Thread: That's it, I'm done

It's too bad that some people need religion for common sense. I think more people in the world need to pull their heads out of their arses.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Religion teaches us to be moral? lolololololololol

Societies dictate how we define our morals, not religions. Religions are used to justify or object to the societal norms of morality, but either way, it ain't religion that is responsible.

It isn't about whether Atheism provides us with moral teachings, it is about whether we need religion at all in order to be moral. If for some, the only reason they obey the laws of the land because of the threat of eternal damnation, then who is the more moral person? The atheist who abides the laws and is good under his own volition, or the religious person who keeps in line for fear of eternal damnation and in hope of eternal reward?

First of all.. Religion's main goal is for people to achieve a good moral level. Actually the bible is.. a book of philosophy (when taken metaphorically). Much of society gets its morals from religion..

Your over generalize too much. Most of my friends don't care about eternal damnation.. and even if you did believe in it, you can only go to hell if your a waste of space (killing people, etc). If you were a father, with a family wouldn't you be more comfortable with your child raised in a Christian community?

I don't believe in hell, and I'm Christian, so why don't you come up with a reason why I'm Christian?

What is a Christian you may ask? Somebody who strives to be like Jesus. Is Jesus that bad of a person to look up too?

That isn't the problem.

The problem is the passive-agressive threats, the magic skydaddy and resistance of anything productive.

Otherwise I really have no problem, but then Christianity is utterly useless as it is basically a very elaborate way of saying "Wouldn't it be great if people were nice to each other?"

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

That isn't the problem.

The problem is the passive-agressive threats, the magic skydaddy and resistance of anything productive.

Otherwise I really have no problem, but then Christianity is utterly useless as it is basically a very elaborate way of saying "Wouldn't it be great if people were nice to each other?"

Christianity isn't just a book that says lets love one another.. at least where I live there are religious communities, Catholic schools, and a weekly mass where morality is brought up every week, in contrast to none. The best friends I have now, I met in a church retreat.. Parishes give to the poor, and I haven't seen a bad kid come out of my Catholic school. No, nuns don't teach classes, and I think I already notified this forum that Catholic schools DO teach the basics of evolution, and get into chemistry and biology. Mass is one hour a week.. How bothersome can that one hour be?

"Wouldn't it be great if people were nice to each other?" Everybody in the world has heard this, but is everyone nice to each other? No, the only real thing that changes people are people, people you grew up with, and people you looked up too. Not to mention a pretty good philosophy from Jesus. A big aspect in religion is community, which I think your forgetting..

Not really.

Christianity is crap and bullshit, combined with more controlling aspects puttied together by human social nature, all wrapped around basic human morals.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Not really.

Christianity is crap and bullshit, combined with more controlling aspects puttied together by human social nature, all wrapped around basic human morals.

This is the first time I've heard a "Not really" from you. Perhaps you can replace "Not really" with something sensible? And relating to the post I made?

You second sentence was nothing but a statement which you could have made without reading what I read. I made so many points and debunked none.. You usually do so..

My analogy referenced a lot of things and made the point that what you said holds no relevance and marks the relligion as useless. It's like having a car, that is actually a brick.

And you have to understand that I reply inverse to your post, so In my irst sentence I was replying to:

A big aspect in religion is community, which I think your forgetting..

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

My analogy referenced a lot of things and made the point that what you said holds no relevance and marks the relligion as useless. It's like having a car, that is actually a brick.

And you have to understand that I reply inverse to your post, so In my irst sentence I was replying to:

Never mind perhaps bluefinger can provide an intelligent post, especially on the aspect of community revolved around morals, one of the things you haven't touched on.

You've still failed to point out how a car being a brick can serve a function as a car? Or any form of transportation?

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

You've still failed to point out how a car being a brick can serve a function as a car? Or any form of transportation?

Everything you say isn't fact, please tell me how religion applys to that analogy. There a catch.. you need to relate it to my specific points! I'm not here for meaningless argue.

Originally Posted by Dreamworld

First of all.. Religion's main goal is for people to achieve a good moral level. Actually the bible is.. a book of philosophy (when taken metaphorically). Much of society gets its morals from religion..

To achieve a good moral level? No. Religion is a manifestation of cultural practices and traditions, wrapped around a doctrine or belief. If anything, Religion acts as a control mechanism, not something that promotes good moral. In general, it demands obedience through the concept of faith.

