true that, funny how you can actually go beyond these limits but many don't want to try because they simply don't believe they can.

I've had some... and I'm dead serious... interesting experiences X3

Why must this be applied to only religious?

Love itself is a completely irrational experience.

It applies to everything, including love. How do you know your affection is real and you're not just trying to convince yourself that it is?

You don't, but what does that matter? It's a leap of faith. If you're unwilling to do that in your life, it's going to be a long a sorrowful one.

Hhahaha, awesome quote, but yeah, meditation is hard as shit. I used to do alot of Zen stuff before I signed up, and the first step was basically to learn to control the rampant monkey that is your mind. After months I finally noticed him to start slowing down, but then I joined the military and have been awash with constant thoughts and stresses. God is now a million lifetimes away from me at this point. :3

Thank you for this.

Technically meditation is incredibly easy. The hard part is just sitting down and doing it regularly.

Technically speaking :3

Very easy indeed to put if off until tomorrow....on a daily basis.

meditation is hard as shit. yeah no kidding. lol I practice no religion but my own and damn that is hard. Thankfully I live where that is easy to do. .....Just shut off your thoughts so you can think..... It's an odd feeling. really odd.

An old Zen master once said it is to think about not thinking. :3

Dogen Zenji, FTW!

Hmm interesting. Yeah, I see that being quite true to that matter.

You should have come to that conclusion on your own without being prompted externally X3

Yeah ^^; heh. The thought was there. Guess it just need a bit of a nudge.

Being human breeds homo-centric points of view. It's practically hardwired into our brains to perceive the world a certain way, corresponding to how we naturally operate on a practical scale. The idea that "there had to be a creator" follows a similar patten in it's search for simplicity. :P

I dislike organized religions for more or less that very reason. It's all about what they tell you to believe and not what you personally believe. I think the true path to spiritualism is by forming your own beliefs, independent of any church or religion.

Though I consider myself Atheist, I do believe in a few "spiritual" things. Because, after all, while organized religion is about what they want you to believe, Atheism is, in some ways, about what this other group doesn't want you to believe. While Atheism isn't organized, the term tends to bring with it the assumption that one doesn't believe in anything spiritual. It also has the stigma of people trying to get anything vaguely religious removed from everything, but that's another story.

On a side note, I also believe that religions have always existed to explain what science is yet unable to. The ancient Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, etc. had a system of several different Gods, each one representing a different facet of life and the world that science had not explained yet. Today we look upon them as a bunch of amusing little stories, because we know now how the world works, for the most part. We know there isn't a God of Thunder, but back then they didn't know that. They believed a God must be responsible for the thunder and lightning, because surely that's the only explanation.

Modern religion has the problem of most things being explained by science. One of the last unexplained things is the creation of the universe, which is still debated (even though the Big Bang Theory is the most popular story). That's something science may never be able to prove without any doubt, so there might always be a God who created everything. Who knows.

Sorry if I sound like a smartass, but does that means that if someone meditate and finds himself told by his inner voice or whatever that he should kill everyone, we should endorse that? =P

Imagination is not to be trusted :3

The problem with this line of thought is that all experiences are flawed, as they all enter in through a flawed system of senses.

Your psyche is made up of these experiences, shaped by them.

Therefore, not only is anything you experience able to be called into question, your own mind, as a product of those experiences, can be as well.

Usually it's around this point in the argument that it breaks down, as there can be nothing accepted as concrete fact. Looking at it practically, how are you supposed to get anything done with that outlook?

You are correct and have revealed the deeper meaning of what I'm talking about. Even our psyche and "thoughts" are inherently flawed due to them being formed through our observations. The truth itself needs to be formed in a manner independent these things, which is why it's so rare that anyone realizes it.

The thing is, that's impossible.

Then the concession that needs to be made is that anything we believe needs to be compared to the only things we can know. If we can begin forming our understanding from a solid logical base we should be able to create reasonable assumptions. But always be prepared to change them as we grow.

Sorry it's early and I'm not thinking clearly X3

I have my beliefs, and I believe them to be true... but at the same time, I accept the fact that I belief systems is a bit opened ended, and that I can not fully understand, if at least not all at once, what it entails. I believe everything that I do not fully understand as much as I believe I am alive. And that, is coming from someone who always remember being told "If there is one thing philosophy will let you know, it is that you really know nothing at all." (Or something like that.)

If you disagree or read over what I wrote, and think is nonsense strung together in poorly made sentences, please ignore my rambling and move along without unnecessary replies on my stupidity. Thanks.

