God and Music

[SnakeLord]

There is music that no-one disputes though. If someone was to say they thought Beethoven's 9th was rubbish, you wouldn't accept that as a reasonable point of view. You'd just say that they were not musical enough or mature enough to understand it.

It's purely subjective. I can't say I've ever liked Beethoven - it just aint my thing.. It's not about maturity or being musical enough, my ears just don't like it. If someone said it was rubbish I'd accept it as their personal take on what good music or bad music sounds like. Doesn't mean I have to be of the same opinion, but it doesn't in any way stop theirs.

I would be interested to see any music that "no-one disputes".

 

[sandy]

Music is a complex collection of air vibrations that stimulate the pleasure center of humans.

Is your question really does 'God' exist as a complex collection of air vibrations that stimulate the pleasure center of humans?

For me it's more like God exists as a "complex collection of SPIRITUAL vibrations that stimulate the pleasure center." I have never experienced a higher high than when in His presence. And it's more than vibrations. It's a personal relationship.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Good question. Possibly the alien analogy is leading us off track.

We do not say when someone is appreciating music that it is just something in their own minds. We don't say to the people listening to it that they are just listening to an ordered set of sounds. We accept that it is something more than that because we can all understand it.

With religion, some people can appreciate it and some can't. The people who can't appreciate it believe that those who can are deluding themselves.
They can see that there is an ordered set of rules and beliefs, but they don't understand it.

As for whether it matters. Probably not.

As you alluded to with your last sentence, I can't see how it matters if people appreciate religion or not. What does matter are assertions of objective truth that religions make. When someone accepts that 'God', 'Angels', 'Heaven', 'Hell', 'Demos', 'Angels', 'Souls', 'Ghosts', 'Spirits', 'Magic', 'Good', 'Evil', 'Monsters', 'Vampires', 'Zombies', 'Werewolves', 'Psychic Powers', etc. as being true when there is clearly no supportive evidence and heaps of contradictory evidence then they are objectively delusional.

Everyone on this planet is delusional about something; however, the delusion that comes from fantasies such as 'God' tends to have a much greater potential for negative impact.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

For me it's more like God exists as a "complex collection of SPIRITUAL vibrations that stimulate the pleasure center." I have never experienced a higher high than when in His presence. And it's more than vibrations. It's a personal relationship.

I've seen that psychological progression in other believers. 'God' starts off as the typical human behavior of putting human characteristics on reality (making it magically sentient, emotional, full of intent. etc). Next a relationship is established with 'God'... which becomes the act of turning 'God' into a proxy between a person and their subconscious and working hard to establish a relationship with the proxy. That personal relationship and high that is often experienced is the result of having a great relationship with yourself through the artificial 'God' proxy.

It's probably an excellent way to work psychologically and it has the unfortunate side-effect of reinforcing the objective claims of the religion that the proxy was spawned from.

 

[peta9]

Good question. Possibly the alien analogy is leading us off track.

We do not say when someone is appreciating music that it is just something in their own minds. We don't say to the people listening to it that they are just listening to an ordered set of sounds. We accept that it is something more than that because we can all understand it.

With religion, some people can appreciate it and some can't. The people who can't appreciate it believe that those who can are deluding themselves.
They can see that there is an ordered set of rules and beliefs, but they don't understand it.As for whether it matters. Probably not.

I'm glad you stated that as it makes for an important point. You see, religionists can delude themselves into believing everyone should share their point of view and convert them and that is the major delusion they have. That's why people should seek thier kind not convert everyone to be just like them when it's impossible when they genuinely are different. It's also a form of prejudice, intolerance and self-centeredness. If someone does not appreciate or feel a need for something and you don't recognize that, you are just as delusional. I can't fit in another's size clothes no matter how well it fits them. Everyone has thier personal version of reality and then the general reality we agree on, theists are so subjective to lose all perspective and don't realize they are confusing the two. They need to step back, shut the hell up and THEY need to realize as well how subjective they are being. If I forced my opinion that a certain flavor of ice cream was the best-tasting because it is to me and I can't understand why others would be constructed differently is idiotic and shallow. An alien would simply be different from you which doesn't make them less just because you enjoy something they could care less about.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

I've seen that psychological progression in other believers. 'God' starts off as the typical human behavior of putting human characteristics on reality (making it magically sentient, emotional, full of intent. etc). Next a relationship is established with 'God'... which becomes the act of turning 'God' into a proxy between a person and their subconscious and working hard to establish a relationship with the proxy. That personal relationship and high that is often experienced is the result of having a great relationship with yourself through the artificial 'God' proxy.

