All Religion is about only one simple concept:

[Flabbergasted]

A return to Oneness.

And you can verify this with one simple exercise.

Be One.

[rhett o rick]

1. Well I am not sure. I dont think I want to be "one". My brother in law is "one" and he is an

asshole.

[Flabbergasted]

2. Your buddha understands. nt

[southernyankeebelle]

51. Well maybe he can be the "one" devil.

[handmade34]

3. no

for the most part most religion is about control... a method to hold power over people that have no sense of our 'oneness"

[Flabbergasted]

6. Buddhism and Taoism, and Sufism are about giving up control. nt

[Exultant Democracy]

4. So for example the Heavens Gate religion wasn't about catching a ride on an alien spaceship?

[Manifestor_of_Light]

7. It was about mind control. Believing that an alien spaceship would come get them.

And they wore identical clothes and sneakers. Conformity in dress and thought.

[ZombieHorde]

27. Heaven's Gate was definately into mind control, but not in the way I think you

are using the term. The conformity had a purpose, similar to the conformity of Buddhist monks. The Heaven's Gate folks wanted to eschew their old human ways so that they could rise to the "next level."

They were trying to control their minds with the purpose of elevating themselves spiritually.

[Flabbergasted]

10. There are wise and there are fools. nt

[defacto7]

14. Which one are you?

[Flabbergasted]

20. Not fool enough to answer. nt

[defacto7]

24. Good answer!

[Flabbergasted]

25. Not fool enough to reply. nt

[deucemagnet]

52. By all accounts, the cult members were happy and blissful right up until

they laced up their new Nikes and drank the kool aid. Who is to say that the epiphany that led them to follow Appelwhite is any less valid than the epiphany that leads one to follow the God of the Bible? Both beliefs arise from an equal lack of real evidence.

[Flabbergasted]

53. Strawman. And there is more than adequate "evidence."

[deucemagnet]

54. I'm intersted in hearing your evidence.

How is the Heaven's Gate cult member's way of knowing that Appelwhite's teachings are true different than a member of any other religion's "other way of knowing"? Please elaborate.

Also, how exactly is this a strawman?

[Flabbergasted]

55. There is always some nut around to misuse an idea. Science calls it Pseudocscience

and science itself has what is called publication bias, ego and group mentality. There are inherent flaws in a system.

There are 1000's of years of anecdotal evidence of an experience beyond mind along with scientific evidence. It's more prevalent than God literally. It's also philosophic truth.

[deucemagnet]

56. Of course, you realize that anecdotal evidence is not evidence.

I still contend that the basis of belief of those cult members is no less valid that the basis of belief of any other religion, spaceship or no.

On edit: If all you have after "1000's of years" is anecdotal evidence rather than hard evidence, is that not suspect?

[Flabbergasted]

59. When one person provides credibility, none wll be given....

but when many come to the stand, a verdict will be issued.

It is only a question of "Is the evidence acceptible?

[deucemagnet]

63. I addressed this earlier in your other thread.

In this post of your other thread, specifically,

...your jury example is moot. You can also find thousands of people to give anecdotal testimony of encounters with bigfoot, chupacabra, or the ghetto leprechaun, but whether the jury convicts or not says nothing about the existence of such an entity.

That is argumentum ad populum, which has nothing to due with reality and everything to do with popularly held belief. Now please, I've asked you several times to address the irrationality of religious belief and you ignore the request each time. Until you address my question, our discussion is going nowhere. If you would address my question I would be happy to continue our discussion. Failing that, I once again wish you a good weekend, sir, and I hope that you will either answer my question or respect my disengagement from this pointless discussion.

[Flabbergasted]

65. This IS actually the central debate. I understand and accept the "evidence" because it coincides

with my experience and my perspective on history. And you don't. Our experience and cognitive outlook provides a different perspective on the nature of existence. It doesn't even necessarily mean our truths are exclusive.

[immoderate]

5. Can't work with one.

I'm syncopated.

--imm

[Moonwalk]

8. Oh, good. That confirms that I don't need religion and never will...

...I never left being "one" with the universe. By the way, how does one separate oneself from the rest of the universe so that one needs to return?

[Flabbergasted]

11. The ego. nt

[tama]

29. Blessed Ignorance

of all differentiating and unique filters aka "sentient beings" participating in dance of creation.

Aho Mitakuye Oyasin

[jonthebru]

9. This is my comment as expressed by

That great English World Citizen Poet; George Harrisong.

