mindseye

Joined

• started 5 topics
• posted 271 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by mindseye

• 
  57

  Do demons really exist?

  by Inisc in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i mean, is there really any scientific evidence to support their existence?.

  is it used as a scare tactic of thewts?.

  and i suppose if one doesn't believe in god, a belief in satan and demons and angels for that matter would be contradictory... im not sure what i believe now but would love to hear everyone's thoughts..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  mindseye

  Yes, they do exist - in consciousness. Jung explored this.

  If they manifest, something is usually the culprit (oppressive religion, perhaps?)
• 
  6

  Dualism, Rene Descartes, and Philosophy of the Mind

  by frankiespeakin in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  are mind and matter the same if not how can they intereact?

  dualism says they are different,, who is watching in our inner theater?

  who hears the sounds from the ears, who or what does that?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  mindseye

  I took a introductory philosophy class, and the professor structured the class around the mind/body problem. I left the class with more questions than answers (perhaps a sign of a well done philosophy class?), but left agreeing with Husserl and Heidegger's phenomenological approach rather than Descarte's dualism. I've been wrapping my head around some Mahayana Buddhist philosophy lately, and it definitely resonates. This article articulates it better than I:

  ...while consciousness is said to be primary, this is not to say that it is a kind of first cause, as that would again propose a duality between the first cause and that which is caused; and Buddhist philosophy states the reality of things to be fundamentally nondual—absent of any subject-object duality. So, while a growing number of contemporary neuroscientists adopt a material monist view that reduces all mental phenomena to brain processes, Buddhism tends to adopt a non-material monist view that sees formlessness as the ultimate substrate of inner experience. Guess it's time to tackle the Lankavatara Sutra.
• 
  64

  Transubstantiation?

  by leavingwt in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  does anyone here accept the doctrine of transubstantiation?

  if so, please elaborate.

  theology: the changing of the elements of the bread and wine, when they are consecrated in the eucharist, into the body and blood of christ (a doctrine of the roman catholic church).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  mindseye

  I'm no Catholic by a long shot, but found this Transubstantiation stuff pretty far out, especially when Aquinas married the whole shebang with Aristotelian metaphysics. Methinks we get too caught up in the Fundie-JW/Hyper-rationalist paradigm (I know I sure have!), and often miss the multilayered, philosophically rich, metaphysic laden, sometimes MYSTICAL stuff found in some of these old religions. μετουσ?ωσις!
• 
  24

  How did you visualize Jehovah when you were young?

  by Matsimus in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  i was born as a third generation (perhaps even fourth gen. but my great great grandfather never got baptized) jw.

  i remember that when i was young, perhaps about five years old, i would think about jehovah as this big black ghost with yellow eyes.

  to me he was quite frightening, and i was constantly catious not to piss him off.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  mindseye

  There was a really old elder (good guy) in our conregation who some of the kids thought was Jehovah. Then he passed away, and one was like "What happened to Jehovah?"

  MY own conception of Jah changed throughout the years. As a young kid, it was like an old guy screaming "Get off my lawn!" As I grew older, it was the glowing guy out of the Rev book.
• 
  44

  Atheists, Agnostics or Theists .... So Who's Happiest?

  by 00DAD in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  a couple of years ago, a psychologist i know made the off-handed comment that there is conclusive evidence that "atheists are not as happy as the ordinary, average person?

  we tossed that subject around for a few minutes and then moved on to something else.

  at the time, i didn't think too much about it.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  mindseye

  Brain scans show that Buddhists are the happiest. (where they fall on the theist/atheist spectrum is a whole other subject)
• 
  8

  Megadeth frontman Dave Mustaine endorses Rick Santorum

  by mindseye in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  don't know if this bit of pop culture made it's way around jw.net yet, but dave mustaine of megadeth has been in the news.

  mustaine was brought up as a witness, but seems to have left pretty young.

