I think describing the nature of reality is metaphysical — frank

Even if God was describing it?

What do you mean by ultimate? — frank

In a word, metaphysics.

It seems rather obvious to me that both esoteric Christianity and Shamanic religions make metaphysical claims, or do believe that they merely describe the nature of reality?

What's wrong with the examples I gave? — frank

Let’s see, the Christ in Christianity refers to, well, Christ, and not the average Joe, no? AverageJoeianity would be funny religion though, and I thank you for inspiring the amusing thought.

Shamanism is about accessing what?

There are a lot of other examples. — frank

Maybe one of these others would be a good example. Please…

Can you name one that isn’t like that?

Anyone who can somehow convince others that they have experienced or speak for the ultimate.

Whose authority? — frank

Those with special access.

That activity is always happening, silly goose. What you neglect to take into account is the intentional pattern that is transmitted, and that is caused by the spoken words of another’s voice.

You really should watch the video, it’s super cute.

It refers to an ideology that relies on ultimate authority.

I believe that some intentionally obfuscate for one reason or another and that is their purgative, annoying as it may be.

spoken words can effect human beings insofar as they vibrate another’s ear drums, like all sounds, but beyond that the words have no effect. After that all subsequent effects are caused by the biology. — NOS4A2

If words only affected eardrums then it would not be possible to communicate verbally. Sounds cause patterns of auditory sense data to be transmitted to the brain which in turn causes particular neural effects.

Are you unfamiliar with the concept of a causal chain? Perhaps the following video can help. Pay special attention to the cats. They are biological and an inextricable part of the causal chain.

I don’t understand. — NOS4A2

I don't either, actually. I've been playing the devil's advocate, your advocate, in order to try to understand your reasoning. Standing in another person's shoes, as they say, in order to at least engender some empathy for your position on the matter. This approach has failed, I'm sorry to say, so if we are to bridge this gap in understanding you will have to do the heavy lifting.

Earlier you wrote:

The other person causes his own actions. The act of hearing my words, processing what I said, and recoiling in horror are the effects of which he is the cause. — NOS4A2

Yet subsequent to this claim you agreed that pricking a person with a needle would cause them to feel pain. If you pricked a person with a needle it is far more likely that they would recoil (reacting to the pain) than if you were to merely say something to them. There is no fundamental difference between words and needles in this context. Both can physically connect two people in a causal chain.

Incidentally, no one thing causes another thing to happen. We merely identify the most efficient 'causes' that are in line with fulfilling our goals.

To a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Our desires and goals largely shape our reality.

Such as a cause of needle, and please pardon my racy language, penetration.

omg can we not engage the 15 year old internet fascist — StreetlightX

@frank isn’t that bad.

Its misleading. A ploy. And is being replaced by 'empowerment', a strategy disguised as a compensatory mechanism. — Gregory A

Progressive liberals openly propose both empowerment and restitutions. Anyway, what is the ultimate goal of this supposedly clandestine strategy? Orwellian totalitarianism?

Matriarchality, a made up word, used to describe a present social direction. — Gregory A

Is equality unappealing?

Matriarchality? — Gregory A

No, it’s spelled matriarchy.

The contact of a needle and a pain receptor causes pain. — NOS4A2

No, that’s not true. Many many more things are needed to cause a person to feel pain. Try again?

Western propaganda is of the latter type. — StreetlightX

You prefer authoritarian propaganda?

Marriage is a foundation stone of conservative values consequently a target of the Left — Gregory A

Conservative values are based in marriage?

Why do Liberals want to destroy these values?

What would you say if I claimed that it's magical thinking for you to believe that pricking a person with a needle would cause them to feel pain?

What I do believe is that they often don’t like to hear it. — NOS4A2

And they recoil in horror, yes, we've been over this.

What would you say if I claimed that it's magical thinking for you believe that anything you could say to another person could cause them to recoil in horror?

It’s simple, you believe that telling someone that their words do not have the effect they believe they have can cause them to recoil in horror, and because you do not not believe this you do not recoil in horror.

Yes. — NOS4A2

That explains your apparent lack of horror.

Tell anyone that their words do not have the effect they believe they have and they often recoil in horror. — NOS4A2

You believe that recoiling in horror is the effect of you telling them that their words do not have the effect they believe they have?

in a materialist universe where there are no absolute standards or an absolute Lawgiver. — Dermot Griffin

If there were no structure to the “materialist universe,” whatever that’s supposed to mean, nothing would be possible and there could only be chaos (though chaos would have no meaning).

Other religions carry truth and goodness but beauty is absent and by this I do not mean religions are not aesthetically pleasing. Buddhist prayers are beautiful as well as the Islamic call to prayer and Jewish temple services. When I say they lack beauty I mean that they lack it as a property of reality, of being. — Dermot Griffin

This seems to only mean that you experience beauty exclusively in your own religion. Have you considered that the same might be true for others in their religious experience?