Originally Posted by Dreamworld

Your over generalize too much. Most of my friends don't care about eternal damnation.. and even if you did believe in it, you can only go to hell if your a waste of space (killing people, etc). If you were a father, with a family wouldn't you be more comfortable with your child raised in a Christian community?

I would be much more comfortable raising my children in a secular community, to be honest. Keep all that religion crap away from my kid until he grows up with enough of a brain to make the decision himself of whether to believe the crap or not.

Also, I have yet to see the benefits of Christian communities over that of Secular ones. So far, the more secular countries tend to fare better in education and crime levels in comparison to religious ones. A community is usually centred around a gathering or forum, in order to allow a social event that allows for a general cohesion to form between the individuals of said community. Why? Because humans are social creatures, we form groupings naturally and tend to stick to those groupings. It is our nature. Religion simply takes advantage of that. Morals are decided by the group, the community, the society, and Religion has little to offer in improving morals.

I have family and friends who are christian, but to be honest, they are the same as my friends and family who aren't. They are all decent people, and no religion seems to make someone better than the rest.

Originally Posted by Dreamworld

I don't believe in hell, and I'm Christian, so why don't you come up with a reason why I'm Christian?

What is a Christian you may ask? Somebody who strives to be like Jesus. Is Jesus that bad of a person to look up too?

Because you probably were indoctrinated as a kid, and being a Christian is just something that was 'beaten' in to you. How's that for a reason?

Striving to become like Jesus isn't exactly a good thing. Jesus himself said and did some stupid things in the Bible, so I'm not even sure he is a good figure to aim at. Personally, I think it is more noble to simply aim to better yourself at every turn and to be as good a person you can be, regardless of who you use as a role model.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

It is silly to think that there is only one metaphorical door, and also to think that whatever is behind that door is the same thing for everyone else. If you've had experiences with dream doors, you'd realise that the same door, if opened and closed repeatedly, can produce differing results to where it leads. Surrendering to the unknown is a folly task that gains you nothing in return, only more unknowns.

Yes, it is silly to think there is "only one" metaphorical door (who said that?), just because it was only one basic analogy. However, the reason enlightenment is absolute and Truth is because it is one possibility all can realize; and because the mind is silenced and replaced with a final comprehension of Reality. It is Unconditional, therefore it is unable to be conditioned. The Sun shines regardless of the clouds.

Oh, and please, for your own sake, don't use your dreams as an example or presume that surrendering is a folly task and that nothing changes as a result of it. Surrendering, through humility means, to stop trying to claim ownership of knowledge and formulate conclusions (which do not happen to last) based on relativity. Stop judging people, know acceptance; be compassionate. If the mind is gradually silenced, what do you think is soon going to happen?

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Knowledge comes from making the unknown into the known, from understanding the unknown rather than surrendering to it. This is the difference between you and me. I seek to understand the unknowns, you simply surrendered to them.

This is not about judging each other, or competing against each other.

You're probably unaware that the "unknowns" in this context are not understandable by conventional, logical means, because they are subjective. Thus, "surrendering" is one way of understanding, in this context. I surrender because, what happens is, my beliefs and gradually assumptions become dissolved into what begins to shine forth; actuality. E.g. when I let go of attachments and ties of duality which do not bring happiness, I begin to realize the essence of what True happiness is and how it is Unconditional/absolute. And furthermore, how I was so attached to conditioning and changing things which were temporary by nature.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

It isn't irrelevant, because most people perceive light of 650-700nm to be of the colour red. Those who are colour-blind cannot distinguish certain colours from the other, and thus have trouble detecting subtle differences in shades of red from greens, due to the way the retina cells detect light. This lack of perception and the consequent measurement of light allows us to define the colours we see.

Ok, so then how would you go about explaining the color red to somebody who is color-blind, when he asks "What does red look like?"? Is it relevant then? Red as a subject cannot be quantifiable by objective means. It can only be quantified as an object; which, to the color-blind man, doesn't help him in this case to see it as a subject. The blind man may then argue that "red" doesn't exist.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

If your sources (note: plural) have to rely on pseudoscience like Applied Kinesiology in order to 'further' their 'research', then I think my assumption applies. Still, apply a more critical line of thought upon it.

I still question critically, whether it is seen by you or not. Understand beyond appearances...

Also, you still haven't explained why you think it is pseudo-science.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

I don't see how that analogy applies to that case in particular. You've gone off on a tangent there and not really dealing with my point in hand. Current research on the brain has revealed that consciousness, or at least so far, elements of our consciousness are heavily influenced by unconcious processes.

