Duped by dope?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Religion » Duped by dope? » Duped by dope?

Duped by dope?
Or, the origin of religion?

Page: 1 2

Duped by dope?

kris
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 03, 2007
Location: Indiana
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 163

Posted 03/05/08 - 04:34 PM: Subject: Duped by dope?	#1
I must confess that the concept of religion has never made any sense to me, even when I was a child. Decades into adulthood, it makes even less sense to me, which is why I think that if anything, religion is just a form of insanity. Or may be not. Now here comes a study by an Israeli researcher. High on Mount Sinai, Moses was on psychedelic drugs when he heard God deliver the Ten Commandments, an Israeli researcher claimed in a study published this week. Such mind-altering substances formed an integral part of the religious rites of Israelites in biblical times, Benny Shanon, a professor of cognitive psychology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem wrote in the Time and Mind journal of philosophy. "As far Moses on Mount Sinai is concerned, it was either a supernatural cosmic event, which I don't believe, or a legend, which I don't believe either, or finally, and this is very probable, an event that joined Moses and the people of Israel under the effect of narcotics," Shanon told Israeli public radio on Tuesday. Moses was probably also on drugs when he saw the "burning bush," suggested Shanon, who said he himself has dabbled with such substances. "The Bible says people see sounds, and that is a clasic phenomenon," he said citing the example of religious ceremonies in the Amazon in which drugs are used that induce people to "see music." He mentioned his own experience when he used ayahuasca, a powerful psychotropic plant, during a religious ceremony in Brazil's Amazon forest in 1991. "I experienced visions that had spiritual-religious connotations," Shanon said. He said the psychedelic effects of ayahuasca were comparable to those produced by concoctions based on bark of the acacia tree, that is frequently mentioned in the Bible. I suppose this could explain the "illustrious" words spoken by Lord God that I have quoted in this thread and perhaps the origins of religion itself. Edited by kris on 03/06/08 - 11:39 AM
kris http://kris10846902.tripod.com/

jdrw
definitely ~d1

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 11, 2004
Location: Pennsylvania
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1532

Posted 03/05/08 - 07:11 PM:	#2
Drugs have been widely used in religious ceremonies across the globe and throughout history. They are one way of creating the cognitive dissociation from actual reality (during which suggestibility is heightened) that is at the heart of religious experience. (Other ways are ritual, chant, drums, fire, incense, re-enactments, repetition, repetition, repetition ... .) Cheers. jd
OTOH I might be exhaustively wrong about everything I've ever thought--with the possible exception of this sentence.

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 1785

Posted 03/05/08 - 07:51 PM:	#3
I saw that in the news too. Its possible -- a lot of ancient spiritual/shamanistic ritual included the inducement of trance under psychotropic chemicals. Fly agaric, (the bright red mushrooms the Smurfs used for houses), was used this way around the region. The Bible mentions a few powerful drugs, but assumes the reader understands how they are used: mandrake, wormwood, myrrh, and gall. Up until recently, many herbs which are considered controlled drugs by modern authorities, are still used and not seen as being prohibited by middle eastern religious authorities. It is pretty well documented that subjective religious experience can be simulated by stimulating certain areas of the brain. There was some recent research where it was induced by extremely strong magnetic fields. I read that Richard Dawkins tried it, but was disappointed that it didn't affect him. Even without drugs, many religious rituals appear designed to induce a psychological state receptive to a feeling of revelation -- chanting, fasting, ritualized movement, self denial and forms of meditation. The article seems to engage in an implied fallacy, though -- that if Moses had received his revelation under the influence of drugs that those revelations were made invalid. However, that assumes that the process of an authentic revelation is understood and defined. If someone doesn't believe in authentic revelation, then all processes of achieving the sensation should be equally valid. This is more a challenge toward the religious who must confront the current cultural unacceptability of psychotropic drugs, (except drinking and smoking of course), with the claim of authentic revelation. The subject of psychotropic drugs is never addressed in the Bible, negative or otherwise, (not including "drunkenness"). Just the casual mention of powerful psychotropic drugs. The article pushes the challenge further by suggesting that religions deal with the conflict between psychotropic drugs and authentic revelation by rejecting their revelation -- without denying them the escape of either claiming that psychotropic drug use is acceptable or that it never occurred. The logic seems rather weak -- "either it was a cosmic event or he was high, I don't believe in cosmic events, so he must have been high". That's accepting some parts of the Old Testament as accurate depictions of history, and rejecting the rest, (did the Egyptians just have hallucinations of the 10 plagues?).
Any piece of software reflects the organizational structure that produced it.