I'd chosen mermaids to avoid the 'out' that tooth fairies allow by being super-natural. Your atheism says nothing about mermaids, unicorns, etc, so we need to believe you accept these as real as you do not protest their unlikely existence (up until now that is)? — Gregory A

People can be bound together in shared values, goals, and norms with fictions (institutional facts) and societies are built on them. They're an indispensable part of human social life. Money, property, marriage, governments, etc etc, are observer-dependent and not brut facts. Is Biden the president of the United States? Some believe that Trump is the actual president, despite the lack of evidence to support that belief.

I point this out to show that we all accept fictions of some kind. Some fictions carry more power than others. Religious fictions carry a lot of power and that's why they are met with a lot of skepticism in modernity.

So the issue isn’t about believer/non-believer, it’s about which leaders we choose to follow and why we follow them.

Anyhow, why should we listen to those who reject a God (a relatively simple addon) but then continue to believe in mermaids, unicorns etc. — Gregory A

I give up. Why?

Reminds me of a passage from Marx about how the "liberal" party of UK, whatever it was called at the time, just represents the aristocrats and their fellow rich friends that benefit from economic liberalisation and getting rid of the rest of aristocratic privileges, and they'll never deliver on their "ideals" of freedom and equality and the rest of it; that it's all talk and you'll never see actions no matter their majority in parliament ... it will always be close but "shucks, can't do it". — boethius

Reminds me of a NYT opinion piece I saw the other day.

Responsibility is always the price of freedom.

Being freed from the Great Terrible Chain of Being modern folks are lost in a chaotic sea of nihilism and moral depravity. :scream:

Whatever you believe about the existence of God or the effects of religion on society, there is an important sense in which religious people understand the universe more clearly than those who reject the spiritual dimension you're talking about. — T Clark

Emptiness is the only spiritual concept that I think, or feel, gives me clearer understanding of the universe. True that it’s a religious concept, even though I’m anti-religious. It makes rational sense while at the same time relieves existential anxiety. I can’t imagine it not being true and yet I don’t know if it is true. Perhaps somehow things can have an essential and independent existence.

Agreed. :100:

In Le Petit Prince, a super piece of lit that I like, there’s a line that goes something like, “you’re forever responsible for what you tame.” Think about that for a minute and consider, do you really want to be a Superman? A Superman is forever responsible for the sheeple that they tame.

Over the last decade there’s been a steep rise of adolescence seeking treatment of this kind, mostly biological girls for some reason, and I assume that’s what Floridians are responding to. That and the rise of trans activism in general.

Putin has succeeded in establishing the Atlanticist system even more solidly than before. The gift is so welcome that some sober and well-informed analysts have speculated that it was Washington’s goal all along.

Isn’t it hard to believe that Putin and gang are such fumbling fools?

Floridians are terrified of gender identity theory because they believe it's part of a clandestine plot by the radical left to turn their kids into communist zombies.

Kidding aside, the decision to take hormone blockers is very serious and can have long-term consequences, and I think is therefore best made by a mature mind.

If public school administrators are a poor choice of potential villain they are at least concrete, unlike the amorphous and untouchable social-media.

I’ll be the first to admit that Mr. Mello is far better at writing fiction than I.

If your story actually happened, it would be empirical to you, not empirical to someone who wasn’t there. — Joe Mello

I forgot to mention that as I was exiting the church yesterday a nun suddenly appeared from behind one of the marble pillars to confront me as I walked down the aisle. Dressed in a habit, she was quite old and frail looking, though her gaze was intense. Those intense eyes that flanked a large hooked nose could stop a buffalo in its tracks, and indeed I paused as if not by my own volition.

She looked me up and down and with a sweet voice said, “We welcome you to commune with our Lord whenever you wish, however, we have a strict policy of no cell phones and no phone conversations in this sacred sanctuary.”

Still deeply flustered by what had occurred only moments ago, I quickly replied, “I don’t have a phone.”

“Oh, I’m sorry, I thought you were speaking to someone a moment ago.”

Curious, I asked, “Did you hear anyone else speaking?”

“Why no, I thought you were using one of those ear gadgets.”

“Did you happen to notice that I was looking at the Virgin Mary in the window?”

“Yes.”

“Did you noticed anything unusual?”

“No. Should I have?”

“Oh no, it was nothing. I’ll remember what you said about no phones. Thank you.” I said while heading back towards the door.

So what do you think I think of your writing? — Joe Mello

That my little story is empirically verifiable, of course.

Spare me the literary criticism, please. :pray: :lol: