A Discussion About Science, Religion & Spirituality

The following conversation took place between a friend – Brian Blackwell – and random users, in the comment section under this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1vUwWaRZQI

*Comments made by “Paul Edwards” are not shown. I assume they might’ve been deleted by the author. However, responses made to “Paul Edwards” will be included.

The forward ( > ) symbol indicates “responded to”.
Example: Freddy > Jason (Freddy responded to Jason)

Brian Blackwell
The arguments presented by both sides are painfully pedestrian. Atheists are largely characterized by immature mockery and rebellious sarcasm — the unwarranted pride of the intellectual adolescent; Christians typically employ logical fallacies like circular reasoning and appeals to authority — the mental hallmark of the pre-adolescent child; thus both sides only preach to their own choir and leave the opposition feeling more justified in digging in their heels. This discourse is consequently of no value.

My hope is that the evolution of human consciousness will produce an understanding of spirituality that can bridge the gap, allowing people to employ their rational minds to recognize the profound truths present in religious writings via a metaphorical interpretation.

All religions point to the same ultimate truth and offer guidelines for incorporating spirit in our daily lives to produce a more harmonious and rewarding experience. Dogma, fear, obligation, guilt, rebelliousness, insolence and pride are in discord with universal truth and thus can never produce universal benefit.

If both sides could let go of their rigid adherence to antiquated methods of attaining knowledge set forth by others (scientific or religious), perhaps they can come to their own personal understanding of the glory of all that is, and such seekers may meet on this common ground; for there is but one truth, and those that perceive it are necessarily united by the absolute nature of its validity.

Barackisha Obamaniqua
Okay I have a few bones to pick.

1) You said we have to use our “spirituality” to recognize the truth yet there is no evidence what-so-ever of there being a spirit in humans or any other animal for that matter. Anyway, how could Atheists use something we don’t believe in? Is the truth limited to a small group of people? The church teaches the exact opposite. Gnosticism was a heresy back in the early days of the church that claimed a small group of people had the knowledge to be saved.

2) You say all religions point to the same ultimate truth which is absolute bullshit. Please tell me how Greek mythology points to a Christian truth. If you have time, also look up top 10 craziest religions. See if they point to your vision of truth.

3) You listed fear as “in discord with universal truth”. Fear is exactly what the church employs to make you repent for your sins. Because if you don’t… YOU’LL GO TO HELL and burn FOREVER.

4) You said science is an antiquated method of obtaining knowledge. Well fuck, let’s just get rid of all science classes then. Nope, no more science classes in school. No more science classes in college. No more scientists are allowed to live. Everything science related must be destroyed. Okay okay, I’m joking. Seriously though, if you think science is an antiquated method of obtaining knowledge how about you just go amish. Oh wait, even THEY use forms of past sciences!

I would appreciate if you respond to my points. Your comment was pretty ridiculous.

Brian Blackwell > Barackisha Obamaniqua
It may help if you could quote me directly in relation to the first point. I don’t know what you mean by “using spirituality” so I don’t think I could have said it. My point is that we may use scripture to help us discover spirirual truth. If you are unrelenting in your denial of spirituality then clearly this cannot be done. Such is the state of many atheists. However there are some atheists who deny that “God” exists, as depicted by the various religions, but still believe in some supernatural source. The truth, by its very nature, is available to all who are willing to seek it in earnest and is not exclusive to any one group.

Greek mythology illustrates many truths when interpreted metaphorically, as do all the religious writings I have seen. I do not assert that literal or dogmatic interpretations would bear resemblance to each other as this erroneous interpretation is the dividing factor. I am not familiar with every religion, but the great many I have been exposed to qualify. I have used the word “all” inappropriately if we are speaking literally.

Again, fear is employed by the church as a result of misunderstanding or misuse of scripture. This and many other assertions of the religious establishment are not in accordance with the universal truths concealed within the very texts they use to justify their misguided perspective.

Science is not antiquated as a tool for describing the physical world, but it is in regards to establishing proof of spirit. This cannot be done as of yet, and thus those who are rigid in their belief that science is the only means by which we may gain knowledge of anything — including spirituality — can never be satisfied in this endeavor because they are trying to use a hammer to turn a screw.

yoyepo91
all religions definitely do not point towards the same truth. Furthermore, there is no “rigid adherence” with atheism, its a matter of one belief having no proof or credible sources, and science having both. The idea that atheists need to become more spiritual when they believe these religious ideas to be man made is just plain silly

Brian Blackwell > yoyepo91
I should not have said “all” religions, for I do not know all religions; but the vast majority of spiritual belief systems — including Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Taoism — all point to the same universal truths. Where they differ is where metaphorical points have been erroneously been interpreted literally. The rigidity I refer to with atheism is the conception of what qualfies as “proof” or “evidence.”

Barackisha Obamaniqua > Brian Blackwell
I read scripture. I went to a catholic high school for 4 years. I wanted the know the truth. I read parts of the Bible trying to find the truth. Guess what? I’m an Atheist.

How do you find spiritual truth in scripture? It’s writing on a page fundamentally and there is no evidence god inspired the writers.

You can take any text, interpret it “metaphorically” and get to the same “truth”. EX: “I took a huge shit today”. Obviously, the “shit” is referring to god and the fact that it’s “huge” signifies his power and might. As you can see, “I became one with god today” is the actual meaning.

See? You can interpret anything like this to make it fit your agenda.

A spiritual nature would have to interact with our natural nature in some way for us to know it exists right? Science is the means in which we measure or explain things in the natural world. THEREFORE we would see evidence of a spirit in our natural world.

yoyepo91 > Brian Blackwell
like Obom I also went to a catholic school, though for me it was K-12. You say we can use scripture to find spiritual truth. Yet scripture is just writing that many different people made 2000 years ago to explain what he doesn’t understand. Scripture tells us genocide, rape, murder, etc. are fine as long as god is the one telling us to do those things. Scripture is just a book, there is no more spiritual truth to be found in it than there is in any other book, except most other books don’t say kidnap and rape is okay so it’s even less spiritual. Atheism is the belief THERE IS NO GOD. It makes sense then that atheists would believe in no spirituality and your logic that if they would open their minds to it they would be better off fails because again you are trying to say your spiritual way is the right way. How do you know that when you experience “spirituality”, it’s not just your mind being tricked into releasing dopamine to reward you for prayer because your mind has been tricked into believing it’s a good act? You can’t know, and to believe other people are rigid because they deny spirituality is hypocritical.

