Thread: The problem of heaven.

Originally Posted by bcomp

So the after life would literally be a dream carried on by your consciousness after it is devoid of a body? Interesting... your afterlife would be a reality based on your previous life experiences. At first, a person would go where they expected to go - heaven, hell, purgatory, etc - until they realized they were in a dream (became "lucid" i guess) and explored their own mind for as long as they wanted. I've never heard of a proposal like that before.

Essentially, yeah. Although I think that the literal heaven/hell thing would probably only apply in extreme cases. We know we can conjure up anything in a lucid dream right? So in this sense I can 'believe' in the whole heaven/streets of gold/clouds and harps thing if a devout Christian expected it. How long until they realized it was an illusion though and what to do then?

Likewise how hard would it be for a murderers guilty conscious to conjur up fire and demons to torment him?

Then again it could be a lot more blasé than that. Take a movie like waking Life where a seemingly endless series of false awakenings lead to questioning and eventually (we suppose) the main characters realization, acceptance and decision to let go. Or Vanilla Sky for example, where Tom Cruise was plagued by his own complexes once he had lost his lucidity to the point where he couldn't get it back under control.

Originally Posted by bcomp

Ah joining the universal consciousness. That sounds so relaxing... joining Brahman and all... forgetting all. Ha. We'll find everything out in just a few decades... when we die.

I'm with you! The final release, synonymous with the ultimate attainment, to dissolve into eternal bliss realizing once and for all that "thou art that".

Dude... love Vanilla Sky. Such a good movie. I think it's the only Tom Cruise movie I liked (the mission impossibles are pretty good too ha.)

And it's cool finding like-minded people.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Okay, syzygy, you are going into areas that I simply can't take seriously. "Angels are supra-individual states of being"? *sigh* Sorry, but this has just gone into areas that are completely subjective as these claims cannot be proven or be held in a logical fashion.

I'm gonna walk away from this one, because seriously... all of that is just way too fluffy for my liking for me to want to counter each point seriously. I've made my points, I don't feel they were tackled sufficiently, and a lot of the same problems remain. I'm done here...

You and the Angel are one; If you don't rise yourself up for it, it doesn't reach down for you. This whole process of spiritual trans-formation (to transcend form) can only come about if one has the will to reflect on their true essence, and so I can never assume my comments on how the rational faculty fails to understand these things will be sufficient for one who will only identify themselves with their rational faculty. Just as there are states of being that are sub-rational, there are states of being that are supra-rational. If you stop at the rational, how can you see what is above it? This is what I was pointing out, because your comments about Heaven make no sense and have no relevancy once one realizes this for themselves. Either way, I hope you enjoyed this discussion and thanks for your responses.

Originally Posted by bcomp

So the after life would literally be a dream carried on by your consciousness after it is devoid of a body? Interesting... your afterlife would be a reality based on your previous life experiences. At first, a person would go where they expected to go - heaven, hell, purgatory, etc - until they realized they were in a dream (became "lucid" i guess) and explored their own mind for as long as they wanted. I've never heard of a proposal like that before.

Ah joining the universal consciousness. That sounds so relaxing... joining Brahman and all... forgetting all. Ha. We'll find everything out in just a few decades... when we die.

While I think the "afterlife" (it is only "after" from the perspective of this life) is similar to a lucid dream, there are some very important distinctions to be made.

In the dream world, we are limited to the images and forms of the physical world, but once one is freed from the physical body, these limitations no longer apply. So it would not be an exploration of just your individual mind, but it would be an exploration of a higher, supra-individual "mind" - or Imagination in itself. This is important to realize because ultimately, as it has been pointed out, we are not limited to our individual selves, but are instead one with the divine essence. Since this essence is Infinite, there can be no limitations in Reality and everything would be available to experience. Also, being Infinite, no matter how many indefinite extensions one experiences of themselves, there can be no talk of exhausting the possibilities. What one experiences is dependent on their capacity to experience, so that if one cannot see past their ego, they are going to be wandering around in their own limitations (what we call "Hell") until they realize that they are more than this ego-self. If one has attained this realization while in this life, they would already be able to explore possibilities beyond their individual self.

