Here's an article that I think highlights my outlook on religion, philosophy, and beliefs. It is not the article I pidgeonhole my thoughts to, nor the article that I quote whenever asked how I feel about a topic. It is simply an influence, as are philisophical groups and ideas. I would like it if replies to the thread would be from people that have read the entire article.

http://www.randi.org/jr/072503.html

Ah! james Randi, the worlds foremost skeptic.

I completely agree with everything he says, and some of it i think i just said in the athiest thread!  :)

Did you see his study of homeopathy? That was great, and really exposed it as a load of old... water I guess!  ;)

Richard Dawkins said the following about the new philosphical movement, the Brights:

"A bright is a person whose world view is free of supernatural and mystical elements. The ethics and actions of a bright are based on a naturalistic world view."

Another website described Brights this way:

"A Bright is a person who has a naturalistic worldview. A Bright's worldview is free of supernatural and mystical elements. The ethics and actions of a Bright are based on a naturalistic worldview."

Not only that, it describes the context of the definition:

"naturalistic: conceiving of reality as the natural world as it is known and experienced scientifically (not supernaturally)"

 "worldview: the overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world; a set of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or group"

Sound anything like my system of ethics to you? I'd say that this is pretty much me, with a little skeptic thrown in to take care of the "beliefs in the natural world" issue.

I may be biassed, but I like the choice of the name 'Brights', for it implies that 'non-Brights' are, maybe, Dulls!
But then, we are all different and we could not appreciate Brights if all that existed were Dulls.

Best regards, Bill.

It leads pretty much to mindset of the majority of the people. A majority belief system.

 Do not make judgements on that which you do not know.
 
  The page below:

http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0...,981412,00.html

  explains why Dawkins chose the term. If you want to skip the reading and have me explain it to you in simple terms, let's just say that bright is meant as cheerful and happy more than smart. The word was coined humorously as "the new gay". Read on to find out more.

Intelligently ignorant!

 Yes, Joe, but we're talking about me and my discovery of philosophy, not you as you are accustomed to.  ;D

  Man, Laz, I'm readin Randi's comments on his site...... this man shares my outlook on life down to a tee! I'm a bright/skeptic.... and if it wasn't for this message board, I never would have found a calling.

QUOTE

Yes, Joe, but we're talking about me and my discovery of philosophy, not you as you are accustomed to.

Is this the discovery of a category that you were looking to fit into or the discovery of  a conception of truth through personal experience.

Being a skeptic is good, even Christ said question everything. Only the heart knows what is real, and it is through personal experience that the heart draws itself closer to God. Even if you go completely in the opposite direction you are bound to end up at the beginning.
Evolution of experience always has its point of origin and completion in the same place.
The world is constantly changing; world views, definitions through expanded experiences and their new meanings. It is the same path regardless whether you take the straight line approach or the winding back and forth, scenic route.

 It's simply a discovery of other people who share my way of thinking. It's not something to subscribe to, just something that others and I share.

QUOTE

"The website http://www.celeb-atheists.com/ suggests numerous intellectuals and other famous people are brights. Brights constitute 60% of American scientists, and a stunning 93% of those scientists good enough to be elected to the elite National Academy of Sciences (equivalent to Fellows of the Royal Society) are brights."

ok wait, celebrities, intellectuals, and of the scientists, "...a stunning 93% of those scientists good enough to be elected to the elite National Academy of Sciences (equivalent to Fellows of the Royal Society) are brights"
dude, total elitism!
and im supposed to feel morally outraged if somebody says "christian children" but impressed with the "Fellows" of the Royal Society? dont they allow women in the (obviously elitist) Royal Society? whats up with that?

i dont kno... one thing i cant stand about some religious people is that they think theyre better than everyone else. but i cant stand that kinda tude in a secular humanist or atheist either.
and the church of scientology makes a big deal about its celebrity members too.

its nice to find a group of people you have something in common with, and i think its a naurally human thing to partly define your identity in terms of belonging to family or tribe or nation, but when i browsed through bright.net it reminded me of boys in a treehouse whove formed a club just so they can be in a club.
im not tryin to harsh on anyone or be critical and negative and bitchy but it seems like this bright meme doesnt have any purpose except to compete with other memes. i could be totally wrong tho, thats just what i was thinking.

i forgot what i was thinking about The Amazing Randi's article, ill have to reread it

QUOTE

and if it wasn't for this message board, I never would have found a calling.