[annabanana]

76. nice. . . .

and you can dance to it!

[dballance]

12. Religion Is About Making People Stupid

It has no other per pose than to make people stupid and obedient.

[Flabbergasted]

13. The op is discussing the heart of all religion. The transcendent nature of living beyond your self.

No church or spiritual body is required.

[defacto7]

15. Are you enlightened?

Is there a discourse here, or are you hoping to make us better than we are?

[Flabbergasted]

19. I just was thinking about this tonight. I thought it was a neat thought. That's all. I'm not

trying to convert anyone. nt

[defacto7]

23. Understood.

I think I was referring to the statement, "No church or spiritual body is required. " How do you know unless you "know"?

[marybourg]

16. Really? I don't think so.

I think it has several purposes: 1) to control female sexuality 2) to relieve the fear of death

[Flabbergasted]

22. I see the transcendance of ego at the center of religion. nt

[DrewFlorida]

17. All religion is about pretending to know more than you have the ability to know,

because humans are essentially arrogant in the idea that they are more special than other beings!

[Flabbergasted]

21. Religion is about expressing what you can't know with your mind. nt

[mr blur]

34. This is a meaningless statement. Really, it is,

no matter how much mystical waffle you could summon up to support it.

[Flabbergasted]

41. There is nothing mystical about it. Our mind has a limited ability to "understand". It's a fact.

[skepticscott]

38. And yet you know with your mind

that 'All Religion is about only one simple concept: A return to Oneness." and you also know with your mind that "you can verify this with one simple exercise. Be One." So you can't really be expressing anything about religion when you make those unqualified declarations, now can you?

Meaningless, self-contradictory flapdoodle.

[Flabbergasted]

48. "MY" mind is not the author. nt

[Flabbergasted]

26. Koan at the center of the universe: message 18

Last edited Fri Jan 11, 2013, 02:29 AM - Edit history (1)

[tama]

30. 1.8

is the fractal dimension of prime numbers:

Many upper-division science students are familiar with the particle in a box, or the particle in a ring. But there are also other types of potential wells. For instance, one may also consider the fractal potential wells. The solution of Schrödinger-like equations for potentials of this kind has been of interest for some time. Not only is it challenging to solve for puzzles like this, but it can be used for approximating complicated potentials as well, such as those that arise in the design of microchips. For example, one group of authors study the Schrödinger equation as it applies to a self-similar potential.[10] Another group studied the potentials constructed from the Riemann zeros and prime number sequences. They estimate the fractal dimension to be D = 1.5 for the Riemann zeros, and D = 1.8 for the prime numbers.[11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-adic_quantum_mechanics

[Flabbergasted]

36. Thanks. You are a zen master. nt

[skepticscott]

39. Dont mistake quantum spewing

for "zen mastery" He's not even a Jedi Master.

[Flabbergasted]

40. ....

I missed you...

[ZombieHorde]

28. I can definately see how you could come up with that interpreation.

However, religion means different things to different people, and I think all sincere interpretations are equally valid.

For example, a Christian may believe one can never become one with God. You may be in the Kingdom of Heaven if you live your life a certain way, but God will always be a superior other.

[tama]

31. Hermeneutics and ethics of interpretation

In practical work of translators and interpreters all "sincere interpretations" are not equally valid, but there is preference and attempt towards benevolent interpretation. Translator tries to make the target text "better" than the source text. E.g. meaning of a garbled and incoherent source sentence that is hard or impossible to understand is deciphered from the whole of the source, and a coherent sentence is produced in the target text.

Likewise, relativistic philosophies are not ethically void, but based on ethical foundation of relativism as ethical approach and benevolent interpretation.

Buddhist etc. benevolent interpretation of the Christian salvation you describe is not to say it's wrong as such, but to compare it e.g. with the Pure Land path.

[ZombieHorde]

33. I think there is a big difference in translating the langauge a religion is written in and

interpreting the translation.

Interpreting the "meaning" of a religious story is extremely subjective, and therefore, all interpretations are equal.

[Flabbergasted]

60. Yes, Religion does mean different things to different people. Religion/spirituality can't

really be limited at all.

[Silent3]

32. Not buying it

That's just some people's idea of what they think religion should be about, who selectively parse what they see about various religions through that oh-so-charitable, we're-all-in-this-together lens, conveniently ignoring the rest.

