Einstein and the Cosmic Man

[Nick_A]

There is no societal religious slavery. Your are referring to the effects of devolved secularized religion.

So you trot out your true Scotsman fallacy for the umpteenth time.

Basically you are agreeing that most religions DO oppress, and ARE oppressive. Good we agree, and that they are usually far worse than secular societies.

However, not YOUR religion (which remains undefined and appears to have a membership of one).

Your anti religious bigotry reminds me anti-woman bigotry. If I were to say all women are the same and nothing but a bunch of inferior oppressive whores you would be insulted. You would ask how I could be so shallow as to group all women together into one category. Yet for you religion is nothing but an institution featuring nothing but oppression with no redeeming features and to think otherwise insults scotsman. The results of progressive education.

[Belinda]

Nick_A wrote:

When the fruits of my concern for truth become truly beneficial, they will be divisive enough to arouse the desire to kill.

When I quoted "by their fruits you shall know them" I referred to ordinary people who simply want to live in peace and bring up their children in safety. I did not imply that violent fanatics bear good fruit. I think you are simply misled, Nick, and you should choose your masters more carefully.

[Arising_uk]

... When the fruits of my concern for truth become truly beneficial, they will be divisive enough to arouse the desire to kill. I'm not there yet. I still have a long ways to go.

'Jesus'.

You're not even on the first step Nick.

[Nick_A]

... When the fruits of my concern for truth become truly beneficial, they will be divisive enough to arouse the desire to kill. I'm not there yet. I still have a long ways to go.

'Jesus'.

You're not even on the first step Nick.

I know. This is why I cannot be considered truly divisive and worthy of killing. Those like Socrates and Jesus are divisive enough to be worthy of killing. I am much less than them and am fortunate even to attract condemnation

[Nick_A]

Nick_A, enlightened souls are recognised by the fruits that they bear. Your brand of spirituality, however much it benefits Nick and Friends ,is exclusive and divisive.

Your trouble is that as a collectivist you do not respect individuality. The "good" people are those who are content to provide their function as atoms of the great beast. In contrast I admire the individuals whose search for and dedication to truth annoys the Great Beast so are considered divisive. I am fortunate that there is an ancestor of mind who was an incredible individual so appreciate the value of individuality, Naturally this attitude attracts condemnation.

[Greta]

There is no societal religious slavery. Your are referring to the effects of devolved secularized religion.

So you trot out your true Scotsman fallacy for the umpteenth time.

Basically you are agreeing that most religions DO oppress, and ARE oppressive. Good we agree, and that they are usually far worse than secular societies.

However, not YOUR religion (which remains undefined and appears to have a membership of one).

Your anti religious bigotry reminds me anti-woman bigotry. If I were to say all women are the same and nothing but a bunch of inferior oppressive whores you would be insulted. You would ask how I could be so shallow as to group all women together into one category. Yet for you religion is nothing but an institution featuring nothing but oppression with no redeeming features and to think otherwise insults scotsman. The results of progressive education.

Yes, I should have just pointed to the odious Abrahamic traditions; Buddhism is far less dominating and harmful. Thanks.

It is not anti-religious bigotry to note that most nations of the world are still controlled by theists subscribing to Abrahamic religions who consistently work against the wishes of the greater, mostly secular, populace - aka continued oppression in an unbroken chain in the west since the Inquisition, and well before in some cases.

Religion did all of that, not secularism (pardon my lack of political correctness as I know this offends you so). It is irrational to blame secular thinking for religion's sins. Forget the blame shifting and face the issue square on.

If you were capable of thinking even one step ahead, you'd know that progressive education did not exist when I attended school. I had a thoroughly religious education like the rest of my generation - Sunday School, Church, Chapel, Divinity etc - and the only thing I can remember of any of it is a prayer group where Martin Lloyd sang, "Everybody loves my body sometime" to the tune of the Dean Martin hit and being unable to stop giggling.

This is why you, poor long suffering righteous one, must suffer amongst us heathens - not through education but because the lies we were told were too laughably transparent to believe beyond the time of Santa Claus. You need to realise that, when the grownups at this forum were educated, the more sophisticated notion of deities as "the ground of being" were not known outside of, I suppose, an occasional rogue theologian's study. Back then you either believed in the big man in the sky who created us all like a Great Lego Maker or you didn't.

[Nick_A]

So you trot out your true Scotsman fallacy for the umpteenth time.

Basically you are agreeing that most religions DO oppress, and ARE oppressive. Good we agree, and that they are usually far worse than secular societies.

However, not YOUR religion (which remains undefined and appears to have a membership of one).