So what is this calling? what is your mission from here?

Joe,

On 2nd August you wrote:-

Only the heart knows what is real, and it is through personal experience that the heart draws itself closer to God.
You also observed that things change all the time.

If an atheist has a heart transplanted [changed] from a very religious person, will his concept of reality and God change?

I ask because as far as I know the heart is a blood pump!

Best regards, Bill.

Veda,

Wherever you got that from is clearly an example of members of a philosophical group misunderstanding their own cause. You don't have to be any of those things to be a Bright...... as a matter of fact, it sounds like the biased site you quoted is trying to sway people to join by using a bandwagon elitist stance.

I also admit that the people who run the-brights.net are embarassingly childish. But every philosophy has its abusers..... the individual does not define the group.

My mission here is to find knowledge. Hopefully that's what others are seeking too.

i got that from the link you posted... http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0...,981412,00.html  ...the article written by dawkins...
sorry, my bad for not putting the link with the quote :-[

if it seems like hes misunderstanding his own cause then... um... well does it make you wanna rethink this whole bright thing?
and what is the cause exactly? i mean i kno they want us to start using the word 'bright' in this new way, and i kno they want there to be more brights, lots and lots of brights... it seems to me kinda like the way catholics want there to be more catholics
but is there more to the cause?

QUOTE

Joe, On 2nd August you wrote:- Only the heart knows what is real, and it is through personal experience that the heart draws itself closer to God. You also observed that things change all the time. If an atheist has a heart transplanted [changed] from a very religious person, will his concept of reality and God change? I ask because as far as I know the heart is a blood pump! Best regards, Bill.

People also write love songs and dedicate them to the feeling heart.
However in regards to the heart, being a pump, the heart is a pump but it is also the seat of the soul. Just below and behind the heart is the connecting point of the Self and the self.

Joe speaks of the Lotus Heart Bill, Yoga philosophy would tell you that it is located above the abdomen and bleow the thorax, and as its name suggests is in the shape of a Lotus flower.

It is supposed to be an internal light that never fades, and it is as big as the universe and as small as an atom.

QUOTE

My mission here is to find knowledge. Hopefully that's what others are seeking too.

That's cool, I thought by the wording you were going to try and become the antichirst or something  ;)

My mission is to share the information I learn with anyone who is prepared to listen, debate it, and draw my own conclusions

 Hehe.... well, I do have 666 tattooed on my head, for some reason..... and I've watched the omen a couple times.....  

 Hmmm...... I never l,earned about this in Biology class....

There are a lot of things you will never learn in school.
Does that make it less real?

QUOTE

Joe speaks of the Lotus Heart Bill, Yoga philosophy would tell you that it is located above the abdomen and bleow the thorax, and as its name suggests is in the shape of a Lotus flower. Â

more generally, Joey is speaking of 'chakras' (the 'heart chakra', specifically).  Chakras are psychosomatic sensations that are 'felt' locally in the body, and are associated with mental/emotional states.  The ancients mistook thes psychosomatic representations for actual physical objects, thus they believe that there are 'portals' in various locations of one's body.

 It sounds to me like you just have to associate something with endorphines released throughout your body, along with other stimulus' supplied by your nervous system.

 Because "God" forbid your feelings could just be organic, and not spiritual.

Actually the chakras are physical points that are located within the body. At these points are intersections of nerve clusters called nadis.

The heart as I have described is not the chakra but the seat of the soul which is the nerve clusters energy source.
Similar to the idea of being brain dead when the brain is no longer operating but the body is, without the ability to connect to the conscious source the body becomes purely mechanical and without any spark of intellegence behind the fuctioning organs.

That bit about the chakras was funny Dan, I bet you read that somewhere in a comic book, or just made it up.

 You'd think they'd have noticed the last time you had an X-ray.

 I only used that link to get information on where the term "Bright" originated..... that's the only reason I put it on here.