I again made some analogies. I was saying that consciousness is infinite in nature, and studying the brain may not reveal this. It may be like studying a window, thinking that light behind it is a by-product of the window. I also used the flatland analogy of how limitations can persist through habitual familiarization of the apparent measurable material world. Picture yourself as a flatlander denying the possibility of "above/below".

A quote I spotted by A. Einstein: "No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it. "

Originally Posted by bluefinger

You talk about Spiritual Enlightenment, and not really love. Love is an emotion. Get over it.

You don't know all that I talk about. Those who do not understand Love, do not understand God either. Actually, Love is a sign of great happiness found within, Self-Realization is simply a fuller, ultimate, and major paradigm shift from Love.

Now, there is this Divine Love, then there is ego-love which is vain; the two have nothing in common with each other. While it is true that relying on emotions can lead to problems, Love can cause no harm, since it is not inflated vulnerably with "lower" ego/animal reasoning (as anger, lust, greed, pride etc). As integrous Context, Love can bring no problems, because it is a high spiritual understanding. This, science does not have, and science is not philosophy either, and so to an extent is not useful for spirituality/philosophy. In other words, the issue of science is that it does not have spiritual/philosophical recognition or understanding and is generally only confined to what and how it measures. Another Einstein quote: "The man of science is a poor philosopher. "

Originally Posted by bluefinger

The Spirit is an unquantifiable concept, which again, cannot be substantiated outside of subjectivity. Please stop throwing red-herrings at me.

We have already been over this. If something is outside the realm of objective appearance, then you cannot rely on objective means. If one seeks the ultimate Reality; the ultimate subject matter of the universe, one does not analyze objects. It is through a subjective practice; a spiritual practice. Scientists in general are basically searching for the ultimate Objectivity, which by nature, is not going to reveal (God as) essence but rather (God as) Universe and detail.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Nothing is absolute. We can only know within practical and applicable terms, but in terms of absolute, there is no such thing. Quantum Physics kinda highlights just that...

Do you actually read my posts?

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Fail attempt at using Physics to prove a point. Wave-Particle duality does nothing to entangle Subjectivity and Objectivity, so nice non-sequitor. If you know about photovoltaic effects, you'd know that photons act as both particles and waves, to the point that you can shine light through a double slit and project the same light onto a suitable metal plate, and you'll notice not only the light being refracted, but also the light causing a photovoltaic effect on the metal (all within the same experiment). I've likened such a behaviour to a water-droplet, a droplet containing both a particle form whilst capable of containing a wave function on the surface.

Electrons experience the same phenomena, and yet we know these to be particles.

Oh, did I misinterpret the experiment? Can you explain why the "observation" changed the experimental results, then?

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Little sense to be found there, and from what I could gather, it is a brainwashing exercise. Answers are there for those who seek them, and it is all present in the world. Knowledge is the means to collect those answers, and the means to further our understanding. Throwing that out because of some superfluous enlightenment does not appeal at all.

Spiritual answers are not found in the world, objects are found in the world. To think that objects hold answers to spiritual understanding is a confusing and an agitating process. This is probably another reason why you think spirituality is unreliable. What is needed is an understanding of how subjectivity/spirituality is reliable rather than how it isn't reliable with comparison to tangible material.

Science is useful for objective understanding through furthering the possibilities of medicine and technology (etc.), which is very useful in the world, but not useful in Spirit. Spirit can answer all the worlds problems but cannot be explained in tangible terms to provide a logical agreement with appearances. E.g. objectively, you would guess that all people are different and imperfect (paradoxically), but in the eyes of God, All people and All things are Perfect (as an essence of Creation). To try to rationalize this in common terms is not helpful and not essential. It may be esoteric or fluffy for it is experiential and not tangible. Even so, consciousness research can extract meaning from the impersonal field and translate it in other ways which may now be confirmable and beneficial.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Better analogy:

The Mystery Box. Who knows what's inside? It could a holiday, or the keys to your new car. Nobody knows, unless you take the box. Find out what's inside!

Not about being better than others; try looking at what is essential.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Eh, I grow weary of this conversation...

What did you actually quote? "Word salad"? (Who said that?) Let's call this whole thread; this whole forum for that matter, "word salad", and be done with it. No surprise. Understand beyond appearances...

Instead of blocking out information or ignoring it altogether, why don't you start asking me some questions?