The sad thing is you are the one trying to turn a hammer with a screw, stating your opinion, that there is spiritual proof, as fact, even though it cannot be proven. science is not out dated and it’s lunacy to believe so. I think something is true, I prove it’s true, its fact. In your system you believe something is true, you read old books written by peole 2000 years ago, you feel enlightened, and you believe you have proven something. You would apply this nowhere else in your life than religion. Here’s some religious truths gotten from the bible that science has proved wrong

-the earth is the center of the universe created for us
-everything revolves around us
-all the planets are perfectly spherical because they are perfect and created by god
-witches exist and must be destroyed by fire to protect society
-the world is 6000 years old

Read an old book created by ancient people without science (aka they made it up), or believe in experts today who have actually experimented and used facts to figure out how the world actually exists outside fantasy land, your choice

Brian Blackwell > Barackisha Obamaniqua
In solving a crime, there are two areas of concern, how and why. The how is a description of the crime and includes when and by what means the crime was commited — this is the jurisdiction of science. But the why can never be known by these means. Logic can make a fair guess, but only the intelligence that performed the act can tell you why with certainty. Do you suppose the universe to have no why? If it does have a why, and science is not the means by which to discover it, and we refuse to employ any other means, then it cannot be known and would appear altogether non-existent.

This is the state of many atheists who with no means by which to discern the why assert that it cannot exist. If you say that it may exist but we have no proof, I can accept that; but if you say “it does not exist or I would know about it” when you adhere rigidly to a tool that is not intended for that purpose then you would seem to me to be hopelessly adrift.

Brian Blackwell > yoyepo91
You say that there is no more spiritual truth to be found in scripture than any other book, and I agree with this in principle, as one may be enlightened to wisdom by most any means as “the wise man learns more from fools than fools do from the wise.” If you are familiar with the work of Joseph Campbell then you are aware of the common themes found between religious stories and secular stories, all of equal value. Movies, novels, songs or scripture may all be quoted to illustrate valuable ideas about spirituality or anything else. The point about murder, witch hunts and such being condoned by the Bible is dubious, as it assumes a literal interpretation or ignores the fact that there are parts of the Bible that are written with motivations other than spiritual upliftment, for good or ill.

I find science fascinating and we would not disagree about any of its findings, as I ackowledge them all as far as they go, but there’s simply too much emphasis placed on science; it’s just another false God for many people — “what it reveals we hold as truth, what it does not cannot exist.” Sounds much like the Bible-toters to me. It’s good for trivial matters like saving lives, going to the moon, and a billion other things, but do you really think that’s what life is about — comfort, longevity, accomplishment? You speak as though life had no value before science existed in a formal way; as though men of that time have nothing to offer you. Truths are eternal and do not change. The nature of man, the nature of this universe — the “why’s” rather than the “how’s” — these are the eternal truths gleaned from scripture, whether Christian, Buddhist or otherwise. Knowing “how” is a lesser value than knowing “why.” Men who know why are leaders in all walks of life, and men who know how do their bidding.

I’m not trying to say there is a “right way” to proceed, for whether life is eternal or ends with physical death, how we live it is equally of little ultimate consequence (unless you believe in a God who judges, which neither of us do); I am only saying there is personal benefit being left on the table by ignoring spirituality. How many people credit their faith with their good fortune? Even if this is a placebo effect, the potential benefit of a spiritual belief is fairly apparent. Not all use their belief to their benefit, but the potential is there if managed properly. A placebo results in the desired effect, but it is not considered to have caused the cure. But do proper medications cause cure, or do they provide encouragement to the body to heal itself? So then how is the placebo any different? Neither actually causes the cure, which is not caused necessarily, but subjectively via some process that no one fully understands. We know with a good degree of accuracy how to flip the light switch to get the result we want, but sometimes we flip it and it doesn’t come on, and other times it comes on for no apparent reason.

Do you see how objectivity is not king? Objectivity’s only value is in providing common ground for discourse between individuals. Other than that, subjectivity rules all. All perception and thought is subjective, so why put so much focus on “objective proof?” Objectivity is an academic concern, yet all your thought is bent on it as though it were synonymous with validity. This is the foolish rigidity that puts blinders on this type of atheist and makes him unable to benefit from all manner of knowledge gained purely by subjective means, seemingly with no objective counterpart. Please consider this final point before offering a rebuttle. It cuts at the very root of knowledge and is all but blasphemy in today’s world, but just search this idea with a clear mind for a moment to see if there is any truth here.

Brian Blackwell > Paul Edwards
Hi Paul. There is no man-made item or idea that is required to access spiritual knowledge, and I beleive scripture has done more to confuse the issue than provide clarity. I would agree that there are countless other books that would be a better starting place, as they deal with the topic far more directly. Modern day teachers like Wayne Dyer and his like are more relevant and speak to a modern audience with infinitely more clarity.

I found scripture most useful once I had established a basis for spiritual understanding via other means and could thus interpret it more beneficially by having a context for its message. However, my point is that these books need not be tossed away just because you don’t believe in a judgmental God, or Satan as an actual intelligent being, or 40 day floods and virgin births. These religious writings speak to us with historical gravity of the sublime truths that are eternal.

Matt 18:3-4 “… Verily I say unto you, except ye be converted and become as little children, ye shall not enter the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.” Children offer the best natural example of man living in accord with spiritual truth. However, they are very impressionable and are soon influenced by others, and so the adult who is “like a child” is better equipped to remain steadfast.

Little children (the littler, the better) naturally have a positive outlook, they expect to get what they want (and so lose their minds when denied); they expect to be loved and praised (and so lose their minds when rebuked); they expect freedom (and so lose their mind when disciplined); but they bounce back quickly from disappointments, as their connection to the ultimate source of well-being is fairly unencumbered by mental baggage.

Contrived mental constructs (“false idols”) and the pride of knowledge block understanding of ultimate truth. This is the “sin” (or detrimental aspect) that many atheists and clergymen suffer. One must have the humility to be open to ideas not in accord with his current paradigm in order to gain wisdom, as wisdom is the alteration of paradigms. Children are receptive to world-shattering changes in perspective; it us unfortunate that their teachers are often bereft of wisdom and so the world that is shattered was closer to the truth than the one that replaces it.

The childlike person (humble, receptive, free and optimistic with positive self-worth) is most suited to enter the “kingdom of heaven” (enlightenment, positive experience of life, pleasant and meaningful relationships, satisfaction, peace; the physical and non-physical rewards desired).