 I don't really see why that would mean I'm misunderstanding my cause. The cause, which I posted in the second post, isn't that hard to understand.

sorry, i deleted that becuz i realized i was being smart-azz just to be a smart-azz. im sorry my bad again.

but if dawkins seems like he's misunderstanding his own cause, and the bright.net people seem pretty childish, doesnt it all seem kinda silly?

im not tryin to be a smart-azz now, but like i said, i cant stand some religious people cuz they think theyre better than the rest of us, and i dont like that tude in an atheist or secular humanist either. i mean, "holier than thou" is lame, agreed? and self righteously intellectually superior than thou is pretty lame too dontcha think?
im just sayin... becuz thats all i can see goin on with the whole 'bright' thing

 Where are you gettin' this 'holier than thou' from? If you're getting it from Dawkins, I ddn't see it, and if you're getting it from the-brights.net, it's because no matter how good your philosophy is, it'll be abused by people who are in it for the wrong reasons. But you can't equate those people with the whole.

 I'm not a Bright to be better than anybody. I'm simply a Bright because my ideas and outlook fall into that category, along with being a Skeptic.

Hey veda  :)

I would love to know where you are coming from and what your angle is?

You seem to be pro ascension but anti religion.

You know about buddhism, but you claim to no nothing of the ego and my "experiment" post helped you get started!

You don't like self righteously intellectually superior people, and yet you can speak the same language and in the same style as Joe.

I'm confused, help me out :-/

Agnos honey, sweetie, please try to work with me here

i think the problem is that im asking you your opinion on an article that you posted, but you didnt read. i quoted that article, and you agreed with me that it seemed pretty elitist. you even said, about the article that you posted, "Wherever you got that from is clearly an example of members of a philosophical group misunderstanding their own cause... as a matter of fact, it sounds like the biased site you quoted is trying to sway people to join by using a bandwagon elitist stance." - and i totally agree with you on this.
well it was dawkins that said it. so, does that make you wonder about the validity of other things dawkins says? it does me.
i also notice that randi quotes dawkins in the other article you posted. so if im not so sure that dawkins is being totally rational, how can i be sure that randi is being totally reasonable when he quotes dawkins?

the other thing i was thinking, was when you said "...no matter how good your philosophy is, it'll be abused by people who are in it for the wrong reasons. But you can't equate those people with the whole." so does this apply to dawkins? ya think hes in it for the wrong reasons? and again does this say anything about randi that quotes dawkins?
and does this apply to christians or buddhists, too? becuz i think randi is making this mistake when he says "religionists" and puts jim jones and david koresh in the same class as mother theresa and the dali lama and nonviolent compassionate little me.

this is just what i was thinking. im not tryin to keep the flamage goin, its just that these things dont seem rational or reasonable to me.

if these are dumb questions, please ignore, but if youre gonna post links to articles i totally think you should read em.

Joe, I tried to find out the medical name for Lotus Heart but did not succeed.
I did find the following though.

The "Lotus Of  The Heart"
Deep within the Heart dwells the "Lotus of the Heart". And deep within this Heart-Lotus dwells the Self-God.  In other words, the Heart-Lotus is the seat of the Infinite Consciousness. This is the Spiritual-Center, the Support or the Adhaar of life and everything else. Juts as the waves rise from the ocean, subsist in the ocean and then merge back into the ocean; similarly, the thoughts (mind) rise from this Substratum, on which they exist and where they are dissolved. Thus, this Heart-Lotus is the Center of all centers.

In view of this definition my original question still stands, since you did not answer it the first time.

Does a heart transplant change ones soul, God centre, religious faith?? Yes or no, with extra comment if you prefer.
Best regards, Bill.
Please remember that I have no desire whatever, to criticise your Faith. I just want to know what truths I have to learn to accept your Faith.
Best regards, Bill.

The mechanical heart has nothing to do with the essence of ones being, feelings etc. It is a biological mechanism only.
To simply answer your question. NO.

However have you looked into the stimulation of the glandular system of the body or the points or nerves that are used in chinese accupunture?
There were even some stimulation studies of glands that were done to mechanically accelerate the process of higher states of consciousness that were interesting, particularly the petuitary gland and the region of the crown chakra.

 Hey now, you're not working with me here.