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Being honest to myself isn't hard... it is being honest to others that is much harder

Pardon?

Originally Posted by really

Yes, it is silly to think there is "only one" metaphorical door (who said that?), just because it was only one basic analogy. However, the reason enlightenment is absolute and Truth is because it is one possibility all can realize; and because the mind is silenced and replaced with a final comprehension of Reality. It is Unconditional, therefore it is unable to be conditioned. The Sun shines regardless of the clouds.

Oh, and please, for your own sake, don't use your dreams as an example or presume that surrendering is a folly task and that nothing changes as a result of it. Surrendering, through humility means, to stop trying to claim ownership of knowledge and formulate conclusions (which do not happen to last) based on relativity. Stop judging people, know acceptance; be compassionate. If the mind is gradually silenced, what do you think is soon going to happen?

Stop judging? Social interaction relies on the judging of others constantly. Also, I don't have to respect your ideas, just as you don't have to respect mine. So take your BAAWWing elsewhere.

Surrendering to unknowns only yields more unknowns. You'll never understand anything if that is what you really do.

Originally Posted by really

This is not about judging each other, or competing against each other.

You're probably unaware that the "unknowns" in this context are not understandable by conventional, logical means, because they are subjective. Thus, "surrendering" is one way of understanding, in this context. I surrender because, what happens is, my beliefs and gradually assumptions become dissolved into what begins to shine forth; actuality. E.g. when I let go of attachments and ties of duality which do not bring happiness, I begin to realize the essence of what True happiness is and how it is Unconditional/absolute. And furthermore, how I was so attached to conditioning and changing things which were temporary by nature.

Nothing is beyond understanding through logic and reason, whether subjective or not.

Originally Posted by really

Ok, so then how would you go about explaining the color red to somebody who is color-blind, when he asks "What does red look like?"? Is it relevant then? Red as a subject cannot be quantifiable by objective means. It can only be quantified as an object; which, to the color-blind man, doesn't help him in this case to see it as a subject. The blind man may then argue that "red" doesn't exist.

The wavelengths of light between 650nm and 700nm still exist, whether a person can perceive them or not. Some people are even tetrachromatic, and can perceive colours not normally perceptible to most. The wavelength of light still exists even if we can't perceive it. We can't perceive X-rays or Gamma rays, nor can we perceive radio waves, all different wavelengths of photons. Does that mean they do not exist?

Originally Posted by really

I still question critically, whether it is seen by you or not. Understand beyond appearances...

Also, you still haven't explained why you think it is pseudo-science.

Because Applied Kinesiology is a completely subjective field and does not have anything going for it in terms of objectively quantifiable results or evidence. There is no scientific understanding of the mechanisms behind AK, and thus cannot be considered science. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_Kinesiology

Originally Posted by really

I again made some analogies. I was saying that consciousness is infinite in nature, and studying the brain may not reveal this. It may be like studying a window, thinking that light behind it is a by-product of the window. I also used the flatland analogy of how limitations can persist through habitual familiarization of the apparent measurable material world. Picture yourself as a flatlander denying the possibility of "above/below".

A quote I spotted by A. Einstein: "No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it. "

Damage the brain, and your consciousness is altered. Therefore, it is safe to assume your brain is where your consciousness is being generated from. The mechanisms though are not understood, but we know that whatever the mechanism, it is situated within our brain.

Unless you want to deny the existence of brain-damage patients, then I don't see how you can refute this.

Originally Posted by really

You don't know all that I talk about. Those who do not understand Love, do not understand God either. Actually, Love is a sign of great happiness found within, Self-Realization is simply a fuller, ultimate, and major paradigm shift from Love.

Now, there is this Divine Love, then there is ego-love which is vain; the two have nothing in common with each other. While it is true that relying on emotions can lead to problems, Love can cause no harm, since it is not inflated vulnerably with "lower" ego/animal reasoning (as anger, lust, greed, pride etc). As integrous Context, Love can bring no problems, because it is a high spiritual understanding. This, science does not have, and science is not philosophy either, and so to an extent is not useful for spirituality/philosophy. In other words, the issue of science is that it does not have spiritual/philosophical recognition or understanding and is generally only confined to what and how it measures. Another Einstein quote: "The man of science is a poor philosopher. "

Emotion has no place in Science in the first place, so I don't see why you are holding it against Science. Also, the concept you talk about is nothing but a man-made musing, a tangent that has little meaning on its own. Love is an emotion, you are redefining it as some sort of nebulous concept. Shave all the fluff, and you are still left with an emotion. Get. Over. It.