This is an example of how I believe scripture may be used to help discover spiritual truth. And honestly, what is meant by “spiritual” is merely the less understood of the larger natural laws. I believe that the unification of scientific and spiritual knowledge will eventually be man’s everyday common knowledge.

yoyepo91 > Brian Blackwell
First of all you ask me to search with a clear mind for your subjective truth. Here we already consider you being the enlightened one with truth and me not instead of you logically considering my argument. Spirituality is no more then dopamine and your pride convincing you you are right no matter what. Anyone who disagrees just can’t experience what you have because they don’t try hard enough. Yet what you are experiencing is you trying so Hard to find spirituality that your mind releases dopamine believing you’ve done something good, and you have tricked yourself into a silly belief that makes you believe using your brain and logic to think about things is wrong. Subjectivity rules nothing except to give an explanation that is worthlesswithout objectivity proving it. In other words it gives us the variable for the equation, but objectivityt does the work. Given enough time and technological increase, subjectivity will be uneeded altogether, as we’ll be able to measure what people think with the right tools and feel what others feel.

subjectivity gets feelings wrong. There is no such thing as being sad. It is what e call someone who exhibits the traits of sadness, but the real explanation is it is someone who’s brains are releasing high levels of the chemicals that make them “sad”. Objectivity can tell us why we feel sad seeing someone else sad, your brain releasing similar chemicals so you can relate to the other sad person and feel what they feel. In other words, science tells us why we feel and think things, whereas subjectivity is an attempt to capture why we feel things in words that is fundamentally inaccurate being you are, when explaining sadness for example, explaining not the cause of sadness, but the cause of the chain reactions in your body that produce sadness in the particular person. Subjectively you can NEVER explain how to stop sadness because Each person’s chemical triggers for releasing and causing sadness are different to some degree, someone might cry at a movie, another might weep wildly. Subjectivity would say we need to do bblah blah and blah and we’ll be less sad over time (example buddha we need to remove ourselves from reality), objectivity says sadness is just natural and we shouldn’t be afraid to express it. Objectivity finds the truth, subjectivity tries to control what it doesn’t have the ability to comprehend.

why a crime happens can also be solved by science if given the person. With the right tools, you could literally probe their memories and watch it yourself. furthermore, if you are able to actually measure the chemical levels inside a man’s brain as he commits a crime, you get a very good sense of what he is feeling. Also, in solving a crime, science always answers why. There are a million explanations to every crime that are no more likely accurate than another, science and evidence are used to show which one is the truth.

atheists do not declare it does not exist the same way people do not declare they do not believe in santa claus. They simply hear the story and say sorry, but I do not believe in that. And they have every right to do so considering there is no proof at all of god or spirituality and you have yet to prove spirituality isn’t just you tricking your mind into releasing dopamine, which then would make your assertion of spirituality primitive.

subjectivity unproven is a bad way to do anything. I feel something therefore it is proven is why we believed many rediculous things throughout history, such as the world being flat.

No, the fault isn’t literal interpretation of the bible, its that the bible was written by primitive men long ago who believed atrocious acts were fine and specifically said to do them as a guideline for people. The bible professes blind faith and obedience no matter what heinous act is required of you or you will be punished, no different than any other propaganda designed to keep people under control.

In other words many of the values found in the bible are just plain wrong when incorporated into current times. You don’t need the bibleto find spirituality. There is no truth of how to live your life as a good person. evolution has given you the ability to reason right from wrong, use it instead of copying what people 2000 years ago reasoned themselves and then wrote down. Most of the bible is also not spiritual upliftment, it’s designed to keep people in the faith under control.

If you believe science is a false god, then you don’t have a good understanding of science.

Brian Blackwell > yoyepo91
Well, I see that you are steadfast in your resolve to rigidly adhere to your present paradigm on every point, including accepting “how’s” for “why’s” and asserting a literal interpretation of the Bible, despite my greatest effort to provide an opportunity for a different perspective. I am equally steadfast in my determination not to return to a perpective that I am all-too-familar with, as it was my own during my prolonged study of philosophy. So alas, this conversation is utterly without promise.

For those that might happen upon this discussion, I would make known my opinion that I do not feel my commentary was understood and duly challenged, but rather viewed askew and redressed according to the mutation that was consequently derived. Whether I have failed to make clear or you have failed to understand is left to the viewer’s discretion.

To my view, this is not the first time you have had this discussion and you seem to have all your arguments loaded and at the ready. Thus there is little time to search my words for anything of potential value between when you read them and when you draw and fire. This, of course, is your right; for what obligation do you have to do anything that does not suit your fancy?

I do not believe that I have some grand understanding that is not available to everyone in every moment, and I do not wish to challenge the truths that your perpective offers. I only wish to offer something in addition; a different context that would supplement the valid postulations already present. I also am not seeking converts, only presenting the idea for review. You have reviewed and rejected, and so be it. I’m sincerely glad that you have a philosophy that you believe in (for many suffer greatly with doubt), and I hope it offers you some measure of joy, for joy is at the root of every desire, and there can be no worthwhile purpose for a human being other than this.

Brian Blackwell > Paul Edwards
Thank you, Paul; much obliged, to be sure. It offers a moment of comfort amidst the storm to be joined by one who stands with palms open rather than clenched. I do not fault others for their fervency, for at times I have lived in a prolonged state of such, and still find myself susceptible during the course of these discussions. Your perspective is a reminder to be easy about all of this, as there is no imperative course that compels us. We do not need to understand these matters to live a joyful and meaningful life, and wherever we can find benefit we would do well to embrace it. Nor is consensus a goal worth disturbing our own peace of mind to attain, and if we tend to our own happiness much will be resolved in due course. Thanks again, Paul. Enjoy the day!

Barackisha Obamaniqua > Brian Blackwell
You said it yourself, the intellect that preformed the “crime” can tell me why and by what means. But then why is god hiding this information from us? Is making the universe bad in his mind? If he tells us this information will he be punished? Like I have already told you, I have asked god for this information in prayer when I was a believer. I got no answer. Maybe you can tell me though.

yoyepo91 > Brian Blackwell
first of all you did not address my points. Second you stereotyped me as someone who has answers loaded ready to fire when this is far from the truth, I simply analyzed your statement and presented counter argument.

If you believe your argument was presented “mutated” as you call it, simply state why. To suddenly shut off discussion is to be close minded to my view, which is ironic considering your analogy of a closed fist. The sad fact is I’m the one with palms open, but you make no argument for your view, and you fail to address my points. This makes you far from the compromising middle man, quite the opposite.

Both the literally and metaphorical messages of the bible are horrible. In the old testament it’s do as god says or be smited. it’s kill non believers who are in your lands. its rewards for EXTREME measures of blind faith. And god fails to live up to a moral god.

In the new testament it’s not do good to others because it makes you a better person, or feel good, or because its good for society, it’s do good or burn in hell. give up your possessions and follow christ or go to hell. There are good messages, much more than the old testament, but it still stresses blind faith and doing good out of fear, not because you want to make the world better.

I myself have a better moral understanding and code than this reading, which btw I have read, so what exactly do you believe I am missing? also address my points without continuing to stereotype me. “Open you palms” as you would say

Brian Blackwell > yoyepo91
Hi yoyepo, I certainly do not mean to toss the checker board and walk away; that’s neither fair nor friendly. I just feel as though both of us are beating a dead horse because our minds are not coming any closer together.

