I could flip that around on religious people: Even though each scientific advancement proves more and more that their fables are wrong, each generation still remains convinced they have it right. Creationism comes to mind... At any rate, I don't disagree with many of those quotes you've put up. And I don't presume that science can answer everything. I think a little good-old-fashioned deism is very appropriate sometimes. To have a sense of wonder about the universe and to think that "something" played apart in it is very reasonable. However, when abstract deism turns into dogmatic religion, that when the trouble starts. When that "something" turns into something with a name and rules, that's when things really go downhill. Muslims, Christians, Hindus, etc. all think they know the *specific* details about that "something." And if you don't agree with their details, you'll burn in Hell forever. Truth be told, they're all clueless. You have it absolutely ass-backwards. The precise problem with men of faith is that they claim to know when they really don't. That is the definition of faith, is it not? Believing when you don't have any proof??? When you don't really know??? The words, "I don't know" aren't in their vocabulary. Unless of course they're trying to explain away Biblical contradictions or the like. By definition, agnostics are the ones who surrender to the fact that they don't know. Their attitude is, "I have no idea where all this stuff came from, and I'll probably never know. Until I find an explanation that's provable, I won't claim to know." Men of faith, on the other hand, say, "I positively know the truth. This holy book (bible, quaran, etc.) says so. Logic? Reason? Evidence? Pssshaw...Irrelevant...Whatever the holy book or imam says is the truth...evidence be damned. How do I know?? I just do!!!" Anyway, back to the original post-- you criticized the OP for being wrapped up in a fantasy. Well, his fantasy of choice is no more elaborate or contrived that the major world religions. They're outrageous stories. Their claims of miracles. Their funny costumes they wear. Sounds a lot like a work of fiction to me.... Both the OP and religious people are obsessed with literary fantasies. The only difference is that the OP's comes from a screenplay and most others comes from the Bible, Quran, etc.
You stated a lot of opinions, and little fact from my perspective, perhaps you are just voicing your own personal experiences in life thus far. The word faith means so many different things to so many different people. Belief in the existence of something is a type of faith. Trusting in something without first having sensual perception or linear logic to support that trust is a different type of faith. The people who I know, who truly practice spiritual faith on a daily basis, they place their trust in the God of their own understanding, and they don't claim to know what is right for anyone else but themselves when it comes to spiritual matters. In fact they don't even ultimately know what is right for themselves, as they have admitted to themselves that their minds are not capable of knowing the infinite via their own intellect, they have met their limitations head on, and they have decided to surrendered to a simple and innocent faith in the path they have been shown, a well worn path shown to them by their fellows who have achieved the kind of enlightenment they are seeking for themselves. They become as little children in a spiritual sense, reaching out to the God of their own understanding for guidance. You can believe in the existence of something, of some entity, some higher power, some being, or believe in the existence of God. Lots of people believe in the existence of God, but they don't have faith or put their trust in the God they believe exists. They don't have real trust in the God of their understanding, nor do they seek to develop this type of trust and faith. Trusting in God versus believing in the existence of God, well, that is something entirely different than pure mental speculation of the existence of something, speaking from my own personal experience. Belief in the existence of something is purely mental and abstract...detached, where the trust I am speaking of is emotional, involved and relational. In the spiritual, not religious program, known as the 3 steps (which were the precursor of and are now the spiritual center of the 12 steps of recovery from alcoholism and other problems that plague mankind), the first step is to admit the need for help to solve the spiritual problems that are unsolvable by one's own efforts. This first step is an awareness, an admission and acceptance that comes when someone discovers their own limitations in life, and those limitations are preventing them from what they really want out of life in a spiritual sense. Secondly, the next step that comes is the belief that some help and enlightenment can and will come from a different source other than one's own willpower, intellect, desire, and abilities, that this growth and upliftment can actually be gained through the practice of faith. Over the course of time, some come to believe that enlightenment beyond the normal experiences of day to day life are a possibility via help from the God of their understanding. Thirdly, and finally, the decision, a conscious decision to trust the God of one's own understanding is the final step to the beginning of a faith based practice of knowing. The third step is the beginning of the practice of genuine faith as I understand it and am trying to explain it here. This faith is the beginning, not the ending, and a way in which many say they come to know God on an intimate level. It is this trust, this faith in God that is difficult for some to understand and accept as a valid form of knowing. For many think you cannot trust what isn't known via the physical senses and the intellectual processes. However, some have found, that by humbly and willingly being able to take these steps, that this form of trust and faith was.....and is in fact the means of a type of knowing that is more real to them than the knowledge that comes from sensual perceptions and a linear logical reasoning processes. It is one thing to know or believe something intellectually. It is another thing to come to know something experientially. It is quite another situation to accept what we know and experience as the truth of our own existences, especially when it requires a surrender of our ego and our fears, to admit that we are in need of spiritual help in coming to know the answer to spiritual problems, and a willingness to step into the direction of the unknown and unknowable with full confidence, full trust, and full faith. Most people I have met in life know the truth of their own lives, their own existence, their own spiritual void.....when they allow themselves to feel it. Yet the majority are usually not able to accept this inner truth, as they know deep down inside they don't have the power to change it on their own....and they are too stubborn seek to seek spiritual guidance, or too egotistical to admit they need help of a spiritual nature, or are too fearful, or perhaps feel too unworthy to sincerely seek help from a power greater than themselves.