It's probably an excellent way to work psychologically and it has the unfortunate side-effect of reinforcing the objective claims of the religion that the proxy was spawned from.

People certainly don't kill each other over musical differences of opinion.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

People certainly don't kill each other over musical differences of opinion.

I certainly wouldn't believe it. People will potentially kill each over minor inconvenience (ever head of road rage?) let alone full blown disagreement. The bottom line is that any experience that causes a 'moment of pain' for a person is potentially a motive for that person to kill the perceived source of the pain (after all feeling 'wronged' is swiftly satisfied by feeling 'avenged').

 

[Nutter]

Does God need to exist as a separate entity, or could God exist in the same way as music does?

What difference does it make?
Why concern oneself with "need" and "could"?

 

[lightgigantic]

we been through this numerous times and you have yet to prove anybody has or could have had direct perception, so do shut up and go away.

indeed proving something to a person bereft of the necessary qualifications to either confirm or validate something is indeed difficult - you don't even find such examples existing in science so its not clear why you expect religion to somehow work out of such a framework

 

[GhostofMaxwell.]

indeed proving something to a person bereft of the necessary qualifications to either confirm or validate something is indeed difficult - you don't even find such examples existing in science so its not clear why you expect religion to somehow work out of such a framework

Do they let you out for therapeutic sessons?

 

[lightgigantic]

Do they let you out for therapeutic sessons?

To head up sessions with groups of persons like yourself?

 

[geeser]

indeed proving something to a person bereft of the necessary qualifications to either confirm or validate something is indeed difficult - you don't even find such examples existing in science so its not clear why you expect religion to somehow work out of such a framework

yet you still haven't shown anybody has the necessary qualifications, to have direct perception of god, please do go away your arguement is extremely stale.
go back to your padded cell.

 

[SnakeLord]

indeed proving something to a person bereft of the necessary qualifications to either confirm or validate something is indeed difficult

Let's just reflect on what you've said for a second.. You have stated that it is extremely difficult to confirm or validate something to someone bereft of qualification. In saying, I can only now ask you how anyone ever becomes qualified. Surely they have things confirmed and validated in order to ever get the damn qualification lol? I know I sure did.

My teachers managed to explain to me, show me, validate and confirm that which they were trying to teach. Likewise I have done the same with others including my children.

Your religion and beliefs do not work in this manner. You take the word of ancient people and that's that. You can't confirm or validate it, you can't confirm or validate any of it's claims to yourself or anyone else and yet insist that people believe it to be true regardless to the fact that you can't confirm any of it.

Finally I want to ask for your qualifications regarding this. Are you a "saintly person"? Are you qualified? If not you have no place to speak according to your own arguments. Yes/no?

 

[Captain Kremmen]

What difference does it make?
Why concern oneself with "need" and "could"?

If you mean that God would not concern himself with need and could, I can accept that. But for human beings need and could are everything. Otherwise why do anything?

 

[lightgigantic]

yet you still haven't shown anybody has the necessary qualifications,

you've never encountered a normative description in scripture?
:m:

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord
“

indeed proving something to a person bereft of the necessary qualifications to either confirm or validate something is indeed difficult
”
Let's just reflect on what you've said for a second.. You have stated that it is extremely difficult to confirm or validate something to someone bereft of qualification. In saying, I can only now ask you how anyone ever becomes qualified. Surely they have things confirmed and validated in order to ever get the damn qualification lol? I know I sure did.

yes, knowledge works like this
theory -> practice -> realization/values

what the atheistic consensus is demanding in regards to theistic realizations/values is something like this

theory (ranging from adequate to most minuscule) -> realization values
or perhaps even
adhoms -> realization/values

my question is why?