Your anti religious bigotry reminds me anti-woman bigotry. If I were to say all women are the same and nothing but a bunch of inferior oppressive whores you would be insulted. You would ask how I could be so shallow as to group all women together into one category. Yet for you religion is nothing but an institution featuring nothing but oppression with no redeeming features and to think otherwise insults scotsman. The results of progressive education.

Yes, I should have just pointed to the odious Abrahamic traditions; Buddhism is far less dominating and harmful. Thanks.

It is not anti-religious bigotry to note that most nations of the world are still controlled by theists subscribing to Abrahamic religions who consistently work against the wishes of the greater, mostly secular, populace - aka continued oppression in an unbroken chain in the west since the Inquisition, and well before in some cases.

Religion did all of that, not secularism (pardon my lack of political correctness as I know this offends you so). It is irrational to blame secular thinking for religion's sins. Forget the blame shifting and face the issue square on.

If you were capable of thinking even one step ahead, you'd know that progressive education did not exist when I attended school. I had a thoroughly religious education like the rest of my generation - Sunday School, Church, Chapel, Divinity etc - and the only thing I can remember of any of it is a prayer group where Martin Lloyd sang, "Everybody loves my body sometime" to the tune of the Dean Martin hit and being unable to stop giggling.

This is why you, poor long suffering righteous one, must suffer amongst us heathens - not through education but because the lies we were told were too laughably transparent to believe beyond the time of Santa Claus. You need to realise that, when the grownups at this forum were educated, the more sophisticated notion of deities as "the ground of being" were not known outside of, I suppose, an occasional rogue theologian's study. Back then you either believed in the big man in the sky who created us all like a Great Lego Maker or you didn't.

As usual you confuse Christianity with man made Christendom. Christianity is taught in a way that nourishes the higher parts of the soul while a Christendom education attracts the lower parts of the soul. Atheism is helpful for exposing the effects of Christendom but is ignorant of Christianity so prevents those who would be open to it becoming aware of it.

"The rôle of the intelligence—that part of us which affirms and denies and formulates opinions—is merely to submit. All that I conceive of as true is less true than those things of which I cannot conceive the truth, but which I love. Saint John of the Cross calls faith a night. With those who have had a Christian education, the lower parts of the soul become attached to these mysteries when they have no right to do so. That is why such people need a purification of which Saint John of the Cross describes the stages. Atheism and incredulity constitute an equivalent of this purification." ~ Simone Weil

[Arising_uk]

I know. This is why I cannot be considered truly divisive and worthy of killing. Those like Socrates and Jesus are divisive enough to be worthy of killing. I am much less than them and am fortunate even to attract condemnation

But the steps are easy nick, just truly believe or you could follow the Buddha as he left a clear way.

[Greta]

Your anti religious bigotry reminds me anti-woman bigotry. If I were to say all women are the same and nothing but a bunch of inferior oppressive whores you would be insulted. You would ask how I could be so shallow as to group all women together into one category. Yet for you religion is nothing but an institution featuring nothing but oppression with no redeeming features and to think otherwise insults scotsman. The results of progressive education.

Yes, I should have just pointed to the odious Abrahamic traditions; Buddhism is far less dominating and harmful. Thanks.

It is not anti-religious bigotry to note that most nations of the world are still controlled by theists subscribing to Abrahamic religions who consistently work against the wishes of the greater, mostly secular, populace - aka continued oppression in an unbroken chain in the west since the Inquisition, and well before in some cases.

Religion did all of that, not secularism (pardon my lack of political correctness as I know this offends you so). It is irrational to blame secular thinking for religion's sins. Forget the blame shifting and face the issue square on.

If you were capable of thinking even one step ahead, you'd know that progressive education did not exist when I attended school. I had a thoroughly religious education like the rest of my generation - Sunday School, Church, Chapel, Divinity etc - and the only thing I can remember of any of it is a prayer group where Martin Lloyd sang, "Everybody loves my body sometime" to the tune of the Dean Martin hit and being unable to stop giggling.

This is why you, poor long suffering righteous one, must suffer amongst us heathens - not through education but because the lies we were told were too laughably transparent to believe beyond the time of Santa Claus. You need to realise that, when the grownups at this forum were educated, the more sophisticated notion of deities as "the ground of being" were not known outside of, I suppose, an occasional rogue theologian's study. Back then you either believed in the big man in the sky who created us all like a Great Lego Maker or you didn't.

As usual you confuse Christianity with man made Christendom. Christianity is taught in a way that nourishes the higher parts of the soul while a Christendom education attracts the lower parts of the soul. Atheism is helpful for exposing the effects of Christendom but is ignorant of Christianity so prevents those who would be open to it becoming aware of it.

