How to liberate others from the superstition of religion... by Stefan Molyneux, Host of Freedomain Radio, the most popular philosophy podcast on the web - www.freedomainradio.com
youre really good. i like how you opened. i, even being a christian have even thought that and tried to look into it but i like how you laid out the psychological aspect of it somewhat. to be honest,i feel no peer pressure to keep believing and having trust in my God. dont forget, a lot of the reasons you bring up also work towards atheism. because it still is a faith, youre saying you dont know, just like say i dont know, but instead you look at science for answers, where i look at the bible.
@StudentOfObjectivism I didn't assume you'd understand, and most people have a hard time grasping these concepts. I was only referring to a phenomenon in consciousness. It isn't a faking of reality, but in fact, a direct experience of it. This is essentially what meditation is. Terence McKenna called called it an encounter with the Gaian mind, but he used entheogens to induce it the phenomenon, because he had no patience for meditation.
I didn't make any assumptions, you did. You assumed that you could just waltz in and make some meaningless comments about 'god', 'higher consciousness' or 'cortical minds' and you assumed that I would help you pretend that you know what you are talking about.
I don't go in for faking reality, and I don't have a bias. I judge things according to reality - and no amount of supernatural wordplay will make your god meet that standard.
@StudentOfObjectivism (continued) and when you have undergone this experience, you come back with an interpretation of "God" that is akin to the panentheism that Hinduism or Buddhism espouses. Indra's Net is analogy in an image, but it is referential to reality. And you mentioned "id," I'm not sure if that was a typo or a Freudian reference, but the term "cortical" would not refer to that.
A suggestion: Alan Watts describes it beautifully here, listen for "the final Self."
@StudentOfObjectivism That is only bias on your part, and instead of asking me to be more specific, you assumed that everything I've said was inherently vague. This phenomenon indeed exist, Richard M. Bucke wrote about it in his book "Cosmic Consciousness," but it is more commonly known as mystical experience. And while mysticism is associated with most religions, it's mainly affiliated with eastern religion. The goal of something like Buddhism is this colossal transformation in consciousness...
@StudentOfObjectivism Wow! Is that something Ayn Rand really said? She was way off! That seems to be all baseless assumption. A mystic is a person who has experienced a union with God through consciousness, but if you don't like "God" in that description, a mystic is a person who has experienced a higher form of consciousness, and still if you find that description vague and want something more scientific, a mystic is a person who has experienced a higher cortical experience in the mind.
youre really good. i like how you opened. i, even being a christian have even thought that and tried to look into it but i like how you laid out the psychological aspect of it somewhat. to be honest,i feel no peer pressure to keep believing and having trust in my God. dont forget, a lot of the reasons you bring up also work towards atheism. because it still is a faith, youre saying you dont know, just like say i dont know, but instead you look at science for answers, where i look at the bible.
MyBULLETBILL 1 week ago
@StudentOfObjectivism I didn't assume you'd understand, and most people have a hard time grasping these concepts. I was only referring to a phenomenon in consciousness. It isn't a faking of reality, but in fact, a direct experience of it. This is essentially what meditation is. Terence McKenna called called it an encounter with the Gaian mind, but he used entheogens to induce it the phenomenon, because he had no patience for meditation.
McKenna on "The Gaian mind:"
/watch?v=kuhrhT8Z5QA#t=40m33s
Hanahleia 3 weeks ago
@Hanahleia 'id' was a typo, as was 'and' in the same sentence. Sorry for any confusion.
StudentOfObjectivism 3 weeks ago
@Hanahleia
I do not give a f***
About your mystic Bucke
I didn't make any assumptions, you did. You assumed that you could just waltz in and make some meaningless comments about 'god', 'higher consciousness' or 'cortical minds' and you assumed that I would help you pretend that you know what you are talking about.
I don't go in for faking reality, and I don't have a bias. I judge things according to reality - and no amount of supernatural wordplay will make your god meet that standard.
StudentOfObjectivism 3 weeks ago
@StudentOfObjectivism (continued) and when you have undergone this experience, you come back with an interpretation of "God" that is akin to the panentheism that Hinduism or Buddhism espouses. Indra's Net is analogy in an image, but it is referential to reality. And you mentioned "id," I'm not sure if that was a typo or a Freudian reference, but the term "cortical" would not refer to that.
A suggestion: Alan Watts describes it beautifully here, listen for "the final Self."
/watch?v=iih7QsbuVLM
Hanahleia 3 weeks ago
@StudentOfObjectivism That is only bias on your part, and instead of asking me to be more specific, you assumed that everything I've said was inherently vague. This phenomenon indeed exist, Richard M. Bucke wrote about it in his book "Cosmic Consciousness," but it is more commonly known as mystical experience. And while mysticism is associated with most religions, it's mainly affiliated with eastern religion. The goal of something like Buddhism is this colossal transformation in consciousness...
Hanahleia 3 weeks ago
@Hanahleia
1) There is no way of defining god with reference to reality - it's just a completely arbitrary assertion on your part.
2) 'a higher consciousness' is similarly arbitrary since it means consciousness of things that can't be known to exist using the actual senses.
3) 'cortical' means to do with the outer part of an organ; the mind id not and organ so your last definition is meaningless.
Rand's quote is good because it not only encompasses idiots like you but mystics of muscle too.
StudentOfObjectivism 3 weeks ago
@StudentOfObjectivism Wow! Is that something Ayn Rand really said? She was way off! That seems to be all baseless assumption. A mystic is a person who has experienced a union with God through consciousness, but if you don't like "God" in that description, a mystic is a person who has experienced a higher form of consciousness, and still if you find that description vague and want something more scientific, a mystic is a person who has experienced a higher cortical experience in the mind.
Hanahleia 3 weeks ago
@Hanahleia ur going to hell
Gorillaz12d 3 weeks ago
@Hanahleia lmao!!!! That is the funniest story I have ever heard XDDD More power to you!
Fosellar 2 months ago