My opinion on religious teachings from a very young age

#1
Educating children on the nature of God from a very young age results in a salubrious mindset in adulthood because it prepares them with the prerequisite knowledge on such dichotomies as good versus evil, God versus the Devil, right versus wrong, and moral versus immoral behavior. Since the metaphysical reality is only a splitting hair's transition away from the everyday world of people, places and things, children will become better prepared to accept reality if or when they witness it. When confronted with mortal dangers a child can resort to the Almighty God to comfort them. But when confronted with evil in such a circumstance as what that metaphysical world entails, God's role would be indispensable. Atheism is a dangerous front for lack of concern for judgement and accountability to one's actions and I feel that it should be exterminated from the root as that is the only way in which we can rid the world of evil. 

When dealing with fear of evil, a person may find prayer indispensable. Even more so when the evil is clear and present. Issues regarding free will are gleaned from the perspective of such a metaphysical world in that prayer is irrefutably priceless and the only defense one may have against the dangers of demonic forces. Such evil is allowed to take human form. 

Atheism is a disease of the mind because it is based on nothing but ignorance and blindness. Blindness to the metaphysical world that is only a smooth transition away from the Classical world of people, places and things depending on what state one's brain takes. Whether or not such a brain dependent or mind dependent reality in whole and in part will exterminate atheists when the scientific community acknowledges it is a question yet to be determined. Only time will tell. The Quantum Sciences already acknowledge the possibility of broader applications of the Copenhagen interpretation to metaphysics, so why aren't atheists moved to action by it? The integrated theory on consciousness and its implications to panpsychism is one of our best glimmers of hope when it comes to wiping out the disease of atheism. I have witnessed a world which atheists believe not to exist and the idea of being alienated to my own position is appalling. 

I would like to return as a respected member of sciforums so that I may explain all of this,

Thank you,

Nick Hosein.
Reply
#2
I FOUND THIS TODAY FROM A QUESTIONABLE SOURCE:


(...)
So the multiplicity of separate conscious entities are 
all aspects of a uniform substrate, otherwise there would 
be distinctly separate entities with no medium of 
interaction. 

Thus the conclusion is that there exists only ONE true 
consciousness and all of the ostensibly separate 
conscious entities are actually permutations and
combinations of the multiplicity of all possible realities.


Stratification provides the answer to the problem of
problems. The wavefunction os at right angles to physical
reality, of course...

If a thing exists it can be perceived, and consequently, a
thing must have a necessary and sufficient description -
with no syntactic-systematic ambiguities and no meaningless
sentences. 

The grammatical structure must reflect its logical
structure, such, that its logical properties can be
interpreted from its syntactic structure. In effect,
existence must be syntactically reflective of its own
global consistency, yet also be allowed the freedom to
evolve its own grammatical transformations within its own
manifold boundaries of perception. 

Information states are embodied by conscious experience.
For example, patterns of color patches in a visual field of
perception are analogous to pixels on a computer display
screen. Interestingly, similar information states are
embodied by the experience of consciousness AND in the
underlying physical processes IN the brain. Thus it appears
that "qualia" becomes a fundamental property of physical
reality, much like the attributes of spin and charge in the
QM formalism. The three-dimensional encoding of color
spaces, for example, suggests that the information state in
a particular color experience, corresponds directly to an
information state in the brain. The two states may even be
regarded as two distinct aspects of a single information
state, which is simultaneously embodied in both physical
processing and ...consciousness. 

Because light travels at a finite velocity everything we
see happening is actually in the past, and not the true
present. 

Conceptually speaking, from a purely materialistic
standpoint, "objective reality" seems true enough, that we
should not question it; but in truth, our objective
realities are merely virtual reality creations of the mind
and are actually subjective reflections, or shadows, of an
ostensible *absolute world* beyond our senses. The only
verification of this absolute reality is via consensus with
other minds. Hence, the objective reality becomes an
assumption, which relies on the confirmations of other
observers. That means that in accordance with the
scientific method, our objective reality, cannot be proved
to be an independent absolute - only inferred to be an
absolute, as possibly playing a particular role, in
accordance with the statistical status quo. 

