I was watching The Believer with actor Ryan Gosling as the main character, an anti-semite who is a young jewish man himself.
I really enjoyed seeing the point of view of someone who is born and raised to believe one philosophy to one day feeling the need to completely destroy that very philosophy. Sure it's just a movie that I watched but how many people out there have really felt this way? I know many atheists that were once Christians. Sure they may despise Christianity and anything or anyone Christian affiliated but how many of them have grown to hate it so much that they would actually try to harm these people?
I also came across a quite terrible but amusing movie An American Carol who pokes fun at anti-American documentors, Muslim terrorists, along with many others, but what I found most amusing was them poking fun at Radical Christians here's the video:
Sure it's funny or highly offensive but in all seriousness what gives any people the right to enforce their beliefs/philosophies/ideals on others? What is it that triggers something to go of in someones head that it is the right thing to blow someones head off just because they don't believe, think, or feel the same way as them?
As Americans today we may automatically assume I'm referencing muslim terrorists. But what about the Crusades? The Holocaust? The Civil War?
So far I understand why religion came to be but where/how does death and destruction play into all this?
Is it all about ego? Or is it really a matter of survival?
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Continue being a Skeptic Re: Cathar Religion
c1barkey Mar. 17,2010 7:21am
As I was talking to my boyfriend about how am I supposed to get out seven posts when I know absolutely nothing about religions and don't even know what to say...he mentioned how he studied Cathar. This is completely unknown to me and I definitely never heard of this religion. I am not sure if anyone else has heard of it, but I am going to focus my blogs and my website on this religion since he seems so versed on it and I can learn from him at home.
This class is going to be my biggest challenge, especially when it comes to posting. Religion is confusing to me and I really don't understand most of it. I guess growing up without religion gives me a different outlook on it and a different mindset coming into it. I seem to question religion more than believe or follow it. Sometimes, I feel like I need to see the proof in order to believe and understand.
thirteenaudrey Mar. 17, 2010 1:40pm
I think it's great that you know nothing of religion first hand but why stick toanalyzing one religion that is going to be introduced to you through one perspective?
I really think you should take the time to at least wikipedia the main religions we are studying in this class to at least have some knowledge of them and from there I think you should post all your questions that you have concerning these religions beliefs. I mean it is great to focus and learn many things about one religion but doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of taking this class?
Good luck with your blog/posts, just don't be afraid to explore outside the Cathar religion. There are everyday things that can be construed as religious and you'd be surprised that you know more about religion than you actually thought.
For one you should really watch the crop circle video post within our first weeks lesson plan. It should give you a great start as to learning how or why people are believers or skeptics.
In fact you are a skeptic and I really think you should question the hell out of believers. So don't sell yourself short.
As I was talking to my boyfriend about how am I supposed to get out seven posts when I know absolutely nothing about religions and don't even know what to say...he mentioned how he studied Cathar. This is completely unknown to me and I definitely never heard of this religion. I am not sure if anyone else has heard of it, but I am going to focus my blogs and my website on this religion since he seems so versed on it and I can learn from him at home.
This class is going to be my biggest challenge, especially when it comes to posting. Religion is confusing to me and I really don't understand most of it. I guess growing up without religion gives me a different outlook on it and a different mindset coming into it. I seem to question religion more than believe or follow it. Sometimes, I feel like I need to see the proof in order to believe and understand.
thirteenaudrey Mar. 17, 2010 1:40pm
I think it's great that you know nothing of religion first hand but why stick toanalyzing one religion that is going to be introduced to you through one perspective?
I really think you should take the time to at least wikipedia the main religions we are studying in this class to at least have some knowledge of them and from there I think you should post all your questions that you have concerning these religions beliefs. I mean it is great to focus and learn many things about one religion but doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of taking this class?
Good luck with your blog/posts, just don't be afraid to explore outside the Cathar religion. There are everyday things that can be construed as religious and you'd be surprised that you know more about religion than you actually thought.
For one you should really watch the crop circle video post within our first weeks lesson plan. It should give you a great start as to learning how or why people are believers or skeptics.
In fact you are a skeptic and I really think you should question the hell out of believers. So don't sell yourself short.