Wosret
Yuri ga daisuki desu!

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: New Brunswich Canada
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1753

Posted 03/06/08 - 02:16 AM:	#4
Well my major problem is the thing is that the events of Exodus never took place. There is absolutely no evidence that suggest that they did, while there is evidence that they didn't. So the point I think about Moses is moot, as he is a mythical figure anyway. I think that Swstephe did some hilarious gynastics above. Do you honestly mean to say that taking a drug that is known to subjective experiences, and distort preception of reality to a point where the imput you are recieving is not accurately describing the world casts no doubt on the accuracy of the sensory imput one recieves in such a condition? I find that incredibly funny. Drugs along with supersticion, and exaggeration sounds like the most parsimonious explanation so far.
"I am Horo the Wise." - Horo the Wise.

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 1785

Posted 03/06/08 - 04:16 AM:	#5
Wosret wrote: I think that Swstephe did some hilarious gynastics above. Do you honestly mean to say that taking a drug that is known to subjective experiences, and distort preception of reality to a point where the imput you are recieving is not accurately describing the world casts no doubt on the accuracy of the sensory imput one recieves in such a condition? I find that incredibly funny. Do you mean that you are able to see spiritual entities, (angels, demons, hand of god, etc), without using drugs? If someone has a chemical imbalance and they start having hallucinations, drugs can help return a user back to an undistorted reality. Couldn't it be possible that "normal" human brain chemistry needs to be suppressed in order to see what is supposed to be just beyond our senses? I'm not justifying it, but trying to show how hallucinogen use by ancient people might not have the same stigma (for abuse) as it does today.
Any piece of software reflects the organizational structure that produced it.

Wosret
Yuri ga daisuki desu!

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: New Brunswich Canada
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1753

Posted 03/06/08 - 04:57 AM:	#6
It is not impossible? Are you really going to make such an argument. We both no lots of absurd crap isn't impossible, whether it is probable is the question. I think you misunderstand how the drugs work in both cases. They cause hallucinations and distorted preception because they mess around with chemical inhibitors. While some of those chemical inhibitors may be distorted naturally and cause hallucinations, and distorted preception, the right among of drugs could return them to normal levels. It isn't the drugs in themselves that causes the hallucinations and distorted preception, it is the chemcical balances in the brain that regulates such things. Disrupting them or changing them through any means would result in such effects, and correcting them through any means results in the counter effect.
"I am Horo the Wise." - Horo the Wise.

kris
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 03, 2007
Location: Indiana
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 163

Posted 03/06/08 - 12:12 PM:	#7
swstephe wrote: Up until recently, many herbs which are considered controlled drugs by modern authorities, are still used and not seen as being prohibited by middle eastern religious authorities. It is pretty well documented that subjective religious experience can be simulated by stimulating certain areas of the brain. If religious experience is subjective, how can anyone claim to be religious authority? The Bible mentions a few powerful drugs, but assumes the reader understands how they are used: mandrake, wormwood, myrrh, and gall. ...... The subject of psychotropic drugs is never addressed in the Bible, negative or otherwise, (not including "drunkenness"). Just the casual mention of powerful psychotropic drugs. Do you see the Bible serving any purpose by mentioning drugs? The article seems to engage in an implied fallacy, though -- that if Moses had received his revelation under the influence of drugs that those revelations were made invalid. However, that assumes that the process of an authentic revelation is understood and defined.This is more a challenge toward the religious who must confront the current cultural unacceptability of psychotropic drugs, (except drinking and smoking of course), with the claim of authentic revelation. ...... The article pushes the challenge further by suggesting that religions deal with the conflict between psychotropic drugs and authentic revelation by rejecting their revelation -- without denying them the escape of either claiming that psychotropic drug use is acceptable or that it never occurred. The logic seems rather weak -- "either it was a cosmic event or he was high, I don't believe in cosmic events, so he must have been high". All we can say is that some individuals make claims of revelation. There is no way for us, that I know of, to verify if such claims are true. By referring to authentic revelation, I supppose you are open to the possiblity of unauthentic revelation. How would you distinguish between the two?
kris http://kris10846902.tripod.com/