We then come to the reductive realization that our
ostensible - concensible objectification, assumes there
exists a separation between object and subject, -
"perceived and perceiver", but in truth, there isn't any
separation. The only reality that we can ever know is the
reality of perception, which is the reality of mind. Of
course you may stub your toe, pronouncing to yourself that
"it is satisfactorily refuted thus!" 
But pain is also a perception of mind. 

All objects of perception require a uniform logically
consistent substrate OF perception, meaning that all
objects of perception require a uniform[consciously aware]
mental template of subjectification. Thus if the objective
world stability is perceived as it truly is then the
stability of the subjective is the same as the stability of
the objective. Ergo, the objective and subjective reality
forms a duality, reflecting the two sides of the same coin
called awareness or consciousness. Raw awareness and
consciousness forms the most basic aspect of reality. Pure
existence becomes pure thought/consciousness.
Reply
#3
In a secular and non-spiritual society the ability to see god and a tendency to hallucinate are increasingly seen as one and the same. Reporting visions, dreams and/or hallucinations as 'fact' may not be the way forward.
Reply
#4
Should religion teach us that its tenets are indeed factual or that people should be extremely cautious and skeptical of them? From a very young age I've questioned religion, enough to mortify my dear mother who eventually stopped taking me to church, especially when my inquisitive nature saw other parishioners compare me to something along the lines of 'Rosemary's Baby.' My old signature, 'Thank God I'm an atheist' pertains to my situation and I think people understand how those words could be interpreted.

Personally, theistic religion has taught me that there seems to be Differnet levels/types of belief. I say 'seems' in an effort to prevent people from claiming what I've learned is a belief. IMHO theistic belief consists of....

1. Primary belief (eg. ...there is a God)
2. Secondary descriptive belief ( eg ...there is a loving God)
3. The belief that both primary and secondary are factual
4. The belief in a metaphysical universe and all that entails
Reply
#5
(May 18, 2018 12:12 AM)confused2 Wrote: In a secular and non-spiritual society the ability to see god and a tendency to hallucinate are increasingly seen as one and the same. Reporting visions, dreams and/or hallucinations as 'fact' may not be the way forward.

It may be premature to claim that simply because the phenomenon was experienced by one individual does not make it a non-consensus reality. That is where mathematical proofs come into play. Whether or not an atheist would accept said proof is entirely up to them.


(May 18, 2018 02:35 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: Should religion teach us that its tenets are indeed factual or that people should be extremely cautious and skeptical of them? From a very young age I've questioned religion, enough to mortify my dear mother who eventually stopped taking me to church, especially when my inquisitive nature saw other parishioners compare me to something along the lines of 'Rosemary's Baby.' My old signature, 'Thank God I'm an atheist' pertains to my situation and I think people understand how those words could be interpreted.

Personally, theistic religion has taught me that there seems to be Differnet levels/types of belief. I say 'seems' in an effort to prevent people from claiming what I've learned is a belief. IMHO theistic belief consists of....

1. Primary belief (eg. ...there is a God)
2. Secondary descriptive belief ( eg ...there is a loving God)
3. The belief that both primary and secondary are factual
4. The belief in a metaphysical universe and all that entails

Religion should be interpreted openly as it's purity was expressed metaphorically to prevent logical refutation. Its symbolic language was used as a means to circumvent the gaps in knowledge that the lack of scientific knowledge left historically speaking. Beliefs are integral to consciousness and the Bible was written so that mankind can be inspired to inquire and to reflect on the dualistic nature of his consciousness in relation to good, evil and God.
Reply
#6
(May 17, 2018 06:15 PM)Ostronomos Wrote: Educating children on the nature of God from a very young age results in a salubrious mindset

Who really knows whether or not God exists? And assuming that God exists, who truly knows the "nature of God"? We're begging multiple metaphysical and theological questions there.

(Eastern Orthodox Christian theology typically holds that humans can't know God's 'essence' at all, and only know God through his "energies". In other words, we can't know what God is, only what God does here in the created Earthly sphere.)