I have not sufficiently made my point or you would not be referring to the Bible with statements like “it’s do good or burn in hell.” In my earlier post to Paul I illustrated my proposal for a beneficial interpretation of scripture, and it does not include these ironclad rules punishable by eternal torment. It seems that my words are being interpreted through a skewed lens; perhaps one that has been shaped by dealing with dogmatic religious practitioners. I certainly understand why the atheist might be sensitive to religious rhetoric — as they are being banged over the head by it night and day — but I am no more part of that camp then you are.

It was my observation that the conversation was becoming a stagnant volley without showing signs of movement toward the center. I did not think it would come as a disappointment to you for me to spare you any more of my ponderings on the subject, as they seemingly fail to please. Judging by your latest post, I should guess that we both feel misunderstood. I do not intend to be a source of angst to anyone so I thought it best to desist.

The final analysis suggests that I attribute the cause of all things to a spiritual source and that you do not accept this because there is no objective proof. I believe subjectivity to be the very foundation of all experience and hold it in high esteem, while you believe true knowledge may only be garnered by objective means. I believe all physical phenomena is the “how,” while spiritual source is the “why,” and you believe the physical gives us both the “how” and the “why.” I believe religious writings may point toward eternal truths when viewed in the proper context, you believe they are all but useless, if not an outright bane to mankind.

As much as I am sincerely honored by your generous expenditure of time, and your attentive commitment to engaging me in this discourse, it would seem that we are at an insurmountable impass and can go no further. I am willing, however, to try a new approach and begin again if you so desire; I just do not have any ideas about how we might proceed to better effect.

Brian Blackwell > Barackisha Obamaniqua
It is not a case of God hiding information, as there is no single personified intelligent entity with a will that surpasses your own who makes a decision to withhold the truth of spirit. You may ask all you want in prayer, and the answer will be given even before you ask, but you must be in a place to receive. Asking and receiving are born of two different mindsets.

Consciousness is vibration; energy. The mind that asks a question is ignorant of some desired knowledge, and its energy vibration is one of ignorance and lack. Similar energies will come together, so you are not likely to receive profound knowledge while in an acute state of ignorance. This is why you will notice that the more you are stressing about a problem the worse the solutions are that you come up with — if you come up with any at all — however, once you forget about it and are washing your car or taking a walk, you are hit with the inspiration of a viable solution.

So you must have an energy vibration of knowledge to receive knowledge via spiritual means. But you say “How? How can I be in a vibration of confident knowledge when I don’t have the answer yet?” And now we see why Jesus and countless others preach faith. This is the true value of faith; that terrible symbol of hopeless ignorance that the atheist abhors. Faith is the key to salvation from ignorance about who you really are, what this universe is, and why.

I use the same buzzwords, but understand that I am not a Christian, nor subscribe to any religious sect. What I am talking about is completely different, though I heartily suspect it was what Jesus sought to teach (with even less success than I’m having in this comment forum hahahahah). Faith is not about believing in a magic man despite the fact that there is no evidence, nor is salvation about freeing your soul from an eternity of boundless torment in a fiery prison. It’s simply about trusting that this universe does not inspire a desire that cannot be fulfilled, and moving forward in expectation with the confidence of that trust.

This is spirituality, and it is not “other worldly,” it is merely an aspect of natural law that we have yet to fully understand. And since we have yet to understand it, do not expect objective evidence to supply proof that you can hand to others and make them believe. Luckily it is our eternal birthright to have direct subjective knowledge of it any time we want it, if we can open up and allow it to enter (which can be easier said than done given our culturally-imposed outlook of lack, lonliness, misfortune, and victimization). Once you truly become aware of it, you will then see evidence of it everywhere you look, including all the scientific discoveries man has ever made.

Barackisha Obamaniqua > Brian Blackwell
The consciousness of humans being vibrations is controversial. Don’t state it as fact.

“The mind that asks a question is ignorant of some desired knowledge, and its energy vibration is one of ignorance and lack.”

The mind that asks a question is not ignorant of the knowledge. Ignorance supposes that the information is there yet the person or things purposely refuses this information. For example, creationists are ignorant of the evidence of evolution. I am not ignorant of the existence of god because the information is not here.

I know you’re not a christian but you seem to be leaning that way so I will throw this in here. Matthew 7:7: “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you”. You are saying the exact opposite of this.

“And it’s energy vibration is one of ignorance and lack.”

Energy cannot express emotion. You can’t look at thermal energy and say “yup that heat energy is angry”. Or say “That kinetic energy sure is happy”. You can’t describe energy like you are trying to.

“This is why you will notice that the more you are stressing about a problem the worse the solutions are that you come up with — if you come up with any at all — however, once you forget about it and are washing your car or taking a walk, you are hit with the inspiration of a viable solution.”

Are you suggesting that the answer to the biggest question humans could ever ask (is there a god(s)?) is just going to come to me while I’m washing my car? You must be out of your mind.

“So you must have an energy vibration of knowledge to receive knowledge via spiritual means. But you say “How? How can I be in a vibration of confident knowledge when I don’t have the answer yet?” And now we see why Jesus and countless others preach faith. This is the true value of faith; that terrible symbol of hopeless ignorance that the atheist abhors. Faith is the key to salvation from ignorance about who you really are, what this universe is, and why.”

I’m sure this all makes sense to you in your own little world. But in reality, faith is the same as ignorance. Faith is belief without evidence and this is what the believer bases their beliefs on. The atheist bases their beliefs off evidence.

What you are saying in this paragraph is in order to receive the information that god has you need to be in a state of knowing. And the only way to be in a state of knowing is to know the information. Do you see how circular your argument is? I could say the key to salvation is eating 9 potatoes every day for the rest of my life. How do I know this? Well I have faith that god will reveal this information to me when I die. Do you see how ridiculous this sounds?

“Faith is not about believing in a magic man despite the fact that there is no evidence…” By definition faith is belief without evidence. So yes faith is believing in a magic man despite there being no evidence.

This is spirituality, and it is not “other worldly,” it is merely an aspect of natural law that we have yet to fully understand”


So you are now saying that spirituality is a naturally occurring law. If this is true why would we need a god for it? If spirituality is an aspect of this universe god would not need to give us information about it because we will eventually learn what it is and how it works. Even still, I wouldn’t trust christian doctrine seeing how their scientific predictions didn’t come out so good. (EX: the earth is flat, there is a dome around the earth, hell is in earths core)

“Once you truly become aware of it, you will then see evidence of it everywhere you look, including all the scientific discoveries man has ever made.”

Doubt it.

This took me ~30 minutes. Please take the time to read it. Thanks.

