The Religion of Theism, Atheism and Agnosticism.

reply to post by bb23108

Why do you insist on believing that the scientific method can possibly discover real truth? It simply discovers factual knowledge about various objects and processes. Certainly you do not equate such knowledge with truth, do you?

As you just said, the scientific methods discover facts. If facts are not your version of truth, then the source of your confusion is obvious.

Science will never tell us what anything actually IS. Science can only describe what some thing's characteristics, processes, and properties are, but not what it actually IS, in reality altogether. So science clearly has its limits - and that it is about the discovery of knowledge, not of the real truth of all arising.

And what do you suggest is a suitable alternative to science for discovering the truth, since facts clearly aren't a reliable source of it?

All that I am criticizing about scientific-materialism is that people are assuming it as the best grounds for discovering actual truth, when in fact it is only taking into account one aspect of our reality, the so-called external world - and is basically a motivated search to gain knowledge and control due to man's fear of the unknown, rather than as a means for actually discovering truth. And yes, I do recognize that science has its place and has made great and helpful discoveries, but unfortunately, man has also used such discoveries in terribly destructive ways.

Truth has to be consistent. There is nothing consistent about the hearts of men. There is only emotions, which are illogical, and therefore not fact. They are figments that can easily be replicated to the point that they are indistinguishable from the real thing. You are talking about placing the most easily manipulated aspect of our reality above the most easily verified. That's idiocy.

To eliminate being and consciousness from the equation will never allow the truth beyond scientific-materialism to be discovered - so why dismiss being and consciousness when they are self-evident to you?

Because they are easily manipulated and not reliable sources of objective reality. Consciousness is so easily confused and misguided, redirected and stimulated. You can rewrite a man's entire past and he would never realize it. You could instill directions for a mass murder in the deepest level of a man's mind and he would never suspect that he was a bomb waiting to go off. With a few well-placed rumors, you can incite a riot worth millions in damages.

Science is objective. We are not. I don't dismiss being and consciousness, I remain aware of both the advantages and disadvantages they offer. It's a good idea to learn how flaws may be utilized, but never forget that they have great potential to be your blind spot as well.

reply to post by AfterInfinity
You are simply stuck in your materialistic view it seems. You don't see the difference between truth and science-based facts. Science cannot tell us what some thing actually IS - what the truth of it IS - what it actually IS. It can give us all kinds of facts describing its characteristics, etc., but it cannot tell us the truth of its actuality. This is an inherent limit of scientific-materialism.

You like to play gotcha games with me and others, it seems - and then somehow conclude that I am making some kind of idiotic statement. Step out of your obsessive conceptualizing and actually feel as the whole body-mind participating fully in what is arising. This provides the basis for further discovery. Can you do this?

Here is the same thing I asked LesMis on his "Material Insult" thread - try this exercise for a while (described mid-way down the post):
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by bb23108

You are simply stuck in your materialistic view it seems. You don't see the difference between truth and science-based facts. Science cannot tell us what some thing actually IS - what the truth of it IS - what it actually IS. It can give us all kinds of facts describing its characteristics, etc., but it cannot tell us the truth of its actuality. This is an inherent limit of scientific-materialism.

The day your methods tell me more about this chair I'm sitting in than science does, I will give your philosophy more consideration. But so far, your blustering has done nothing but prove there's little to no real substantiation to your claims. And that's the crux, is it not? You're arguing against the very thing that would give your philosophy some form of credence. Such a pity.

You like to play gotcha games with me and others, it seems - and then somehow conclude that I am making some kind of idiotic statement. Step out of your obsessive conceptualizing and actually feel as the whole body-mind participating fully in what is arising. This provides the basis for further discovery. Can you do this?

My so-called "gotcha games" are merely expressions of amusement at how lackadaisical your personal investigations are. For being so passionate, you're not very thorough. I suspect there's a reason for that...reminds me of the phrase, "Don't ask questions you don't want to know the answers to." Sound familiar? It should. Your philosophy avoids the smoking gun that would bring you to your knees, and that might be why you oppose it. Hard solid facts tend to be a lot more convincing than conjecture and faith. Sure, there's a lot of places science hasn't gone yet. But give it time. Meanwhile, your ideas here will continue to gather the dust of fanciful imagination - because that's all they're ever going to see.

reply to post by AfterInfinity
Wow, you sure are clinging to you materialistic beliefs and striking out in anger, aren't you? It seems you are very afraid to let those beliefs go, just like the Christians you love to criticize about holding on to their beliefs.