Quote:in adulthood because it prepares them with the prerequisite knowledge on such dichotomies as good versus evil, God versus the Devil, right versus wrong, and moral versus immoral behavior.

Which assumes that we know what good and evil are, how to properly recognize them and what to do when moral disagreements arise. Again, we're begging a whole bunch of metaethical questions there.

Quote:Atheism is a disease of the mind because it is based on nothing but ignorance and blindness.

Perhaps. Or maybe it's intellectually healthy and based on sound critical thinking.

Instead of constantly exhorting and preaching, self-styled gnostics (those like yourself who believe that they already know the deepest secrets of the universe) need to find a way to demonstrate to the rest of us whatever you are convinced we don't know. You need to convince us.

Quote:Blindness to the metaphysical world that is only a smooth transition away from the Classical world of people, places and things depending on what state one's brain takes.

What is the "metaphysical world"?

You seem to be revving up your quantum mysticism again. (Without having ever studied quantum physics.) You are just assuming that the most extreme and outre interpretations of QM are true, and again that begs questions. (Metaphysical questions arguably. Is that blindness?)  

As for blindness to metaphysics, I'm profoundly interested in metaphysics. I'm interested in the foundations of logic and mathematics, in ontology, in time and space, in causality, in necessity and possibility, in the reality of abstract objects and in things like the so-called 'laws of physics'. I'm interested in ontological monism vs pluralism, in the unity of science, in scientific methodology and in how scientific theorizing relates to the lived world of human experience. I'm even interested in interpreting quantum physics (though I'm emphatically a layman regarding the technicalities).

I don't think that I'm blind to metaphysics at all. In fact, it's those kind of issues that attract me to boards like this.

The thing is, those are all open questions, subjects of current debate. I think that it's healthier to remain aware of what we don't know than to go charging off into foolishness. That's why I consider myself an agnostic regarding these kind of things.

I should probably add that you were calling for indoctrinating small children in your religious beliefs up above. But wouldn't the reason be that children are naive and unsophisticated, and arguably incapable of the kind of metaphysical vision that you are calling for? There seems to be a contradiction there. Can metaphysical vision be imposed by others, or must it be discovered on one's own?   

Quote:The Quantum Sciences already acknowledge the possibility of broader applications of the Copenhagen interpretation to metaphysics, so why aren't atheists moved to action by it?

Because the Copenhagen interpretation is only one of dozens of interpretations of quantum mechanics that have been proposed? Because Copenhagen isn't the quantum idealism that you seem to favor? Because none of this seems to have anything directly to do with God, atheism or religion?

Quote:The integrated theory on consciousness and its implications to panpsychism is one of our best glimmers of hope when it comes to wiping out the disease of atheism. I have witnessed a world which atheists believe not to exist and the idea of being alienated to my own position is appalling.

Believe whatever you want to believe, Ostro. I'm certainly not interested in converting you to anything. I just post my own views and it's up to you whether you find any of them plausible or convincing.

I certainly don't want to dismiss religious experience entirely. The problem that I see is that it's entirely subjective. A fundamentally private experience might indeed convince the person having the experience, but it does little to convince the rest of us out in the public world that we all share. That's doubly true when the private religious experience is dramatically at odds with other peoples' everyday experience and even with the experiences of others who claim to have had religious experiences of their own.

How can we tell the difference between veridicial religious experiences, imaginative fantasies and psychiatric delusions, if there's no confirming evidence in the objective world?

Quote:I would like to return as a respected member of sciforums so that I may explain all of this,

I have no influence over there. Even if I put in a word for you, they wouldn't listen. And if you do return and you start preaching your weird Langan-stuff, they will just ban you again.
Reply
#7
Quote:Religion should be interpreted openly as it's purity was expressed metaphorically to prevent logical refutation. Its symbolic language was used as a means to circumvent the gaps in knowledge that the lack of scientific knowledge left historically speaking. Beliefs are integral to consciousness and the Bible was written so that mankind can be inspired to inquire and to reflect on the dualistic nature of his consciousness in relation to good, evil and God.

