The atheist crusades must stop!

Post Reply New Topic

before you go any further, why don't you stop and educate yourselves about what my position actually is, rather than
grasping at straws and hoping that you will be able to use some batch of standard canned atheism arguments in this case.
None of that is going to work, at least in part because I hail from atheism.

In the most literal sense, I'm just as atheist as you are.

I don't think that "God" exists, I don't think that magical forces control nature, and I don't think any religions are really that
great either. I'm not approaching this from a religious perspective, i'm a scientist with access to waking theta states of consciousness. This makes both religion and atheism moot from my perspective; I can tell a christian how to talk to god,
or how to (in theory) write that ID textbook (Not that i would, mind you, but i could.) I could also do as good or better
at demonstrating the logical fallacies that exist within religion(s.)

So stop, breathe, quit emotionalizing this, and consider what I'm actually saying and where I am actually coming from.

General
1.Psychology is the study of the human mind. Most specifically the psyche, most generally All of human behavior.
2. The human Brain is composed of between 40 and 70 different organs, depending upon
how you define differences. These are called brodmanns brain areas. Each brain area
is responsible for specific types of brain processes and mental functions.
3. The human mind has four main operational conditions, they are beta brainwave states, alpha brainwave states, delta brainwave states, and theta brainwave states. Each of these might be further subdivided into waking or sleeping states of consciousness.
4. Beta brainwave states are those in which the dominant area of the brain is the frontal lobes. Alpha brainwave states are those in which the dominant area of the brain is the Mammalian brain or Occipital lobes, and Delta brainwaves states are those where the brain is dominated by the Reptilian Brain or brain stem. Theta brain wave states are
a second waking condition in which the body is healed, or, in which the normal flow of
dominance from top of brain to bottom of brain is reversed, and the bottom of the brain
loads information into the top, which is then experienced as dreams.
5. We have instincts which compel us to seek out gratification of our needs. All behavior is motivated by a conscious or unconscious belief that said behavior will get some need met.
6. Psychology involves first an instinct, which compels a thought process, and then a planning or strategizing session in which the individual uses their maps of reality and belief systems as well as learned knowledge and social conditioning to arrive at an end
product of doing something to get what you want. Schema are maps of reality which we
use as tools to meet our needs .Social Conditioning and personal experience and learning
play vital roles in helping the mind to think up tactics to meet needs.
7. Criminal behavior is behavior which that person believes will get their needs met. Punishment was well demonstrated to have little or no effect on learning curve. What is required for a person to change their behavior is a functional tactic that does work to get their needs met.
8. Groupthink is a social phenomenon of psychology where a group uses false
consensus process to end up behaving stupidly as a group. Groupthink occurs when
people cave into social pressures, where propaganda replaces knowledge or facts, and where group identity is created out of participation in group delusions, lies, codependency, or criminality. Groupthink is how a mob drifts to the lowest common denominator, and why a mob is potentially vicious, evil, and sociopathic. Group
authority ameliorates and dissolves personal conscience, and by having their emotions
manipulated and their social identity threatened, people give up their own better judgment and accept the judgment of the most psychopathic member of the group.
9. Pack Psychology is the psychology exhibited primarily by mammals in small groups
in which 3 primary roles are assumed by social participants. The roles are Alpha- the leader, Beta- the followers, and Delta- the orbiters. In human society that translates in a super-simplified way into bullies, cliques, and nerds.
10. Problem solving psychology must contend against groupthink and pack psychology in the arena of opinion. Problem solving psychology is emotionally neutral and uses the mind and logic to look at all aspects of a problem and try to come up with a viable problem solving process. Problem solving psychology is the worst enemy of both
Rightist and Leftist Dogmatists. True problem solving psychology comes from the place of the radical middle. It takes in all sides and all viewpoints, and it gives each its fair dues
And attention in creating a problem solving process that works from the big picture down through into the nano details.


