Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: November 24, 2024, 7:14 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Thoughts on Buddhism
RE: Thoughts on Buddhism
Quote:Magick - The science and art of transformation of matter, spirit, and energy to orchestrated to bring about change in accordance with my will in ways that may not yet, or ever, be understood or explainable by scientific knowledge.
This is one of the reasons I came to realize that, after prcticing magick for a decade I decided to dump it. I came to the conclusion that all I was doing was fooling myself with mystical thinking, equivocations, and soft fuzzy words that could come to mean anything...or really doesnt mean anything.

And if a word really means nothing, then it can be used to describe anything and everything.

Like the word "magick"

On the other hand, my book of shadows was quite beautiful. I put alot of my own artwork into it and I was quite proud of it. That is, until the cops took it from me and never gave it back. They were convinced that I had written a personal account of sacrificing humans in secret code inside of it, and they had code specialists trying to crack it....lol...in reality it was just a bunch of symbols I made up on the spot out of creativity and lots of hallucinogenics.

There are some things I still do from that time period in my life. Practicing lucid dreaming is one of them (what you would call "astral travelling") and power to will, in which you visualise what you want to help focus on attaining it. conjuring spirits are bullshit. Opening "gates" to spirit worlds is bullshit. conscrating the circle is bullshit....

...oh yeah, I still make my own honeymead. In fact I have 3 gallons of my best shit aged 3 years right now. 17% alcohol.
Reply
RE: Thoughts on Buddhism
The two proprietors of the Anciente and Renowned Arte of Karmagicke have turned the thread into a rather entertaining circlejerk of ridiculosity, from the greedy, angry buddhist to the wisened, scrying wizard with his book of shadows, repealing all laws of science with his vast powers.

By the pricking of my thumbs, something silly this way comes!
Trying to update my sig ...
Reply
RE: Thoughts on Buddhism
(February 2, 2012 at 9:59 am)Epimethean Wrote: The two proprietors of the Anciente and Renowned Arte of Karmagicke have turned the thread into a rather entertaining circlejerk of ridiculosity, from the greedy, angry buddhist to the wisened, scrying wizard with his book of shadows, repealing all laws of science with his vast powers.

By the pricking of my thumbs, something silly this way comes!

LOL, I know what you mean.

I have personally come to realize that the best qualities of "magick", or the occult,

...which is esoteric thinking....

is much better represented in the absurdist/discordian "religions". Instead of bogus claims of "presto chango" they get to the meat of the belief system, pointing out the bias of perception, personal feelings of awe, etc..etc...
Reply
RE: Thoughts on Buddhism
(February 2, 2012 at 9:27 am)Rhythm Wrote: Jesus fucking christ......Yes, it is an established fact that magic does not exist. In no instance, ever, have we investigated cases of "magic" and found any there. There is no known mechanism by which magic would or could operate, and there are physical laws, (well demonstrated) that rule magic out as a potential operator in this universe. If that's not enough to establish fact and hold it, I don't know what is. We've looked hard, and found nothing but constraints and evidence to the contrary. Magic does not exist.

If that's your understanding of what science has to say then I can only suggest that you have a grossly over-simplified and naive view of science. There is no way that current understandings of science can rule out "magic" in general. Unless of course you are thinking that "magic" means to somehow supernaturally overcome the laws of physics. That is NOT what magic means.

I think your objections here probably stem from your limitations on the term "magic' maybe more than anything else.

Quote:(your best argument for karma and reincarnation is "maybe magic does exist"? Well, that's not very convincing, how about some evidence?)

I'm personally not arguing for a concept of karma that carries beyond this life. Nor am I arguing for reincarnation. Either of these concepts may or may not be true.

But what I will absolutely stand behind is the fact that current scientific knowledge does not, and cannot, rule out either of these concepts as being impossible. Science simply does not have a good enough understanding of the true nature of reality to do that.

