Page 9 of 10 « First<678910>
Topic Options
#60353 - 10/22/11 03:20 AM Re: Atheism [Re: Dimitri]
felixgarnet Offline
active member


Registered: 10/17/09
Posts: 688
Loc: UK
I'm interested you had a similar experience to my own, Dimitri.

However, not to labour the points, but:

The person's name was Alex and he was a drinking buddy of mine in the 1970's; he was 21 I was 20. We met up about once a week in town and had no form of communication in between time except for the post - no phones and, of course no email.

Alex had recently joined the Merchant Navy and loved it. He was in good health, had a loving family and no money worries.

I simply went to bed one night, having last seen him a week or so previously, fell asleep and saw him in what I supposed was a dream in a misty street, looking rather sad and confused. He said he'd done something stupid and wondered if he was dead. I was very concerned and said he was to keep calm. I remember hugging him and he felt solid.

Then I woke up in a panic and put it down to a nightmare.

Two days later the news of his death appeared on the front of the local paper. It was suspected suicide and the coroner confirmed this at the inquest. He estimated the time of death as the time I "spoke with" Alex in the dream.

Now, there was nothing for me to "pick up on", subconsciously or otherwise; this was a young person in perfect health, exhibiting no signs of depression, certainly not of suicidal thoughts. He killed himself. I met with him in a dream and he clearly said he thought he might be dead. He was. No coincidence, no false memory, no elaboration after the fact. It's watertight.

In my opinion, when something like this happens there's no point in trying to tell yourself it didn't or make up some convoluted and spurious reason for its being down to an over-active imagination or a heavy supper. It's happened to thousands of people all over the world for centuries, according to admittedly subjective reports. If dead people do speak to the living - so what?

This, of course has no relevance to whether or not God exists.
_________________________
"Here's to Artifice!" - Anton Szandor LaVey.

Top
#60354 - 10/22/11 06:44 AM Re: Atheism [Re: felixgarnet]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
A couple of days ago, a friend of mine, during some heavy drinking, is talking about his mother and mentions how he'll think she'll die.

Two days later his brother calls him and said he found her dead at home. She died some time before and apparently around the time my friend was mentioning how she would die.

There is no relation between both, I see it as a coincidence but it might grow into one.

I'm not going to judge your story but what many people don't understand about memory is that it is not a hard-drive with read-only files that each time when you access them reappear in their original state. Each memory we have is a read-write file which implies that after you access some memory, the next time, it is a memory of this memory and as such, can slowly but gradually change over time without us noticing we ourselves are editing it.




Top
#60357 - 10/22/11 05:27 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
dust-e sheytoon Offline
member


Registered: 08/23/11
Posts: 206
Loc: NYC
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
...the consciousness certainly interacts with the OU, and here are one, two, and three readings [among many others] interesting in this regard.

"…we can…make two people have the experience of swapping bodies with one another," stated study leader Henrik Ehrsson. So far, he has reportedly been able to 'transfer' subjects' selves into bodies of a different sex, age, or size, but not into inanimate objects." ~ Ben Coxworth, Gizmag, 2/24/11
One cannot help but image the monetary and political potential of such "transfers" and also possible downsides. I'm reminded of the film, Seconds, directed by John Frankenheimer.

Yet, if there is such a thing as a human soul/T-field, and it is able to make its own "transfer" via strength of will (or Orgone), could the results include cases such as James Leningar, "reincarnated WWII pilot"?

Professor of Philosophy Robert Almeder speaks about the reincarnation research of the late Dr. Ian Stevenson, Chair of the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Virginia here.,

 Originally Posted By: felixgarnet
"…I…saw him in what I supposed was a dream in a misty street, looking rather sad and confused. He said he'd done something stupid and wondered if he was dead. I was very concerned and said he was to keep calm. I remember hugging him and he felt solid."