"The rôle of the intelligence—that part of us which affirms and denies and formulates opinions—is merely to submit. All that I conceive of as true is less true than those things of which I cannot conceive the truth, but which I love. Saint John of the Cross calls faith a night. With those who have had a Christian education, the lower parts of the soul become attached to these mysteries when they have no right to do so. That is why such people need a purification of which Saint John of the Cross describes the stages. Atheism and incredulity constitute an equivalent of this purification." ~ Simone Weil

Nick, all you are saying is that you think that these groups are doing things wrong:
1. Christians, Muslims and Jews
2. The non religious
3. Women, especially feminists.

These people, however, are getting it right:
1. You
2. The Simone Weil Appreciation and Mediation Panel (aka SWAMP )
3. Trump.

Unknown:
1. Buddhists

The issue here is that SWAMP and you do not control education policy in the west (or anywhere). Indeed that you do not rule the world is a thoroughly unacceptable situation. In an ideal world it should be obvious to the other seven billion people that you are right and they are doing life all wrong, but alas, they know not what they do, locked as they are within Plato's cave. Not like us. We know better, eh?

[Nick_A]

I know. This is why I cannot be considered truly divisive and worthy of killing. Those like Socrates and Jesus are divisive enough to be worthy of killing. I am much less than them and am fortunate even to attract condemnation

But the steps are easy nick, just truly believe or you could follow the Buddha as he left a clear way.

Buddhism isn't for me. I know its value and how it is good for others but I am attracted to the depths of Christianity which answers my questions.

[Arising_uk]

Buddhism isn't for me. I know its value and how it is good for others but I am attracted to the depths of Christianity which answers my questions.

Personally I think it the same as Buddhism in the sense it's not about answering your questions but living the life. Something you show scant evidence of doing.

[Nick_A]

Yes, I should have just pointed to the odious Abrahamic traditions; Buddhism is far less dominating and harmful. Thanks.

It is not anti-religious bigotry to note that most nations of the world are still controlled by theists subscribing to Abrahamic religions who consistently work against the wishes of the greater, mostly secular, populace - aka continued oppression in an unbroken chain in the west since the Inquisition, and well before in some cases.

Religion did all of that, not secularism (pardon my lack of political correctness as I know this offends you so). It is irrational to blame secular thinking for religion's sins. Forget the blame shifting and face the issue square on.

If you were capable of thinking even one step ahead, you'd know that progressive education did not exist when I attended school. I had a thoroughly religious education like the rest of my generation - Sunday School, Church, Chapel, Divinity etc - and the only thing I can remember of any of it is a prayer group where Martin Lloyd sang, "Everybody loves my body sometime" to the tune of the Dean Martin hit and being unable to stop giggling.

This is why you, poor long suffering righteous one, must suffer amongst us heathens - not through education but because the lies we were told were too laughably transparent to believe beyond the time of Santa Claus. You need to realise that, when the grownups at this forum were educated, the more sophisticated notion of deities as "the ground of being" were not known outside of, I suppose, an occasional rogue theologian's study. Back then you either believed in the big man in the sky who created us all like a Great Lego Maker or you didn't.

As usual you confuse Christianity with man made Christendom. Christianity is taught in a way that nourishes the higher parts of the soul while a Christendom education attracts the lower parts of the soul. Atheism is helpful for exposing the effects of Christendom but is ignorant of Christianity so prevents those who would be open to it becoming aware of it.

"The rôle of the intelligence—that part of us which affirms and denies and formulates opinions—is merely to submit. All that I conceive of as true is less true than those things of which I cannot conceive the truth, but which I love. Saint John of the Cross calls faith a night. With those who have had a Christian education, the lower parts of the soul become attached to these mysteries when they have no right to do so. That is why such people need a purification of which Saint John of the Cross describes the stages. Atheism and incredulity constitute an equivalent of this purification." ~ Simone Weil

Nick, all you are saying is that you think that these groups are doing things wrong:
1. Christians, Muslims and Jews
2. The non religious
3. Women, especially feminists.

These people, however, are getting it right:
1. You
2. The Simone Weil Appreciation and Mediation Panel (aka SWAMP )
3. Trump.

Unknown:
1. Buddhists

The issue here is that SWAMP and you do not control education policy in the west (or anywhere). Indeed that you do not rule the world is a thoroughly unacceptable situation. In an ideal world it should be obvious to the other seven billion people that you are right and they are doing life all wrong, but alas, they know not what they do, locked as they are within Plato's cave. Not like us. We know better, eh?