 Yes, I realize Dawkins may be in it for the wrong reasons, but I accept the philosophy he began not for why he started it, but for the principle it shows as a whole. I take the philosophy simply for what it is, and not what Dawkins takes it for, as I think Randi does. To be honest, Dawkins isn't really the originator of the Brights, he's just expanding.... I found out that a couple started it, but now I think if I give you their names, you're going to judge the philosophy by their characters and not for what it is.

 I did read 'em, I just can't automatically recognize random quotes, cuz I didn't memorize the entire article. You confused me a little is all.

ok sorry ill try to work with ya. i just thought you werent payin attention

"but now I think if I give you their names, you're going to judge the philosophy by their characters and not for what it is. "

well im a little hurt that you would think this about me, what kindofa person do you think i am? do you think that i would make a judgement based on the fact that this is obviously the philosophy of privileged middle or upper class white people whose biggest tragedy in life is that they were criticized for being atheists? well no way, i promise i wont do that.

but i have a problem with this: "naturalistic: conceiving of reality as the natural world as it is known and experienced scientifically (not supernaturally)"
and this: "...free of supernatural and mystical elements."
how do you define whats natural and whats supernatural? becuz any questions you cant answer with science, you have to answer philosophically, right? like the origin of life, or that weird quantum wave/particle thing, or (totally unknowable) why anybody likes 50cent
and why do natural and supernatural have to be mutually exclusive?

 I'm sorry if it sounds insulting, but it is what you just did with Dawkins and Randi..... besides, I'm trying to say that it's not really that important, as much as the principle of it is.

 Well, natural is something you can prove through the scientific method, and "supernatural or mystical" would be beliefs based on faith, such as religious values, that either cannot be tested, or fail the method.

 And you accept that that's all you know yet, and anything "supernatural or mystical" must be tested and proven before being accepted. You don't have to answer most questions you can't answer with speculation. You can accept you don't know and leave bias out of it. So in a sense, it's an agnostic-type set of values (at least, that's the way I see it).

Would you categorize everything that does not have an explaination as supernatural or mystical? Or would you accept that Science has not yet the capability to measure and categorize certain aspects of creation?
If the latter can be taken into account is it wise to blow of the unknown as mystical or supernatural, or maybe just unknown?
 If the possibility exists that what is unknown can be known, would it be wise to continue to ignore the unknown until it is known only because mans capacity for complexity is only natural in finding simplicity in ignoring the unknown which would mostly make mankind ignoring or ignorant? ???

 I'm not ignoring the unknown, Joe... I told you, you can prove whatever you believe if you think it's true, giving whatever evidence you have to the website I supplied you for scientific analysis. If you can prove it by having them use your tests, then it will be a scientific breakthrough. But for some reason, I don't think you're going to.

  I know there are things beyond current scientific knowledge, and I'm open to anything that can be proven. I'm not saying that anything supernatural isn't a possibility, I'm just saying if it can't be proven, than it shouldn't be doted on.

So your saying that taking into consideration what is unknown by scientific standards is doting upon, and that the mind should not ponder what is not within the grasp of scientific proof and within the grasp of mans ability to understand?

I don't think the discoveries of the world would have been considered if man was to stand in the same hole that you stand in.

 I never said you shouldn't ponder what is unknown. That goes against everything that science has accomplished.

 But pondering is not believing. Pondering is thinking. I have thought about what you believe in, and there isn't enough evidence for anything you say to turn from supernatural to natural. Your beliefs are unfounded.

 I've shown you what to do, if you truly do have evidence that I'm not understanding.  :

You've only shown me your limits of interpretation and have asked me to lower the infinite possibilites to those levels to percieve what you can't with your basic tools.
You will need to expand the ability of your senses to see what science cannot build yet to interpret.

 And of course, your infinite perception abilities are so much greater than my simple mind can comprehend.

Uh-huh. OK, Swami.  :

So I guess the scientists who could found your beliefs don't have a great enough "perception" to see your evidence, just like everybody else who isn't in your yoga classes.  ???

If your expanded perception relies on faith, it is void! I can only explain it so many times.

No you have the same capabilities as I do, you just haven't decided yet to develop them and my experiences don't rely on faith. They are connected to it.