You defend your senses and facts as though they are the only possible reality - when you cannot even say what the simplest object actually IS. What IS that chair you are sitting on? You can only describe it - at least until you drop out of the conceptual mind and beliefs about it. Then maybe you will notice something very different.

Well, when you get a chance, try that exercise I mentioned. If you cannot drop out of the conceptual mind, is it likely due to lack of whole body-mind equanimity and a need to seek all the time. Maybe you will drop out of your need to think and seek all the time (in order to define your sense of separate identity) - and then perhaps you will notice something else. Or maybe not. Let us know, if you want.

reply to post by bb23108

Wow, you sure are clinging to you materialistic beliefs and striking out in anger, aren't you? It seems you are very afraid to let those beliefs go, just like the Christians you love to criticize about holding on to their beliefs.

It makes me irritable to see people criticizing my opinions without justification for doing so. You have said nor done nothing to prove that your arguments hold any weight. Your ideas make people feel better, sure. It's fun to imagine, yeah. But in the end, a ton of steel and plastic is more real to me than the ghost of a revolutionary who was killed for defying his superiors.

You defend your senses and facts as though they are the only possible reality - when you cannot even say what the simplest object actually IS. What IS that chair you are sitting on? You can only describe it - at least until you drop out of the conceptual mind and beliefs about it. Then maybe you will notice something very different.

I don't defend science as though it's the only possible reality. I defend it as though it's the most reliable reality, something you still haven't disproven.

If I asked the manufacturers, they would tell me the chemicals, where the chemicals were taken, how they were refined, how they were shaped, how they were assembled and where. Forensic analysts could tell me how long this chair has existed from the moment it left the factor up until now, as well as what sort of places it's been in and what has been done to it. The designers can tell me how to improve the design for what purpose, what would happen to it under what conditions, and what treatment would best preserve its function for the longest. Why? Because all of these people are students of science, and they have studied for years to learn the behavior of physical matter, the only kind that affects our bodies.

What can you tell me with your scientific methods?

Well, when you get a chance, try that exercise I mentioned. If you cannot drop out of the conceptual mind, is it likely due to lack of whole body-mind equanimity and a need to seek all the time. Maybe you will drop out of your need to think and seek all the time in order to define your sense of separate identity - and then perhaps you will notice something else. Or maybe not. Let us know, if you want.

Maybe you should explain that who exercise in theory, with documented research proving the credibility of your ideas. I tend to trust certified scientists more than some armchair philosopher who puts more faith in the substance of his imagination than the machines that have enabled him to survive to today.

I appreciate philosophy, but not when its practicality is outweighed by its irrelevance.

reply to post by AfterInfinity
If you would actually take the time to read my posts you would see that I am not saying science does not have its place, nor that its facts are wrong. But because I know directly that there is more to reality than science can know because of its inherently materialistic approach, I am simply saying that science has its limits - not that science is wrong with its physical facts. But you then jump to some conclusion that I am dismissing science, when I am not. It is your way of playing gotcha for yourself, because you want to protect your position. Not terribly open of you, is it?

You also like the name calling game to categorize me (and others) into some category - armchair hippie (which you changed to philosopher) in this case, and decide on this basis you won't even try the simple exercise I mentioned. It is not a technique of some kind, just a simple relaxation of the whole body-mind into a state of openness - if you can actually relax/notice to that degree. If not, that should also reflect something back to you about the state of your body-mind and its inherent addiction to constantly seeking and thinking.

reply to post by bb23108

If you would actually take the time to read my posts you would see that I am not saying science does not have its place, nor that its facts are wrong. But because I know directly that there is more to reality than science can know because of its inherently materialistic approach, I am simply saying that science has its limits - not that science is wrong with its physical facts. But you then jump to some conclusion that I am dismissing science, when I am not. It is your way of playing gotcha for yourself, because you want to protect your position. Not terribly open of you, is it?

Enough of the "gotcha" allegations. This is not about me personally, and you would do well to remember the T&Cs. I am not the topic.

Your tone implies that you hold your philosophies to be more reliable than science. I am contesting that. If you wish to correct my impression, then do so. But I stand firm in my declaration that science is considerably more reliable than your scientific-idealism, considering that realm hasn't even been fully explored yet. You've had a couple of drops and you think the whole bucket is gold. You don't know what's at the bottom.

Meanwhile, scientific materialism is tried and proven. Everything around you can be credited to it. When your scientific idealism transforms the world like the industrial revolution did, then I will be ready to join your party.