BSelieverkeptic!
I watched the 'Do you believe in Crop Circles?' video and for some reason the very end caught my attention when the words Believer and Skeptic were juxtaposed with each other and the boldness of the first letters of the word make out BS of course. I'm sure this wasn't intentional but it made me laugh because what I had just finished hearing was well BS.
I loved how Lane argued that crop circles could be created by humans if those very same designs could be applied to paper with a compass and pencil. Right before Lane even mentioned the pencil I was thinking to myself that if we can master lifelike portrait paintings, build gravity defying architecture, then we most certainly can create crop circles. Just because crop circles are becoming more elaborate and larger in scale doesn't mean other life forms from out of this world are responsible. It only shows there are crop circle creators getting better at their trade like any other artist would
I loved how Lane argued that crop circles could be created by humans if those very same designs could be applied to paper with a compass and pencil. Right before Lane even mentioned the pencil I was thinking to myself that if we can master lifelike portrait paintings, build gravity defying architecture, then we most certainly can create crop circles. Just because crop circles are becoming more elaborate and larger in scale doesn't mean other life forms from out of this world are responsible. It only shows there are crop circle creators getting better at their trade like any other artist would
Lost in Tonation Re:Hinduism and Buddhism
paing_aung Mar. 11, 2010 5:13pm
Some Similarities between Hinduism and Buddhism are that both religions belive
that existence of a cycle of birth, death, and rebirth, governed by Karma. As I
am a buddhist, I agree upon that. Buddhism believes that birth, death, and
rebirth are cycling.The only way to cut off that cycle is to reach Nate-Ban
where there are no more birth, death, and rebirth. Moreover, Like Hinduism,
buddhism believe that the soul passes through a cycle of successive lives and
its next incarnation is always dependent on how the previous life was lived.So,a
Buddhists who want to have a good life at next life must stay sinlessly in
present life. If they can not stay in a sinless life, the cycle of birth, death,
and rebirth will happen again and again by the form of as human beings or
animals.
bobamakesyoufat Mar.15, 2010 1:59am
What did you think about when you heard about the origins of Hinduism from
rigid/unchanging caste systems leading to Hinduism as a religion? That was the
most interesting part of the discussion that I heard of because all of these New
Age Religions which are based heavily on eastern-religions kind of originate
from Hinduism. It makes so much sense logically to me why someone would make a
religion and set of beliefs to counter-act like what society told them they
couldn't do. The cycle of life in Buddhism makes so much sense if you look at
the context of the culture it originated in because the cycle of never being
able to change castes and being locked in.
May I ask what made you believe in that you possibly would be resurrected as a
grass-hopper if you were bad in your life time? Like, I wasn't religious most
of my life at all, but I just can't seem to fathom why or how that makes sense.
Also, about enlightenment, why do you personally believe that when you become
enlightened in your life time, that your soul/body would cease to exist? Maybe
it is because I grew up in America and am naive, but I just can't fathom how
anyone could believe that. I am not bashing you, I am just very curious about
Buddhism in particular because it is having this crazy movement all across
Western Culture where it is the in-thing and the cool thing to be doing. In my
work place, all of this New-Age stuff is like the cool thing to be doing, but
when I heard about the origins of it all, it just still hasn't made sense to me
yet. If you would be kind enough to share with us why you believe in Buddhism,
I would love to hear all about it.
thirteenaudrey Mar.17,2010 4:45am
In regards to your confusion about the belief of reincarnation, not knowing much about hinduism/buddism myself but realizing religious scriptures/beliefs can be lost in translation, I want to say that the suggestion of reincarnating into a grasshopper was not meant to be taken literal. Ill translations are the main reason why religions are stigmatized and divided into different sects or new religions altogether.
In many religions stories,parables, or prophecies are taken literal, word for word. Problem with this is words in our own minds adhered together in our own understanding differs from that of another. Also another important factor in how a concept or idea is understood is the way it is taught. Intonation can play a big role in how an idea is received.
For example when having to sit in a class for lecture for most it is very difficult to sit through when the professor recites information in a monotone,dry manner much like the Clear Eyes guy.