My teachers managed to explain to me, show me, validate and confirm that which they were trying to teach. Likewise I have done the same with others including my children.

therefore the successful student accepts the words of their teacher to at least bring them to the platform of practice (realizations/values is of course something internal and separate that comes from the practice) - this is why the high school drop out is at an impasse

Your religion and beliefs do not work in this manner.

the do for the person who accepts the theory to come to the point of practice

You take the word of ancient people and that's that.

no
you accept the word and put it into practice
much like any student of any field of knowledge accepts the word of their teacher and puts it into practice (a student who sits back and disses their teacher won't learn anything in a million years, assuming of course that the subject matter is not the advancement of quarrelsome behaviour)

You can't confirm or validate it, you can't confirm or validate any of it's claims to yourself or anyone else and yet insist that people believe it to be true regardless to the fact that you can't confirm any of it.

on the contrary you cannot validate it, since it is quite clear from our previous discussions that you don't have an adequate level of theory (eg - the relationships between god, the living entity and the phenomenal world) that would even enable the possibility of practice

Finally I want to ask for your qualifications regarding this. Are you a "saintly person"? Are you qualified? If not you have no place to speak according to your own arguments. Yes/no?

I think we approached this subject before briefly

I asked you whether you had direct perception of atoms and you cited that you had, referencing spectroscopy.
In otherwords you confirmed your perception through terms commonly found in literature on the subject - if I had no capacity (or a deep disregard) for entering into the literature (aka theory) on the subject matter, your confirmation would be completely meaningless to me, even though it would be valid.

However when I reference qualification/realization through scripture (normative descriptions) it tends to send you on a spin of ad homs - so my question to you is what authority do you expect me to draw on in answering your inquiries?

 

[SnakeLord]

what the atheistic consensus is demanding in regards to theistic realizations/values is something like this

theory (ranging from adequate to most minuscule) -> realization values
or perhaps even
adhoms -> realization/values

That's actually nonsense given that a large portion of atheists were practicing theists at some point in their lives.

They believed and practiced the same crap you do, they've just developed one stage further. Technically they'd be the qualified, you're still training.

therefore the successful student accepts the words of their teacher

The more successful debate the teacher.

on the contrary you cannot validate it, since it is quite clear from our previous discussions that you don't have an adequate level of theory

According to who, you? Show me what qualifications you have for your statement to be of any worth.

I asked you whether you had...

Up to your usual tactics heh. We're not talking about me here lg, we're talking about you. Kindly pay attention to that fact and tell me what qualifications you have. Are you a 'saintly person'?

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord
]“

what the atheistic consensus is demanding in regards to theistic realizations/values is something like this

theory (ranging from adequate to most minuscule) -> realization values
or perhaps even
adhoms -> realization/values
”
That's actually nonsense given that a large portion of atheists were practicing theists at some point in their lives.

They believed and practiced the same crap you do, they've just developed one stage further. Technically they'd be the qualified, you're still training.

if as an atheist they can not elaborate on what is the process advocated by scripture and saintly persons (except perhaps to place one's back side on a chair in a place of worship) the nature of their practice is questionable

“
therefore the successful student accepts the words of their teacher
”
The more successful debate the teacher.

A - "Now class this is a bunsen burner"
B - "It is not!!"

The successful student has intelligent inquiry, as opposed to being prone to obnoxious displays of stubborness

“
on the contrary you cannot validate it, since it is quite clear from our previous discussions that you don't have an adequate level of theory
”
According to who, you?

no
scripture and saintly persons

Show me what qualifications you have for your statement to be of any worth.

that my friend, would require a discussion of scripture and saintly persons, preferably in a congenial atmosphere

“
I asked you whether you had...
”
Up to your usual tactics heh. We're not talking about me here lg, we're talking about you. Kindly pay attention to that fact and tell me what qualifications you have. Are you a 'saintly person'?

that is why there is the bit at the end - namely is it possible to approach a discussion on qualification that prohibits referencing established literature in the field?

