Thoth-Amon
Hypochondriac
- Apr 4, 2006
- 6,821
- 8
- 38
virtually every society on earth has had religious or spiritual beliefs for more than 2000 years.
Aggressive Atheism
- Thread starter JGMetalhead
- Start date
virtually every society on earth has had religious or spiritual beliefs for more than 2000 years.
Prismatic Sphere
We Carouse
virtually every society on earth has had religious or spiritual beliefs for more than 2000 years.
MYSTICAL, not religious. Both are bullshit, I will give you that though.
Thoth-Amon
Hypochondriac
- Apr 4, 2006
- 6,821
- 8
- 38
Not much difference between the two really... save one tends to have a hierarchy and set doctrines.
Prismatic Sphere
We Carouse
Dak
mentat
Dude, I think you have probably set a world record for the use of the word mystical/mysticism on a message board.
Blaming a tool for control for problems, instead of individuals, is as stupid as blaming weapons for murders.
Blaming a tool for control for problems, instead of individuals, is as stupid as blaming weapons for murders.
Prismatic Sphere
We Carouse
Not quite. Mysticism can be found within ANY individual. It is up to said man or woman to weed it out. It's not a tool. It's an archaic form of thought.
Dak
mentat
Your blind acceptance of the idea that "mysticism" (can you be more vague?) is simply an "archaic" form of thought is no worse than blind acceptance of an invisible consciousness.
I find the idea that the complex systems of the universe being formed through chaos/random "dice rolls" a ludicrous theory, but to each his own.
I find the idea that the complex systems of the universe being formed through chaos/random "dice rolls" a ludicrous theory, but to each his own.
monoxide_child
New Metal Member
- Jul 30, 2008
- 6,210
- 4
- 0
okay, so he got the date wrong (by a lot) but everything else Prismatic Sphere has said seems accurate though
Prismatic Sphere
We Carouse
It's actually a little bit different than that. It's actually Einstein's Long Wave Theory with consciousness thrown in(a key point he missed because he only included mass and energy). But that's a whole 'nother convo.
You want more direct evidence for bicameral theory? Okay. You got it. A Symphony X song actually provided it. That's right! Hot diggety-dawg!!!
Much direct evidence for the breakdown of the bicameral mind and the development of consciousness comes from writings scribed between 1300 B.C. and 300 B.C. Those writings gradually shift from nonconscious, objective reports to conscious, subjective expressions that reflect introspection. The jump from the nonconscious writing of the Iliad to the conscious writing of the Odyssey (composed perhaps a century later) is dramatically obvious. In the Odyssey, unlike the Iliad, characters possess conscious self-awareness, introspection powers, and can sense right, wrong, and guilt. ...That radical difference between the Iliad and the Odyssey is, incidentally, further evidence that more than one poet composed the Homeric epics.
The transition from the nonconscious Iliad to the conscious Odyssey marks man's break with his 8000-year-old hallucinatory guidance system. By the sixth century B.C., written languages began reflecting conscious ideas of morality and justice similar to those reflected today.
The Old Testament of the Bible also illustrates the transition from the nonconscious writing of its earlier books (such as Amos, circa 750 B.C.) to the fully conscious writing of its later books (such as Ecclesiastes, circa 350 B.C.). Amid that transition, the book of Samuel records the first known suicide -- an act that requires consciousness. And the book of Deuteronomy illustrates the conflict between the bicameral mind and the conscious mind.
Likewise, the transition to consciousness is observed in other parts of the world: Chinese literature moved from bicameral nonconsciousness to subjective consciousness about 500 B.C. with the writings of Confucius. And in India, literature shifted to subjective consciousness around 400 B.C. with the Upanishadic writings.
American Indians, however, never developed the sophisticated, metaphorical languages needed to develop full consciousness. As a result, their mentalities were probably bicameral when they first encountered the European explorers. For example, with little or no conscious resistance, the Incas allowed the Spanish "white gods" to dominate, plunder, and slaughter them.
Want more? Still not convinced? I got lots.
Dak
mentat
The problem with reaching a conclusion and then picking out things to support it is that you see all data in the rose colored glasses of your chosen position. While we are all guilty of this to some degree or another, your insistance that you are NOT guilty of it is what I am taking issue with more so than whether or not you are right, since without a time machine it cannot be proven either way.
Prismatic Sphere
We Carouse
Again, read Jaynes' book if you think my thinking is flawed. The amount of direct thoroughly researched evidence and material in there is beyond colossal.
And btw, among the greater scientific community(REAL fucking scientists, not dipfuck dipshit social scientists, pseudo scientists, or local/TV celebrity scientists) bicameral theory is now accepted as the prevailing position on our ancestry. So if you think I'm nuts, that should give it a little more validity.
The fact that you never heard of it before crossing computer cocks with Mr. Prism isn't the fault of the valid scientific community. They've got shit to do. Others don't and mostly want you to believe in the idiotic concept of authority.
So for you to bitch at me on this is ludicrous.
And btw, among the greater scientific community(REAL fucking scientists, not dipfuck dipshit social scientists, pseudo scientists, or local/TV celebrity scientists) bicameral theory is now accepted as the prevailing position on our ancestry. So if you think I'm nuts, that should give it a little more validity.
The fact that you never heard of it before crossing computer cocks with Mr. Prism isn't the fault of the valid scientific community. They've got shit to do. Others don't and mostly want you to believe in the idiotic concept of authority.
So for you to bitch at me on this is ludicrous.
Dak
mentat
Apparently you didnt really understand my last post. For any given opinion you can find mountains of "evidence", which will coincidently also include "evidence" that the opposing opinion will use, based off of perception.
The bicameral theory requires an evolutionary foundation, which I have already rejected.
I could also argue that evolution/the bicameral theory offers the greatest legitimacy to human authority, which you so despise.
I also don't take advice from people who haven't shown themselves successful in a practical field, so that rules out nearly everyone on the internet, since I can't verify the real you.
Prismatic Sphere
We Carouse
I used to have a ton of respect for you despite the fact that you still have a boogeyman under the bed(faith-based beliefs). I don't anymore. You have proven yourself as none other than a fledgling minion of the status quo. You are a simpleton, an automaton, and a tool.
And your Cowgirls are gonna get murdered by my Saints.
Dak
mentat
Prismatic Sphere
We Carouse
I've been a Saints fan since 1991 when no one knew about the Dome Patrol and I made a killing in high school as a result. Nice try though. But you fail, AGAIN.
Dak
mentat
Prismatic Sphere
We Carouse
Oh nos, I have angered the anarchist.
IMPOSSIBLE. Esp. when I'm dealing with a man who still has a goblin in the attic. I find all of your canards silly. AND your CowGirls are gonna get plowed.
Dak
mentat
Prismatic Sphere
We Carouse
I'm not sure what you're referring to. ENLIGHTEN me. Please.
But it all goes back to my old argument against the anti-intellectual, inverted context tenets of the concept of open-mindedness. Are you open-minded about how you get to work in the morning? Are you open-minded about how you pay your dinner check? Are you open-minded about how you get into a bar fight with Chuck outside?
No, you are definitely not. You are narrow-minded as hell aren't you? And you should be. Yeah, recognition of reason, reality, and objective truth sure makes me inferior doesn't it?
But it all goes back to my old argument against the anti-intellectual, inverted context tenets of the concept of open-mindedness. Are you open-minded about how you get to work in the morning? Are you open-minded about how you pay your dinner check? Are you open-minded about how you get into a bar fight with Chuck outside?
No, you are definitely not. You are narrow-minded as hell aren't you? And you should be. Yeah, recognition of reason, reality, and objective truth sure makes me inferior doesn't it?
Dak
mentat
el oh el at "objective truth". Your "objective truth" is someone elses joke material. It's the same regardless of who holds what opinion. I am not saying you aren't free to hold you're own opinions, but the arrogant wall you have built isn't going to convince many people of your legitimacy.
I don't disagree with most of your points about how things ought to be done, I disagree with your delivery and attitude surrounding it, as well as your postulations on the "God-hood" of the most "evolutionarily advanced human".
I don't disagree with most of your points about how things ought to be done, I disagree with your delivery and attitude surrounding it, as well as your postulations on the "God-hood" of the most "evolutionarily advanced human".
Similar threads