 I specifically remember you telling us all that in order to reach the "experience" you must have faith in it.

I can find it and quote you if you really want me to.

Oh I'm sure you heard what you heard just as you have interpreted scripture.

[img]http://130.89.160.183/jig/fora/argueoninternet.jpg[/img]

Mean and yet terribly funny. ;D

I never start this crapola. I didn't start it here, I'm just tryin' to get him ta shut up unless he can stay on the real topic, which is the Brights.

Where were we? The Ascension? Dammit, Joe!  >:(

QUOTE

If not Ascension than another. But the requirements are the same. Devotion to the process and the willingness to give up your ideas in pride and control.

 
Ahem. Faith anyone?

you're mixing apples and oranges again.

 Alright smarty-pants:

If you're experiences are only connected to faith, tell me how they don't rely on it. Because from that quote, you are saying that faith is a necessity.

I expect a sermon for your explanation.  ;D

The experience is connected to faith but does not rely upon it other than to drive one further or deeper into the experience. The knowing that it is real is always in question as you say yourself you cannot trust anything even your own experiences. The desire is what drives one to seek what is connected to the heart.
Ignorance or ignoring is the rationality that is built in the mind that rules apply to every situation and if what has been experienced doesn't fit into the set of rules then it can be ignored or followed depending on what is in the heart of the person.
Usually it follows dispair but what some call the instinct for survival is the inner drive that is connected to the reality that fear and suffering is not the norm and not necessary. If there wasn't anything greater than that there would not be faith or an inner connection to anything greater. People build upon faith, that connection to greater possibilities, if there was no potential for anything greater man would stand still in acceptance that this is all there is and this is as good as it gets.
Science continues or inprove upon what it has discovered either to get more grant money and line the pockets of researchers and support the industry or there is a faith that lives within the scientist that there is more to understand. If he/she is driven by that then there is acceptance to what has been understood but not complacency to leave it at that for there is always more.
Science has just begun to allow the spiritual aspect into the equation. They have begun to map the bodies brain functions and glandular secretions to build upon what Abraham Maslow called a peak experience. What causes the brain to find cohesiveness in altered states of consciousness and what it is that is experienced in forms of meditation or bliss consciousness that relaxes the body, reduces stress and promotes health.
What some have found is that the connection to the scriptures not only describe the mental awareness but the ability of the body to do what it hasn't been able to do without chemical assistance until now in normal conditions.
Unfortunately most like you still put God in a box to mean some person or thing outside of the self.
Science is just beginning to look at what the world is and what is the drive that nature seems to have as a stimulating factor to return chaos into balance.
This natural quality of power can be tapped into and it has been called many things. Unfortunately God has gotten a bad rap because so many picture what has been painted by misinterpretation.
Looking for love in all the wrong places has the mind looking for an interpretation of something that does not exist other than in the minds fantasy of a savior to allow the ignorant to perpetuate the delusion at the cost of others freedoms and desires.
Man has barely evolved enough to understand himself let alone what God is, and man will have to get over the arrogance of being master of the universe before he will discover how limited his thinking is.
So at the present time even with good intentions man has not developed science yet to percieve anything greater than his own fantasy of being master of discovery and the world. He still believes the world revolves around his intellect.
Faith cannot be removed but it can be ignored. Without faith there would be no connection to anything and nothing would ever evolve beyond a finite point of reality. Personally I can't imaging the universe coming to an end because it has run out of new possibilities, yet some regard this as a reasonable idea and accept it like death and taxes.

What I was referring to in the quote that you abused so well was that application to anything requires one pointed devotion to accomplish the goal.
Fortunately for me I was witness to an individual that embodied all the abilities that were described in the bible regarding christ and his extrordinary abilities.  For me the desire to find what I did not at first understand but knew was real was met with example. When the student is ready the teacher will appear.
My dedication to my spiritual path came at a point in my life that was part of my evolution. Those that I have met that share similar experiences share the same experience and we do not all come from the same country or even the same school.
We have discovered what others still ignore for they value a different system of rules and beliefs.
I used to be a lot like you and I wanted no part of what was so far fetched from my normal way of thinking.
One will not recognize what they are not looking for, they will only recognize what they believe is real.
Most stop there and take life no further, this is the accepted norm, but is not the extent of potential.