Yay Atheism!

lol my thought on creation and everything is a bit.... odd. the joke is "then god said let there be sims...." then went to the bathroom.

Basicly there is WAY too much going on that says it was by chance. then a few monkies said Hay "I'll tell you a story Now give me money god is watching."

*pops knuckles* Alright, then what say you to this?

I've spent most of my life unable to discern between what's real and what's not. This isn't to say that I've sat alone in my comfortable room being indecisively contemplative, but rather that the trackmarks of schizophrenia have destroyed any sense of reality I could possibly ever have. To me, not by foolheaded ignorance but by sheer overexposure and destruction of the base of belief, my reality could be anything from my seat right here to being a strung out piece of meat stretched across a plane of hooks. My ego, nay, my entire identity was shattered, and so I've rebuilt myself out of the pieces of others I've met. Perfectly able to understand them and their needs, I help those with poor powers of self-analysis.

I can't even be sure if my half-hearted grasp for answers comes from the vestiges of the person I once was or the cumulative absorbed personality traits of everyone I've met since then.

Where do I fall in this plan? Where is my truth?

I say: This is why the pastor at my church compares Christianity to The Matrix.
Bunch of people in a fake world that don't know it's fake. And when someone tells you the ugly truth you can either take the blue pill or the red pill. XD

I believe you are still capable of finding the truth but that you have the added challenge of having to deal with your imagination. Start with what you can know absolutely and build from that. Anything else is speculation.

... So, nothing. I can build off of nothing save for the preference for this possibility of reality for no other reason than it doesn't hinder my hedonism.

How underwhelming.

I'm pretty confident that you can confirm your own existence.

I'm personally not capable of giving advice for someone with your condition with any degree of confidence though.

Nobody is. Madness is the most interesting creature in that it can give hope where there is none, and destroy hope where others thought there was. Even if they don't have it. I'm fairly sure that just like everybody else, you're just assuming there's a way to get around this without actually knowing, because the thought otherwise is horrifying.

Interesting that this journal talks about baseless beliefs, and then you say that.

Who's fooling who?

It is of course only an assumption based on my own ability to confirm my own existence to myself. So I do have a logical basis for the belief but no way of actually confirming if others are capable of that act :P

Just to clarify, I'm not upset with you, nor am I trying to make a fool out of you. As a matter of fact, our paths have crossed in a sense. I spent a lot of time without any identity or even animal instinct, and thus, without ego. It was an illuminating time, as people and the nature of things became transparent. Without self in the way, this world- and the way people see it- is very easy to grasp.

And I already had my answer before asking you, of course: if madness is the disease, then it's also the cure. If my world is a series of dreams, then it's unimportant if I'm the dreamer. Whether I am the creature of chaos that forms these impossible machinations, or merely a small component of them, I have no reason to fear nor despair. Any life is worth living for the knowledge and feelings it bestows.

Well then it seems you've come to a logical conclusion given your point of view :3

I am a fool btw; I'm not a very smart person :P

Intelligence and wisdom aren't to be mistaken for each other. One can very well be wise without being terribly smart, and vice versa.

What separates the wise from the fool is that the wise knows that he's a fool.

You can't find god im atheism!!

You're pointing more towards transendentalism. XD

As in, without anybody's help and being a nonconformist you find god....or God...

What I mean is that only when you don't have "belief" can you find truth.

Well, that's the whole point of the story of the prodigal (sp?) son.

...that's kind of contradictory too. Seeing that atheism is the belief that there isn't a god. 9_6

I agree, human senses are extremely flawed. Something as simple as a magnetic field can temporary render someone blind by shutting off parts of the brain and even the concept of free will has to be seriously reconsidered with the results that we are getting from FMRI tests and transcranial magnetic stimulation.
The notion of self verification is noble but it has limited potential, I can't meditate my way through chronodynamics or quantum gravity any better than a psychopath can internally contemplate emotion.

Really? No one has mentioned Descartes? His whole philosophy was about how the senses could be fooled and thus we must start with the most irreducible fact: I think, therefore I am. Thoughts can originate from no source other than himself. No matter what his senses might tell him, his thoughts, his ability to interpret that sensory information, were his own.

Then he went on some weird path about how perfection does not exist in the real world, thus this concept of perfection must have been instilled in him by a perfect being, therefore god exists. But we can ignore that part.

*gets an umbrella and goggles and settles down to watch*

Math is the only truth, everything else is just experimental error.