 

[SnakeLord]

if as an atheist they can not elaborate on what is the process advocated by scripture and saintly persons (except perhaps to place one's back side on a chair in a place of worship) the nature of their practice is questionable

I'm afraid you can't say that.. You guessed it: you're not qualified. You are currently stuck in the middle of training and until you come to realisation or qualification there is simply nothing you can say that anyone should listen to - including yourself. Sure, I understand it is common for students half way through a course to think they know it all, but they are wrong, and so are you.

Let me point it out to you, it works like this:

theory -> practice -> realization/values

You haven't reached the end bit yet, you're not qualified to speak. Come back when you are.

The successful student has intelligent inquiry, as opposed to being prone to obnoxious displays of stubborness

Certainly, never did I imply otherwise. I dunno what orifice you pulled that from.

no
scripture and saintly persons

Scripture is the beginning of study, saintly persons are people halfway through study. None of them are qualified to speak.

I know, I know.. this is where you argue that scripture is old and therefore valid. Simply put it's ludicrous. You argue that your beliefs work on the same principle as everything else you'd care to imagine, (theory - practice - realisation). Now, as you assert that these beliefs work on the same principle I would ask you to show me anything else, (use science as an example as you indeed used it as one earlier), where old = more valid than new?

Scripture has no place in this discussion, it's like the welcome letter to any university course. Once you're qualified you'll understand that.

that my friend, would require a discussion of scripture and saintly persons, preferably in a congenial atmosphere

So in short.. You don't have any qualifications. We're done here.

namely is it possible to approach a discussion on qualification that prohibits referencing established literature in the field?

I asked for your qualifications, nothing else. What qualifications do you have? There are qualified accountants who have this degree and that degree etc etc. There are qualified brain surgeons who have this degree and that degree.. So.. what qualifications do you have?

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord
“

if as an atheist they can not elaborate on what is the process advocated by scripture and saintly persons (except perhaps to place one's back side on a chair in a place of worship) the nature of their practice is questionable
”
I'm afraid you can't say that.. You guessed it: you're not qualified. You are currently stuck in the middle of training and until youcome to realisation or qualification there is simply nothing you can say that anyone should listen to - including yourself. Sure, I understand it is common for students half way through a course to think they know it all, but they are wrong, and so are you.

I don't say it
scripture does

(don't tell me you have never encountered normative descriptions in scriptures that give more elaborate indications than the above mentioned?)

Let me point it out to you, it works like this:

theory -> practice -> realization/values

You haven't reached the end bit yet, you're not qualified to speak. Come back when you are.

come back to us when you get around to explaining how one can elaborate on realization or values without referencing normative descriptions in the said field of knowledge

“
The successful student has intelligent inquiry, as opposed to being prone to obnoxious displays of stubborness
”
Certainly, never did I imply otherwise. I dunno what orifice you pulled that from.

your display of behavior on the religious discussion threads on scirforums I guess

“
no
scripture and saintly persons
”
Scripture is the beginning of study, saintly persons are people halfway through study. None of them are qualified to speak.

just like science text books are the beginning of study, and the persons who compiled them are people halfway through study. None of them are qualified to speak, eh

Scripture has no place in this discussion, it's like the welcome letter to any university course. Once you're qualified you'll understand that.

just like science text books have no place in the discussion of science, eh?

“
that my friend, would require a discussion of scripture and saintly persons, preferably in a congenial atmosphere
”
So in short.. You don't have any qualifications. We're done here.

to demand that a discussion on the nature of physics is not allowed to reference any term or discovery mentioned in journals or text books certainly makes for a limited discussion

“
namely is it possible to approach a discussion on qualification that prohibits referencing established literature in the field?
”

I asked for your qualifications, nothing else.

ahem - you did also have a tremendous hissy fit when I mentioned scripture, which gets back to the issue of how in the hell can one discuss qualification without reference to normative descriptions in the field

What qualifications do you have?

that my friend, would require a discussion of scripture and saintly persons, preferably in a congenial atmosphere

There are qualified accountants who have this degree and that degree etc etc.

if I forbade you, due to some sort of myopic madness, to reference any normative description related to the field of accountancy, how would you progress in establishing the qualification of an accountant to me?