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 1785

Posted 03/06/08 - 07:02 PM:	#8
kris wrote: If religious experience is subjective, how can anyone claim to be religious authority? I agree. For something to be objective, by definition, it has to be observable by multiple or inanimate observers. You can list a lot of objective events in religious history, but their interpretation as a religious event is ultimately subjective. Authority can only exist by consensus. kris wrote: Do you see the Bible serving any purpose by mentioning drugs? The Bible prohibits a lot of things that were considered harmful, (pork, shellfish), or somehow immoral, (cheeseburgers). Why not drugs? They knew about how it could be used. Not mentioning it allowed for its potential use, unless interpretations could be extended to it. kris wrote: All we can say is that some individuals make claims of revelation. There is no way for us, that I know of, to verify if such claims are true. By referring to authentic revelation, I supppose you are open to the possiblity of unauthentic revelation. How would you distinguish between the two? Most religions with a system of revelation allow for false revelations (deceptions) to explain the revelations of other religions. Since revelation, or the interpretation of a revelation, is subjective, there is no way to distinguish between the two except by consensus.
Any piece of software reflects the organizational structure that produced it.

kris
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 03, 2007
Location: Indiana
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 163

Posted 03/07/08 - 03:21 PM:	#9
swstephe wrote: You can list a lot of objective events in religious history, but their interpretation as a religious event is ultimately subjective. Authority can only exist by consensus. ........ Since revelation, or the interpretation of a revelation, is subjective, there is no way to distinguish between the two except by consensus. What I read in your statements above is that religion depends on consesus, or more correctly that religion ought to depend on consesus. But why should we feel called to seek consesus of experiences that you agree are essentially subjective? Personally I don't see anything in the universe or anything about our lives for that matter motivating us to seek consesus on our very personal experiences. It would seem that the very act of seeking consesus on personal experiences or the interpretations of personal experiences would exert undue and unjustified pressure on individuals to supress the unique nature of their experiences and in the process erase some of their individuality. I cannot see such pressure as being beneficial to individuals or to society as a whole. Our world is an interesting place because it is made up of unique individuals. What is to be gained by trying to eface individuality and replacing it with mindless conformity?
kris http://kris10846902.tripod.com/

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 1785

Posted 03/07/08 - 05:11 PM:	#10
I didn't say religion depends on consensus. I said religious authority depends on consensus. Religious experience or the religious interpretation of an experience is a personal subjective experience which can't be shared. For a religious experience to form a religion, there has to be some sort of implicit consensus that the common experience is authentic. That's not mindless conformity, just the way that societies form. I claim it is a psychological phenomenon to project subjective experiences onto reality and claim it is something objective. Even if you could go back in time and meet Moses, (assuming he ever existed), you would have no way of verifying whether he was having an authentic religious experience, high on dope, or just delusional. Even the Bible admits this by insisting on miraculous events to support his claims. As modern day believers, we can't verify any of these miraculous events even occurred, (other than the Bible, which was traditionally supposed to have been written by Moses as well), so it is by consensus that all the Judeo-Christian world accepts his claims. It is possible that a religion might reject certain claims by consensus as well -- does that mean the claim is not authentic or authoritative? It only says that religions are big consensual social bodies.
Any piece of software reflects the organizational structure that produced it.

kris
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 03, 2007
Location: Indiana
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 163

Posted 03/08/08 - 05:30 AM:	#11
swstephe wrote: I didn't say religion depends on consensus Ok, but then you say For a religious experience to form a religion, there has to be some sort of implicit consensus that the common experience is authentic. I see contradiction in those two statements you have made. (Also see your other statement quoted below.) That's not mindless conformity, just the way that societies form. May be some societies or even most societies form that way, but by no means all. I claim it is a psychological phenomenon to project subjective experiences onto reality and claim it is something objective. I am not a psychologist, and it may be alright to project one's subjective experience onto reality, but claiming it as something objective is, I would say, problematic and probably indicative of mental disorder. ...... It only says that religions are big consensual social bodies. .... which is fine (except that it contradicts your first statement quoted above). The problem arises when religions try to impose themselves on those who are not participants in the consesus. Edited by kris on 03/08/08 - 10:52 AM
kris http://kris10846902.tripod.com/

