(October 5, 2014 at 9:43 am)Chas Wrote: You misunderstood what I said. We can measure some things, there is no objective measure of 'experience'.

That is true, presently, and it may always be the case...but isn't it a bit too early to be emphatic about? And doesn't that make understanding such states rather significant for the scientist trying to press forward into uncharted territories of the mind's powers or functions and the atheist trying to cope or understand their everyday sensations and perceptions?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVygqjyS4CA

(October 5, 2014 at 12:52 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:

(October 5, 2014 at 9:43 am)Chas Wrote: You misunderstood what I said. We can measure some things, there is no objective measure of 'experience'.

That is true, presently, and it may always be the case...but isn't it a bit too early to be emphatic about? And doesn't that make understanding such states rather significant for the scientist trying to press forward into uncharted territories of the mind's powers or functions and the atheist trying to cope or understand their everyday sensations and perceptions?

I'm all for pushing onward; we can detect and measure things today undreamed of in the past.

My only point is those generate evidence; internal 'feels' don't.

(October 5, 2014 at 9:43 am)Chas Wrote:

(October 4, 2014 at 7:46 pm)ShaMan Wrote: The short answer is... you already know.

That is not an answer; that is pathetic cosmic woo.

So you believe.

(October 5, 2014 at 3:45 pm)ShaMan Wrote:

(October 5, 2014 at 9:43 am)Chas Wrote: That is not an answer; that is pathetic cosmic woo.

So you believe.

Based on evidence. There is simply no evidence to support your fuzzy assertion.

(October 5, 2014 at 3:54 pm)Chas Wrote: There is simply no evidence to support your fuzzy assertion.

I honor where you are on your path. Have peace.

(October 5, 2014 at 4:52 pm)ShaMan Wrote:

(October 5, 2014 at 3:54 pm)Chas Wrote: There is simply no evidence to support your fuzzy assertion.

I honor where you are on your path. Have peace.

Live long and prosper.

(October 2, 2014 at 10:29 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(September 28, 2014 at 9:43 pm)Brian37 Wrote: First off your heart does not do the thinking, your brain is the organ that does the thinking.

Your brain does all the feeling, too. Just because something isn't accessible at the conscious level, or isn't comprehensible as a logical argument, doesn't mean it isn't of the brain, or that it isn't something important to the human experience.

I'm not so sure what causes religious feelings. I'm not sure I can see the evolutionary value of having them. But certainly, they are a big part of the human experience (though not all would call them "religious"). Maybe if we could better understand what the brain is doing when we have religious feelings, we could figure out the evolutionary value, and turn a counterproductive superstitious impulse into a superpowerful subconscious assistant.

One of the problems with science and atheism is that feelings sometimes get disregarded as unimportant or unsignificant, in place of logic exclusively as a way of processing the world. To me, that's not a good thing.

What causes religious feelings is the same intense feelings a gullible child has Christmas eve. The same intense feelings an insecure boy has pining after a girl from afar. The same intense feelings when someone has a baby.

Religion is our species literal ignorance of their own flawed perceptions. It boils down to "If you want to believe something badly enough you will", and our species hormones and chemical brain activity can very powerful in allowing us to gap fill with falsehoods.

(October 4, 2014 at 7:17 pm)bennyboy Wrote: I think this experience represents a fundamental truth, and one that is perfectly in accordance with the reality of the universe as we see it.

But what if someone else didn't see it that way? What's this "we" business?

Quote: I'd say "all is one" is probably more factually sound than "I'm super-important, so get out of my way, asshole *honks car horn*."

I don't know that either of those is more factual than the other. What about: all is not one, minus the superimportant-out of my way, asshole, beep beep?

Quote:It also has the advantage of bringing a sense of peace: if I'm just a part of the universe, just star dust, just dirt animated by the sun-- then what do I really have to worry about? I'll enjoy my life, make my mistakes, and then all the "stuff" that makes me will be released back into the universe.

Some people could chill, sure, but an opposite and equally "peace inculcating" series of statements could be derived from stating that all is not one. We're talking about what might put some individuals mind at ease at this point...and that's some foggy ground - don't you think?

Keep in mind that even these "ancient wisdoms" are continually rehashed for the modern audience. Your appraisal of what those things "means" is not necessarily what they meant, or were taken to mean by the originators(or any specific group in time between the originators and ourselves) - and that's assuming a fairly accurate transmission of data to begin with (often not the case). It's might be a failure of cultural bias to rewrite some other narrative into our shorthand without needing to change so much as a single word.

I'm more of the opinion that our religious experiences represent anthropological barometers more than any refined truths. Not that this reduces the experiences importance, imo. They tell us where we've been, what was important to us - and yes, what may still be important to us...but really, is it important for any of the reasons mentioned in the texts - should we scour them for wisdom that may simply not be there? Meh, not so much, for me anyway.

What would your heart know about god, its just a pump.