That level of scientific understanding simply does not exist. And that is a fact. So for you to proclaim that science has ruled-out "magic" is nonsense. Unless, of course, you are using the term "magic" to specifically mean to violate already known and well-established laws of physics. However by defining magic in that way, you have automatically made magic impossible by your very definition of it. So that would be a bit of a semantic cheat.

Or to perhaps state that better, the "magic" that you're referring to and the "magick" that I'm referring to would necessarily be two different concepts altogether and thus we aren't even speaking to the same concept.

My concept of "magick" appeals to mechanisms which may exist and simply not yet be known to science. In fact, I hold that some of these mechanism may not even be within the scope of what out current scientific method of investigation is even capable of discovering.

We already know that there do indeed exist things in nature that cannot be explained by science. Quantum Entanglement is certainly a prime example, but there are many others as well.

In fact, according to the most successful theory of science ever (i.e. Quantum Mechanics itself), not only can we not know the mechanism of Quantum Entanglement (or other mysterious of the quantum world), but the theory actually predicts through the uncertainty principle and through the principle of complementarity that we can't never discover the cause of these phenomena.

So how ironic is that?

The very best theory that science currently has clearly states that these things can never be known, yet look at what the scientists are doing. They are hoping with pure faith-based desire that the predictions of Quantum Mechanics will actually turn out to be WRONG.

For science to move forward in this area, it basically must first be WRONG.

At that is a pure faith-based dream. No different from religious faiths.

Quote:"MAGIC being defined as the great unknown, inexplicable force that drives growth and evolution is, I believe, an acceptable word to describe mystery, why not? Although when using the word "magic" it can easily be construed and associated with the illusions performed on T.V. and theatres by magicians which is obviously not what Abra is referring to. Ask yourself, what makes grass grow? What makes the sun shine? What makes humans and animals breathe in oxygen and expel carbon dioxide while conversely making plantlife "breathe" in CO2 and "expel" O2? And then ask yourself Why?"

Photosynthesis, nuclear fusion, biology (your welcome for clearing that up for you). How about you invoke something mysterious whilst trying to redefine magic as mystery?

You're missing the point here entirely.

Photosynthesis, nuclear fusion, biology, etc, are all nothing more than observations of what's actually happening. They are merely explanations of what the universe does. They aren't explanations of why it is the way it is.

What Bgood is stating above is basically the very same thing that Stephen Hawking brings up when he asks: "What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?"

The observational mathematical explanations of science are nothing more than a report of what the universe does. But when it comes to actually explaining why it does any of these things it has no clue.

I once had a wonderful physics professor who truly understand physics. On the very first day of the course he said the following:

Physics is basically a study of how things behave. If you ask, "How will a ball move" physics will tell you. It will tell you how it will move, how it will collide, bounce, and so on. It will tell you in quantitative terms (i.e. through mathematics) what the ball does.

However, if you are interested in understanding why the ball is what it is and why it does the things it does, and from when it came, then physics is the wrong thing to be studying. The answers to those questions are better pursued in the philosophy department down the hall.

All science does is quantitative describe how the universe behaves. To believe that it can go beyond that is unrealistic. It simply isn't even designed in the scientific method to go beyond that. The scientific method itself is based solely on observations, and quantitative analysis of those observations.

That's all that science does. Period. If it can't measure it and put a number on it, then it can't say anything about it. (i.e such as in the case of quantum entanglements etc.) When it gets to that level the universe becomes 'out of reach' of the scientific method.

Most ironically is that the scientific method has indeed been able to predict and demonstrate that there do indeed exists phenomena and behaviors of this universe that are indeed beyond the reach of the scientific method.

Science itself is telling us that this universe goes beyond what science itself is capable of explaining. Quantum Theory (the most successful theory of science to date) demands and predicts that some things will forever be beyond the reach of science.

Yet just look at these silly secular atheists keeping the FAITH that maybe science is wrong and it can go beyond what its best theory predicts that it can't go beyond.