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 1785

Posted 03/08/08 - 09:43 PM:	#12
kris wrote: I see contradiction in those two statements you have made. (Also see your other statement quoted below.) Because I differentiate so-called "religious authority" and the subjective religious experience. By "religion", I'm thinking of a system of beliefs, not the structure of church authority or institutions. A system of beliefs can exist without consensus. A social institution, like a religious body expects implicit consensus. kris wrote: May be some societies or even most societies form that way, but by no means all. What kind of society forms without some kind of "social contract" for the way society operates? Even radical anarchists believe that everyone will consent to behave appropriately in order to preserve a society without authority. I'm including implicit consensus -- that idea that people who are part of a society are expected to follow that society's rules even if they don't recognize the authority, justifying the actions of those authority. I'm going by the current status quo rather than imagining some radical new social structure. kris wrote: I am not a psychologist, and it may be alright to project one's subjective experience onto reality, but claiming it as something objective is, I would say, problematic and probably indicative of mental disorder. We do it all the time. We objectify subjective experiences like "love" and "beauty" all the time. Nobody gets locked away because it is so instinctive and common to all humans. Perhaps it is the way that we try to deal with empathy. I see some painting which touches me emotionally, I expect others to react the same way. I assume that the painting possesses the quality of "beauty", but actually the concept doesn't leave my brain. It is just by chance that people around me have similar tastes and we all seem willing to fine tune our emotional reactions to match those of people around us. So, back to the topic -- if someone has a profound drug experience which is consensually agreed to be an authentic religious experience, how can you objectively claim that the experience is any more or less valid than a sober religious experience? kris wrote: .... which is fine (except that it contradicts your first statement quoted above). The problem arises when religions try to impose themselves on those who are not participants in the consesus. A religion can't impose their authority outside their group of consensus, (believers), unless they have joined up with a larger institution, (like Iran or Pakistan), or integrated themselves tightly into the social structure, (like India). Most national governments have laws to separate religious institutions from state social institutions. At least that is the concept. If, by "impose themselves", you mean proselytizing and pressuring state institutions to adopt religious trappings -- I agree and am probably more radical than any atheist. I'm not justifying it, but it by not doing anything about it, you are implicitly consenting to the practice.
Any piece of software reflects the organizational structure that produced it.

Ruthless, for Reason
Psychologist of Logic.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 07, 2008
Location: The moon and looking down.
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 16

Posted 03/08/08 - 10:48 PM:	#13
This has little to do with any of the other responses to this subject. But if you knew anything about what came before MT. Sinai, you would realize that there is a great deal more to the story before then and that Sinai was after a great many miracles already done that have little to nothing to do with your mentioned side-effects. Also note, the Israelites considered themselves a "clean" people because God said "You are my chosen people and through you and your children I shall show my wonders." Of course this was said to them by a representative of God whom led them. This was a reason they weren't allowed to eat pork, or beef. Both at the time were held in rough pens and usually not bathed. Ironically, time has proven pork to be the most damaging meat we digest and its consumption has resulted in notable obesity and disease. Beef also, has held such effects but at roughly half the negative effect of pork. Lamb, however, has proven the most healthy meat… regardless of being high or not, the Israelites no doubt would have no ability to know this. Also, I doubt that a tribe or rather the tribes of Israel could’ve managed nearly as well as they did while being led by men whom were high. Also, this was a world in which lies or failure were not tolerated. People had failed in understanding God's message and stoned anyone for disobeying their laws. When I say stoned, I'm not talking about drugs. I'm saying they took the man/woman to the outskirts and pelted them with heavy stones till their death.
"There is no right or wrong. The only right is what we fight to create. We call 'evil' the things that oppose us."

Nick666
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 09, 2007
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 54

Posted 03/09/08 - 12:27 AM:	#14
Open a book of chemistry, physics, math. You will see the word of God, revealed to man .

Wosret
Yuri ga daisuki desu!