Originally Posted by really

We have already been over this. If something is outside the realm of objective appearance, then you cannot rely on objective means. If one seeks the ultimate Reality; the ultimate subject matter of the universe, one does not analyze objects. It is through a subjective practice; a spiritual practice. Scientists in general are basically searching for the ultimate Objectivity, which by nature, is not going to reveal (God as) essence but rather (God as) Universe and detail.

You can't define essence in meaningful terms to other people though. To you, it seems just dandy and fine, but to everyone else, it seems like a bunch of bullcrap. The subjective only concerns itself with the self (perception, etc) whilst the objective deals with everything beyond the self. Using the subjective to understand the universe is like trying to figure out the contents of a box without even bothering to look what is inside it. In other words, it is a futile exercise.

Originally Posted by really

Do you actually read my posts?

Yes, I simply disagree with all of them.

Originally Posted by really

Oh, did I misinterpret the experiment? Can you explain why the "observation" changed the experimental results, then?

Yes, you did misinterpret the results. Let me highlight:

Light source (laser) --- photon beam ---> Double slit === diffracted light ===> Metal plate

The metal plate would still experience a photovoltaic effect despite the light being diffracted by the double-slit. The behaviour is not dependent on the observer, for it occurs independently from the observer. Photons behave as if they were both waves and particles, hence the water-droplet analogy. This is basic A-level physics here. A major fail here on your part.

Originally Posted by really

Spiritual answers are not found in the world, objects are found in the world. To think that objects hold answers to spiritual understanding is a confusing and an agitating process. This is probably another reason why you think spirituality is unreliable. What is needed is an understanding of how subjectivity/spirituality is reliable rather than how it isn't reliable with comparison to tangible material.

Science is useful for objective understanding through furthering the possibilities of medicine and technology (etc.), which is very useful in the world, but not useful in Spirit. Spirit can answer all the worlds problems but cannot be explained in tangible terms to provide a logical agreement with appearances. E.g. objectively, you would guess that all people are different and imperfect (paradoxically), but in the eyes of God, All people and All things are Perfect (as an essence of Creation). To try to rationalize this in common terms is not helpful and not essential. It may be esoteric or fluffy for it is experiential and not tangible. Even so, consciousness research can extract meaning from the impersonal field and translate it in other ways which may now be confirmable and beneficial.

If there is a spirit, it can be quantified in some meaningful way, and your pursuit might be worth it. If there isn't, you have effectively wasted most of your effort. Even if there is a spirit, I heavily doubt that it would make a difference to the world's problems.

Until there is evidence to support the existence of spirits/souls, then everything is pointing to what Neuroscience is finding to be the case.

Originally Posted by really

Not about being better than others; try looking at what is essential.

And when I do look at what is essential, it has nothing to do with what you have posted.

Originally Posted by really

What did you actually quote? "Word salad"? (Who said that?) Let's call this whole thread; this whole forum for that matter, "word salad", and be done with it. No surprise. Understand beyond appearances...

Instead of blocking out information or ignoring it altogether, why don't you start asking me some questions?

When you post blocks of text with little substance, it is equivalent to a 'word salad'. In other words, looks like there's a lot of it, but it is hardly filling for it lacks substance. Hence I simply remove the block of text and replace it with 'word salad', because I get that much meaning from your posts.

As for asking questions, by the looks of the majority of your posts, the answers I will get will most likely be lacking substance as well.

Originally Posted by really

Pardon?

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Stop judging? Social interaction relies on the judging of others constantly. Also, I don't have to respect your ideas, just as you don't have to respect mine. So take your BAAWWing elsewhere.

Surrendering to unknowns only yields more unknowns. You'll never understand anything if that is what you really do.


Nothing is beyond understanding through logic and reason, whether subjective or not.


The wavelengths of light between 650nm and 700nm still exist, whether a person can perceive them or not. Some people are even tetrachromatic, and can perceive colours not normally perceptible to most. The wavelength of light still exists even if we can't perceive it. We can't perceive X-rays or Gamma rays, nor can we perceive radio waves, all different wavelengths of photons. Does that mean they do not exist?