How silly is that?

Secular atheists have a deep-seated FAITH that science is actually WRONG.


Christian - A moron who believes that an all-benevolent God can simultaneously be a hateful jealous male-chauvinistic pig.
Wiccan - The epitome of cerebral evolution having mastered the magical powers of the universe and is in eternal harmony with the mind of God.
Atheist - An ill-defined term that means something different to everyone who uses it.
~~~~~
Luke 23:34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.
Clearly Jesus (a fictitious character or otherwise) will forgive people if they merely know not what they do
For the Bible Tells us so!
Reply
RE: Thoughts on Buddhism
Sounds like you've just redefined magic in a way that it is no longer magical, congratulations. The limitations of the term magic are bordered by it's definition and use, perhaps you should pick a different word to argue over, if your magic isn't magical.

Neither of those two concepts have any footing in reality, they are magical. Science does not make a claim to perfect understanding, but we do know enough to rule those two out.

Different because you've added a "K" new ager? I think not. What may exist is not magic. Except by your un-magical definition of what magic is. That things cannot be explained does not make them magical. Magic by argument from ignorance? Give me a break. The most successful theory of science ever? LOL, sure, why not, I'll roll with it. QUANTUM, this man said quantum. Quantum has the magical ability to make anything magical, apparently? Do you want to talk magic or science?

Science as faith, tired argument, go pat a YEC on the back.

Demonstrate that the universe has a "why" in the first place, then you'll waste fewer words in platitudes and storytelling.



I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
RE: Thoughts on Buddhism
Quote:Unless of course you are thinking that "magic" means to somehow supernaturally overcome the laws of physics.

So magic is apparent in the laws of physics?

your entire argument is an argument from ignorance...again...it seems to be your forte.
Reply
RE: Thoughts on Buddhism
What do you expect from an idiot who goes by "abracadabra"?
Reply
RE: Thoughts on Buddhism
(February 2, 2012 at 2:02 pm)Chuck Wrote: What do you expect from an idiot who goes by "abracadabra"?

A worshipper of Abraxas the snake legged Cock headed god?
Reply
RE: Thoughts on Buddhism
(February 2, 2012 at 9:27 am)reverendjeremiah Wrote: This is one of the reasons I came to realize that, after prcticing magick for a decade I decided to dump it. I came to the conclusion that all I was doing was fooling myself with mystical thinking, equivocations, and soft fuzzy words that could come to mean anything...or really doesnt mean anything.

And if a word really means nothing, then it can be used to describe anything and everything.

Like the word "magick"

I'm sorry to hear that the concept didn't pan out for you. Everyone creates their own expectations and criteria. If those expectations and criteria aren't satisfied then they forfeit the concept. And rightfully so.

I certainly don't blame you for abandoning something that wasn't working for you.


Quote:On the other hand, my book of shadows was quite beautiful. I put alot of my own artwork into it and I was quite proud of it. That is, until the cops took it from me and never gave it back. They were convinced that I had written a personal account of sacrificing humans in secret code inside of it, and they had code specialists trying to crack it....lol...in reality it was just a bunch of symbols I made up on the spot out of creativity and lots of hallucinogenics.

That's a shame. Sorry to hear about.

Quote:There are some things I still do from that time period in my life. Practicing lucid dreaming is one of them (what you would call "astral travelling") and power to will, in which you visualise what you want to help focus on attaining it. conjuring spirits are bullshit. Opening "gates" to spirit worlds is bullshit. conscrating the circle is bullshit....

Yes, the lucid dreaming (I prefer to call "Shamanic Journeying") is also a huge focal point for me. In fact, I'm actually far more into shamanic journeying than actually orchestrating magick. I very seldom use magick. There simply isn't anything that I need magick for.

I think one reason that so many people fail at orchestrating magick (or have it fail for them) is because ultimately they are shooting for egotistical goals that they genuinely don't even want. They only think they want them. And that is never going to work.

Either that, or they try to use magick to control the actions of other people which is just as foolish.