Brian Blackwell > Barackisha Obamaniqua
Oh absolutely, Barack, I would not do you the dishonor of merely skimming or passing over portions of your contribution here; I have read it carefully, you may be sure. No part of me enjoys having to point out that your interpretation of my previous comment is riddled with misunderstanding relative to my intended meaning, though this can hardly be a basis for finding fault, as the ideas that I seek to present are radical by common standards.

I believe that it is a widely accepted notion that everything in the universe is essentially vibration; that even solid matter when viewed on a smaller scale is merely energy, with its properties being relative to the nature of its vibration (my understanding of this is by no means adequate to fully relate the actual findings). You might endeavor to research this as you are science-minded and I am no authority. I have stated that consciousness is energy (and thus vibratory), and whether or not this is a fact established by scientific inquiry I do not know, and I do not intend to deem it fact as such; I merely offer it as a model for understanding spiritual truth as I know it via subjective means.

The term “ignorance” does not suppose that “the information is there yet the person purposely refuses it,” as you have stated. Ignorance is a lack of knowledge, as you may ascertain via its dictionary definition.

To assert that my comments stand in opposition to the passage from Matthew, “Ask and it is given…” is simply born of misunderstanding. In fact, that passage is precisely what I am speaking of when I said that “You may ask all you want in prayer, and the answer will be given even before you ask.” However, something may be given you, but not received, as is the case of every high school student who fails an exam despite the teacher’s lectures having provided all necessary information.

In addition, my entire discourse in this thread has been an entreaty to seek in earnest, for if you seek then you shall find, and if you knock it will be opened. But you must seek in the right place, and knock on the right door, and when the information is revealed you must receive it. Rigid adherence to a man-made model of attaining knowledge which was designed for use in the physical world makes receiving via other means impossible, as does remaining in a state of desperate ignorance that causes one to plead hopelessly for God’s revelation. This scenario I have previously described well enough.

I have not attempted to state that energy has emotion, this would be ludicrous. I have stated that emotion itself is a particular type of energy, so that when you are feeling angry you are “giving off” (or in a state consistent with) energy of an angry nature. The energy is not feeling an emotion of anger, but the emotion of anger is a form of energy, if you can perceive the subtle distinction I’m trying to make here.

As for inspiration of all kinds coming to people in the most unlikely of moments, this is well-documented. Many ideas come during sleep, when one is a state of serene calmness, not fretting over the worries of the day. The mind may hold but one idea at a time; if it is full of the question it cannot also receive the answer. You may logically devise answers from evidence, etc., but this is different from “inspired” knowledge and the like.

I reassert here that faith is not believing in a “magic man.” I offer that merely as an example that faith need not necessarily be about the particulars. It can be a general confidence of knowledge as in “I have faith that I will gain this knowledge.” “I have faith that this situation will work out to my benefit.” You have no factual reason to know this for sure, but the state of mind is beneficial for the aforementioned reason — it puts you in the proper state to receive. You are not full of the question, but instead have your hands out for the answer.

Of course spirituality is “naturally occurring,” for what can be said to exist that is not? Just because we haven’t discovered it via scientific means does not mean that it does not exist or that we cannot know it via other means. This is the ridiculous notion held by some of the most intelligent scientific minds who are utterly devoid of wisdom. Did we need the discovery of molecules via scientific means for molecules to exist? Of course not. They existed and we finally found out about it. Neither do we “need God” to reveal it, as though there were some omnipotent being with a will of its own who decides to reveal or conceal. However we may gain some knowledge of it now without having to wait for science to prove it or some imaginary deity to grant it. We have an internal link to our larger nature and the wealth of knowledge therewith.

We are now making discoveries to suggest that the very laws of physics as we knew them do not apply on the quantum level, and even that the attention of consciousness itself inexplicably affects outcomes in the physical world. “Spirituality” is quite likely to be part of our scientific knowledge soon enough, and then we can stop discussing it like it’s some hocus pocus that’s outside the realm of our daily perception.

I also do not ask you to “trust Christian doctrine” but to trust yourself. You do not need outside forces to grant knowledge to you. Equally, you do not need some man-made system of attaining knowledge to validate your innate knowing any more than you need a religious book to tell you of your true nature. Your “higher being” (or non-physical aspect) has knowledge, and you may access it directly without an intermediary — all of my words have been offered in an attempt to present this message.

Brian Blackwell > Paul Edwards
Hey Paul! Nice to see you’re still with us! Well, your steadfast interest is admirable considering that the posts just keep getting longer and longer! Hahaha But this is to be expected, as the topic is quite abstract and clarity suffers as thought becomes word. The human tendency to substitute quantity where quality fails is ubiquitous.

The conversation has brought us to the point where I have begun to flesh out my own personal view on spirituality, which was never my purpose at the outset. The need arose as exemplary illustrations were required, and by necessity the bizarre nature of these postulations inspired undue attention. I have no intention of trying to prove these points, but will speak only to my subjective understanding of them and attempt to clarify my position — let the reader then judge as dictated by their own paradigm, once these ideas are accurately discerned.

My true purpose, as always, is to suggest that there is a more subtle knowledge that may be garnered subjectively and unaided, but that scripture and many other teachings may have value to the individual who seeks such knowledge in earnest.

If you find that I am being unreasonable, closed-minded, or unfair, please let me know. To my mind, I am making a lucid presentation, but this supposition is quite convenient when regarding one’s own efforts, as you may imagine. Hahaha It’s good to have a third party to keep everyone in check!

Colin C. > Brian Blackwell
You better read it. You would not dare to disrgace the name of Barackisha Obamaniqua! Yeah that’s my real name by the way.

We don’t know what “consciousness” is yet but I guess we can call it energy. It doesn’t have anything to do with the topic really. You are also right on that all matter is a form of condensed energy which makes me wonder why you don’t think the universe can come about by natural means, considering that we can derive that energy is eternal from the first law of thermodynamics. That’s besides the point though.

You are correct about ignorance. I admit my mistake in that.

I see your point about Matthew. I think I know what you’re trying to say. You’ll see my rebuttal later as now is not the time.

Okay when the information is revealed I must receive it. I need to receive it without science. I have to receive it with the right attitude and the right time. I ask you and a god if he exists, why does he make us humans have to try so hard in order to get this information. People are lazy and if religion/ lack of a religion doesn’t interest them they aren’t going to try to receive this information. Right there god isn’t revealing himself to about 97% of people because, lets be honest, not many people like debating god. So I ask this: Why did god make it so hard to get this information? He is all powerful and can change natural law with a snap of his fingers. Does he not want people to come to him and worship him?