Because Applied Kinesiology is a completely subjective field and does not have anything going for it in terms of objectively quantifiable results or evidence. There is no scientific understanding of the mechanisms behind AK, and thus cannot be considered science. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_Kinesiology


Damage the brain, and your consciousness is altered. Therefore, it is safe to assume your brain is where your consciousness is being generated from. The mechanisms though are not understood, but we know that whatever the mechanism, it is situated within our brain.

Unless you want to deny the existence of brain-damage patients, then I don't see how you can refute this.


Emotion has no place in Science in the first place, so I don't see why you are holding it against Science. Also, the concept you talk about is nothing but a man-made musing, a tangent that has little meaning on its own. Love is an emotion, you are redefining it as some sort of nebulous concept. Shave all the fluff, and you are still left with an emotion. Get. Over. It.


You can't define essence in meaningful terms to other people though. To you, it seems just dandy and fine, but to everyone else, it seems like a bunch of bullcrap. The subjective only concerns itself with the self (perception, etc) whilst the objective deals with everything beyond the self. Using the subjective to understand the universe is like trying to figure out the contents of a box without even bothering to look what is inside it. In other words, it is a futile exercise.


Yes, I simply disagree with all of them.


Yes, you did misinterpret the results. Let me highlight:

Light source (laser) --- photon beam ---> Double slit === diffracted light ===> Metal plate

The metal plate would still experience a photovoltaic effect despite the light being diffracted by the double-slit. The behaviour is not dependent on the observer, for it occurs independently from the observer. Photons behave as if they were both waves and particles, hence the water-droplet analogy. This is basic A-level physics here. A major fail here on your part.


If there is a spirit, it can be quantified in some meaningful way, and your pursuit might be worth it. If there isn't, you have effectively wasted most of your effort. Even if there is a spirit, I heavily doubt that it would make a difference to the world's problems.

Until there is evidence to support the existence of spirits/souls, then everything is pointing to what Neuroscience is finding to be the case.


And when I do look at what is essential, it has nothing to do with what you have posted.


When you post blocks of text with little substance, it is equivalent to a 'word salad'. In other words, looks like there's a lot of it, but it is hardly filling for it lacks substance. Hence I simply remove the block of text and replace it with 'word salad', because I get that much meaning from your posts.

As for asking questions, by the looks of the majority of your posts, the answers I will get will most likely be lacking substance as well.

Oh blue, I'm so sorry.. I can understand how discomforting this whole matter is... but..

It's time for "me" to cross this bridge, I must go now... You will survive, don't worry..

Originally Posted by really

Depends how honest you are with yourself. I keep finding excuses to argue with you, despite what I know about the ego. One day, I might just surrender it all with relieving laughter...

Yesss!!!

Wooohaahahaha!!!!


Ah... geeeeeez... without words..




Oh.. and check this out!

(By the way, here's are some more resources you might like to read: Stapp 1; 2 and brain and meditation).




Anyway, you win, congratulations! I hope you've had a lot of fun! This is a tribute.

I think I have said enough, just what is required. My intention is not to argue endlessly...



Goodbye all, sweet dreams.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

The wavelengths of light between 650nm and 700nm still exist, whether a person can perceive them or not. Some people are even tetrachromatic, and can perceive colours not normally perceptible to most. The wavelength of light still exists even if we can't perceive it. We can't perceive X-rays or Gamma rays, nor can we perceive radio waves, all different wavelengths of photons. Does that mean they do not exist?

It is to the people who are color blind that red doesn't exist. Red still exists, but they can't see it. For colors, you have to actually see one, to know what it is. You can hear the word "Red" and the words "650nm - 700nm" all day, and still not know what they mean.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Damage the brain, and your consciousness is altered. Therefore, it is safe to assume your brain is where your consciousness is being generated from. The mechanisms though are not understood, but we know that whatever the mechanism, it is situated within our brain.

It could be possible that because of the brain damage, they are just severely limited in what they can do in reality. Personally, I don't know what goes on in their heads when they sleep, or other times. Although brain damage does point strongly towards consciousness originating from the brain. But seeing as how the brain is directly connected to all bodily functions, any damage to it will obviously have severe effects. However, I think it's possible for someone with brain damage to still be just as aware and conscious of things as before the damage, although now they would not be able to express this awareness to others with their body.

<random>
Holy crap, I just saw the most extreme lightning bolts shoot sideways across the clouds outside my window.
</random>

Originally Posted by Schmaven

It is to the people who are color blind that red doesn't exist. Red still exists, but they can't see it. For colors, you have to actually see one, to know what it is. You can hear the word "Red" and the words "650nm - 700nm" all day, and still not know what they mean.