It's so great you gave your dying friend a hug, Mr. Garnet! It must have been a comfort to him! How wonderful that he appeared to you, and mentioned that he, "…did something stupid." Comprehending the motive and/or level of intentionality behind a death can be very important.

It so interesting that when you hugged him, "he felt solid". I wonder if there is another dimension of reality where this meeting took place. The possibility of not only consiousness and communication, but also tangible sensation between biologically living and biologically non-living entities is tremendously intriguing.


Edited by dust-e sheytoon (10/22/11 05:41 PM)
Edit Reason: added "T-field"
_________________________
Fly for your lives! A great magician comes! He summons armies from the earth itself! ~ ArabianNights

Top
#60358 - 10/22/11 05:39 PM Re: Atheism [Re: dust-e sheytoon]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: dust-e sheytoon
It so interesting that when you hugged him, "he felt solid". I wonder if there is another dimension of reality where this meeting took place. The possibility of not only consiousness and communication, but also tangible sensation between biologically living and biologically non-living entities is tremendously intriguing.


There really isn't any other dimension needed for these sensations since anything you experience while awake (sensations) can as easily be experienced while dreaming because both solely happen in the same dimension called the brain.

Top
#60360 - 10/22/11 08:28 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Diavolo]
felixgarnet Offline
active member


Registered: 10/17/09
Posts: 688
Loc: UK
Thank you for all the input regarding my experience, I've found it all valuable. Briefly, I think life is stranger than we can even begin to imagine and, yes, while no other dimensions are needed as such, they very likely exist.

However, I feel the mods may consider this thread is veering rather off-topic as its title is, "Atheism". While this is a contested term anyway it certainly refers to belief in a deity/deities and not, by extrapolation, to all forms of potential non-corporeal existence, IMO.

Now, I don't believe in God in the Abrahamic sense but I have had some very odd experiences - purely subjective - that have convinced me that Weird Stuff goes on. Dr Aquino is right and so are the hard-line materialists. These sort of experiences cannot be explained by appeals to rational science because they are hugely emotive. It's like trying to explain how you "feel" love for your children the moment they are born and can see that they have their own personalities already. It's not logical but it is fascinating.


Edited by felixgarnet (10/22/11 08:30 PM)
Edit Reason: Spelling
_________________________
"Here's to Artifice!" - Anton Szandor LaVey.

Top
#60361 - 10/22/11 11:40 PM Re: Atheism [Re: felixgarnet]
dust-e sheytoon Offline
member


Registered: 08/23/11
Posts: 206
Loc: NYC
 Originally Posted By: felixgarnet
However, I feel the mods may consider this thread is veering rather off-topic as its title is, "Atheism". While this is a contested term anyway it certainly refers to belief in a deity/deities and not, by extrapolation, to all forms of potential non-corporeal existence, IMO.

I believe we are still on topic because some religions tend to exploit the "afterlife" as a carrot and stick. Christianity in particular uses "Hell" and torture by "demons" as a means of scaring the flock. Some Christians put a great deal of effort into "saving souls." Some Atheists may argue that there is no "soul" to save.

 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
...Ironically, since atheists cannot otherwise comprehend or define the ba/psyche/soul, their denial of it is necessarily an act of faith, hence for them Atheism is a de facto religion....

As a person who rejected Christianity as a small child, and thought of herself technically as an Atheist, yet while at the same time exploring and improvising upon Native American and Egyptian culture and ceremonial magic as a child; who later cautiously embraced elements of Satanism and Voodoo, and who recently enjoyed visiting the great mosques in Isfahan and Shiraz and Fire Temple and Tower of Silence in Yazd--while succumbing fully neither to Islam nor to Zoroastrianism; and as a person who is combining all these aspects with a lifelong interest in Philosophy, Psychology, Spirits and Science, I'm tremendously enjoying this thread and would like to thank the mods for allowing us this exploration.