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: New Brunswich Canada
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1753

Posted 03/09/08 - 12:31 AM:	#15
I guess I'm among the women, that it isn't "revealed" to then.
"I am Horo the Wise." - Horo the Wise.

Nick666
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 09, 2007
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 54

Posted 03/09/08 - 01:40 AM:	#16
Ok, then its revealed to humans . It was more of a response to Ruthless.

Wosret
Yuri ga daisuki desu!

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: New Brunswich Canada
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1753

Posted 03/09/08 - 01:53 AM:	#17
Well Ruthless hasn't a clue of what s/he's talking about. Beef has always been kosher. They should actually read what is forbidden to eat, and what is good. There is a hell of a lot more than pork considered unkosher. On a side note I actually have never had pork in my life, I was raised obaying the old testament diatary laws, and kept them as a habit, until going vegetarian. So I've never actually tried pork. Or many types of sea food. The rest of what s/he rambles on about is just unsubstiatably speculative opinion. Not really based on anything to my knowledge. The drug thing is plausable because it produces like experiences, and is commonly used in religious exercises.
"I am Horo the Wise." - Horo the Wise.

kris
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 03, 2007
Location: Indiana
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 163

Posted 03/09/08 - 05:14 AM:	#18
swstephe wrote: What kind of society forms without some kind of "social contract" for the way society operates? We are on slippery slope here. Nature of social contract in different societies can range from very oppressive, like in Saudi Arabia, to more open, like in America. I cannot imagine living in a dreary place like Saudi Arabia because of the social contract there. swstephe wrote: I see some painting which touches me emotionally, I expect others to react the same way. Here again we are on a slippery slope. In some instances, others may react like you to a particular painting, but not to all paintings that you like. I know some who like modern art and some who don't. swstephe wrote: A religion can't impose their authority outside their group of consensus, (believers), ..... What then is the purpose of the following (from post #8)? swstephe wrote: Most religions with a system of revelation allow for false revelations (deceptions) to explain the revelations of other religions.
kris http://kris10846902.tripod.com/

Ruthless, for Reason
Psychologist of Logic.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 07, 2008
Location: The moon and looking down.
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 16

Posted 03/09/08 - 01:20 PM:	#19
So Wosret, if you were raised on the Old Testament that would conclude that you were/are part of a religion. Meat in general is unhealthy (in comparison to the bulk of other foods, its effects are not positive). I am not a vegetarian or vegan. I eat meat, but its unhealthy. That is a reason among others that beef was uncommon in consumption, it was unofficially considered "unclean". I was also raised with the Old testament, and the New. My personal beliefs are different then religious people's. I don't claim to be a master of any religion but I have done extensive study on the bible. I'm not so blind as to accept something without understanding it or understanding it as much as I am meant. So Wosret, were you a Jew or a Catholic? Or what? If you've been raised on the Old testament then you know there are separate religions because people believe differently in what has been and what will be.
"There is no right or wrong. The only right is what we fight to create. We call 'evil' the things that oppose us."

