Quite wrongly IMO. I see a good chance that I have been actively exploring this subject and grappling with such things before you were thought of. This will never make my pov the correct one. I have never implied it would and always allow myself the possibilty of being wrong.

I only mention it because the immediate assumption that all who disagree simply must lack experience is condescending, veering in the direction of logical fallacy and usually the position of the fanatic/believer.

anyone who has experienced some mystical realities would usually come to the conclusion that Jesus was around and was a mystic

Complete nonsense. If they had been brought up in a society where Christianity is accepted and indoctrination techniques are rife, yes. If they had been brought up with the jungle god Umblegomblewomple, the story could be different. Christ is a cultural myth.

that Buddha's system of inner life blueprints' have merit.

I agree. Though not so much about "blueprints" which implies something rigid. More as a point from which to begin. Can you show me god on these blueprints?

If you've seen behind the proverbial veil, you'd know that the esoteric core of most religions are mystically experiential in nature, and have some substance, but that the exoteric core is the resulting surrounding belief system. I think you are looking at the exoteric outer and making your mind up based on that.

An assumption, again, a rather condescending one.

Also today, the majority of those in power, historians, educators, etc, are educated and literate. The same was the case back then.

Yes, curiously enough not one of them ever heard of Jesus.

Contrast that to Sai Baba.

I don't know about the "science" of miracles. However I do know that I tried penetrating the depths of myself within, and found the source of consciousness and the nature of illusion.

Perhaps. Or perhaps you have simply traded one illusion for another that is more acceptable?

double post.

Originally posted by dominicus
there are no divisions and we are all united and Love is king.

I don't disagree, yet this seems at odds with your "individual soul" statement of fact. Neither does it imply a god.

I heard a simple sentiment once from a delusional Christain cult leader. After a very long time I concluded he was right. I guess a broken clock is right twice a day and I have doubts he was doing any more than parroting. I have even had Christians agree that if all religion (esoteric and exoteric), all seers and saints and their instruction were replaced with that one simple sentence, we might end up a bit wiser, closer to the truth and with less conflict. Yet still too afraid to let go of the security they find in their myths.

Someone else can see that Religion is an archetype, power and $ can be gained from it, learn the lingo, and manipulate the crap out of people.

Religion has sent many otherwise normal people insane for millenia. Incidentally, it was scientists who petitioned to use the a bomb in a way which would harm no one and still end the war. It was the military and politicians who rejected the petition. We all know that in any conflict, we surely have "god on our side", right? Gandhi's observation that "Christians are so unlike Christ" seems relevant. Christ represents a wonderful ideal.

You can tell a tree by it's fruit ....and in Marshall's case, well it speaks for itself.

Few trees have as poisoned fruit as Christianity, of which Applewhite's group was another sect. You realise there are still people who actively follow Heaven's Gate ideology. Sad to have missed their chance with Hale Bopp. Otherwise nice, normal and intelligent people despite the stigma surrounding cults. The point is that in the abstract world of inner experience, delusion is always a possibility. If we don't realise this and take it into account, it becomes more a probability.

So far I see that you believe in the "individual soul" and in "god". Whether right or wrong, you haven't gone close to substantiating this (IMO). So, IMO I disagree with you. It might be better to make it more obvious that this is your personal belief.

The mind of man cannot understand the things of the spirit, cause they are spiritually appraised.
Maybe we conclude that ,this or that ,is" just not logical", and that kind of "mental ascension" of searching for Truth will rarely get us there...? To the Truth.

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum

I heard a simple sentiment once from a delusional Christain cult leader. After a very long time I concluded he was right. I guess a broken clock is right twice a day and I have doubts he was doing any more than parroting. I have even had Christians agree that if all religion (esoteric and exoteric), all seers and saints and their instruction were replaced with that one simple sentence, we might end up a bit wiser, closer to the truth and with less conflict. Yet still too afraid to let go of the security they find in their myths.

I don't know what your point is in the big picture of all of this. I do know there are many psychological problems in Christianity as it has molded itself to adapt to cultures, lifestyles, regions etc. When the core of it can be rather hard core, i.e. leaving everything to be a desert father to penetrate the realms within and conquer the ego was normal in the early centuries of this religion. However, at a simpler end, it's a reminder that non of us from here and to remember the Source, not cling, and many Many other points.....

Religion has sent many otherwise normal people insane for millenia. Incidentally, it was scientists who petitioned to use the a bomb in a way which would harm no one and still end the war. It was the military and politicians who rejected the petition

Religion (exoteric & esoteric) is ultimately neutral. You can plumb the depths and end up with direct experiences, or get completely and psychologically F'ed by it, depending on whose behind the reins.

Science is neutral too. We can create disease to kill everyone and also figure out how to cure it.

Gandhi's observation that "Christians are so unlike Christ" seems relevant.

I've met mystics, yogi's, sheiks, buddhists, and hindus that were more loving and Christlike than any other Christian I've met, however recently, I have realized that there also 2 or 3 Christians I know like this as well. Gandhi's observation has rung true in my reality.

Few trees have as poisoned fruit as Christianity

If "Christianity" means to follow Christ as an Ideal, it means it takes time to get there. It means there are numerous offshoots and sects, it means poisons and corruption will come out of the people who try to follow this, the way they do in every branch of life. But it's still the "people" responsible, and not necessarily an idea.