About the only thing I use magick for is for personal health issues and it's been working pretty well in that regard.

But yes, the shamanic journeying is the most valuable aspect of it to be sure. At least it is for me.




(February 2, 2012 at 1:46 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Sounds like you've just redefined magic in a way that it is no longer magical, congratulations. The limitations of the term magic are bordered by it's definition and use, perhaps you should pick a different word to argue over, if your magic isn't magical.

Neither of those two concepts have any footing in reality, they are magical. Science does not make a claim to perfect understanding, but we do know enough to rule those two out.

Again, your argument is a purely semantic one.

Science does not fully understand the true nature of reality.

Therefore science cannot rule out the unexplainable.

You're simply claiming that science can rule things out that it can't.

Forget about the semantics of terms like "magic" with or without the "k".

That only serves to confuse the issue truly.

My stance is quite simple and factual.

Current modern science does not have a fully explanation for the true nature of reality. In fact, it may ultimately have no even scratched the surface for all we know.

Therefore mechanics that cannot be explained by science cannot be ruled out by science.

i.e. Science cannot claim that "magical processes" cannot occur.

Science simply isn't armed with the ability to make that kind of statement.

If you think otherwise, you are deluding yourself.

Quote:Different because you've added a "K" new ager? I think not. What may exist is not magic. Except by your un-magical definition of what magic is.

In my spiritual work I add a "K" to the term simply to distinguish it from stage "magic" which is the art of illusion and deception.

Quote:That things cannot be explained does not make them magical.

Well, again, that's arguable.

Consider the following:

Supposed we actually encountered a "magical being" who could not only do things that we can't explain, but who could even cause actions that appear to totally defy our current laws of physics.

We would say that this being is a "magical" being.

However, if you then discovered all the "secrets" of how this magic was being done and you say that it was all done through technology that you didn't formally understand, then you'd say, "Well it's not magic at all. It's just a technology that we didn't previously understand".

Well gee whiz. That's all that "magic" amounts too. Technologies and/or processes that we don't yet understand.

I'm not claiming that there is no "physics" at all behind processes that I call "magical". I just accept that whatever physics causes it we have yet to understand.

Hey, even modern scientists are speculating about mutiverses and multiple dimensions. They seriously talk about the possibility that other entire universes may exist "right next door" in another dimension that we can't currently easily detect.

For all we know there may be beings living in some of those other universes who can "reach" into our and cause seeming "violations" to our apparent laws of physics.

Scientists have not only not ruled that out, but they are even speculating that such situations may actually exist.

So how can you say that it's a 'fact' that magic does not exist.

You have no clue, and neither does science.


Quote:Magic by argument from ignorance? Give me a break.

WHOA! Hold on a minute!

You are attempting to turn this around on me.

I did not claim that it is a 'fact' that magic exists.

You are the one who claimed that it's a 'fact' that magic does NOT exist.

Let's get that straight right now.

So I am not arguing "magic" by ignorance. Although I do hold that there may exist technology of physics that we currently do not yet understand that today we could call "magical" if we saw it in action.

As far as I'm concerned the very event of the Big Bang, and things like Quantum Entanglement etc, are examples of "magic" (i.e. processes that we truly have no technological or physical explanation for or understanding of)

In that sense we have examples right in front of us that "magic" exists. (i.e. processes that we can't explain actually occur)

Quote:The most successful theory of science ever? LOL, sure, why not, I'll roll with it. QUANTUM, this man said quantum. Quantum has the magical ability to make anything magical, apparently? Do you want to talk magic or science?

Sure, I'll be glad to talk science.

Quantum Mechanics is indeed the most successful theory of science ever.

Do you disagree with that?