777, Let's try to keep this discussion vaguely related to the OP... You haven't mentioned anything about Jesus H. Christ or any other specific god in your post, so I assume you're talking about a deistic version of god. Fine, as I've said, such a view of god is completely reasonable in my opinion. If, however, you're talking about a specific god, written about in a specific book, whom you think talks to you, then how is that any less sillily than being obsessed with the Matrix? If you live your day to day life reading about Jesus in the Bible and discussing him and thinking about him, how is that any different than watching the Matrix all the time and trying to understand the subtle nuances in that story? Listening to people like Pat Robertson talk and reading the OP's script was very similar. They both use their own esoteric language. So, to not get sidetracked and make this a completely unrelated religious discussion, I'm asserting that there's no difference in reading the Bible and watching the Matrix, vis-a- vis being obsessed with a fantasy world. Sure, you can tell me that *to you* it's very real and not a fantasy world. But why couldn't the Matrix be as real of an experience *to him*? After all, your standards are completely subjective if you're not going to ask for empirical evidence. If you're going to talk about who's being more ridiculous, then let's be frank: At least the guy who's obsessed with the Matrix realizes that it's a work of fiction and leaves it at that. On the other hand, the religious guy doesn't acknowledge his holy book as a work of fiction and talks to his invisible friend all day. Who's more peculiar?
Does the fellow who invests himself in the Matrix, do so in an effort to find the answers to the questions of life, or does he do so to simply pass the time and remain in denial of his own inner reality? Only he can answer. These discussions of the practice of faith as a means of knowing, versus the scientific process are not possible without each side having had the exact same experiences. Just as one who has tasted a particular fruit, not found in America could never begin to uderstand the experiences, the very best that one who had eaten that fruit and was trying to explain what the fruit tasted like could do would be to say or speak through analogy, that the fruit tastes like such and such, but is not such and such. People can get an idea what it might taste like, but they can never know until they have the direct experience of that fruit. He might offer the person a taste of the fruit, but if the person offered refused, what could he do? The question I put to all pure intellectuals, who have dismissed the path of faith as invalid for all people as a means of knowing truth is this: Have you ever truly practiced faith as I have describe it? Have you asked the God of your understanding to come to you and help you, and have you asked with all your heart and with full confidence that your God will appear before you and help you if you ask with 100% faith, trust and sincerity? Until the answer is yes, until you have done the lab-work of faith, how can you know the truth or falsehood of such a path of knowing? I have experienced the realms of the intellect, logic, senses, and know and accept their limitations. Those methods lack by their very nature, to see beyond their own finite limits in order to gain an understanding of that which is beyond their scope, to gain vision into the realm of the infinite. There is a common understanding that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, and even if all the knowledge of all the mechanics of physical existence were discovered, who would be able to hold them all in their mind at one time as to experience the totality of it? Faith and trust in God is not something new. It is not my invention, not something I dreamed up. It is as old as mankind, as man has continually looked for the answers to the mysteries of life. In life, that which doesn't work is discarded generation after generation, yet the need for spiritual answers has not diminished with the advance of modern science. Those who are content that the scientific method will explain the whys of life, they accept that method as valid for themselves, and often suggest that it is the only valid way for others as well. My experience is that those who reject faith in totality, and look to objective science also reject the important questions in life, and have never practiced faith as I have described it. They never really address the important why questions, as I put them. Why are we here on this earth, what is our purpose? Ask a scientist why the sky is blue, and he will give an explanation as to what factors cause the sky to appear blue, but ask the scientist why we are constructed in a manner as to be able to see colors, and he will become mute. Ask him why it is that particular shade of blue, and again, no answer. We have labeled certain forces that influence material existence, but does any scientist know why they exist in the first place? Scientists will forever discover the what about the universe, but will never fully know the whys. Sure, they will have their theories as to why, but will forever remain unable to prove them. Somehow, that is enough for them, to have theories without proof. Evolution is just a theory, so is the big bang, etc. These materialists remain convinced on theory, not on direct perceptual evidence. We commonly accept what we cannot see or feel, as we can explain the consequences of the interaction of the material world as to predict future behaviors. Who has seen an atom, and who has felt X-Rays? So knowledge can come from methods beyond the sense alone. The faithful, seeks proof beyond the prevailing scientific theories of the whys of life, and are willing to travel down a different avenue to find that proof. You can evaluate that self reported proof as much as you will, in the same way you can comment on the fruit untasted, but you will never know if the person is gaining the proof they seek or not. So, the agnostic has decided to chose the instrument of knowing, and has limited that instrument of knowing to the physical senses and linear logic. What cannot be proven via the senses and or scientific method does not exist for them as real. At best an agnostic can say they don't know, and can either have a curiosity to try different methodologies of gaining