Emotion itself is not a particular type of energy. There are many types of energy as you probably learned in elementary or middle school. Theres kinetic, potential, thermal, etc.There is no emotional energy. Also energy cannot have different natures. There is no “angry nature”. Emotions from a scientific perspective are just electrical impulses in our brains that may release hormones or trigger other parts of the brain like memory. I feel like I am missing your point somehow but this is the best I can deduce from what you gave me.

I do not doubt that ideas can come to people in dreams or on the couch or whatever. I wouldn’t credit it to a god though. I would credit the subconscious mind. As I see it the person could not come up with the answer while thinking about it consciously yet when they put it out of their mind their subconscious was still at work with the same evidence their conscious mind had. They derived the answer from evidence even if they didn’t know it.

I can’t honestly have faith in god. I tried to put myself in the right state of mind. I repeated over and over in my head “I believe in god. I have faith god is real.” I didn’t really believe it though. I don’t know if I ever will truly. I guess to me, the information is just unavailable 😦

What explanation does spirituality serve? The “discovery” of atoms explained how small we could go (for a time). The “discovery” of relative space-time by Einstein explained the problems with mercuries orbit which did not correspond with current mathematical models of predicting orbit. My point being every scientific discovery explains something. If spirit science was proven, what purpose would it serve?

You implied that you think science will eventually prove spirituality. What evidence do you have to think this? I could say “humans have the power to fly (without mechanical help) but we just haven’t discovered how to yet. Science will prove this eventually but if you want the information right now all you gotta do is have faith you can fly and ask god for the information to do so. Jump off a building and hope for the best.”

Also, why would god reveal information about spirituality but not about worm holes. Both exist in the natural world and both humans know very little about.

I would say that seems to be more like mind powers than spirituality. Affecting others with your mind? I’m all for that but I don’t think it has any correlation to a spirit.

I can also offer a scientific explanation. Well of course activity in our mind would affect outside reality. Our brain is a physical thing after all and our thoughts are merely electrical impulses. I would imagine not all the energy would stay in your skull and some would escape, especially on the quantum level with fluctuations and tunneling.

You obviously know something about quantum mechanics since you mentioned it. Which again makes me wonder why you don’t believe the universe could come about by natural causes. At the quantum level things are coming in and out of existence constantly, from nothing I might add. I don’t see the universes origin as much different.

Brian Blackwell > Barackisha Obamaniqua
How inspiring! I do believe our discussion is bringing us toward a similar conclusion at the center. We are unlikely to be able to jump the final hurdle because I cannot produce objective evidence to support my ultimate conclusion, and you cannot accept the conclusion without it, but it seems likely that we will get close enough to both be satisfied.

I do not support the notion of a personified God. This alone should abate some of the resistance to my postulation about how seemingly difficult spiritual knowledge is to obtain. There is no God that “makes it hard” for us to gain this knowledge any more than there is a God that made it hard for us to understand molecular physics/chemistry. The way of things is the way of things; however long it takes us to know it, that’s on us.

Everything that I have said about spiritual knowledge is true of physical knowledge (as I have not differentiated between them, but said that that the spiritual is just natural law that we have yet to understand); thus we might say that physical knowledge about molecules was available at any time in man’s history via spiritual means. However, we must realize that our thought does not venture too far ahead of where we are — all progress is stepwise. I am tired as I stand waiting for the bus – the idea for bus stop benches is born. Now I am sitting, so that’s solved, but I am getting rained on while I am on the bench – the idea for an enclosure around the bus stop is born. This is how the mind works, and so we are not generally ready to perceive/receive information far in advance of where we stand, and as it is our “readiness” that determines what we can receive/access, cavemen did not receive molecular science.

There is no God, as a being outside ourselves that governs the universe. The intent of eternal consciousness — which includes all of our individual consciousness’s — is the first cause (or creator) and the physical world responds to this intent. Thus we have evolution, for instance. Darwin supposes random mutations, some of which are of benefit. These mutations are the mode of change that consciousness uses to progress toward its desires. Now, this all would be subject for much debate, but I do not wish to make a point about the nature of spirituality, but only to illustrate the difference between my idea of it and the idea of “God” so as to respond to your questions about “God making it hard,” “revealing himself,” being “all powerful” or “wanting people to worship him.” I do not suppose any such entity, but rather a conglomeration of consciousness.

We are familiar with this concept of “As a man thinketh, so is he” or “Your life is a reflection of your thoughts.” This kind of idea is popular with the “Law of Attraction” crowd — who typically cite a spiritual cause — but many have attributed this to the subconscious mind (such as Joseph Murphy) and have described the same exact phenomena. I say that there is no difference between saying that it is the subconscious mind or saying it is the spirit, because the body is not separate from the spirit; it is a physical extension of consciousness. I cannot prove that consciousness exists without the body, this is beyond us at this time. The whole idea of a subconscious mind is not yet explained well either; though we can see evidence of thought’s effects in the brain, we do not know how it originates. Thought itself is largely a mystery.

Yes, perhaps talking about emotional “energy” is not literally correct if viewed in the context of the scientifically established types of energy; but I’m coming from the perspective that everything is essentially energy. So what shall we call it? Vibration of some sort? We have all had the experience of a person walking into a room and giving off a “vibe.” Animals are particularly sensitive to this. Emotion creates… something. I loosely use the term energy for this phenomena. The chemicals that are released when you have certain emotions are a description of what’s happening in the body at the time, but descriptions are not the whole story. We can describe what’s happening when a wound heals, but this does not tell us why it heals, only how. There is some intelligence at play that we have yet to figure out. If we had figured it out, then medicine would be a perfect science, but it is not, as medical mysteries abound.

As for faith, it cannot be forced. You have to find something you believe in and start from there. If you believe in the subconscious mind having powers beyond your conscious mind, maybe that’s a start. See if you can get it to effect the outside world. Here’s the kicker — it doesn’t really matter what label you put on this stuff. You may never believe in “spirit” but otherwise have identical beliefs to one who does. Many people have had “miraculous” situations (extreme cases of natural law) and they attribute them to all different causes. But it’s like Joseph Campbell’s “Hero with a thousand faces,” all the spokes point toward the same hub. I’m calling it “spiritual.” Once we realize via science that “natural law” includes everything (perhaps even people sprouting wings and flying), then our discussion here will be moot. The latest evidence about consciousness affecting the physical world is very promising in this regard.

“At the quantum level things are coming in and out of existence constantly, from nothing I might add. I don’t see the universes origin as much different.”

This is fantastic! This is where we might have hope for a bridge to unite our thought. This sounds a lot like “magic.” It falls under “science” because we have observed it. So what would be the difference between the “spirituality” that I describe and an identical “natural law” that includes the same descriptions? Nothing at all. The two worlds would be one.