Bueller,Bueller,Bueller...
On the other hand if given the same information from a more lively,animated professor we are more likely respond and retain that information. All of a sudden the information is believeable even if it doesn't make sense.
So as for the answer to your questions...I don't know but I hope this helps you understand why someone would believe in something that doesn't make sense to you.
Presentation: when, where, and how can determine what you will and won't believe.
If presented with an idea at a young age we are more likely susceptible to believing it to be true. Especially when it's coming from someone we trust or look up to. Anything presented in grandeur at this point in time is the concrete truth.
Santa Claus,Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy
Anyway there are many things we come to believe.
Whether they make sense or not, beats me.
Whether they are true, it's all a matter of interpretation.
Personally when I think of reincarnation I think of the natural cycle of life. We are conceived, born, we live, we die, our bodies decay into the earth to give life to something else.
Some Similarities between Hinduism and Buddhism are that both religions belive
that existence of a cycle of birth, death, and rebirth, governed by Karma. As I
am a buddhist, I agree upon that. Buddhism believes that birth, death, and
rebirth are cycling.The only way to cut off that cycle is to reach Nate-Ban
where there are no more birth, death, and rebirth. Moreover, Like Hinduism,
buddhism believe that the soul passes through a cycle of successive lives and
its next incarnation is always dependent on how the previous life was lived.So,a
Buddhists who want to have a good life at next life must stay sinlessly in
present life. If they can not stay in a sinless life, the cycle of birth, death,
and rebirth will happen again and again by the form of as human beings or
animals.
bobamakesyoufat Mar.15, 2010 1:59am
What did you think about when you heard about the origins of Hinduism from
rigid/unchanging caste systems leading to Hinduism as a religion? That was the
most interesting part of the discussion that I heard of because all of these New
Age Religions which are based heavily on eastern-religions kind of originate
from Hinduism. It makes so much sense logically to me why someone would make a
religion and set of beliefs to counter-act like what society told them they
couldn't do. The cycle of life in Buddhism makes so much sense if you look at
the context of the culture it originated in because the cycle of never being
able to change castes and being locked in.
May I ask what made you believe in that you possibly would be resurrected as a
grass-hopper if you were bad in your life time? Like, I wasn't religious most
of my life at all, but I just can't seem to fathom why or how that makes sense.
Also, about enlightenment, why do you personally believe that when you become
enlightened in your life time, that your soul/body would cease to exist? Maybe
it is because I grew up in America and am naive, but I just can't fathom how
anyone could believe that. I am not bashing you, I am just very curious about
Buddhism in particular because it is having this crazy movement all across
Western Culture where it is the in-thing and the cool thing to be doing. In my
work place, all of this New-Age stuff is like the cool thing to be doing, but
when I heard about the origins of it all, it just still hasn't made sense to me
yet. If you would be kind enough to share with us why you believe in Buddhism,
I would love to hear all about it.
thirteenaudrey Mar.17,2010 4:45am
In regards to your confusion about the belief of reincarnation, not knowing much about hinduism/buddism myself but realizing religious scriptures/beliefs can be lost in translation, I want to say that the suggestion of reincarnating into a grasshopper was not meant to be taken literal. Ill translations are the main reason why religions are stigmatized and divided into different sects or new religions altogether.
In many religions stories,parables, or prophecies are taken literal, word for word. Problem with this is words in our own minds adhered together in our own understanding differs from that of another. Also another important factor in how a concept or idea is understood is the way it is taught. Intonation can play a big role in how an idea is received.
For example when having to sit in a class for lecture for most it is very difficult to sit through when the professor recites information in a monotone,dry manner much like the Clear Eyes guy.
Bueller,Bueller,Bueller...
On the other hand if given the same information from a more lively,animated professor we are more likely respond and retain that information. All of a sudden the information is believeable even if it doesn't make sense.
So as for the answer to your questions...I don't know but I hope this helps you understand why someone would believe in something that doesn't make sense to you.
Presentation: when, where, and how can determine what you will and won't believe.
If presented with an idea at a young age we are more likely susceptible to believing it to be true. Especially when it's coming from someone we trust or look up to. Anything presented in grandeur at this point in time is the concrete truth.
Santa Claus,Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy
Anyway there are many things we come to believe.
Whether they make sense or not, beats me.
Whether they are true, it's all a matter of interpretation.
Personally when I think of reincarnation I think of the natural cycle of life. We are conceived, born, we live, we die, our bodies decay into the earth to give life to something else.
The wHolly F'ing Trinity: 3 F's of Survival
There are three F's that are key factors to our survival. Of course we should all know Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest. As animals our initial response to danger is either Fight or Flight. When danger approaches we are not going to sit around and expect some magical force field to protect us. Fear kicks in giving us fair notion as to whether we will fight our way our of danger or flee the peril altogether. Fight and flight are the first two keys to our survival. The third F is what gurantees our immortality by replicating ourselves through reproduction. Some may think fucking is a mortal sin but it's really the only way to having true eternal life. We were designed to replicate and make better reproductions of ourselves to sustain the existence of our species.
There is however one F that stands alone, and is argued whether it is an important factor to our survival, Faith.
Faith has united and torn our species apart. Is it relevant to our existence?
Yes and no.
Yes, faith gives us purpose to live and have meaning in this world.
No, we can still survive and reproduce much like those who have faith in something.
So with the three F's,Fight,Flight, and Fucking; We have one F that unites or shatters them all Faith.
Having faith in something greater than ourselves give us hope and added strength to fight when we need to.
Having faith gives us the wisdom to flee when we clearly will not win a fight.
Having faith gives us the hope and wisdom to raise our offspring into becoming even better survivors.
Without faith we still will have that one F to unite or shatter the Wholly F'ing Trinity, Fear.
Fearing for your life you will fight your fear.
Fearing that you will not have the strength to fight you will flee.
Fearing that you will be forgotten you spread your seed to make your mark in this world.
As David Lane mentioned in his lecture our religions stem from two common ideologies:
Life and Death.
We either have faith in a Life everlasting.
Or fear a dreadful dishonorable Death.
Which F should tie the trinity together? It's all a matter of opinion.
Is your glass half empty or is it half full?
Do you want to live or are you afraid of dying?
No matter what you choose you will still have to fight, flee, and fuck in order to survive.
There is however one F that stands alone, and is argued whether it is an important factor to our survival, Faith.
Faith has united and torn our species apart. Is it relevant to our existence?
Yes and no.
Yes, faith gives us purpose to live and have meaning in this world.
No, we can still survive and reproduce much like those who have faith in something.
So with the three F's,Fight,Flight, and Fucking; We have one F that unites or shatters them all Faith.
Having faith in something greater than ourselves give us hope and added strength to fight when we need to.
Having faith gives us the wisdom to flee when we clearly will not win a fight.
Having faith gives us the hope and wisdom to raise our offspring into becoming even better survivors.
Without faith we still will have that one F to unite or shatter the Wholly F'ing Trinity, Fear.
Fearing for your life you will fight your fear.
Fearing that you will not have the strength to fight you will flee.
Fearing that you will be forgotten you spread your seed to make your mark in this world.
As David Lane mentioned in his lecture our religions stem from two common ideologies:
Life and Death.
We either have faith in a Life everlasting.
Or fear a dreadful dishonorable Death.
Which F should tie the trinity together? It's all a matter of opinion.
Is your glass half empty or is it half full?
Do you want to live or are you afraid of dying?
No matter what you choose you will still have to fight, flee, and fuck in order to survive.
Opinion Not Fact: Sacred Reading/Beyond Belief PART 2
Bobamakesyoufat Mar.15,2010 2:14pm
(wrote in response to my first entry dated Mar. 9,1:53am)
I found one statement that you made to be very interesting when you stated that
Mrs. Lane offers a totally unbiased view of how religions sprouted out from
Animism. I agree that looking at religions through a lens of Evolution is
interesting, but I find that statement to be wholeheartedly untrue because if
you research more into the thought of evolution being the supreme answer to
everything, you would realize and see that most religions historically in their
roots don't and haven't "evolved" as simply as some people believe today. I
think it is very biased in the sense that it is tainted with the idea that it
comes into the presupposition that all religions evolved from one another
essentially. It is okay to start with that hypothesis, but the problem is that
you need to find evidence from the religious documents/historicity of each
religion to see if that hypothesis is true. Unfortunately, this is where the
evolutionary idea of religion ultimately ending up in Monotheism completely
falls apart because the historical descent of nearly every religion in the world
doesn't even come close to fitting into any workable time-table/theory. One
comparison of this train of thought being "unbiased" is that they are
social-Darwinist in sociology who do the same thing ultimately, as well as in
Biology, psychology, and just about every field, but I can assure you that it
isn't unbiased by any means. Evolution is the prevailing thought of the day,
and so to say it is unbiased is in my opinion, a very inaccurate statement.
Thirteenaudrey Mar.17,2010 2:11am
What I meant by unbias was that Diem-Lane didn't describe the religion from a
believer perspective nor a non-believer perspective but merely a
spectator,enthusiast, and researcher. She by no means glorifies nor puts down
any religion mentioned. Overall this discussion should not be about grammatical
errors also by saying my statement is wholeheartedly untrue is a matter of
(bias) perspective. That is your opinion but that doesn't make my opinion any
less true. Same thing happens in religion,politics,art,etc. Each religion is
different, ends up with different sects/denominations because of difference in
opinions. Now whether who is right and who is wrong, which god is real or not
real once again matter of opinion. So for you to tell me my opinion is untrue
nullifies your opinion as fact. I am totally yanking your chain by the way and
just making a point that you should never state that anothers opinion is not a
fact or untrue. An opinion is just that, not a fact ever.
(wrote in response to my first entry dated Mar. 9,1:53am)
I found one statement that you made to be very interesting when you stated that
Mrs. Lane offers a totally unbiased view of how religions sprouted out from
Animism. I agree that looking at religions through a lens of Evolution is
interesting, but I find that statement to be wholeheartedly untrue because if
you research more into the thought of evolution being the supreme answer to
everything, you would realize and see that most religions historically in their
roots don't and haven't "evolved" as simply as some people believe today. I
think it is very biased in the sense that it is tainted with the idea that it
comes into the presupposition that all religions evolved from one another
essentially. It is okay to start with that hypothesis, but the problem is that
you need to find evidence from the religious documents/historicity of each
religion to see if that hypothesis is true. Unfortunately, this is where the
evolutionary idea of religion ultimately ending up in Monotheism completely
falls apart because the historical descent of nearly every religion in the world
doesn't even come close to fitting into any workable time-table/theory. One
comparison of this train of thought being "unbiased" is that they are
social-Darwinist in sociology who do the same thing ultimately, as well as in
Biology, psychology, and just about every field, but I can assure you that it
isn't unbiased by any means. Evolution is the prevailing thought of the day,
and so to say it is unbiased is in my opinion, a very inaccurate statement.
Thirteenaudrey Mar.17,2010 2:11am
What I meant by unbias was that Diem-Lane didn't describe the religion from a
believer perspective nor a non-believer perspective but merely a
spectator,enthusiast, and researcher. She by no means glorifies nor puts down
any religion mentioned. Overall this discussion should not be about grammatical
errors also by saying my statement is wholeheartedly untrue is a matter of
(bias) perspective. That is your opinion but that doesn't make my opinion any
less true. Same thing happens in religion,politics,art,etc. Each religion is
different, ends up with different sects/denominations because of difference in
opinions. Now whether who is right and who is wrong, which god is real or not
real once again matter of opinion. So for you to tell me my opinion is untrue
nullifies your opinion as fact. I am totally yanking your chain by the way and
just making a point that you should never state that anothers opinion is not a
fact or untrue. An opinion is just that, not a fact ever.
Sacred Reading/Beyond Belief PART 1
thirteenaudrey Mar.9,2010 1:53 am
I really enjoyed reading When Scholars Study the Sacred by Andrea Diem-Lane.