Life is simply a choice. Few will make theirs without questioning the validity of anothers that may be different. Is it faith that allows them to reside in their choice or fear that drives them to question different choices?
I have yet to get the impression yet that we are on the same page in understanding the terms, more that this is a battle for right and wrong and you will not give up until you prove that you are right and I am wrong.
This is unfortunate, as you mentioned in your other post it will be a battle but it will be a good battle. What you fight for in your limitations I have no interest in taking from you. What is fascinating is that you fight so hard to keep them, and you fight nothing other than your creation and your inner voice that asks you to look further than your limitations in possibility.

 If this ignorance nonsense is true, then once you let go of rules applying to all situations, you won't exist for very long. Let's get rid of the rule that says I have to eat and drink. Alright. Within four days, I have ceased to exist. You call rules ignorant? Because not having any is the real ignorance.
 
I have never put God "in a box" outside of the Self. You have done so for me, by assuming that I do.
 
Of course faith can be removed. Find faith in my argument, and I'll show you that it isn't faith, because I simply don't have any, other than the simple faith required for things that have already been proven.

If their is one thing I do not fight it is the inner voice you speak of, that makes us move on to find truth in faith. I would love to find truth in the supernatural, instead of prove it wrong, as it so commonly is. I am simply trying to prove you right. But the only thing you're giving me to go on is faith and expenditure of my money.

The good fight is simply the fight to prove that there is a supernatural thing here. But so far there isn't.

QUOTE

If this ignorance nonsense is true, then once you let go of rules applying to all situations, you won't exist for very long. Let's get rid of the rule that says I have to eat and drink. Alright. Within four days, I have ceased to exist. You call rules ignorant? Because not having any is the real ignorance.

This rule you speak of is self imposed, a belief.
There is a woman in India who does not eat and she lives. What Christ taught is that you are not your body and the body is a reflection of the self. The self being removed from the Self only in belief loses its connection to eternal life because it doesn't know it anymore.
There are people that have lived and continue to live for several hundred years. The living proof can be found but they choose not to stand amongst the crowd that even when shown the ability within does nothing to inspire humanity to seek outside the box of sensory pleasures and laziness, to draw from the infinite energy that exists everywhere.
Those that are like you that demand proof to argue for thier right to be angry if God does exist have condemned the world as it is and have no appreciation but more anger for the world and what is in it.
This blindness keeps the heart from seeing and that keeps one complacent and never seeking.
When the student is ready the teacher will appear.
You display a good argument but have no inner passion to know any more than what you believe is truth.
 

QUOTE

I have never put God "in a box" outside of the Self. You have done so for me, by assuming that I do.

Then tell me of God and prove me wrong.
 

QUOTE

Of course faith can be removed. Find faith in my argument, and I'll show you that it isn't faith, because I simply don't have any, other than the simple faith required for things that have already been proven.

How can I show you what you choose not to believe in or see?

QUOTE

If their is one thing I do not fight it is the inner voice you speak of, that makes us move on to find truth in faith. I would love to find truth in the supernatural, instead of prove it wrong, as it so commonly is. I am simply trying to prove you right. But the only thing you're giving me to go on is faith and expenditure of my money.

 So you know of faith?!
The voice you listen to is the voice of the ego, it is the loud voice that fights. The subtle inner voice of the Self sees so much more than what you have spoken of. You have described doubt, disbelief, and the experience of being attacked, with the motivation to defend and retaliate. This is not the inner voice of the Self which you have not yet learned to recognize. People like you are everywhere and they always bring up the issue of money because to them it is more substantial and important than the inner spirit.
I am only able to show you what you choose to see.
You also assume I am here soley to argue with you.

QUOTE

The good fight is simply the fight to prove that there is a supernatural thing here. But so far there isn't.

What you focus on grows. Start looking and you will find. Tap into the faith that you ignore in anger and it will lead you to it once you get over yourself.
How will you ever know anything if you turn everything away because you don't believe in it? Personal experience in God is not an external thing.
If someone walks on water and you cannot do it you will insist it is a trick before you even take the time to apply yourself in the discipline it takes to turn the mind inward rather than outward onto the illusions of beliefs.