What explanation will spiritual science serve? It will explain why the things that happen in our lives happen the way they do (why Joe gets the big promotion even though he didn’t “deserve” it, while Alan who worked his butt off gets canned, etc.). It will explain the relationship between our consciousness and the universe (including psychic/ESP abilities, radical healings, etc.). It will explain what we essentially are, and perhaps imply the pre-birth and post-death condition. It will answer the why behind all the how. I do not have evidence to think this. This is a speculation based upon my idea of there only being one area of study in the universe, which we call natural law, and man’s infinite capacity to expand his understanding (via a slow stepwise procedure) to include what is now termed “spirituality.”

Collin Roche > Brian Blackwell
“Science is not antiquated as a tool for describing the physical world, but it is in regards to establishing proof of spirit.”

Science doesn’t make any claims to be able to measure the supernatural. It deals with the reality to which we all experience in this universe. Things beyond those experiences we can all perceive (and generally agree to exist) cannot be broken down for examination or building a framework for prediction of future events (theories).

Spirituality has become this ridiculous term for people tired of/disgusted with churches (justifiably so). They use it as a nebulous (without form) way to say they have truth, but that truth can’t be described in any sensible way. It’s basically the way to say “I have faith that there’s something you can’t see/taste/smell/touch…you just have to believe!”

Additionally, atheists will start believing your claims as soon as there is evidence for said claims. Your statements above provide no benefit to the discussion.

Brian Blackwell > Collin Roche
I offered the comment quoted in response to the idea that “spirituality” does not exist because there is no scientific (objective) evidence. I do not disagree with your comments about science. The true scientist does not make claims about what does not exist, as this is outside his scope. However, I would suggest a slight alteration to the premise that spirituality is believed on faith alone. I think that people have subjective evidence of spirit.

Furthermore I would point out that all experience is subjective, though we might agree upon our subjective experience of physical phenomena, such as “the moon appears larger in the sky than venus.” But the very nature of spirituality is that it is only known from within, and not definitively discernable in any “objective” way (at least for now); we cannot point to anything and say “look, there it is!” Science is not intended to provide information about things that are not perceivable by the five senses (or technological agents in their employ), but this does not necessitate the conclusion that such things do not exist, as I’m sure you would agree.

X-rays were not known until we developed technology that could translate them into something we could perceive, but they were there all along. A bumblebee, a bat, and a human may all be in the same room and have very different “objective” evidence of what is there. What is true of this room? The truth is that all three perspectives (any many other possible ones) combine to form the truth of that room, but we may only compare notes about those which we have in common. Those who are sensitive to spirit (via the necessary willingness to accept its subjective nature) and those who perceive it not (via a steadfast commitment to science as the only means of knowledge) have no basis for comparison.

I agree that many atheists will only accept spirit once it is made known by science, as they have made a decision to only accept information on that basis. In the meantime, some of us will accept the evidence perceived by the subjective “sixth sense” and may have grounds for discussion amongst ourselves.

Barackisha Obamaniqua > Paul Edwards
Atheism is a group. If you separate a bunch of people into religious and non-religious groups, they would both be groups. Just because atheists don’t meet every sunday doesn’t mean we are not a group.

While I do agree that there is no official spokesperson for atheism, he does express most atheists views. That was a petty critique.

Barackisha Obamaniqua > Brian Blackwell
If you can’t show/tell me evidence I won’t accept it but I will consider it. I like to be open to new ideas.

It’s true we obviously don’t know everything there is to know. And yes we can’t know advanced mechanics without first knowing the basics. I thought we already established this.

So you see god as a external consciousness outside the universe? Okay, it is a god either way and by definition, supernatural.

BTW mutations play a small role in evolution. That’s a common misconception.

There is a difference between the subconscious mind and a spirit. The subconscious mind isn’t physically different than the conscious mind. Its the same brain in there. The brain is a physical thing. We can touch it, smell it, feel it, and so on. The spirit is not. If it was a physical thing we would be able to infer it’s existence by natural means like science. But your claiming we can’t detect it with science but by some other medium we can.

Yes I’ve been around someone giving off a bad “vibe”. But we get that sensation from subtle details that, guess what, our subconscious mind (yup) picks up on. There’s a scientific reason for everything in this universe. Even if we haven’t found it.

Also, science doesn’t concern itself with why things happen. only how. I don’t think there is a “why” to the universe.

Okay okay okay. What do you think a spirit is? We haven’t defined our terms AT ALL and that is most likely the cause of why we aren’t understanding each other as well as we should. A spirit implies supernatural origin so I thought you were arguing from a supernatural standpoint on spirits. What is a spirit to you?

Again I don’t know what spirituality you described because I don’t remember you describing what you believe a spirit to be. If it is of natural origin it wouldn’t be supernatural and wouldn’t reveal any great truth. If it is natural you are right that it would be scientific and I would accept it.

I don’t see the need for a why things happen. I don’t think there is a why things are the way they are. They just are.

Brian Blackwell > Barackisha Obamaniqua
Hmm, you ask me about God and spirit… I can’t help but object to the use of the word “God” because I feel like it implies something that is “other” from us, or something that has some will of its own, apart from ours. I described spirit/God as “a conglomeration of consciousness” that includes our own, and I think that’s about as far as I can reasonably go. I would add that I do not believe our individual consciousness changes fundamentally, whether it is being expressed in a human body or not. Spirit is without beginning or end, as is the physical universe, and thus impossible to understand in its entirity by the limited human mind.

I do not think spirit is outside the physical realm as the term “supernatural” implies. I think it is the impetus for change/movement of all things from before the big bang until now, and is the cause of all things. As is often the case in this universe, like patterns appear on different scales; our own experience of creating objects mirrors that of spirit relative to the universe — thought is the primary cause.

I cannot see spirit as apart from physical; a flower opens and a scientist describes how that happens mechanically but omits the why. Fair enough, as science does not deal in whys. But you believe (if not assert) that there is no why, merely because you don’t perceive it. But this is a logical trick that you play on yourself. Intent is obviously present. You simply will not permit yourself to be “foolish” by believing in something you cannot prove even though it is staring you in the face everywhere you look.

How can there be free will, according to your belief system? There cannot, because the processessing of information in the brain must have a formula, if only we could work out all the subtle details. Clearly you have the subjective experience of free will, but since you cannot prove it to someone else, it must not be? It is a grand illusion that happened accidently (meaning without intention)? All these thinking, feeling creatures, all the perfection that abounds to keep it together, and you say it’s just a pile of atoms. I’m sure if I tossed a deck of cards into the air there is some probability that they will land in the form of a perfectly constructed house of cards, but the next time I see such a construction I’m certainly not going to think of that explanation first. “Prove it is otherwise or I declare it meaningless accident born of no intent!”