Psychology;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology
http://psychology.about.com/
http://www.psychology.org/
http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-psychlgy.html
http://www.socialpsychology.org/

Brodmanns brain areas and etc;
http://www.umich.edu/~cogneuro/jpg/Brodmann.html
http://spot.colorado.edu/~dubin/talks/b ... dmann.html
http://www.whale.to/b/brain.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brodmann_area
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_re ... uman_brain
http://thebrain.mcgill.ca/flash/capsule ... une05.html
http://www.csuchico.edu/~pmccaff/syllab ... unit4.html
http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/qa2.html

brainwaves;
http://www.brainwaves.com/brain.html
http://pages.prodigy.net/unohu/brainwaves.htm
http://brain.web-us.com/brainwavesfunction.htm
http://www.crossroadsinstitute.org/eeg.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainwaves

It's Jesus not Yeshua you genius.

Not true at all. The core belief of atheism is that religious claims are unproven and unlikely (and occassionally, quite absurb), therefore they should not be subscribed to as true.

An atheist (or a theist, for that matter) can recognize that sometimes religion can be personally or socially useful. Herbert's Missionaria Protectiva comes to mind, and one US President was quite skeptical about the truth of religion, but feared the social consequences if the hoi poloi did not believe.

While many atheists do recognize that religion has been quite damaging across much of history, this is also recognized by many religious believers (who attempt to rationalize by labeling the religions as apostate, wayward, false, or deviant).



Why do you assume I am atheist? I am merely disputing your characterization of atheism, which I think is a mis-characterization. You have awarded yourself two doctorates in religious studies, yet you cannot honestly describe the positions of atheism.

Last edited by monty on 28 Aug 2008, 12:08 pm, edited 2 times in total.

BTW how does an atheist tell a Christian how to tallk to God? Christians don't need that kind of help from non-believers.

Not true at all. The core belief of atheism is that religious claims are unproven and unlikely (and occassionally, quite absurb), therefore they should not be subscribed to as true.
-------------
If atheism limited itself to that, then there would be nothing much to discuss.
It goes on to say that there is nothing of value in the idea of spirituality, and to more or less make every ethnocentric fallacy that christianity does, including the creation of its own version of an in crowd.

further more, there are some claims that can not only be made but which can be "proven" in the sense that anybody who
follows the formula given can obtain the same or similar results.

I have no arguments or beef with atheism in that, I think religions in general are pretty nutty. But its just as nutty
to think that religions have anything really to do with spirituality, and, more importantly, the only way a person can not have personal spiritual experiences is by being shut down socially.
-----------

An atheist (or a theist, for that matter) can recognize that sometimes religion can be personally or socially useful. Herbert's Missionaria Protectiva comes to mind, and one US President was quite skeptical about the truth of religion, but feared the social consequences if the hoi poloi did not believe.
------------
Me personally, as such, i don't see any good use for religion other than to raid them as paradigms for anything useful.
This is an entirely rational and pragmatic process, and is made most relevant in terms of thinking about what works
to obtain altered states of consciousness.

I prefer secular and rational ethics, and I am acutely aware that the good parts of any religion can only be integrated into
a rational practice via the means of comparative psychology.
----------

While many atheists do recognize that religion has been quite damaging across much of history, this is also recognized by many religious believers (who attempt to rationalize by labeling the religions as apostate, wayward, false, or deviants).
----------
you seem to think that defining atheism for the purposes of this conversation and your perspective is useful. okay. Theres nothing here I don't already know. You are missing and evading the point. Atheism is a reaction to spiritual abuse.
As such, it is just another form of spiritual abuse.

just out of curiosity, are you familiar with alan moore? he shares a lot of similar viewpoints (though with some minor semantic differences).

anyways, i think your opinion on shrooms and lsd are off and represent a kind of "yeah, well i do more work so my way is better" attitude...like saying that because you use a hand drill instead of a power drill that your way is better. i think it requires more maturity to gain something from the experience but that's the only way in which it's more pure to do it the other way(since your way requires maturity and focus rather than just getting there first and hoping you have the maturity an focus). and i'd advise against lsd because it normally has a ton of impurities and it makes the experience quite negative either during or after. shrooms are pretty much a go, though. it's johns hopkins approved!

Err.. No, not true. Even taken metaphorically it doesn't make much sense.



So what is a religion then? You can't just change the definition til you get what you want.



And in which reputable source did you find that?



While there are some people who decided to be atheist after rejecting Christianity, atheism is non-belief in all religions, not just Christianity.



Not, not true. Atheism is when you don't believe in spirituality, not when you are "unable to access" spirituality.
It is so much easier to disprove something when you change its definition, isn't it Captain Strawman?



Where exactly are you getting this from? Your claim (later on in the thread) not to believe in anything is looking very iffy as well.



You know what, that claim is comedy!



Really... that's so much nonsense you wouldn't find it in a tabloid astrology page.


And that's just one post. I don't really need to argue against anything here. Most of what you've said can be characterized as "wacky".

At which university did you recieve your degrees by the way?

There are some atheists that fall into that category, but I don't think it is accurate or useful to paint all with such a broad brush. The abused/abuser type is noisier and more obnoxious, and therefore more memorable. I know several quiet athiests - most people around them have no idea because they lack missionary zeal and a holier than thou attitude - they simply do not believe.

"autodidactic" = "self-taught" which is what he said he is. For me, I rather learn from books than pay so many tens of thousands of dollars on a piece of paper. Knowledge is my goal, though I'd like a job at some point in my history.

BTW how does an atheist tell a Christian how to tallk to God? Christians don't need that kind of help from non-believers.
------------
It would be better for you to think in terms of me having two different conversations. While this may be hard for you to appreciate, the truth is that my perspective is large enough to encompass both sides. As obi wan kenobi once told luke while walking around glowing as a ghost "you are going to find that the truths we believe in very much depend on your point of view." (or. something like that.)

To put it in perspective for you, the entire argument from my perspective is just an argument between two branches of one
paradigm tree. The difference may seem very large to you, but to me, I have to descend from my normative perspective to even tell them apart- at all.

For your purposes, thus, it would be better for you to consider me as simply a person who talks with what you would term God.

This is how you frame and reference reality, and its completely true, given your perspective. From An atheists perspective,
That would be described very differently if said atheist had any lucidity- Which is a paradox, their cognitive dissonance does not allow them to see how science actually proves that god does exist. They have a different definition of everything.

So, what you mean by "non believer" is simply not true of me. Instead, I have direct experience, and so "Belief" as such is not required. At the same time, that direct experience gives me a much clearer window into whats actually real and what isn't.

"God" might be rationally defined and the net effect of the field of quantum information as it operates in the entire universe. Consciousness arises as an emergent property out of quantum information; specifically in any system with a large number of nodes which share information. You are a biochemical system with biochemical nodes called brain cells.
Consciousness arises in you because that large number of nodes communicates. The complexity of each node adds to the energy potential of the field, and allows consciousness to arise in a space orders of magnitude smaller than sheer quantum information generated consciousness. The universe as a whole has consciousness because all quanta are sharing information with each other. You are not separate from that field, you are part of it. You can call this God, and others
can call it other things. Atheists would prefer to pretend that quantum information and its effects don't exist at all.

Having thus defined "God", lets move on to how to communicate with it. This requires a process of id resolution in which
the mind gradually resolves the issues of the subliminal mind, and comes to what might be called dynamic inner peace.
Obtaining first waking alpha, then delta, and then theta brain wave conditions, each step of the way resolving more shadow issues. In the case of alpha brainwaves, the limbic system and mammalian brain. In the case of delta brain waves,
the reptile brain. In the case of theta brain waves, the two hemispheres and the whole brain, and especially the optic circuit, as wel las the temporal lobes and occipital lobes.