knowledge if the questions they are unable to answer matter to them, or not. So, the agnostics set the boundaries and limits of their knowing, and proceed along that path. They know full well they cannot gain a possible understanding or potential relationship with the infinite in that way of living, but they are not inclined to seek that experience and they place their faith and trust in that path. Are they right? I cannot say. I can say that implementing logic alone, and not knowing what the source of logic really is, is illogical to me. That path did not produce the results I was looking for, so I moved in a different direction. If the Matrix "worshiper" is fulfilled, if deep in his heart and mind he had found everlasting peace and the answer to all of his questions of life, I am happy for him. Only he really knows if he is deluding himself or not if he is placing the Matrix on the same level as the spiritual aspirant. Those who I have seen and know in the past who substituted science fiction or modern fantasy for spiritual development, never seemed fulfilled to me...that is just my perception, I could be wrong. I do can say that it didn't work for me, as I did not hold science fiction or modern fantasy to meet my definition and understanding of the nature of a supreme, eternal God, and Divine realm beyond the limits of material existence. One definition of God that was offered thousand of years ago is that God has no opposite, no condition possible of not existing. God is the sum total of everything that ever was and ever will be. God never came into being, never came into existence, no beginning, no ending, infinite, everlasting. So anything that comes into being, doesn't meet that definition of God, and as a result, ideas such as the Matrix, as defined, are not meeting that particular definition of God as laid out by the definition I have just suggested. However, if someone has a different experience with the Matrix, I am not in a position to argue with it. Only they know the truth of their own experiences and whether those experiences bring them the happiness they seek. Now some will conclude that it is impossible to gain the answers that many seek via the path of faith, impossible to gain a direct experience of God, but how do they know that those experiences are not available on the path of faith? They don't, they can only speculate. Until there is absolute proof that knowledge of God, as God is understood intellectually, is not, and cannot be gained via the path of faith, it remains merely as a comfort that they have made the right choice for themselves not to follow a path of faith. Obviously faith in God, or faith in agnosticism/atheism, it is a choice, not an involuntary human response, nor a requirement for human existence. We all have to eat, sleep, breathe air we have no choice but to do so if we want to live.....but the choice of what to believe as we live our lives is just that, a choice. I cannot judge others as wrong per say, I can only say that leaving behind the limitations of logic, and seeking beyond the limit of intellect is what I made a decision to do.
Last night I created a simple cut and paste FYI post that triggered many belligerent emotional outbursts which I proudly take responsibly for causing. The reasonable course of action for the disinterested individuals to engage in would have been to ignore the thread. Instead powerful emotional triggers in the brain overpowered reason in the three individuals, tensioned developed till it reached critical mass resulting in a silly belligerent response written by fidgety emotion consumed individuals. Again I proudly take responsibility for setting this sequence of events in motion. More silly outbursts would only add to my growing sense of accomplishment. FYI I donât sacrifice my brain to any ideology or metaphor, I invest in them until they outlive their usefulness. Itâs about choice. âOff-White magickians require no spiritual or demonic justifications for their acts, and can take your lover or money without leaving you feeling bad about it.â Peter Carroll
Not really, loss can only be felt if an emotional attachment has formed as a result of sacrifice. Again I donât sacrifice, I invest till the investment outlives it usefulness. Iâve noticed you havenât responded to anything Iâve said but to a script written by someone else and a quote by someone else. I choose not to defend either, let it be judged by its inherent utility. And please donât assume Iâm soliciting your response to anything I say for I already know what to expectâ¦a fairly predictable procession of emotional outbursts. For you to take it so personal indictates that the prejudices you've sacrificed for have been offended, a development everyone should celebrate.
magickian, can you point me to someone who is truly succesful who practices magick ?? the developers and practioners generally either go mad or die broke--ie crowley. why do you think this is ?? best, surfer
Your script is copied from "The Book of The Law" written by Satanist Alistair Crowley, let's not deceive anyone....and your self delusion at objectivity is as plain as the pointed hat on your head.
I don't know of anyone who succesfully practices magick. I don't even consider myself a 'magickian' despite the alias. Magick is only one technique that I've found useful in life as well as with my trading. Beware of anything too complicated, keep it simple. Recommended books on Magick: "Book of the Law" - Crowley "Liber Kaos" - Peter J. Carroll "PsyberMagick: Advanced Ideas in Chaos Magick" - Peter Carroll I recommend Carroll over anyone else because of his mathematical abilities. But in his words, beware: "Magick will tend to amplify whatever tendencies a person may have. It will increase general incompetence in life, just as readily as it will augment competence." Some non-magick helpful books: "The Book of Secrets" - Osho (not completed read yet, so far very useful). Deals mainly with experimenting with consciousness. "Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, Social Systems, and the Economic World" (not completed read yet, so far very insightful). Provides a good overview of systems theory and its applications. Robert Anton Wilson: Read as much of his material as you can except his novels. I definately recommend: "Quantum Pyschology": How Brain Software Programs You and Your World." And "Prometheus Rising"