  he's now a born-again christian, and has made all kinds of off-color comments throughout the years about everything from mexican immigrants to homosexuality.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  mindseye

  Don't know if this bit of pop culture made it's way around jw.net yet, but Dave Mustaine of Megadeth has been in the news. Mustaine was brought up as a Witness, but seems to have left pretty young. He's now a born-again Christian, and has made all kinds of off-color comments throughout the years about everything from Mexican immigrants to homosexuality. The latest is that he's tacitly endorsing Rick Santorum:

  Dave Mustaine confirms Idiocy Twice in One Week

  An interesting quote from Mustaine from the article: "It's pretty clear that they're taking prayer out of school ... I collect books and I have some really, really old schoolbooks, and God is mentioned on every single page. They're taking God out of the schools to dumb us down."

  Also found this article about Megadeth bassist David Ellefeson who went to Seminary and discussed theology with Mustaine:

  MEGADETH Bassist: DAVE MUSTAINE And I Study Scripture Together

  A quote: "Dave and I never dispute scripture but rather we study it together," Ellefson said. "Dave is actually very well versed and read on scripture, especially the Old Testament."

  Some other gems from Dave Mustaine:

  In response to the British government's criticism of homosexuality, Mustaine said: "More power to them. It says in the Bible that men should not lay with men like they lay with women. I mean I don't wanna f--k up and not go to heaven."

  An answer to a question about fellow rockers Judas Priest having an overt homosexual image, "I don't wanna talk about this. The last thing I need is a bunch of homos picketing us."

  Usually people follow their intellect when they leave the Witnesses. Looks like Mustaine actually traded down.
• 
  20

  Jesus did not die on cross, says scholar

  by leavingwt in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  coming to a kingdom hall near you, in a public talk.

  jesus did not die on cross, says scholar .

  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7849852/jesus-did-not-die-on-cross-says-scholar.html.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  mindseye

  True, the actual man known as Jesus was probably not crucified on a 'cross'. But a theological outlook that is so hung up on such petty literalism misses the profound psychological/mythological/spiritual importance of the symbolism.

  http://nexusnovel.wordpress.com/2006/09/07/connection-of-heaven-earth-symbolism-of-cross-tree/

  http://www.amazon.com/Symbolism-Cross-Rene-Guenon/dp/0900588659/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_1
• 
  403

  Atheists..... throwing the baby out with the bath water ?

  by snare&racket in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  this saying permeates this forum with higher frequency than most.

  despite being an open atheist amongst lots of religious people in my life, i have never been accused of doing this and i have never heard this saying attributed to my choice... appart from here.. i thought it would be best to clarify why i (and i assume others) decided to leave the bible behind after leaving the wt society.. realising the wt society was wrong desroyed my world, for me it meant so much.

  i had given so much to it too, it just had to be true!

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  mindseye

  Metatron, there are some valid elements to what you're saying, but some flaws as well.

  I think that opinion polls show a general fear of atheism for an instinctive reason. People recognize how corrosive it can be in general society. It's not that atheism makes people into rapists or criminals or some nonsense like that, it's that it tends to move them towards nothing at all.

  I somewhat agree with your premise. The aversion to atheism, particularly in America, is due to the fact that most American ideals are rooted it Protestant/Puritan ethics. Sociologist Max Weber convincingly proposed that American capitalism evolved from the Protestant "work ethic." Many Americans see atheism, as well as many eastern philosophies, as antithetical to this ethic. Whether or not these alternative philosophies are 'corrosive' to society is highly arguable (I would argue that they are not).

  The only long term atheistic societies I know of are Buddhist (to the extent that you think of it as atheistic). They are nations that successfully avoided social or technical progress for centuries - until recently challenged by Western influence (still "Judeo-Christian" especially if you observe the elections here in the US)

  If we're talking about China here, then Confucian ideals have a significant part to play along with Western influence. Confucian philosophy emphasizes social hierarchy, family values, work ethic, etc. It is the rigid/conservative philosophy of the east (in contrast to Taoism/Buddhism), and is a primary factor as to why the Chinese are open to an increasingly free market and other ambitions. But Confucian philosophy is still devoid of God/Gods. Also, whether this 'progress' in eastern nations is a good thing is also arguable.