Having a religious background,and having been apart of what some consider a
cult, to claiming I'm agnostic, I was able to relate to many of the evolutionary
cycles of religion. Reading When Scholars Study the Sacred I was able to see
where I was then and why or how I ended up where I am now. The way Diem-Lane
breaks the many theories on the origin/development of religions/cults has made
it simple and clear to understand religion from an entirely fresh unbias
viewpoint. The only topic, within religion that was slightly touched on, that I
wanted to hear more about was spiritual experiences or happenings.
Diem-Lane mentions animism displayed in many different religions but I'm still
left with questions about how real these happenings are.
As I was spending time at a friend's house they had the series Beyond Belief
on and I would tune in and out of listening to the different stories that were
being played out. One of the stories was of some young guy and his girlfriend
coming across an abandoned motorcycle. The young man decided to take it for a
joy ride and as he came across a bridge he saw a young girl appear in the middle
of the road which caused him to crash. The girlfriend saw the same little girl
as well which was believed to be a ghost from some terrible accident years
before involving that very motorcycle that was never found at the initial scene
of the accident.
What I'm trying to get at is is it possible for two people to see the same
spiritual happening and does it make it real? Or is it that these two people
start putting ideas in the others head that they both start believing in
something that really isn't right in front of them?
I've also noticed that many spiritual occurences tend to happen in small rural
towns or somewhat desolated areas. The population of these areas are usually
highly superstitious if not religious. I would like to say that because of their
cultural demographic these people are just making these occurences up for their
own entertainment but there is something that still has me wanting to believe it
is possible that maybe ghosts/spirits do exist.
How can someone see/experience something spiritual...
...without having to get high?
...without having the desire to make such nonsensical things up?
Cleo Mar. 9,2010 1:37pm
To me, it depends. If they both saw the spiritual happening on their own, then
I think it would make it real. Not necessarily "real" as in tangible, but "real"
as in something is there. Now if the first person sees something and tells the
second, then I would say it was just the mind of the second seeing what it wants
to.
I also think that 2 people can see the same thing and interpret it in their own
way. I believe being able to do this is all part of one's freewill. (Some
philosophers would like to argue that there is no such thing as freewill, but I
don't feel like going into that). Anyway, I also believe that everyone's
imagination is just that: their own imagination. Everyone has the ability to
twist what they see into what they WANT to see with the help of the
subconscious. This also adds to my previous post about the complexity of the
mind. It acts without us knowing. An example would be the classic use of the ink
spots on a piece of paper. If any number of people were asked what the same
random spots looked like, they would all see something that their mind WANTS
them to see. For example, if you think your spouse is cheating on you, you will
see your spouse having sex with another person in the picture.
Also, I believe it is more than possible for a person to see/experience
something spiritual without having to get high. I hate to keep repeating, but
the mind sees what it wants to. It doesn't always need an additional substance
to aid what it is seeing. Just think about your dreams. People usually aren't
high when they sleep, therefore, the crazy things you see are there as a
combination of recent experiences, past experiences, past dreams, random
encounters, and anything else that you may have every thought of. That's why
you'll dream about the steak you had for dinner served to you by a man that held
the door open for you at the office of your elementary school. Also, if there is
something on your mind, it usually tends to pop up as well. I know I've had
plenty of "night before class registration" dreams.
As for trying to withhold making nonsensical things up, I don't know if the
mind can. With the example of the game of telephone brought up in, "When
Scholars Study the Sacred", I don't think that something can be passed on
without adding our own little twist to it. Think about it, a story always sounds
better if something more interesting than what actually happened is told.
Saying, "Jimmy got into a fight last night," is far more interesting than,
"Jimmy bummed into some guy last night and then apologized for it". I think this
falls under the want to impress, which I believe is also part of human nature.
Thirteenaudrey Mar. 9,2010 3:43 pm
So you are still sticking with spiritual visions being a figment of our
imagination?
Is it only real if more than one person sees/experiences a spiritual vision
then?
I know people don't need to be under some sort of influence to see things.
Yes I agree the mind sees what it wants to see and we are embellishers by nature
but does that make our spiritual experiences any less relevant or void even?
I have had many vivid dreams that I thought were very real until I woke up and
realized I was dreaming. But who is to say what I experienced within my dream
wasn't real?