The soul is an elusive concept/state of being/presence that many shy away from discussing, and often those that do only argue from a religious or philosophical standpoint. Dr. Aquino 's knowledge of science and psychology pertaining to identity and the soul/T-field informs and enriches this discussion. The combination of theory and potential to act upon it and explore it is very intriguing.




Edited by dust-e sheytoon (10/22/11 11:50 PM)
_________________________
Fly for your lives! A great magician comes! He summons armies from the earth itself! ~ ArabianNights

Top
#60623 - 10/30/11 03:28 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Iskander Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/21/10
Posts: 70
Loc: Berlin, Germany
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
 Originally Posted By: Iskander
Ok, we can call it "self" ...

You're doing a valiant job here, but you're basically arguing with self-conscious beings who believe that they really don't exist except as stimulus/response mechanisms. Ironically, since atheists cannot otherwise comprehend or define the ba/psyche/soul, their denial of it is necessarily an act of faith, hence for them Atheism is a de facto religion. And that is why your arguments and explanations won't dent their shell [and also why they will become even angrier having this pointed out].


Thanks, Dr. Aquino. I think the problem here is not Atheism per se but scientism and / or naive materialism. It is interesting, however, what ressentiments some satanists reveal when it comes to the potential of the mind.

 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
All of which brings to mind the story of the philosophy student who, after listening to a lecture on Descartes, became more and more agitated until, at 4 AM, he finally telephoned the professor and screamed into the phone: "Tell me - I've got to know! DO I EXIST?!" The prof yawned, "And who wants to know?"


That reminds me of an example a professor of mine used in a similar context: "If you want to eliminate the "I" via materialism, ask yourself if it is possible to articulate phenomenas like toothache without relating to the mind. No sane human would say: "My brain has toothache.""


Edited by Iskander (10/30/11 03:29 PM)

Top
#60625 - 10/30/11 03:35 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Iskander]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: Iskander
That reminds me of an example a professor of mine used in a similar context: "If you want to eliminate the "I" via materialism, ask yourself if it is possible to articulate phenomenas like toothache without relating to the mind. No sane human would say: "My brain has toothache.""


Many sane people say "tomorrow I fly to London" but they ain't got wings, so as an argument "I have toothache" doesn't mean much.

Top
#60626 - 10/30/11 03:36 PM Re: Atheism [Re: The Zebu]
Iskander Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/21/10
Posts: 70
Loc: Berlin, Germany
 Originally Posted By: The Zebu
Every attempt to elaborate and describe "the soul" has failed miserably, Dr. Aquino, and your esoteric philosophy is emblematic of this problem, in that it is one of infinite, vague mysticisms glued to contradictory metaphysical accessories and tenuous "spiritual experiences". Every culture has its own unique conception of the soul that shares very little common ground, except that it exists by virtue of it existing.


There is no need to speculate about a concept of "soul". It is obvious we all have somnething we call "mind", "self", "psyche" or "personality". We also have things like intentions, wishes, expectations, tastes etc., that are totally inherent to the way we experience the world and other persons and how we articulate our points of view. We are all playing wordgames in the sense of Wittgenstein because of the imaterial aspects of our existance.


Edited by Iskander (10/30/11 03:38 PM)

Top
#60627 - 10/30/11 03:41 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Diavolo]
Iskander Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/21/10
Posts: 70
Loc: Berlin, Germany
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
 Originally Posted By: Iskander
That reminds me of an example a professor of mine used in a similar context: "If you want to eliminate the "I" via materialism, ask yourself if it is possible to articulate phenomenas like toothache without relating to the mind. No sane human would say: "My brain has toothache.""


Many sane people say "tomorrow I fly to London" but they ain't got wings, so as an argument "I have toothache" doesn't mean much.




Not many, but all. That is the point. Or would you say: "My brain decides to fly to London tomorrow."?