Once a person comes to the place of true inner silence, the whole of the self can be turned into a sounding board, or a sense organ. Ones own personal sentience stilled can then begin to pick up the resonances at play in the larger field of sentience which it is surrounded by.

This is of course a very super simplified explanation, but, I hope that it answers your question for now.

there is no consonance without dissonance as its counterpoint.

Right - I think he is getting razzed because he claims that he autodidactically acquired the equivalent of multiple PhDs in religious topics, and then rambles on about various topics the way he did. Maybe he autodidacted himself beyond being educated directly to the role of nutty professor?

There are some atheists that fall into that category, but I don't think it is accurate or useful to paint all with such a broad brush.
-----------
This is a very good point. I think that in some senses, the definition of how true it is of any given atheist is (unfortunately)
the trolls definition. If it gets your goat, raises your ire, or creates an emotional reaction, then its probably true of you.
If you just sort of ho hum about it and such, then its clearly less true.
----------


The abused/abuser type is noisier and more obnoxious, and therefore more memorable.
---------
And ten times more likely to bother to argue at all in the first place.
----------


I know several quiet athiests - most people around them have no idea because they lack missionary zeal and a holier than thou attitude - they simply do not believe.
------------
there you have it. If you encounter an atheist with missionary like zeal, what does this tell you?
Theres really if you think about it nothing more ironic than an atheist with a holier than thou attitude-
i mean- they claim theres nothing holy... lol.

As on one hand a self described atheist, I am well aware of the spectrum that does exist.
My point again to any given atheist is that the whole thing is moot unless they can obtain waking theta states.
If atheism is just an excuse to abandon the quest termed "spiritual" (and diabolize it) then that kind of atheism completely misses the point. We can reterm it psychonautics and leave "spirituality" out of it. christianity operates to shut people down and to make psychonautics impossible. The proof of this most culturally significant is the use of intoxicants in pursuit of altered states of consciousness. Obviously such people can't get out of beta brain wave states and are willing to poision
themselves to make a brief escape attempt.

In this, in my opinion, again, there is only one kind of sane "atheist" and that is the psychonaut. That doesn't mean that they have necessarily obtained the waking theta state, but it does require that they are making efforts and progress.

Abraham maslow is highly relevant here. Whatever you may wish to call them, we have "spiritual" or "transcendent" needs; IE we are drawn back up the ladder of states of consciousness; and sooner or later we are going to break for them.
If that means drugs or video games or BDSM, then what you have is a whole lot of dead ends. The heightened theta activity caused by playing video games is addictive for that reason. If thats the closest that person can get to waking theta
states, then they will continue to throw away time and energy in that direction.
And our society is designed on every level to trap people so that they don't make it out of the "matrix."

Ah right. I misread that as him claiming that he had actually received all those qualifications.
I don't see anything wrong with being self-taught, although I'd guess it would make it more difficult to find a job.

I still have to doubt that prometheuspann has taught himself to doctorate level in world religions, among others, when he apparently doesn't know what atheism is.

prometheuspann wrote:
Christianity is not a religion,


So what is a religion then? You can't just change the definition til you get what you want.
-----------
Christianity is a political and economic system. Religions are methods to obtain altered states of consciousness.

-----------
While there are some people who decided to be atheist after rejecting Christianity, atheism is non-belief in all religions, not just Christianity.
---------
This kind of cognitive dissonance is particularly telling. You think i don't know that?
----------


Not, not true. Atheism is when you don't believe in spirituality, not when you are "unable to access" spirituality.
----------
Which is the same thing, whether or not you get it.
---------


Where exactly are you getting this from? Your claim (later on in the thread) not to believe in anything is looking very iffy as well.
-----------
"Faith" is the homing signal of con artists. I have direct experience. I worked hard for it.
-------

Wait, isn't spirituality just waking theta waves? Surely, you can persuade an atheist that theta-dominant brain waves exist??