And bcomp, what I wanted to say about the Tralfamadorian conception of time is that instead of looking down on the forest from an airplane, it is more like being the forest yourself and having any experience in that forest potentially available at any moment to be one's focus. It is not a change in perspective as much as it is a realization of identity. The problem comes when one takes hold of one particular point of view in the forest and claims that it has authority over any other point of view. They will then forget that they are actually the entire forest and so lose all the possibilities of experiencing other points of view. When we forget this Reality, we are thrown into a limited state where we can reflect on our true self so as to "awaken" this potential within ourselves. Death is the ultimate awakening, as those who have not made this "Realization" within themselves will be confronted with the fact that there is no division between their limited point of view and all of Being in itself.

Originally Posted by The Enterer

Essentially, yeah. Although I think that the literal heaven/hell thing would probably only apply in extreme cases. We know we can conjure up anything in a lucid dream right? So in this sense I can 'believe' in the whole heaven/streets of gold/clouds and harps thing if a devout Christian expected it. How long until they realized it was an illusion though and what to do then?

Likewise how hard would it be for a murderers guilty conscious to conjur up fire and demons to torment him?

Then again it could be a lot more blasé than that. Take a movie like waking Life where a seemingly endless series of false awakenings lead to questioning and eventually (we suppose) the main characters realization, acceptance and decision to let go. Or Vanilla Sky for example, where Tom Cruise was plagued by his own complexes once he had lost his lucidity to the point where he couldn't get it back under control.

I'm with you! The final release, synonymous with the ultimate attainment, to dissolve into eternal bliss realizing once and for all that "thou art that".

I'm in total agreement here. Freed of physical limitations, we would be exploring the Imagination in itself. I like your example of 'Waking Life' where we are always waking up to ourselves. How many times do we have to "wake up" before we realize what we truly are? This would be different for everyone. Some realize this in this life, while others will realize it in the next life. For one with many attachments to their physical body and ego-self, it will be a much longer and harder time to rid themselves of these self-imposed limitations.

Originally Posted by syzygy

You and the Angel are one; If you don't rise yourself up for it, it doesn't reach down for you. This whole process of spiritual trans-formation (to transcend form) can only come about if one has the will to reflect on their true essence, and so I can never assume my comments on how the rational faculty fails to understand these things will be sufficient for one who will only identify themselves with their rational faculty. Just as there are states of being that are sub-rational, there are states of being that are supra-rational. If you stop at the rational, how can you see what is above it? This is what I was pointing out, because your comments about Heaven make no sense and have no relevancy once one realizes this for themselves. Either way, I hope you enjoyed this discussion and thanks for your responses.

The problem is that you are going into areas that are a realm of subjectivity I'd rather stay away from. The natural world is my home and my source of enlightenment, not the spiritual world. This is the fundamental differences in our viewpoints. My points against Heaven are that of the naturalistic viewpoint and are based on the rational mind. Unfortunately, as our viewpoints are like water and oil, it is hard to get each other to understand each other's points.

I don't want to be told that "I must see things this way" or to "Let go of your ego" just to understand an argument. To me, that is nonsensical and somewhat dangerous.

Like I said before, I think I've said all I've wanted. There is no heaven for me, nor do I want one. Life is a good enough existence for me, no matter what ups or downs I go through...

Originally Posted by bluefinger

The problem is that you are going into areas that are a realm of subjectivity I'd rather stay away from. The natural world is my home and my source of enlightenment, not the spiritual world. This is the fundamental differences in our viewpoints. My points against Heaven are that of the naturalistic viewpoint and are based on the rational mind. Unfortunately, as our viewpoints are like water and oil, it is hard to get each other to understand each other's points.

I don't want to be told that "I must see things this way" or to "Let go of your ego" just to understand an argument. To me, that is nonsensical and somewhat dangerous.

Like I said before, I think I've said all I've wanted. There is no heaven for me, nor do I want one. Life is a good enough existence for me, no matter what ups or downs I go through...