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 1785

Posted 03/09/08 - 07:22 PM:	#20
kris wrote: We are on slippery slope here. Nature of social contract in different societies can range from very oppressive, like in Saudi Arabia, to more open, like in America. I cannot imagine living in a dreary place like Saudi Arabia because of the social contract there. Maybe you have a problem with my usage of the word "consent"? I'm not using the legal term, (which requires a voluntary act of confirmation), but the general use. If you do not resist or protest, then you consent. I remember Gandhi, (too much reading as a child), who said, "the power of rule comes from the consent of the governed". If you don't protest an oppressive government, you consent to its authority. Saudi Arabia might not be as dreary to the inhabitants based on their own cultural values as it would be to you. Let's look at something closer to home. A while back, I saw there was a big debate over stores that replaced the word "Christmas" with "Holiday". Eventually, many of those stores backed down under pressure to avoid the negative publicity. Pundits claimed that America was a Christian country with Christian ethics. I saw that as a political move to assert the authority of an undeclared theocracy in a modern, secular, society. By giving in to the usage of the word, the consented to Christian "authority". As an American, I saw it as an implicit coup to replace a universal democracy to a democracy by economic weight. Even if I were still a Christian, I would find this an unacceptable act of treason by fundamentalist radicals. If it didn't raise any eyebrows of concern in America, why do you suppose Saudi Arabia would have tried to prevent too much religious radicalization? My example of the term "Christmas" isn't just an isolated event, it is a general trend of indoctrination toward usurp-by-consent. They are doing exactly what they had been accusing communists of doing during most of the cold war. kris wrote: Here again we are on a slippery slope. In some instances, others may react like you to a particular painting, but not to all paintings that you like. I know some who like modern art and some who don't. Exactly, I see a painting that I like and call it "beautiful". I've made the psychological mistake of thinking that the pleasure I feel in looking at the painting is an objective quality of the painting. Someone else doesn't think a painting of dogs playing poker is so wonderful. The rational approach is to assume that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", (a subjective experience), but it is instinctive to assume the other person is dysfunctional to not be able to appreciate the same beauty. The religious subjective interpretation of an experience should not be mistaken for an objective experience that can be shared by everyone else. kris wrote: What then is the purpose of the following (from post #8)? If one religion says another religion's revelations are false or deceptions, then it shows that the authenticity of a revelation isn't an objective quality that everyone can appreciate. If there are conflicts, it is because the experiences are subjective and the authenticity is by consensus. To allow that this theory is falsifiable, you simply need to show that a religion encountered a revelation which was objectively authentic and contradicted the religious dogma. However, most religions survive such challenges quite easily.
Any piece of software reflects the organizational structure that produced it.

kris
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 03, 2007
Location: Indiana
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 163

Posted 03/10/08 - 03:15 PM:	#21
swstephe wrote: Maybe you have a problem with my usage of the word "consent"? Well, that is not the only problem I have with your posts in this thread. I find too many contradictions and ad hoc explanations. Firstly, you keep referring to religious experiences without telling me what makes for a religious experience. I am not a man of religion. The very concept of religion is alien to me and I am at a loss to make sense of a religious experience. My difficulty with the concept of religion led me to start this thread. I also have a problem with drugs. I find it hard to believe that any valuable experience can be had by inhaling, ingesting or injecting drugs. In the streets of most American cities, you can finds hundreds and thousands of zonked out characters. I think they are just wasting their lives. I don't think I can learn anything from them. By extension, I feel that I have nothing to learn from zonked out persons from centuries or millennia ago, even if some groups of people have arrived at a consesus that their experiences are valuable to us. You also refer to revelations. Are they the same as religious experiences?
kris http://kris10846902.tripod.com/

Wosret
Yuri ga daisuki desu!

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: New Brunswich Canada
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1753

Posted 03/10/08 - 03:30 PM:	#22
Ruthless, for Reason wrote: So Wosret, if you were raised on the Old Testament that would conclude that you were/are part of a religion. Meat in general is unhealthy (in comparison to the bulk of other foods, its effects are not positive). I am not a vegetarian or vegan. I eat meat, but its unhealthy. That is a reason among others that beef was uncommon in consumption, it was unofficially considered "unclean". I was also raised with the Old testament, and the New. My personal beliefs are different then religious people's. I don't claim to be a master of any religion but I have done extensive study on the bible. I'm not so blind as to accept something without understanding it or understanding it as much as I am meant. So Wosret, were you a Jew or a Catholic? Or what? If you've been raised on the Old testament then you know there are separate religions because people believe differently in what has been and what will be. Produce a passage that says that beef is unclean meat for comsumption. Otherwise no matter how much you assure me that you have "studied" and know what you're talking about, I will remain unconvinced that you aren't just pulling things out of your ass. I was raised in "the world wide church of god." Which back in the day was about as Jewish as you could get and still believe in Jesus. It has changed quite a bit since then though, and has broken up several times, I haven't kept track of what my dad's church is calling themselves now. I was not ever, nor am I now, part of a religion or church. I was raised by religious parents. Their particular church didn't baptise or grant admittance until an adult age. I was never a member.
"I am Horo the Wise." - Horo the Wise.