So far I see that you believe in the "individual soul" and in "god". Whether right or wrong, you haven't gone close to substantiating this (IMO). So, IMO I disagree with you. It might be better to make it more obvious that this is your personal belief.

This is my personal experience...... can be corroborated by hundreds of other experiential testimonies across time, culture, and geographics. Sure it's a minority, but that doesn't mean we're not right Considering we are dealing with consciousness and this area of study is still in its infancy, it has yet to quantify certain aspects, and it may be a while before it finally does.

My substantiation comes from direct experience of "said" realities. This then is an urging for you to go see for yourself if these things are true and things which may be only known by direct experience. Just like only you can experience your personal pov and no else can, so too w/ God, only each individual can ever experience God personally while on the physical realm and this just might be the laws of nature of that realm/dimension.

I was initially a skeptic and atheist in these matters and suspended all opinions and stances when approaching the experiential realms of this subject. Fortunately, one of the ways "there" has its own self defense mechanism against "beliefs/concepts/ideas" ...and that method is to Just Be, while suspending all "beliefs/concepts/ideas".

The ineffable end result is experienced and seen, as the source of consciousness, prior to any tainting of "beliefs/concepts/ideas" ...ever present/omnipresent, vivid, alive, aware, transcendent, ineffable.

In comparison, our ever day regular reality in which we all perceive, live, and act, think, try and figure out, have branches of science, math, etc ......is like a slow and dirty dream compared to what is there waiting to be discovered, underlying all of reality.... and I'm not the only one who's seen this, and very few ever make the trek.

I would say my argument has some weight. At least many of my old Atheist friends say it does.

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum

You are stating as fact direct concepts such as "individual soul" and "god" from such experiences. If such things can be derived and understood, surely they can be explained. If they cannot, why claim them as facts? As yet I have found only because... you believe so.

doesn't matter what I believe. I came, I saw, I went. In my experience, those realities are there, and eventually will be quantified. It is my duty to speak of these things because this world is utter madness and delusion and I love you, and others, because I know the real substance of you.

I merely saw that the experience of such things is feasible, & others' have left us "how to guides". Tried a few and saw what they saw. Now if "skepticism" keeps you from ever penetrating experiential mystical realities, well then I'd say your missing out ...cause I've been around the block a few times and this trumps everything, but also includes everything.

True, to me they are fairy tale notions (soul, god) which might have nothing to do with your experience. At least you have given no reason as to why they are relevant, beyond...just because...belief.

replace "soul" and "God" with consciousness and it's source. It will get quantified one day regardless. If not in your life time, then physical death is the great equalizers which reveals all. Either way, truth prevails.

I think Buddha "got it". Yet when asked for the truth, he simply turned his back and walked away. In contrast, you come up with all sorts of notions that you think are facts, soul, god...

He walked away because he knew most would reply the way you do. This can only be known experientially. Also he eventually came back to teach.

I only mention it because the immediate assumption that all who disagree simply must lack experience is condescending, veering in the direction of logical fallacy and usually the position of the fanatic/believer.

condescending shmending ...please lets both be bigger then to play this card. This would entail spiritual pride, a trap in my reality, and that's impossible when I can only view you as the same substance of consciousness that I am. Is a child who has experienced tasting ice cream any better then one who only imagines what ice cream must be like?

Complete nonsense. If they had been brought up in a society where Christianity is accepted and indoctrination techniques are rife, yes. If they had been brought up with the jungle god Umblegomblewomple, the story could be different. Christ is a cultural myth.

My point was, that I know Mystics who were brought up in different parts of the world w/ different belief systems. taught to reject all others, and some of them former atheists. When they experience the things I speak, of they eventually come to terms that what Jesus taught merit, what Buddha taught had merit, what Socrates taught had merit, etc etc etc

I agree. Though not so much about "blueprints" which implies something rigid. More as a point from which to begin. Can you show me god on these blueprints?

Blueprints use words, concepts, ideas...... God isn't any of these. If you want to see God, you won't find him in the sign posts that point the way for you to see for yourself.

Yes, curiously enough not one of them ever heard of Jesus. Contrast that to Sai Baba.

Your in a extremely tiny minority of "believers" who believe Jesus never was. My intention here is discuss "seeking and finding God" (as a direct experiential open to anyone. Nor do I have enough knowledge of Baba to contrast, and wouldn't be at ease to do so until at least 3-4 weeks of research.

Or perhaps you have simply traded one illusion for another that is more acceptable?

Rather funny statement. There is self imposed defense mechanism built into one of the ways in which one can experience the existence of God/Source. Suspend all belief, and remain for long periods of time in a profound state of unknowing all ideas/concepts/beliefs. The end product/realization/experience, as ineffable as it is, remains untainted.

there are no divisions and we are all united and Love is king.

I don't disagree, yet this seems at odds with your "individual soul" statement of fact. Neither does it imply a god.

Rain drop and an ocean. When it enters the ocean, is it still a drop? When water condenses, forms clouds, precipitates an individual drop ......water is still inherently water. It's beyond this worlds logic and reason, 2 faculties which both can be used to conclude that logic and reason are themselves limited.

Continued ...........