My whole point was that your point of view does not account for any part of Reality that exists outside of the physical realm. By subjecting spiritual phenomena to the constraints of physical phenomena you are not looking at the spiritual in its own light and therefore will never be able to understand it on its own level. Trying to understand it the way you understand this relative existence will inevitably destroy it (from your perspective). You are also assuming that anything that is beyond the rational is a subjective interpretation, instead of realizing that beyond the rational the subject is non-existent. I agree that this is very dangerous territory, as the individual subjective point of view can seep in very easily and believe itself to be Truth (this happens so often these days, I understand your hesitation). I have said this before, and I hope I am clear, that one does not (and should not!) give up their rational faculty in lieu of spiritual knowledge, but should rather give that knowledge the place it deserves and not apply it to phenomena that transcend its capacity of understanding (namely, intuitive knowledge). But how is one to understand the spiritual if they do not even know how to identify it as something separate from the subjective from which they were trying to escape in the first place? This question is hard to answer, and getting harder with time as humanity is verging further away from its principle. Or one can say that this human-divine alienation is the cause of human-human alienation, but such is the nature of physical time.

I also want to be clear that Heaven is not a substitute for this life as so many falsely believe today; it is an exploration into worlds that are more free than the limitations of physical existence. Exploring these worlds do not take away from the complexity and beauty of this life, but only add to it. If this is of no interest to you, that is none of my business. All that I ask is that if you do want to question these worlds, do so in a manner that is congruent with its own laws rather than forcing more limited laws upon it. This is an artificial judgment that has no reality for those worlds.

Originally Posted by syzygy

My whole point was that your point of view does not account for any part of Reality that exists outside of the physical realm. By subjecting spiritual phenomena to the constraints of physical phenomena you are not looking at the spiritual in its own light and therefore will never be able to understand it on its own level. Trying to understand it the way you understand this relative existence will inevitably destroy it (from your perspective). You are also assuming that anything that is beyond the rational is a subjective interpretation, instead of realizing that beyond the rational the subject is non-existent. I agree that this is very dangerous territory, as the individual subjective point of view can seep in very easily and believe itself to be Truth (this happens so often these days, I understand your hesitation). I have said this before, and I hope I am clear, that one does not (and should not!) give up their rational faculty in lieu of spiritual knowledge, but should rather give that knowledge the place it deserves and not apply it to phenomena that transcend its capacity of understanding (namely, intuitive knowledge). But how is one to understand the spiritual if they do not even know how to identify it as something separate from the subjective from which they were trying to escape in the first place? This question is hard to answer, and getting harder with time as humanity is verging further away from its principle. Or one can say that this human-divine alienation is the cause of human-human alienation, but such is the nature of physical time.

My point is how can you be sure spiritual experiences are nothing but manifestations of a creative mind? It is quite easy to fool people into doing a whole variety of things, and you'd be surprised at the level of control you can exhibit over someone else in certain circumstances. The mind itself is an incredible thing, but in the end, everything we experience is nothing but a subjective perception, the result of electrical impulses being interpreted by the vast neural network that is our brain. As humans, we are able to experience all sorts of hallucinations and alterations of perception, all because we don't really see with our eyes, taste with our tongue, or feel with our fingers. The sensations and perceptions are all created within the mind. So what is there to say these spiritual experiences are nothing more than hallucinations or self-trickery?

You say I'm not accounting for all of reality. I'm simply saying "Hey wait a moment, what about [insert question or point here]?". Reality is the physical world, there is nothing more to it. Humans simply add more to it in order to seek meaning or comfort, but really, I don't feel that is necessary, hence why I argue.

Originally Posted by syzygy

I also want to be clear that Heaven is not a substitute for this life as so many falsely believe today; it is an exploration into worlds that are more free than the limitations of physical existence. Exploring these worlds do not take away from the complexity and beauty of this life, but only add to it. If this is of no interest to you, that is none of my business. All that I ask is that if you do want to question these worlds, do so in a manner that is congruent with its own laws rather than forcing more limited laws upon it. This is an artificial judgment that has no reality for those worlds.

Err, special pleading at the end. Let me highlight to you the basis for my arguments:

Logic, Reasoning & Rational thought.

I question all things equally, and scrutinise them equally. I don't make special cases for certain things. If concept A fails for the same reason as concept B, then A fails even though you want me to apply different standards of thought for A rather than B.

I will not make a special case for 'spiritual experiences'.

Scepticism is applied equally across the board to all concepts until they can prove themselves not to be false via objective means.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Logic, Reasoning & Rational thought.

Strange as it may seem, such are trappings that locks one out of spiritual experience.

While they work with all the signposts showing One the way, once One comes to the point of actually entering the way, they must be left behind (in certain respects) to be able to step into the way.

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

Strange as it may seem, such are trappings that locks one out of spiritual experience.