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 1785

Posted 03/10/08 - 09:09 PM:	#23
kris wrote: Firstly, you keep referring to religious experiences without telling me what makes for a religious experience. I am not a man of religion. The very concept of religion is alien to me and I am at a loss to make sense of a religious experience. My difficulty with the concept of religion led me to start this thread. A religious experience is just an emotional response which gets interpreted in a religious or mystic context. Someone has a "vision" or a dream, (perhaps a type of hallucination?), then interpreting that vision as a message from a supernatural source would be someone who had a religious experience. Even people who see the "virgin mary" in a tortilla are having a religious experience by their interpretation of what may also be a simple psychological trick. kris wrote: I also have a problem with drugs. I find it hard to believe that any valuable experience can be had by inhaling, ingesting or injecting drugs. In the streets of most American cities, you can finds hundreds and thousands of zonked out characters. I think they are just wasting their lives. I don't think I can learn anything from them. By extension, I feel that I have nothing to learn from zonked out persons from centuries or millennia ago, even if some groups of people have arrived at a consesus that their experiences are valuable to us. Thats because you have been indoctrinated to objectify "drug abuse" into an attribute of the "drug" itself. The current cultural climate tries to manipulate you to accept one drug, while demonizing another. That's a subject unto itself, (see http://www.newstatesman.com/200104300043). As for whether you have anything to learn, there is a list at the top of this drug advocate's webpage: (http://www.greatdreams.com/drugs.htm), which is just a partial list of people who were drug users before or during the time they were creative. I realize it isn't proof -- since most of those people weren't producing at the same time as they were using. The point I'm trying to make is that it is all culture. 100 years ago, you could pick up a prescription for cocaine at a drug store. Today, you might end up doing hard time. This thread is trying to postulate the cultural attitudes from 2000-5000 years ago in a culture that most people here didn't grow up. You also refer to revelations. Are they the same as religious experiences? The religious interpretation of the experience is that it is a "revelation". They aren't the same as religious experience, which is subjective. Something was hidden to the normal mind, but was revealed to the individual during the experience. Relativity could be said to be a scientific revelation about how the Universe operated. It wasn't directly apparent at the time. When it was described, it matched some unusual observations, so the scientific community adjusted their world view by consensus.
Any piece of software reflects the organizational structure that produced it.

dwilljo
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 02, 2007
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 22

Posted 03/19/08 - 12:50 PM:	#24
I am not sure how this drug thing holds up also in terms of knowing peoples revelations - the jewish revelation at sinai is quite different from most revelations. In the fact that the revelation is said to have happened to the entire hebrew people at the same time. So while it would be possible for everyone to be on drugs, it would be seemingly ridiculous for everyone to have the same "trip". In terms of authenticity of this revelation, that over 600,000 people were said to experience it is were the authenticity occurs. While one individual may have a revelation and it can be questioned, if that many people experience something there is strong evidence for it. This is also the difference in the Jewish idea of faith and the Christian idea of faith. Jews have faith, correct me if im wrong, that this event occurred, based on the fact that those who experienced it passed it down from generation to generation. While Christian faith, correct me if im wrong, is to just have faith in jesus. I know slightly off topic, but its an interesting "proof" for judaism

kris
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 03, 2007
Location: Indiana
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 163

Posted 03/23/08 - 04:31 PM:	#25
swstephe wrote: Thats because you have been indoctrinated to objectify "drug abuse" into an attribute of the "drug" itself. The current cultural climate tries to manipulate you to accept one drug, while demonizing another. That's a subject unto itself, (see http://www.newstatesman.com/200104300043). I read the article in the New Statesman. Here are some quotes from that article. "Under its influence they become wild-eyed and feverishly excited, and babble out their innermost secrets to each other. Cigarettes are consumed, and so it continues from midnight to six in the morning, when quantities of brandy are served as an antidote to dull the effect of the cocaine and induce sleep, for sleep is impossible to the cocaine fiend." "A new regime of boredom had descended. Far from expanding the mind, LSD seems in most cases to have closed it." "Timothy Leary promoted it as an instrument of "hedonic engineering"." "Huxley's advocacy of LSD was always tinged with despair. He saw it as a mechanism for stimulating creativity in a society whose natural creative energies had expired. He was afraid that, in the wrong hands, it might lead to nothing more than a new flatness and conformity". The article closes with this statement - "The fascination of drugs is ultimately empty." This is hardly an endorsement of drug use which is a worthless activity, whether indulged in by American kids today or the so-called prophets of bygone era.
kris http://kris10846902.tripod.com/

Page: 1 2

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.