Basically in conjunction with what you are saying how the mind sees what it
wants but how do explain a non-believer(of any religion) who has a vision of
"God(s)" or spiritual entities? How is it possible for this non-believer to make
a vision up, very much like those visions of "believers", without any previous
knowledge of such things?
These questions will bring me to another topic but I will leave it at that for
now.
Cleo Mar.10, 2010 9:58pm
I think that it needs to be seen by more than one person to declare it "real".
So if the spirit was only seen by one person, then I would call that a figment
of their imagination.
As for the dreams being real part, I'm not exactly sure what to say. There have
been many philosophers that questioned whether our dreams were real or not but I
truly don't believe there is any way of confirming or denying either side. I
have never thought of dreams as reality even though I'm sure everyone could say
they have experienced a number of extremely vivid dreams. I believe that only
because that is what I have always thought of my dreams. I have never
experienced anything that has made me think that perhaps our dreams our the
actual reality. And seeing as how our dreams are made up of events and
encounters that have happened in our known reality, I have never seen a reason
to question it.
What I have always wondered was how déjà vu worked. How is it that we are able
to have a dream about something that hasn't happened yet and the only way we
know it was a real event was when it actually did happen? Is it all a part of a
"past life" sort of thing?
But back to what you were asking about the "non-believers" seeing "God" or
something like it. The I way I see it is, since they are "non-believers" I
wouldn't expect them to think anything of the event. I assume they would merely
think it was a ghost. But also, saying they are "non-believer" merely means that
they don't believe in any religion out there (that they know of anyway). So
couldn't they see the a spiritual whatever and create something out of it? Isn't
that how most religions started?
I really enjoyed reading When Scholars Study the Sacred by Andrea Diem-Lane.
Having a religious background,and having been apart of what some consider a
cult, to claiming I'm agnostic, I was able to relate to many of the evolutionary
cycles of religion. Reading When Scholars Study the Sacred I was able to see
where I was then and why or how I ended up where I am now. The way Diem-Lane
breaks the many theories on the origin/development of religions/cults has made
it simple and clear to understand religion from an entirely fresh unbias
viewpoint. The only topic, within religion that was slightly touched on, that I
wanted to hear more about was spiritual experiences or happenings.
Diem-Lane mentions animism displayed in many different religions but I'm still
left with questions about how real these happenings are.
As I was spending time at a friend's house they had the series Beyond Belief
on and I would tune in and out of listening to the different stories that were
being played out. One of the stories was of some young guy and his girlfriend
coming across an abandoned motorcycle. The young man decided to take it for a
joy ride and as he came across a bridge he saw a young girl appear in the middle
of the road which caused him to crash. The girlfriend saw the same little girl
as well which was believed to be a ghost from some terrible accident years
before involving that very motorcycle that was never found at the initial scene
of the accident.
What I'm trying to get at is is it possible for two people to see the same
spiritual happening and does it make it real? Or is it that these two people
start putting ideas in the others head that they both start believing in
something that really isn't right in front of them?
I've also noticed that many spiritual occurences tend to happen in small rural
towns or somewhat desolated areas. The population of these areas are usually
highly superstitious if not religious. I would like to say that because of their
cultural demographic these people are just making these occurences up for their
own entertainment but there is something that still has me wanting to believe it
is possible that maybe ghosts/spirits do exist.
How can someone see/experience something spiritual...
...without having to get high?
...without having the desire to make such nonsensical things up?
Cleo Mar. 9,2010 1:37pm
To me, it depends. If they both saw the spiritual happening on their own, then
I think it would make it real. Not necessarily "real" as in tangible, but "real"
as in something is there. Now if the first person sees something and tells the
second, then I would say it was just the mind of the second seeing what it wants
to.
I also think that 2 people can see the same thing and interpret it in their own
way. I believe being able to do this is all part of one's freewill. (Some
philosophers would like to argue that there is no such thing as freewill, but I
don't feel like going into that). Anyway, I also believe that everyone's
imagination is just that: their own imagination. Everyone has the ability to
twist what they see into what they WANT to see with the help of the
subconscious. This also adds to my previous post about the complexity of the
mind. It acts without us knowing. An example would be the classic use of the ink
spots on a piece of paper. If any number of people were asked what the same
random spots looked like, they would all see something that their mind WANTS
them to see. For example, if you think your spouse is cheating on you, you will
see your spouse having sex with another person in the picture.