While they work with all the signposts showing One the way, once One comes to the point of actually entering the way, they must be left behind (in certain respects) to be able to step into the way.

Err... no. As soon as I have to abandon my mind in order to 'experience spirituality', what this experience equates to is nothing but a brainwashing exercise.

The requirement of me having to forgo my critical thought process is a dangerous thing. No matter how you try to say it isn't with wordy and long posts on vague notions and concepts, if it still means I have to set aside the very things which allowed me to come this far in understanding the world, then I'll just tell you to kindly "fuck off". :/

It has been said that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.

This is not idle talk either. Nor does "rich" necesarily mean rich as in money, but rich as in knowledge.

This sort of anyalytical differentiating knowledge does take you far in this world, but it essentially locks the door to the others.

And the thought was before minding.
And the thought reigned until it's circling created a vacuum so strong...

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

It has been said that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.

This is not idle talk either. Nor does "rich" necesarily mean rich as in money, but rich as in knowledge.

So the dumber I am, the easier it is for me to enter heaven?

In other words, the less intelligent I am, the easier it becomes for someone else to convince me about sky-daddies and eternal salvation/heaven/whatever, and get me to buy/believe/be conned into a whole bunch of crap that can't be substantiated?

Wonderful... the true face of 'spirituality'...

"Salvation?", laughed the fly, "What is there to run from?"

Originally Posted by bluefinger

So the dumber I am, the easier it is for me to enter heaven?

In other words, the less intelligent I am, the easier it becomes for someone else to convince me about sky-daddies and eternal salvation/heaven/whatever, and get me to buy/believe/be conned into a whole bunch of crap that can't be substantiated?

Wonderful... the true face of 'spirituality'...

Blindness...

Intelligence takes you to the door

Without it you cant get past the gatekeepers

Wisdom is letting go of that intelligence

Such as in memory is not needed on the other side


I beleive it was CS Lewis that once said in one of his works that when taking that step through the door, One cannot take even the slightest souvaniers of hell with...

or someting like that.

Dont get all worked up. Its clear you have no understanding of this at this point in time. It will come eventually. Keep going on the road you are on and you will find..

Originally Posted by bluefinger

So the dumber I am, the easier it is for me to enter heaven?

In other words, the less intelligent I am, the easier it becomes for someone else to convince me about sky-daddies and eternal salvation/heaven/whatever, and get me to buy/believe/be conned into a whole bunch of crap that can't be substantiated?

Wonderful... the true face of 'spirituality'...

If you take 'rich' as meaning rich with knowledge then I interpet the saying as meaning the cleverer you are, the more degrees you have, the more concepts you have built up in your mind etc., blinds you more and more to the true nature of things, or 'heaven'. Of course that doesn't mean such knowledge is a bad thing.

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

Blindness...

Intelligence takes you to the door

Without it you cant get past the gatekeepers

Wisdom is letting go of that intelligence

Such as in memory is not needed on the other side


I beleive it was CS Lewis that once said in one of his works that when taking that step through the door, One cannot take even the slightest souvaniers of hell with...

or someting like that.

Dont get all worked up. Its clear you have no understanding of this at this point in time. It will come eventually. Keep going on the road you are on and you will find..

Umm, no.... just no. I quote from somewhere, who i don't know, but the quote fits well:

"The invisible is eerily similar to the non-existant"

So take that whole "Oh but you'll see eventually" mentality and forcibly insert it into your anus. It's condescending, it's insulting, so just keep that shit out of this thread... seriously.

Originally Posted by Semja

If you take 'rich' as meaning rich with knowledge then I interpet the saying as meaning the cleverer you are, the more degrees you have, the more concepts you have built up in your mind etc., blinds you more and more to the true nature of things, or 'heaven'. Of course that doesn't mean such knowledge is a bad thing.

That's contradictory in nature then. If you have so much of A then you can't get B... but that doesn't mean A is bad, even though it prevents you from getting to B.

So make up your mind. FUCK, this is frustrating.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

So take that whole "Oh but you'll see eventually" mentality and forcibly insert it into your anus. It's condescending, it's insulting, so just keep that shit out of this thread... seriously.

That shit, this shit

This whole thread is covered with Flies

Cant you hear what they are buzzing about?

Bluefinger,
the dark does not exist without the light, rather the non-existent does not-exist without existence.