It is not a technique of some kind, just a simple relaxation of the whole body-mind into a state of openness - if you can actually relax/notice to that degree. If not, that should also tell you something about the state of your body-mind.

I'm not interested in discussing meditation on this thread. If you want, start a new one and I'll think about participating.

reply to post by AfterInfinity
Well it is unfortunate that you cannot see that what I am saying is not about trying to eliminate science. I have repeatedly stated that science has discovered many wonderful facts about objects. I am not contrary to science, but man created science to serve mankind, not to be controlled by a belief system based in its methodology.

Man has greater capacity inherently to transcend these useful man-made limits of science, and if this is not understood now, then at least be open to that possibility. That is all I have been trying repeatedly to say here - and there really is no use in repeating this any further to you.

reply to post by bb23108

Well it is unfortunate that you cannot see that what I am saying is not about trying to eliminate science. I have repeatedly stated that science has discovered many wonderful facts about objects. I am not contrary to science, but man created science to serve mankind, not to be controlled by a belief system based in its methodology.

Science is only consistent if it is applied consistently. Ergo, a system is required. A system that answers to a set of principles determined through vigorous investigation.

Man has greater capacity inherently to transcend these useful man-made limits of science, and if this is not understood now, then at least be open to that possibility. That is all I have been trying repeatedly to say here - and there really is no use in repeating this any further to you.

I'm open to the possibility, but only as a potential investment that should be examined at greater length when the appropriate devices are available. Any sooner and it will only yield numerous dead-ends as a result of insufficient ability to explore its avenues. I hope that makes sense to you.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
Science is only consist if it is applied consistently. Ergo, a system is required. A system that answers to a set of principles determined through vigorous investigation.

Of course a consistent approach is necessary for scientific investigation - I have never said otherwise. But that same dissociated approach associated with scientific method, is being assumed as a philosophical approach to life itself, and as a philosophy, scientific-materialism is severely limited, as it fundamentally only accounts for the dimension that is perceived as external.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
I'm open to the possibility, but only as a potential investment that should be examined at greater length when the appropriate devices are available. Any sooner and it will only yield numerous dead-ends as a result of insufficient ability to explore its avenues. I hope that makes sense to you.

I guess that is all one can expect if one is limited to a materialistic belief system. It's too bad that you have to wait until a device is invented to show you what is beyond our current notions of matter. However, no device is ever going to be able to quantify absolute Truth anyway because Unconditional reality is not quantifiable, so you will be waiting a very very long time.

However, it probably will not be long before some mainstream devices will be able to measure more subtle forms of energy than currently - and much like when electricity was first introduced, it will be disbelieved, then only doubted, but over time it will be proven. But such energies are still part of the realm of conditionality, so have their inherent limits too.

reply to post by bb23108

scientific-materialism is severely limited, as it fundamentally only accounts for the dimension that is perceived as external

I'm curious bb23108, what other dimensions do you have in mind when you say this?

reply to post by bb23108

Of course a consistent approach is necessary for scientific investigation - I have never said otherwise. But that same dissociated approach associated with scientific method, is being assumed as a philosophical approach to life itself, and as a philosophy, scientific-materialism is severely limited, as it fundamentally only accounts for the dimension that is perceived as external.

But some of the philosophies we have discussed in this thread use what you refer to as the "external dimension" to lend credence to themselves. If they rely on the external world in such a way, then surely they are subject to the same principles that govern our scientific methods? This is the point I am trying to make. A philosophy that intermingles itself with physical reality must demonstrate that it obeys the laws of said reality. Otherwise, your spirituality does not reflect the same lessons as the physical world, which places your body and soul at odds with one another.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
But some of the philosophies we have discussed in this thread use what you refer to as the "external dimension" to lend credence to themselves. If they rely on the external world in such a way, then surely they are subject to the same principles that govern our scientific methods? This is the point I am trying to make. A philosophy that intermingles itself with physical reality must demonstrate that it obeys the laws of said reality.

Yes, if science is up to measuring them, that is very good. If not, that doesn't necessarily eliminate their existence. And as I have said many times, how can the Unconditional Reality be measured or quantified? It is not separate from conditions, but it is also not conditional - so is not quantifiable except perhaps indirectly based on quantum theory as applied to Consciousness. But even if not measurable directly or indirectly, does that mean such a reality is not the case? By no means is this a given, especially to the one recognizing Reality directly.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
Otherwise, your spirituality does not reflect the same lessons as the physical world, which places your body and soul at odds with one another.