Somewhere I once read where if we could pluck from the past a first member (preferably baby) of our species that he/she could learn everything a modern human has been taught ( drive a car, read books, technology, etc). Personally I don't see why not unless some evolutionary adaptations have taken place over last 100,000 years or so that would prevent it. So I don't buy the metaphorical language explanation. Why should a later, more scientifically advanced/knowledgeable version of the exact same species be different than its ancestors as far as learning capacity/intelligence goes? 

I also once asked on this forum whether philosophy or its emergence/revitalization is impacted by scientific discovery. Now I've asked this before on other forums and the informal consensus is that yes it is. So why should religion be exempt? What in all the ancient to present holistic scriptures of all known or extinct theistic religions cannot be used as a metaphor for something. My guess is that it's wide open, do what you please with what's written because you can. Unfortunately IMHO, it renders scriptures as nothing more than bullshit, a more valuable commodity Smile

Creator god, omni-everything, from nowhere, with no empirical evidence of even being has deemed our measly existence to be dependent upon believing in it. All of this, universe et al is inconsequential or less important than me being a good boy. It's a circular path that leads back to what's good and what's not. I can think of the most vile and despicable act one person can commit or be and find good in it. So naturally I eliminate good and evil from having any profound meaning when it comes to the survival of life. Too much BS overwhelms the mind at times or so it seems. 

That's a few reasons I'm an atheist. If there is some divine creature keeping a ledger on me to decide my afterlife then I hope to ask one question, why did you do it this way? Shucks, God may be saying metaphorically that you should be smart enough to realize that he/she should never have been surmised as real due to lack of evidence. That may also be a clue that there is no metaphysical, God or the Omni-creator is flesh and blood, a (once) living component of the universe just like us...heheheh
Reply
#8
(May 18, 2018 05:03 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote:
Quote:Religion should be interpreted openly as it's purity was expressed metaphorically to prevent logical refutation. Its symbolic language was used as a means to circumvent the gaps in knowledge that the lack of scientific knowledge left historically speaking. Beliefs are integral to consciousness and the Bible was written so that mankind can be inspired to inquire and to reflect on the dualistic nature of his consciousness in relation to good, evil and God.

Somewhere I once read where if we could pluck from the past a first member (preferably baby) of our species that he/she could learn everything a modern human has been taught ( drive a car, read books, technology, etc). Personally I don't see why not unless some evolutionary adaptations have taken place over last 100,000 years or so that would prevent it. So I don't buy the metaphorical language explanation. Why should a later, more scientifically advanced/knowledgeable version of the exact same species be different than its ancestors as far as learning capacity/intelligence goes? 

I also once asked on this forum whether philosophy or its emergence/revitalization is impacted by scientific discovery. Now I've asked this before on other forums and the informal consensus is that yes it is. So why should religion be exempt? What in all the ancient to present holistic scriptures of all known or extinct theistic religions cannot be used as a metaphor for something. My guess is that it's wide open, do what you please with what's written because you can. Unfortunately IMHO, it renders scriptures as nothing more than bullshit, a more valuable commodity Smile

Creator god, omni-everything, from nowhere, with no empirical evidence of even being has deemed our measly existence to be dependent upon believing in it. All of this, universe et al is inconsequential or less important than me being a good boy. It's a circular path that leads back to what's good and what's not. I can think of the most vile and despicable act one person can commit or be and find good in it. So naturally I eliminate good and evil from having any profound meaning when it comes to the survival of life. Too much BS overwhelms the mind at times or so it seems. 

That's a few reasons I'm an atheist. If there is some divine creature keeping a ledger on me to decide my afterlife then I hope to ask one question, why did you do it this way? Shucks, God may be saying metaphorically that you should be smart enough to realize that he/she should never have been surmised as real due to lack of evidence. That may also be a clue that there is no metaphysical, God or the Omni-creator is flesh and blood, a (once) living component of the universe just like us...heheheh


In regards to the general atheistic belief that one is a human being within an isolated universe of no significance or importance, a careful revision and adaptation is needed in the light of union. God's self-generated existence is not merely predicated upon whether or not one holds a positive or negative view in light of self-image, but rather the accessibility to the metaphysical world that is hidden behind the veil of material, physical appearances (i.e. the processes of primary emergence and immediacy of physical reality (a subset of ultimate reality)). The self-distribution of reality implies that the brain is not merely included in reality, but is reality, elevating the observer's influence over reality to that of being a prime character of the universe who's brain acts as a beacon or antenna for the supernatural. All the while in the pedestrian world happenings pan out and simultaneously coincide with the world of the supernatural, one finds oneself to be aware of a medium of greater significance in which one's purpose is congruent to the will of God simply by having been catapulted by one's complex brain states. In other words, you speak from ignorance of such a world.