You are, accept so. All stems from living-ness - existence.

What is the point in speaking at all...drop

Goddamn you kids...

Heaven does not exist.

It "exists" is non-existence; not in the three-dimensional, physical, analyzable world we're stuck in. Existence, by scientific definition, refers to all objects that can be observed or tested for in some way or another. Therefore, according the cold, hard, badass-ical science: heaven does not exist.

Sure, there may be a heaven - and I do believe there is one - but science, reason, logic... even your fucking eyeballs cannot prove heaven exists. Answering this man's objective question with your "it's in your heart" stuff is total bull, because it conflicts with his scientific line of questioning.

Blue, I think your line of questioning is totally valid, however, you do need to accept that since the idea of heaven is inherently super-natural, it's pretty much never going to be logically proved. Ever. Ever ever. Infinity ever. If you want to discuss heaven, you need to wrap your mind around it more creatively than science can afford, or talking about it will never get you anywhere. Just fuck reason for a few hours and ponder non-existence.

And Syzygy, holy shit man. Your posts are so long, it's uncanny. Everything you say is great and well expressed, it's just so fuckin' long! Wow.

Yeah.

Originally Posted by ClouD

Bluefinger,
the dark does not exist without the light, rather the non-existent does not-exist without existence.

You are, accept so. All stems from living-ness - existence.

What is the point in speaking at all...drop

Oh sure... dark can't exist without light, a space can't be empty unless it can be full, something can't be dry unless it can be wet. Obviously. But this reasoning is derived from your observation of reality. All these examples come from inside "existence" as it were... how do you know the same thing applies outside of existence?

Originally Posted by bcomp

Blue, I think your line of questioning is totally valid, however, you do need to accept that since the idea of heaven is inherently super-natural, it's pretty much never going to be logically proved. Ever. Ever ever. Infinity ever. If you want to discuss heaven, you need to wrap your mind around it more creatively than science can afford, or talking about it will never get you anywhere. Just fuck reason for a few hours and ponder non-existence.

Listen dude, I did that quite a bit earlier on in this thread, with the more creative thinking part. However, I simply don't take kindly to assertions such as "You must let go in order to see" or "You say that now, but you'll see eventually". To me, it is condescending and counter-productive to this whole discussion. I mean, me and you discussed things just fine earlier on. Also, again, I argue for the sake of providing a side to the discussion, which means I kind of have to stick to reason.

Just to note, on the issues on the whole dream-analogy, did you see me have a go at it? No, because the issue here is not me being able to think creatively enough, but on what a few keep asserting to me on how I must forgo logic and reason.

I hope this at least clarifies a couple of things.

I always imagined heaven to be like a lucid dream. It always had been that way, even back then when I did not know about such dreams.

Heaven must be a place where everything is perfect, so heaven is different for everybody. It is also a place, that is not free of pain, but you can have it if you want to and you can get rid of it easily if you don't want it. As if somebody already said: There are things which are nothing without their sadness or pain, because they are, to a certain grade, made of it, like the sound of a violin. without it's unique sad tone a violin is not a violin and there's nothing more beautiful than a piano theme that makes you want to cry.

This is my image of heaven, in which you can be what you ever wanted to be and can meet whoever you want to meet, even old friends that died before you, as if switching from dream to dream. And eventually you get reborn sometime.

hehe, to me lucid dreams are like a piece of paradise. ^^

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Listen dude, I did that quite a bit earlier on in this thread, with the more creative thinking part. However, I simply don't take kindly to assertions such as "You must let go in order to see" or "You say that now, but you'll see eventually". To me, it is condescending and counter-productive to this whole discussion. I mean, me and you discussed things just fine earlier on. Also, again, I argue for the sake of providing a side to the discussion, which means I kind of have to stick to reason.

Just to note, on the issues on the whole dream-analogy, did you see me have a go at it? No, because the issue here is not me being able to think creatively enough, but on what a few keep asserting to me on how I must forgo logic and reason.

I hope this at least clarifies a couple of things.

Oh I know what your stance is, don't worry. I wasn't telling you to "free your spirit into the netherworld by forgetting reason" or anything like that... I was just saying that these sorts of things aren't necessarily as counter-productive as you say they are... simply because heaven is such a nebulous subject.