Mmm. Solipsism. It's interesting at first, but it's unfortunately an intellectual dead end, due to reasons stargate 525 touched on.

Nah, Mif-maf is going into the broader area of metaphysics. The problem with metaphysics is that outside of math it doesn't work.

Do you have to make baseline assumptions about the universe? Yes.

The key is knowing what those assumptions are, and what it means if you are wrong. There are three assumptions behind working with observation and inductive logic:

That more exists than just the solitary self.
That the universe operates under comprehensible laws.
That the senses are reasonably consistent, (NB: _NOT_ accurate).

If the first is false, then everything is an illusion. This would mean that _all_ paths of thought are ultimately meaningless, no more than idle speculation.

If the second is false, then any effort to understand the universe is doomed to failure.

If the third is false, then we are all mad.

Is there a word for people who believe that every religion deserves both credit and respect within their practices and followings and that they just might all co-exist in a different type of reality that we humans created because we think too damn hard?

I got something like that.

I actually believe that because I was inspired by Neil Gaiman's works. Especially in his Graphic Novel series The Sandman and his epic novel American Gods.

Religion happens according to what we want/think to happen; therefore, a million different religions from all the corners of the globe.

I once had a physics professor begin the first day of class by saying, "Science is not about finding 'truth'. If you want to Truth, go to church."

Or in the words of Einstein: Our understanding of the world is like knowing how to read the hands of a clock without knowing how the gears work behind them.

what you say is true god is what we make of him/her or even them

So you believe in pure rationcination and the idea of Schopenhauer's veil of Maya, and, in essence, the fundamental existence of the Will with the external world being an unknown? Fascinating. Admittedly, I'm a rational positivist monist, so I can't see where you're coming from, but I can grasp the foundation of your ideas.

I'm going to look those things up :D

Ratinocination is a basic philosophical principle that states that truths about the world can be arrived at by pure reason and thought, rather than experimentation. While reason can take you far, the scientific method and measurements of the real world are required to confirm anything. Ratinocination is, at best, for making hypotheses. Science moves into the realm of confirmation.

I believe that both methods need to be used together.

"I believe in what I can see"

Watch out for hallucinations and special effects :3

I love special effects :3

That's an interesting theme, and I agree with you.

Most people believe things without having any proof (That's called "faith" which I consider the worse of all human flaws)

Some people believe only in what they see or experiment for themselves.

And some like me, believe in absolutely nothing.

Why? because I know I can't rely in my "senses". Because senses are somehow subjective and prone to be influenced by our minds instead of the other way around.

Here is an example. I don't believe in ghosts. But I have seen ghosts and paranormal phenomena in several occasions.

How do I explain the contradiction? Either the Universe is malfunctioning... or my brain is. I guess the latter explanation is the most plausible one.

I'm a bit lost about how relying on external observations to know something is flawed, but figuring out something based on "internal truths" is not. Although I might be misunderstanding the whole internal truth thing, it would seem to me to be the opposite. External observations are grounded in the reality which we all share. Although I might not see things exactly the same as someone else, the average observation about something is probably right. But in the same way that the brain distorts perceptions, it also distorts thoughts. So "truths" and how you combine them to make "true" conclusions... well, those are also subject to distortion, and they're not things which other people can peer in on the same way they can with external observations.

I could keep talking now, but I'll let you stop me and steer me in the right direction.

>Thus relying on external observation to "know" something is logically limited, if not flawed.

If it hasn't already been said; that's why we form consensus with others.

The six blind men all described the elephant differently, yet if they had pooled their experiences, they would have come to a much more accurate description of the animal.

Assuming one wasn't lying :P

Ah, but then they could ask six other blind people to also describe the elephant and then compare results!

That's one nice thing about science: reproducible results.

That is true.

I've always been more than a little dismissive of the idea that we can't objectively know anything. If we assume that reality does indeed exist regardless of us, and our senses have evolved to accurately reflect reality (or else we'd be eaten), and we can pool and test our knowledge, then to me it seems like we can definitely create a communal knowledge of reality that will work for most purposes.

In other words, I believe a 99% certainty is close enough to 100% for most circumstances that we will actually encounter.

Are you taking philosophy classes or are you a college professor?

No and no :3

Are you the architect? YOU DIDN'T MAKE US ALL DID YOU!?

>.>;;

<.<;;

wow you see when it comes to ...

um.. gosh wait...


um ok see....

um ok uh...

CRAP YOU are making me think.. its HARD