Yazata Wrote:
(May 17, 2018 06:15 PM)Ostronomos Wrote: Educating children on the nature of God from a very young age results in a salubrious mindset

Who really knows whether or not God exists? And assuming that God exists, who truly knows the "nature of God"? We're begging multiple metaphysical and theological questions there.

(Eastern Orthodox Christian theology typically holds that humans can't know God's 'essence' at all, and only know God through his "energies". In other words, we can't know what God is, only what God does here in the created Earthly sphere.)  


I know with 100% certainty that the unseen exists. As for God's energies, I have experienced them in the days of my initiations into the world of God. It was the year 2012, and my brain entered states in which I could merely look at the sunlight on the wall and it would change color parallel to the direction my eyes moved in because I discovered that greater medium in which a variety of supernatural phenomenon could exist.

Quote:
Quote:in adulthood because it prepares them with the prerequisite knowledge on such dichotomies as good versus evil, God versus the Devil, right versus wrong, and moral versus immoral behavior.

Which assumes that we know what good and evil are, how to properly recognize them and what to do when moral disagreements arise. Again, we're begging a whole bunch of metaethical questions there.

I do not assume that objective good and evil exists, I know it does. I do not count subjective moral or petty and selfish disagreements among them
.
Quote:
Quote:Atheism is a disease of the mind because it is based on nothing but ignorance and blindness.

Perhaps. Or maybe it's intellectually healthy and based on sound critical thinking.  

Instead of constantly exhorting and preaching, self-styled gnostics (those like yourself who believe that they already know the deepest secrets of the universe) need to find a way to demonstrate to the rest of us whatever you are convinced we don't know. You need to convince us.


I have written extensively in multiple areas and fields in an attempt to prove my findings of the unseen, it is simply a matter of who can grasp it best and whether or not the objective proofs conflict with one's world view. But I do grant that more effort into proving that the unseen exists is in immediate demand, so I will put forward more arguments as we move into the future.



Quote:
Quote:Blindness to the metaphysical world that is only a smooth transition away from the Classical world of people, places and things depending on what state one's brain takes.

What is the "metaphysical world"?


The world of God.

Quote:You seem to be revving up your quantum mysticism again. (Without having ever studied quantum physics.) You are just assuming that the most extreme and outre interpretations of QM are true, and again that begs questions. (Metaphysical questions arguably. Is that blindness?)  

As for blindness to metaphysics, I'm profoundly interested in metaphysics. I'm interested in the foundations of logic and mathematics, in ontology, in time and space, in causality, in necessity and possibility, in the reality of abstract objects and in things like the so-called 'laws of physics'. I'm interested in ontological monism vs pluralism, in the unity of science, in scientific methodology and in how scientific theorizing relates to the lived world of human experience. I'm even interested in interpreting quantum physics (though I'm emphatically a layman regarding the technicalities).

I don't think that I'm blind to metaphysics at all. In fact, it's those kind of issues that attract me to boards like this.

The thing is, those are all open questions, subjects of current debate. I think that it's healthier to remain aware of what we don't know than to go charging off into foolishness. That's why I consider myself an agnostic regarding these kind of things.


I see agnosticism as the failure to take a position regarding metaphysical matters and thus a failure in eliminating ignorance and skepticism. The reasoning for God requires understanding that prayer is not merely a request but a resound acknowledgement of God while existing in the world of God, the world of the metaphysical. But only while existing in it.



Quote:I should probably add that you were calling for indoctrinating small children in your religious beliefs up above. But wouldn't the reason be that children are naive and unsophisticated, and arguably incapable of the kind of metaphysical vision that you are calling for? There seems to be a contradiction there. Can metaphysical vision be imposed by others, or must it be discovered on one's own?   