Top
#60628 - 10/30/11 04:07 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Iskander]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
That's not the point, we use the metaphor "I" because it evolved as such and this cultural tradition won't suddenly change if the I turns out to be the brain. This is not an argument at all for dualism.
Top
#60629 - 10/30/11 04:40 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Autodidact]
Iskander Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/21/10
Posts: 70
Loc: Berlin, Germany
 Originally Posted By: Autodidact
 Originally Posted By: Iskander

Mental phenomenas contradict natural science in so far as they cannot be described accurate in terms of natural science like physics or chemistry.


This is the crux of your misunderstanding. As Dan, Diavolo and others have repeatedly pointed out, this may be merely an insufficiency in our understanding. You are misinterpreting that insufficiency as contradiction, and then using that "contradiction" as evidence for some other point.


Not at all. What I did was pointing out what are the topics of the paradigms of natural science and what not. Natural sccience was, like all disciplines of science, invented by human beings for a special purpose: The explanaition of nature. Nothing more and nothing less. This is not ignorant, it is the simple statement that natural science cannot explain evertything - a statement no legitmate scientist would deny.

 Originally Posted By: Autodidact
The second part of that is appeal to ignorance, because you're attempting to prove a conclusion based (solely!) on a piece of evidence that's not viable. (Note that it does not matter why the first part fails.)


Strictly speaking I was not claiming I had a proof, for the proof has to be given by the one who is formulating a theory - in this case, everyone who claims that the mind is natural and therefor could be explained via natural science. In this context, it is not my job to prove tat the mind is unnatural, it is your job to prove it is natural.[/quote]

 Originally Posted By: Autodidact
Considering a thing as evidence to be used in proof, based on no supporting facts, and refusing to consider any alternate explanations, is one of the hallmarks of faith.


Now we are talking. You are ignoring the fact that there is an explanation gap in materialistic theories of the mind and that we have no evidence how intentionality could be explained in materialistic terms. Instead of considering alternate ways of explanation, you are claiming these problems will likely be solved via materialism in the future, just like a christian who is awaiting the return of the messiah. Your faith in materialism is remarkable.

Top
#60631 - 10/30/11 04:52 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Iskander]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: Iskander
Not at all. What I did was pointing out what are the topics of the paradigms of natural science and what not. Natural sccience was, like all disciplines of science, invented by human beings for a special purpose: The explanaition of nature. Nothing more and nothing less. This is not ignorant, it is the simple statement that natural science cannot explain evertything - a statement no legitmate scientist would deny.


No, what's true is that it is not certain science can explain everything and this is not the same as there are things science cannot explain, because the second is already subject to magical thinking by assuming there are already things we know that are beyond science.





Top
#60633 - 10/30/11 05:00 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Diavolo]
Iskander Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/21/10
Posts: 70
Loc: Berlin, Germany
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
That's not the point, we use the metaphor "I" because it evolved as such and this cultural tradition won't suddenly change if the I turns out to be the brain. This is not an argument at all for dualism.


Interesting. So why is the brain inventing metaphors at all?

Top
#60635 - 10/30/11 05:06 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Diavolo]
Iskander Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/21/10
Posts: 70
Loc: Berlin, Germany
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
 Originally Posted By: Iskander
Not at all. What I did was pointing out what are the topics of the paradigms of natural science and what not. Natural sccience was, like all disciplines of science, invented by human beings for a special purpose: The explanaition of nature. Nothing more and nothing less. This is not ignorant, it is the simple statement that natural science cannot explain evertything - a statement no legitmate scientist would deny.


No, what's true is that it is not certain science can explain everything and this is not the same as there are things science cannot explain, because the second is already subject to magical thinking by assuming there are already things we know that are beyond science.


Perhaps we have a problem of language barrier in this discussion. I claim that the mind / psyche is not a subject of natural science. But it is, of course, the subject of the sciences of the mind. (Or, like we call it in Germany, Geisteswissenschaften. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geisteswissenschaft )

Top
Page 9 of 10 « First<678910>


Moderator:  Woland, TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.032 seconds of which 0.003 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.