Nailing it down to reason, you totally win the heaven argument totally 100% for sure. (And I really don't know why anyone argues with you about it... it's pointless.) But I think you might be nailing heaven down to reason unnecessarily. The idea of heaven wasn't meant to be scientifically analyzed; it's part of spirituality and spirituality isn't measurable, though many people find it to be quite real.

I think your sort of painting yourself into a corner with this whole analytically-minded discussion of spirituality.

How you're basically going to respond:
If heaven is to nebulous of a subject to be scientifically tested, then it's not real. I believe that all things can be logically proven and if they can't, they're futile and useless. I'm sick of people cramming their dogma into my eyes sockets, so I'm going to the other extreme: looking at everything logically. And I don't think I'm painting myself into a corner, because I have looked at heaven creatively, and in that short five-minutes I did, I searched my entire soul, deeply thought about God, and pondered the meaning of life. Now that I'm done with... that... I'm right back to my original standpoint. I have to stick to my argument, because it's infallible.

Some people are waaaay too dependant on spirituality, while others are on the other side of the spectrum.

= = = = = = = =(You)
[Spiritual]1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10[Scientific]

There are things that science can explain that spirituality can't; likewise, there are things spirituality can explain but science can't. Try to find a balance... that's my advice.

[PREDICTION: But you probably won't. ]

Originally Posted by bcomp

Oh I know what your stance is, don't worry. I wasn't telling you to "free your spirit into the netherworld by forgetting reason" or anything like that... I was just saying that these sorts of things aren't necessarily as counter-productive as you say they are... simply because heaven is such a nebulous subject.

Nailing it down to reason, you totally win the heaven argument totally 100% for sure. (And I really don't know why anyone argues with you about it... it's pointless.) But I think you might be nailing heaven down to reason unnecessarily. The idea of heaven wasn't meant to be scientifically analyzed; it's part of spirituality and spirituality isn't measurable, though many people find it to be quite real.

I think your sort of painting yourself into a corner with this whole analytically-minded discussion of spirituality.

How you're basically going to respond:
If heaven is to nebulous of a subject to be scientifically tested, then it's not real. I believe that all things can be logically proven and if they can't, they're futile and useless. I'm sick of people cramming their dogma into my eyes sockets, so I'm going to the other extreme: looking at everything logically. And I don't think I'm painting myself into a corner, because I have looked at heaven creatively, and in that short five-minutes I did, I searched my entire soul, deeply thought about God, and pondered the meaning of life. Now that I'm done with... that... I'm right back to my original standpoint. I have to stick to my argument, because it's infallible.

Some people are waaaay too dependant on spirituality, while others are on the other side of the spectrum.

= = = = = = = =(You)
[Spiritual]1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10[Scientific]

There are things that science can explain that spirituality can't; likewise, there are things spirituality can explain but science can't. Try to find a balance... that's my advice.

[PREDICTION: But you probably won't. ]

Ugh... let me quote myself from another thread, in an attempt to clarify even further what I really think:

Originally Posted by bluefinger

I don't try to prove things through personal experience. I can't 'prove' to you I had lucid dreams. I can write them down, but what is there really to say that I'm really dreaming these up? A dream is a subjective experience which I cannot prove its existence via personal experience. Objectively, we can see what is going on in the brain during the phases of sleep responsible for dreaming, but we cannot see the actual experience. It is impossible for me to 'prove' it to you.

That is the difference between you and me. I acknowledge I can't base my knowledge solely on subjective experience, because I can't confirm it and I can't share it in a meaningful way apart from anecdotes. I can prove things like the effect of ionising radiation has on the conductiveness of air, because you can set up an experiment to show that effect. I can't show you though the subjective experience I had with my dreams.

I keep the subjective separate from the objective, and I keep the subjective mostly to myself when I debate. I wanted to be the analytical voice for this thread, though subjectively, I'd probably experience similar things. I just come to different conclusions about them. I, however, don't use these as a basis for my arguments, because they are nothing but anecdotes.

I analyse, I'm sceptical, I reason, because the thought process is familiar and is reliable. I don't base my judgements on feelings and impulses (or at least, try not to).

You ask for a balance, but like I said before, I take a naturalistic viewpoint on things. This world and the universe that it is surrounded by are by far the most awe-inspiring and wonderful things. I just don't see why you have to add extra layers upon something that is already just fine as it is. Why fix it if it ain't broke? You get what I'm saying?