In the early stages of childhood it must be imposed, later discovered as that is the natural order of the learning process from infancy to adulthood.



Quote:
Quote:The Quantum Sciences already acknowledge the possibility of broader applications of the Copenhagen interpretation to metaphysics, so why aren't atheists moved to action by it?

Because the Copenhagen interpretation is only one of dozens of interpretations of quantum mechanics that have been proposed? Because Copenhagen isn't the quantum idealism that you seem to favor? Because none of this seems to have anything directly to do with God, atheism or religion?

Referencing Quantum Physics in this particular instance was an error on my part.


Quote:
Quote:The integrated theory on consciousness and its implications to panpsychism is one of our best glimmers of hope when it comes to wiping out the disease of atheism. I have witnessed a world which atheists believe not to exist and the idea of being alienated to my own position is appalling.

Believe whatever you want to believe, Ostro. I'm certainly not interested in converting you to anything. I just post my own views and it's up to you whether you find any of them plausible or convincing.

I certainly don't want to dismiss religious experience entirely. The problem that I see is that it's entirely subjective. A fundamentally private experience might indeed convince the person having the experience, but it does little to convince the rest of us out in the public world that we all share. That's doubly true when the private religious experience is dramatically at odds with other peoples' everyday experience and even with the experiences of others who claim to have had religious experiences of their own.

How can we tell the difference between veridicial religious experiences, imaginative fantasies and psychiatric delusions, if there's no confirming evidence in the objective world?


When the observer's perception and consciousness are consistent with their sanity, all the while existing in the world of God after which the evidence is then reported to those who do not know how to transition from the pedestrian world of blind nature into the world of God.



Quote:
Quote:I would like to return as a respected member of sciforums so that I may explain all of this,

I have no influence over there. Even if I put in a word for you, they wouldn't listen. And if you do return and you start preaching your weird Langan-stuff, they will just ban you again.

I am in the position to take a more sophisticated and formal approach the next time around.
Reply
#9
Quote:God's self-generated existence is not merely predicated upon whether or not one holds a positive or negative view in light of self-image, but rather the accessibility to the metaphysical world that is hidden behind the veil of material, physical appearances (i.e. the processes of primary emergence and immediacy of physical reality (a subset of ultimate reality)).

You've pretty much covered the 4 facets of theistic belief mentioned in my previous post. There may be more but I really don't take the time to think about it. 

I'm not going to insult theists or their religion. People believe all kinds of stuff. The timespan of Human life in the cosmos is like that of an infant if I use geological time, barely old enough to wipe its ass clear of waste intellectual/philosophical defecation. Want to live forever? Then start working on it by using what we know or can discover through science. Maybe someone already did.....you know who I mean. Wink

So Ostro, do you think I believe everything I write?
Reply
#10
(May 18, 2018 09:12 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote:
Quote:God's self-generated existence is not merely predicated upon whether or not one holds a positive or negative view in light of self-image, but rather the accessibility to the metaphysical world that is hidden behind the veil of material, physical appearances (i.e. the processes of primary emergence and immediacy of physical reality (a subset of ultimate reality)).

You've pretty much covered the 4 facets of theistic belief mentioned in my previous post. There may be more but I really don't take the time to think about it. 

I'm not going to insult theists or their religion. People believe all kinds of stuff. The timespan of Human life in the cosmos is like that of an infant if I use geological time, barely old enough to wipe its ass clear of waste intellectual/philosophical defecation. Want to live forever? Then start working on it by using what we know or can discover through science. Maybe someone already did.....you know who I mean. Wink

So Ostro, do you think I believe everything I write?

I refuse to dignify that with a response so I will just say that the challenge is in seeing eye to eye with the most privy.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  NY wants to ban religious vaccine exemptions + UK non-religious figures jump 46% C C 3 241 Apr 14, 2019 06:36 PM
Last Post: Syne
  China: religious leaders to carry religious ID cards C C 0 495 Mar 5, 2016 03:01 AM
Last Post: C C



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)