Why does the rigid science-bound atheist say “prove that it exists or I won’t believe it” when it’s only sensible? I know it is scientific treason to say something is “common sense” or “obvious,” but I say it here with resolve. If I hear growling and snarling and scratching on the other side of a door, I do not think “prove there is a beast in there or I am going in.” I think “prove that there is not a beast or I refuse to go in!” Even such an atheist as I here describe does not live daily life this way. Scientific inquiry is an academic pursuit; it does not serve as guidance for all that life includes.

Humanity has always had the inclination to believe there was something unseen that supported the seen. The rigidly scientific atheist holds a belief that implies “they were all morons from the beginning of time until science enlightened them.” They have no inherent faith in humanity without the guiding light of what science reveals; thus they have no faith in themselves and ignore their own inclinations and subjective experience.

Don’t believe me? Show me a rigidly scientific atheist that was born that way. From birth we naturally see some aspect of ourselves in the world around us, from the trees, to the rivers, animals, even sun and moon; not because we’re natural born idiots who personify everything even though these things clearly aren’t people, but because there is an innate sense of the common conscious intent that is the source and first cause of all things. It takes years of rigorous mental training to override this natural inclination, and much like formal religious training, it can only be accomplished via instruction by others and is thus artificial.

Now I know that I sound like just another raving spiritual lunatic to some who will read these words, but if I am it is not due to a lack of investigstion into the topic. I moved through all the stages to get here and studied much — both academically and personally — before arriving at these conclusions. I was born into a Christian family and accepted religion (though with casual reservations) as a child, became a rigid scientific atheist for many years, then an agnostic of sorts, and have arrived at this place I here describe; for which I cannot find an adequate label.

This proves not the validity of my position in the slightest, nor lends it the smallest credit, but it demonstrates that if I am a maniac, then I am one who arrived at the condition most earnestly and with steadfast resolve. I stand unnamed and in a position of disfavor amongst religious believers, atheists, and agnostics alike. I gain nothing from this belief other than the satisfaction of knowing that according to all objective and subjective evidence that I have known, it is truth.

I cannot say more than I have said in this thread, but will happily continue the engagement or conclude our discussion believing in earnest that the full truth of this universe includes the best of both our positions… with none of the warts.

Barackisha Obamaniqua > Paul Edwards
Internet atheists think along the same lines. Active internet atheists. People who share their atheism online are usually there because they want to argue with others or make videos criticizing religion. These are the atheists I see and I recognize there are others that just don’t accept god based on experience or intuition like your wife. I don’t see people like her because I know mostly internet atheists. So to make my point clear, most internet atheists do have similar reasons for rejecting god.

Wes Jones > Brian Blackwell
What makes you think scientists haven’t come to their own understanding of the glory of all that is?

Ridiculing and mocking ignorant and ridiculous claims is a hallmark of many atheists on the Internet…but what can you expect when intelligent thought and acceptance of reality are attacked by deluded and uneducated minds?

It was, in fact, in accepting the empirical facts of our origin from mere inert chemicals to animate living, breathing, complex structures that made me appreciate the beauty of life. It was, in fact, the realization that there is no “spirit” that made me feel more of what one would define as “spirituality” toward this life. Science unveils a beauty about reality that can only be understood by understanding the reality of science. I’ve been devoutly religious. I know what it feels like…and it pales in comparison to the beauty I see now. A beauty that not only gets attacked…but that sees people’s heads cut off for appreciating more than mere “faith”.

When you actually understand the position of scientists, you understand both sides’ behaviours, as well as those in your camp.

Brian Blackwell > Wes Jones
I can understand that, I had a similar experience with astronomy. But science has nothing to say about spirit in any regard, other than that if it does exist, it is not physical, and therefore not within its scope.

Wes Jones > Brian Blackwell
but that is not the same as saying science doesn’t have the ability to test specific claims made about a spirit.

Let’s look at the claim of chakras often used by new age groups. The notion that these spiritual points absorb light necessarily falls into the realm of science: light. If an object absorbs light, as is this claim, then that can be measured, as we can measure light absorption. Tests have confirmed no such light absorption occurs.

Ghost hunters are another great, albeit comedic, example. The devices they use are physical tools to measure physical forces. The electromagnetic force they attempt to measure with their device is actually scientific tools. The claim that they measure a spirit is falsified by evidence. Easily understood by anyone who thinks rationally. A person, who has a spirit, holding a device that measures spirit energy, means they would set it off themselves if it were actually measuring said spiritual energy.

Brian Blackwell > Wes Jones​
Hahaha yes, that is true! Hahaha, how ridiculous!

I have nothing to say about such things. I make no claims other than to those things I directly experience. It is a fun story we tell about news abroad, or scientific facts, or history, but that’s all it is — a story — nothing more.

Of course in daily life we can act in accordance with these stories, and use our baseless assumptions to keep some sense of order, but humility is born of the recognition that we know only our experience for certain — with no additional implications about that experience.

Forgive my use of the word “baseless,” as this is only true from the perspective I offer here. Within the story, there is much valid evidence. Ultimately, however, evidence is only evidence to he who has the experience of it; and even then, only evidence of the fact that he had said experience, not of an implied grander truth.

If I see a cell divide in a microscope, then that is what I know for sure — that I experienced this visual phenomenon — not that cells divide in general, and so on, and so forth. Once you make that leap, you have left the realm of certain truth for the story of objective reality.

This story is baseless for you, whatever foundational information has been compiled through the ages. You have the experience of reviewing this information, but the content therein is not your knowledge or truth; your truth is only the experience of reading words on a page.

Does Bosnia exist? I have no comment. Did the world exist before 1977? No comment. These are the wrong questions — utterly absurd in the most literal sense. The very notion of something existing outside my experience is a moot point.

And yes, we may enjoy the endeavor of exploring “objective reality” just as some enjoy exploring the linguistics of the Klingon Empire or the High Elves of Middle Earth, but I do not see how any one of these hobbies imply an objective reality any more than the others.

Wes Jones > Brian Blackwell
what a sad and unfulfilled view you have.

Brian Blackwell > Wes Jones
What’s sad? It doesn’t stop one from pursuing any interest — including science — to whatever degree they deem desirable. It is simply the unalterable truth; to adopt it as my “view” is compulsory.

Wes Jones > Brian Blackwell
to think all that matters is what’s in your subjective mind.

Brian Blackwell > Wes Jones
What “matters” is up to you, but the subjective mind is all there is evidence of.

Wes Jones > Brian Blackwell
I suggest you familiarize yourself with modern philosophy, as this has been rather well discussed.

Brian can be contacted through my Discord server:
https://discord.gg/3rhghRX
Or at his Steemit:
https://steemit.com/@bbblackwell

Find Me @:
1st BITCHUTE: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/amp3083/
2nd BITCHUTE: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/amp3783/
FACEBOOK: http://www.facebook.com/ampthirtyeightythree





Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s