[Flabbergasted]

43. Not in the least. This is a very common idea. It is exemplifies in all religions in slightly

different ways. nt

[Silent3]

57. Oh, it's definitely a common idea, but that doesn't make it a good one...

...or a well-thought out idea. If you're indulgently fuzzy and imprecise with what words mean until they mean very little at all, you can make this "oneness" thing work.

[Flabbergasted]

58. If a group passes around an idea, ear to ear, silently, the owner may likely not recognize the .

outcome. But it's truth will not have changed. nt

[Silent3]

61. Ooooh. Great Wise Sage impression.

Can you do more?

[Flabbergasted]

62. No. I think the statement is self evident, my apologies. nt

[Silent3]

64. Ah, now the aloof but humble-sounding gambit.

It's self-evident to those Open to The Oneness, no doubt.

[Flabbergasted]

66. Oh fuck: I can't win. The middle road will suit. nt

[cbayer]

67. Rise above the mocking, flabbergasted. It's a weapon of the weak.

[cleanhippie]

68. You mean like how you mock creationists? I guess that makes you weak?

[trotsky]

69. You've wielded that weapon well, cbayer.

Calling creationists "dumbasses", wishing Richard Dawkins dead, etc. If you could just stop acting like such a hypocrite, people might just start taking you seriously.

[Silent3]

70. So Thomas Jefferson proved himself to be weak when he said...

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions"?

I submit that this "oneness" crap is unintelligible. The challenge is to make it more intelligible, not rattle on like Yoda (with or without the eccentric grammar) as if that increases intelligibility. I'm under no obligation to expend great effort trying to carefully tease sense out of someone I fully expect to remain evasive and vague no matter what.

[cbayer]

71. Because you don't understand it does not make it unintelligible,

as can be seen by the responses by others in this thread.

You can do whatever you want, but ridicule and mockery are very weak arguments.

[trotsky]

72. Incredible.

Your hypocrisy is breathtaking in its grandeur. No wonder you struggle so mightily to be taken seriously.

[Silent3]

73. The opportunity to explain is always here

But those who have that opportunity just babble, or congratulate each other for being so wise.

[Flabbergasted]

79. Thanks cbayer. I see it as misunderstanding. nt

[Iggo]

35. lol...no.

[skepticscott]

37. So like That's My Opinion

You blithely dismiss as meaningless the beliefs that billions of religious devotees around the world sincerely and deeply hold and confess to, in favor of your eastern mysterious new age woowoo.

Don't be surprised if you're not taken seriously.

[Flabbergasted]

42. I don't dismiss their beliefs, I dismiss their ignorance about their beliefs. nt

[skepticscott]

44. Sheesh, could you be any more arrogant?

Why don't you just apply for the job of god yourself? You profess to know far more about everyone else's beliefs than they do.

But you project fuzzy-wuzzy feelings, so I doubt if any of the group's resident scolds and thought police will upbraid you for calling religious believers ignorant about their own beliefs. There are double standards to uphold, after all.

[Flabbergasted]

45. A lot of people within religion have a myopic worldview. They've never been

stimulated to look outside of their religion. This is a fundamental problem because, unless someone can take an objective view they cannot see the inherited problems and thereby cannot surpass them. Comparing religions shows more distinctly the function and path of religion.

[skepticscott]

46. An "objective" view?

You have already declared that there is no such thing as objectivity. http://www.democraticunderground.com/121863082#post2

Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

[Flabbergasted]

47. You cannot differentiate between an ultimate objectivity and an objectivity based on

a more limited view?

[skepticscott]

49. Have fun in your bubble

Rounds are over.

[Flabbergasted]

50. You too! Have a super day my friend. nt

[Glaug-Eldare]

74. AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

Mail Message
At Tue Jan 15, 2013, 03:32 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

An "objective" view?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=63103

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Personal attack from a poster with a long history of being uncivil (see transparency)

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Jan 15, 2013, 03:50 PM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: Intent is pretty clear.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Rude, but not worth hiding.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Geez ... His name indicates he is 'skeptical' ... There is nothing inherently wrong or objectionable with that comment ... Stop bothering us with this trivial nonsense.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[skepticscott]

75. Thanks, apparently someone decided

to just alert on everything of mine they could find, hoping something would stick. The list of suspects isn't too long, given the tactics.

[Xipe Totec]

77. Oh, look, strawman. nt

[Flabbergasted]

78. Straw-man? Where? nt

[Evoman]

80. More info needed on how to "Be One".

Seriously, instead of dodging bullets, I want to learn how to not HAVE TO dodge bullets. And then how to explode Hugo Weaving, because fuck that guy.