The perception of red might not exist for the colour-blind person, but the wavelengths of light that are responsible for the normal perception of red still exist. Also, you can check what sort of colour-blindness a person has by observing what colours or patterns the person is unable to see. Once the person becomes aware another colour exists that he would normally perceive, then 'Red' is brought to his attention. He'll just be unable to perceive it correctly.

Originally Posted by Schmaven

It could be possible that because of the brain damage, they are just severely limited in what they can do in reality. Personally, I don't know what goes on in their heads when they sleep, or other times. Although brain damage does point strongly towards consciousness originating from the brain. But seeing as how the brain is directly connected to all bodily functions, any damage to it will obviously have severe effects. However, I think it's possible for someone with brain damage to still be just as aware and conscious of things as before the damage, although now they would not be able to express this awareness to others with their body.

Yes, it all depends on the where the damage is situated in the brain and the severity of it. However, the fact that when the brain is damaged, your consciousness gets altered in some way, whether by a small amount, or by a lot, indicates strongly that it is where our consciousness originates from. There is nothing to suggest that my consciousness is a separate entity.

Originally Posted by Schmaven

<random>
Holy crap, I just saw the most extreme lightning bolts shoot sideways across the clouds outside my window.
</random>

Heh, nice. I love thunderstorms...

Originally Posted by bluefinger

The perception of red might not exist for the colour-blind person, but the wavelengths of light that are responsible for the normal perception of red still exist. Also, you can check what sort of colour-blindness a person has by observing what colours or patterns the person is unable to see. Once the person becomes aware another colour exists that he would normally perceive, then 'Red' is brought to his attention. He'll just be unable to perceive it correctly.

I agree that you can point out red things to them. But if they can't perceive it correctly, then their definition of red would be incorrect. I don't fully understand color-blindness, so I could be wrong.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

To achieve a good moral level? No. Religion is a manifestation of cultural practices and traditions, wrapped around a doctrine or belief. If anything, Religion acts as a control mechanism, not something that promotes good moral. In general, it demands obedience through the concept of faith.


I would be much more comfortable raising my children in a secular community, to be honest. Keep all that religion crap away from my kid until he grows up with enough of a brain to make the decision himself of whether to believe the crap or not.

Also, I have yet to see the benefits of Christian communities over that of Secular ones. So far, the more secular countries tend to fare better in education and crime levels in comparison to religious ones. A community is usually centred around a gathering or forum, in order to allow a social event that allows for a general cohesion to form between the individuals of said community. Why? Because humans are social creatures, we form groupings naturally and tend to stick to those groupings. It is our nature. Religion simply takes advantage of that. Morals are decided by the group, the community, the society, and Religion has little to offer in improving morals.

I have family and friends who are christian, but to be honest, they are the same as my friends and family who aren't. They are all decent people, and no religion seems to make someone better than the rest.


Because you probably were indoctrinated as a kid, and being a Christian is just something that was 'beaten' in to you. How's that for a reason?

Striving to become like Jesus isn't exactly a good thing. Jesus himself said and did some stupid things in the Bible, so I'm not even sure he is a good figure to aim at. Personally, I think it is more noble to simply aim to better yourself at every turn and to be as good a person you can be, regardless of who you use as a role model.

In your words, religion is a manifestation of cultural practices and traditions, wrapped around a doctrine or belief to promote morality. Jesus's final commandment,

love one another as I have loved you. Remember the world has hated me first before it has hated you.

You seem to forget that Christianity's main focus is on the stories considering Jesus. At least Catholics do.. It does not demand obedience.. If you knew anything about theology you would know that the bible is NOT real. Other than the story of the Jews the bible held literally hold no truth. A logical person reading the bible would know this.

Also you seem to have forgotten to read Catholic canon law.. Which depicts thew bible as a book of philosophy which is meant to be taken metaphorically. It accepts evolution, sciences, and logic. Whilst you think religion is something stupid people practice, 49% percent of Catholics do not hold the bible literally, growing an average of 4% a year.. next year the majority of Catholics will hold the bible the way I hold it. Only 8% of evangicals do not hold it as literal. Are you saying religion is incapable of adapting to science and logic?

Indoctrinated.. yes it was, along with math, science, and reading. I don't only take regard in Christian text.. I believe the Judea texts are more accurate, and less metaphoric. I practice Buddhism, and yes I reach the same state when I meditate, and pray for long periods of time.. both give a sense of giving yourself up to a higher being, cleansing ego etc.