Also, I believe it is more than possible for a person to see/experience
something spiritual without having to get high. I hate to keep repeating, but
the mind sees what it wants to. It doesn't always need an additional substance
to aid what it is seeing. Just think about your dreams. People usually aren't
high when they sleep, therefore, the crazy things you see are there as a
combination of recent experiences, past experiences, past dreams, random
encounters, and anything else that you may have every thought of. That's why
you'll dream about the steak you had for dinner served to you by a man that held
the door open for you at the office of your elementary school. Also, if there is
something on your mind, it usually tends to pop up as well. I know I've had
plenty of "night before class registration" dreams.
As for trying to withhold making nonsensical things up, I don't know if the
mind can. With the example of the game of telephone brought up in, "When
Scholars Study the Sacred", I don't think that something can be passed on
without adding our own little twist to it. Think about it, a story always sounds
better if something more interesting than what actually happened is told.
Saying, "Jimmy got into a fight last night," is far more interesting than,
"Jimmy bummed into some guy last night and then apologized for it". I think this
falls under the want to impress, which I believe is also part of human nature.
Thirteenaudrey Mar. 9,2010 3:43 pm
So you are still sticking with spiritual visions being a figment of our
imagination?
Is it only real if more than one person sees/experiences a spiritual vision
then?
I know people don't need to be under some sort of influence to see things.
Yes I agree the mind sees what it wants to see and we are embellishers by nature
but does that make our spiritual experiences any less relevant or void even?
I have had many vivid dreams that I thought were very real until I woke up and
realized I was dreaming. But who is to say what I experienced within my dream
wasn't real?
Basically in conjunction with what you are saying how the mind sees what it
wants but how do explain a non-believer(of any religion) who has a vision of
"God(s)" or spiritual entities? How is it possible for this non-believer to make
a vision up, very much like those visions of "believers", without any previous
knowledge of such things?
These questions will bring me to another topic but I will leave it at that for
now.
Cleo Mar.10, 2010 9:58pm
I think that it needs to be seen by more than one person to declare it "real".
So if the spirit was only seen by one person, then I would call that a figment
of their imagination.
As for the dreams being real part, I'm not exactly sure what to say. There have
been many philosophers that questioned whether our dreams were real or not but I
truly don't believe there is any way of confirming or denying either side. I
have never thought of dreams as reality even though I'm sure everyone could say
they have experienced a number of extremely vivid dreams. I believe that only
because that is what I have always thought of my dreams. I have never
experienced anything that has made me think that perhaps our dreams our the
actual reality. And seeing as how our dreams are made up of events and
encounters that have happened in our known reality, I have never seen a reason
to question it.
What I have always wondered was how déjà vu worked. How is it that we are able
to have a dream about something that hasn't happened yet and the only way we
know it was a real event was when it actually did happen? Is it all a part of a
"past life" sort of thing?
But back to what you were asking about the "non-believers" seeing "God" or
something like it. The I way I see it is, since they are "non-believers" I
wouldn't expect them to think anything of the event. I assume they would merely
think it was a ghost. But also, saying they are "non-believer" merely means that
they don't believe in any religion out there (that they know of anyway). So
couldn't they see the a spiritual whatever and create something out of it? Isn't
that how most religions started?
Divine Divide
I have always been intrigued by higher powers and curiousities of the unknown and unexplained. Where do we come from? Who is our creator? Do we have purpose? If there is no God how and why do we exist? These questions are merely the tip of the iceberg to how religion, spirituality, and self awareness came to be. Our self awareness created a divine divide within our, once animalistic, minds to hunger for knowledge of the unseen and unknown. This cognitive concious has allowed our species to survive, given our species purpose by furthering asking questions and seeking answers of the unknown. In skepticism we found belief, we found our spirits(purpose), we found religion.
Here I will discuss how theories, religions,and our subconcious divides and unites us.
Here I will discuss how theories, religions,and our subconcious divides and unites us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