First, regardless of our philosophical inclinations, we should recognize, feel, and act as the whole body-mind, fully participating in life. So there is no conflict between mind, heart, and body - it is a single, integrated whole not separated out from life. The philosophy of scientific-materialism does not assume this participation - it prefers that one remain dissociated from life, perhaps passively observing it, but only in a non-participatory manner.

On that same thread by LesMis, I wrote the following about this matter:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by bb23108

First, regardless of our philosophical inclinations, we should recognize, feel, and act as the whole body-mind, fully participating in life. So there is no conflict between mind, heart, and body - it is a single, integrated whole not separated out from life. The philosophy of scientific-materialism does not assume this participation - it prefers that one remain dissociated from life, perhaps passively observing it, but only in a non-participatory manner.

I disagree. If it were truly intended in a non-participatory manner, then we wouldn't be nearly so involved in investigating the precise material nature of the universe. We interact with everything, so we would be fools to adhere to such a philosophy as you are suggesting.

Our bodies are subject to the laws of this universe, and so our minds and souls must reflect the themes of such laws in order to best follow the universal dance. A soul that does not reflect the universal laws will invite behavior that diverges from said laws and create chaos within the body that is inevitably subject to those laws. As such, our philosophies must match the nature of our bodies and minds and souls, which match the nature of this universe.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
I disagree. If it were truly intended in a non-participatory manner, then we wouldn't be nearly so involved in investigating the precise material nature of the universe. We interact with everything, so we would be fools to adhere to such a philosophy as you are suggesting.

So are you saying that you function as a single whole body-mind, fully participating in life? In other words, you are feeling, as well as recognizing and acting, as the whole single body-mind? Or at least see that is the right approach to life?

reply to post by LesMisanthrope

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope

scientific-materialism is severely limited, as it fundamentally only accounts for the dimension that is perceived as external

I'm curious bb23108, what other dimensions do you have in mind when you say this?

Sorry, I missed your question. But didn't I basically answer it on the previous page?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

In any case, I am talking about the actual experiencing we live day to day in terms of our conceptual and perceptual processes, consciousness, and being. These are self-evident to us and yet scientific-materialism, because these internal dimensions cannot be quantified, dismisses such processes as being unreal.

Thus materialism renders the external world as the only reality, and people actually are buying this scientific methodology of materialism as a superior view of the world and ourselves. It is not superior and the self-evident nature of being, consciousness, conception, and perception should also be fully engaged in one's consideration of truth. To negate these processes or call them irrelevant is ludicrous to me - as they are self-evident.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
The same way you presume the opposite—through experience, language, the senses, reason and the tools of understanding. Except I have understood my senses and the appearances they bring to be more valid than perhaps you have. I don't rely on intuition, hopes and desires, because they have only ever led me astray. The apparent world has always been there for me; I don't choose to deny it because of mere possibility, or because I favor something that appeals more to my emotions.

Actually there is nothing world-denying or idealistic about anything I have been talking about as well. As we have already considered, the whole body-mind should be fully engaged in life, not occupied with beliefs, hopes, and idealism of any kind - but already sustained by inherent unity with reality itself.

Recognition of the unconditional reality in which all conditions arise is not an experience - it is direct recognition of reality, not actually through the medium of the body-mind. It has nothing to do with the senses, cognition, perception, conception, intuition, hopes, desires, yogic experiences, ascent out of the body, going or looking elsewhere, etc., etc. It is direct and most fundamental recognition of reality itself and is self-authenticating, indivisible, consciousness itself.

reply to post by bb23108

youre following the path that mainstream science wants you to! Why have the CIA done top secret experiments with astral projections? They don't want you to know! they don't want you to know you can easily make you're own free energy. Astral projecting has been proven, the experiment involved an individual who was expierienced with remote viewing. The CIA told him to predict where a man was going to end up driving a car around, the CIA did not tell the man driving anywhere to go they simply said drive, just where ever. The astral projector nailed it. Many other examples too, do a little research.

reply to post by bb23108

So are you saying that you function as a single whole body-mind, fully participating in life? In other words, you are feeling, as well as recognizing and acting, as the whole single body-mind? Or at least see that is the right approach to life?

How do you participate in existence as the whole "body-mind"? A lot of these terms that you use are representations of concepts only you are familiar with in the sense of understanding that you use them. If we are to have an effective exchange, I think it's about time you started explaining in detail the precise parameters and context of both these terms and the philosophy in which they are used. Not excerpts, such as you have been relaying from your personal understanding, but the entirety. This way, I can see where we stand in relation to one another and how our comprehension differs.