What stupid things did he say?..

Personally, I think it is more noble to simply aim to better yourself at every turn and to be as good a person you can be, regardless of who you use as a role model.

This is extremely simple minded. Obviously everyone isn't just "good", right off the bat.. your family and the people around you make you who you are.. if you don't have that person why not take Jesus as your role model? Also I doubt your parents are flawless.. Do you even know the true philosophical meaning to Jesus's death?

Originally Posted by Dreamworld

In your words, religion is a manifestation of cultural practices and traditions, wrapped around a doctrine or belief to promote morality. Jesus's final commandment, You seem to forget that Christianity's main focus is on the stories considering Jesus. At least Catholics do.. It does not demand obedience.. If you knew anything about theology you would know that the bible is NOT real. Other than the story of the Jews the bible held literally hold no truth. A logical person reading the bible would know this.

I'm talking about religion in general. Doctrines and traditions tend to be culturally locked to the location of where the religion arose. Also, the morality it 'promotes' is also dependent on the culture from which the religion arose from, though in my eyes, it used more to gather more followers and keep them. Either way, it is society that determines our morality, not religion.

Oh, I know the Bible is not real. It is just another piece of fiction

Originally Posted by Dreamworld

Also you seem to have forgotten to read Catholic canon law.. Which depicts thew bible as a book of philosophy which is meant to be taken metaphorically. It accepts evolution, sciences, and logic. Whilst you think religion is something stupid people practice, 49&#37; percent of Catholics do not hold the bible literally, growing an average of 4% a year.. next year the majority of Catholics will hold the bible the way I hold it. Only 8% of evangicals do not hold it as literal. Are you saying religion is incapable of adapting to science and logic?

I'm pretty familiar with Catholicism, so I don't see the point you are trying to make. I don't doubt the sincerity of the beliefs of the individual, I doubt the very organisations that promote the doctrines by which these people follow. There is a difference. Plus, citation is needed for those statistics.

Religion in general tends to resist change in general by the very reason it serves to promote strict doctrines and traditions. If anything, Christianity is responsible for the dark ages and the hamstringing of progress for a long time. Things may be different now, but even so, it still resists change with regard to certain areas.

Originally Posted by Dreamworld

Indoctrinated.. yes it was, along with math, science, and reading. I don't only take regard in Christian text.. I believe the Judea texts are more accurate, and less metaphoric. I practice Buddhism, and yes I reach the same state when I meditate, and pray for long periods of time.. both give a sense of giving yourself up to a higher being, cleansing ego etc.

Ummm... maths and science have evidence to show that they work and are not false. You get taught the methods of maths and science. Indoctrination is nothing but the reinforcing of doctrine by which no good reason is given to justify such doctrines. At least with Maths and Science, you have empirical evidence and means to justify being taught both.

Originally Posted by Dreamworld

What stupid things did he say?..

Ah... my favourite:

Mark 11

11:13 And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet.
11:14 And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. And his disciples heard it.

And in Matthew 21:19, it shows that the same fig tree died as soon as it were cursed.

Now... allegorically or literally or whatever, I really can't find anything meaningful out of killing a fig tree for not bearing fruit out of season. This is an excellent example of absurdity on Jesus' part.

Originally Posted by Dreamworld

This is extremely simple minded. Obviously everyone isn't just "good", right off the bat.. your family and the people around you make you who you are.. if you don't have that person why not take Jesus as your role model? Also I doubt your parents are flawless.. Do you even know the true philosophical meaning to Jesus's death?

Nobody is good or bad off the bat, and no one is perfect. Hence why I feel it is better for one to seek to improve oneself regardless of what role model one uses.

As for the philosophical meaning, there was one? Other than a paganistic ritual of sacrificial offering to appease a God's wrath?

Stop judging people

Going for the hypocrite of the year award? We judge people all the time and are right to do so. So when we hear about muderers, rapists, child abusers, muggers, wife-beaters, etc, you're advocating that we shouldn't judge them, but instead "know acceptance" and "be compassionate"? We shouldn't put them on trial for crimes and put them away in prison but say to them "carry on"?

Or does this (as I suspect) only apply to those that disagree with your point of view, in a vain attempt to prevent it from being attacked further?

If you do judge, you're a hypocrite. If you don't, you're an immoral person. And if you're claiming people shouldn't judge your views, you're weak and insecure.