  I may get flamed for saying this but I often experience atheists as people like Hitchen - intelligent, articulate, acerbic - and often, drunk. I had to shake my head at people who cheered him on, avoiding Pascal's Wager, as he died (unlike John Von Neumann). WTF?

  Despite some of the "New" Atheists reductionism, I'll have to hand it to Hitchens on avoiding Pascal's Wager. It's one of the most simplistic and absurd arguments in the history of philosophy.

  And finally, there is evolution to consider: religion persists because it has value connected with our survival, like it or not. That's why it won't go away. That's also why the fall of the Soviet Union saw the re-emergence of Orthodox Churches over decades of atheist indoctrination.

  I agree, religion probably has a strong evolutionary basis. And despite the protestations of the "New" Atheists, will never go away.
• 
  111

  What's your Myers-Briggs?

  by Londo111 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i am infp.. some former witnesses in my hometown had a meetup last night...alas, only four of us.

  but it turned out we had an infp(me), two infjs, and an enfp.

  therefore, it turned out we were all idealists.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  mindseye

  Interesting to see all of the INFPs on this thread. I test highly as an INFP, and yeah, I never liked field service either. Fortunately my parents weren't hardcore, so I didn't have to go often.

  You don't like to argue, you INFP's

  I wouldn't say that's universal. I generally avoid conflict, but if someone violates my principles I can get pretty confrontational. I also like a good debate, that is if everyone involved is cordial, sensible, and avoids ad hominem attacks. But yeah, for the most part INFPs are pretty laid back.
• 
  70

  Zen's Rant on Ayn Rand - intelligent responses appreciated

  by Dogpatch in

  1. forum
  2. announcements

  check out http://youtu.be/_rtl0g851ic.

  this is also at the freeminds channel at:.

  http://www.youtube.com/user/freeminds?feature=guide.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  mindseye

  Glander wrote: I would point out that it is "contemporary philosophers and academic departments" who are the core cheerleaders for Collectivism. Even the word "departments" in this context gives away the group think that these mental midgets cling to.

  Glander: Any institution has a certain structure and amount of cultural conformity, and academia is no exception. But rigorous critique is the primary factor in academia. Both Rand's literary merit and philosophical arguments suffer greatly in any rigorous analysis.

  Terry: I enjoy your posts, and I can tell from your writing you are a very rational person. Rand's arguments are mainly geared towards the highly rational, she is a champion of the left-brained. She eschews humanity's storehouse of metaphor, myth and poetry for a philosophy of strict, linear "reason". Yet even her "reason" is flawed because she indulges in the simple logical fallacy of the false dichotomy - that is when she proposes a false choice between the individual and the collective. It's a false notion that we have to exalt the Galileos, Einsteins and Steve Jobs at the expense of the everyman, and that we have to dispense with excellence when we choose measured altruism.

  Rand's biggest mistep is the idea inherent in her idea of a "Utopia of Greed." It's a terribly misguided notion that if individuals follow their own egoistic 'ethic', and form some 'ideal' capitalist institutions, then some perfect state can be acheived on earth. Besides sounding scarily like an organization we are all familiar with, these ideas are tied up in utopian certainty and teleological thinking. Basically, teologogy stems from Aristotle's notion that everything, including humans, have a final cause or purpose (a comparison that Rand would not object to, to paraphrase her "in philosophy there are the three A's - Aristotle, Aquinas, and Ayn Rand"). The problem with teological thinking is that there is nothing besides our own ideas that show that we have some final cause and purpose, and such notions lead to all kinds of misguided ideas about the direction of history, from Marxism to Fundamentalism.