Greta, why are you so angry? You are attacking what you don't understand. You should know that I take the human condition seriously. That being the case objective right and wrong doesn't exist in the world. Hypocrisy forces us to create our own standards of right and wrong depending upon external conditions.. Objective good and evil would be understood by Einstein's cosmic man but for us, floundering around in Plato's cave, we live by our own conceptions of right and wrong.

[Nick_A]

Buddhism isn't for me. I know its value and how it is good for others but I am attracted to the depths of Christianity which answers my questions.

Personally I think it the same as Buddhism in the sense it's not about answering your questions but living the life. Something you show scant evidence of doing.

It sounds good but anyone who has done some serious inner work has experienced resistance and how it reveals itself through hypocrisy. Western Buddhism doesn't value the necessity of grace for the human psych to become normal. Also, my interest is in establishing the complimentary relationship of science and religion essential if humanity is to survive technology. Buddhism doesn't invite the quality of pondering necessary to to understand the relationship. Meditation is insufficient.

[Greta]

As usual you confuse Christianity with man made Christendom. Christianity is taught in a way that nourishes the higher parts of the soul while a Christendom education attracts the lower parts of the soul. Atheism is helpful for exposing the effects of Christendom but is ignorant of Christianity so prevents those who would be open to it becoming aware of it.

Nick, all you are saying is that you think that these groups are doing things wrong:
1. Christians, Muslims and Jews
2. The non religious
3. Women, especially feminists.

These people, however, are getting it right:
1. You
2. The Simone Weil Appreciation and Mediation Panel (aka SWAMP )
3. Trump.

Unknown:
1. Buddhists

The issue here is that SWAMP and you do not control education policy in the west (or anywhere). Indeed that you do not rule the world is a thoroughly unacceptable situation. In an ideal world it should be obvious to the other seven billion people that you are right and they are doing life all wrong, but alas, they know not what they do, locked as they are within Plato's cave. Not like us. We know better, eh?

Greta, why are you so angry? You are attacking what you don't understand. You should know that I take the human condition seriously. That being the case objective right and wrong doesn't exist in the world. Hypocrisy forces us to create our own standards of right and wrong depending upon external conditions.. Objective good and evil would be understood by Einstein's cosmic man but for us, floundering around in Plato's cave, we live by our own conceptions of right and wrong.

Yes, I have been angry the last few days. It's disappointment with the public conversation. It's hard to talk about the natural world, including humans as part of it, just because it's interesting without some svoloch* making a drama or some political or social or religious point. Then there's all the crackpottery going on as trust in science is seemingly replaced by whatever shiny ideological bauble is dangled in front of people's noses.

I don't figure that your ideas of "objective" right and wrong need any fuss because "objective" morality is obvious - "do unto others etc" and also to generally prioritise sentience, ie. a human over a chimp over a guinea pig. The subjective aspect is more complex because what we personally value may be dismissed by the many, and vice versa.






* Thank you

[Nick_A]

Greta

Yes, I have been angry the last few days. It's disappointment with the public conversation. It's hard to talk about the natural world, including humans as part of it, just because it's interesting without some svoloch* making a drama or some political or social or religious point. Then there's all the crackpottery going on as trust in science is seemingly replaced by whatever shiny ideological bauble is dangled in front of people's noses.

You are disappointed with public conversation but are you part of the problem or the solution? Could you open to what Einstein wrote which was posted in the opening post? Public discussion just argues opinions. You have given no indication that you are aware of the importance of a rare quality of thought that opens the path to transcending arguing opinions. So if you are not and have already forgotten what you read in the OP you can only be part of the problem. For example Einstein wrote:

Many people think that the progress of the human race is based on experiences of an empirical, critical nature, but I say that true knowledge is to be had only through a philosophy of deduction. For it is intuition that improves the world, not just following a trodden path of thought.
Intuition makes us look at unrelated facts and then think about them until they can all be brought under one law. To look for related facts means holding onto what one has instead of searching for new facts.
Intuition is the father of new knowledge, while empiricism is nothing but an accumulation of old knowledge. Intuition, not intellect, is the ‘open sesame’ of yourself.
Indeed, it is not intellect, but intuition which advances humanity. Intuition tells man his purpose in this life.
I do not need any promise of eternity to be happy. My eternity is now. I have only one interest: to fulfill my purpose here where I am.
This purpose is not given me by my parents or my surroundings. It is induced by some unknown factors. These factors make me a part of eternity.”

You are content to argue empiricism and support science thinking that somehow it is beneficial for the psychologically fallen human condition. That just makes you part of the problem.