Or can we agree on this scientific fact?

Quote:Science as faith, tired argument, go pat a YEC on the back.

Hey again I speak TRUTH!

It's not really "Science as faith" (let's not get confused here)

I said that "Scientists" have faith that science is actually wrong!

Quantum theory predicts that there exists an impenetrable wall at the quantum level beyond which we can never extract further information.

This wall is guaranteed to exist via the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. A precise mathematical relationship that states clearly that no information can be had beyond a certain degree of smallness defined by Planck's Constant.

Thus the only way to go beyond Quantum Theory is for Quantum Theory to fail or to be mistaken or superseded in some way.

Therefore, scientist such as String Theorists, etc, are actually placing their faith in the hopes and dreams that the most successful theory in all of science will ultimately fall.

Is that science? Or is that merely a hope that our current scientific understanding will actually turn out to be wrong?

I ask you?

Quote:Demonstrate that the universe has a "why" in the first place, then you'll waste fewer words in platitudes and storytelling.

I have no desire to get side-tracked into murky philosophical arguments.

The only thing I have to say about that is to repeat the Words of Stephen Hawking once again:

"Even if there would be only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?" - Stephen Hawking

The essence of what Stephen is concerned with here is what also concerns me.

I understand both science and mathematics entirely. And thus I also understand their limitations just like Hawking apparently does.

Math and science merely quantify what we observe. That's all the scientific method does. But it truly can't even say anything at all about the true nature of what is actually being observed and quantified.

That's my whole point. I'm making the very same point that Stephen Hawking is concerned with.

Quantitative descriptions aren't all they are cracked up to be by secular atheists. They don't rule out things such as magic, spirituality, etc.

That is a false conclusion that is being erroneous spread by secular atheists who try to use science to support their skepticism of things that science cannot explain.

Science simple doesn't have that capability.

Moreover, as I have already pointed out, the most successful scientific theory and knowledge that we current have actually predicts that we are at a dead end in ever having any hope of fully grasping the true nature of the physical world at the quantum level.

Yet scientists ignore this fact and continue to have faith that the current knowledge of science is actually wrong.

How ironic is that?

(February 2, 2012 at 2:02 pm)Chuck Wrote: What do you expect from an idiot who goes by "abracadabra"?

So you judge people based on their screen name?

How interesting.

Let me tell you a truly funny story of how I started using Abracadabra as a screen name.

One day I was trying to log onto a forum. I was typing in all sorts of cool names. Unfortunately they were all so cool that they had already been used.

I was becoming frustrated. I thought to myself, "Boy I wish I could just say a magic word and get logged onto the site." So I typed in "Abracadabra".

And by golly it WORKED!

That's how my screen name came to be.

It's magic I tell ya. ROFLOL
Christian - A moron who believes that an all-benevolent God can simultaneously be a hateful jealous male-chauvinistic pig.
Wiccan - The epitome of cerebral evolution having mastered the magical powers of the universe and is in eternal harmony with the mind of God.
Atheist - An ill-defined term that means something different to everyone who uses it.
~~~~~
Luke 23:34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.
Clearly Jesus (a fictitious character or otherwise) will forgive people if they merely know not what they do
For the Bible Tells us so!
Reply
RE: Thoughts on Buddhism
dont get this guy going on Quantum Mechanics...he will start to sound like Deepak Chopra.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-FaXD_igv4
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Weird facts about Buddhism no one talks about! curiosne 12 4378 November 27, 2017 at 2:48 am
Last Post: chorlton
  Buddhism! SisterAgatha 25 5285 November 20, 2017 at 11:09 pm
Last Post: curiosne
  Another reason Buddhism doesn't get a pass. Brian37 141 26812 May 20, 2016 at 8:27 am
Last Post: EuphoricAtheist
Question Is Atheism a religion as say...Theravada Buddhism? KichigaiNeko 18 13936 February 19, 2010 at 3:24 am
Last Post: KichigaiNeko



Users browsing this thread: 12 Guest(s)