<p>
</p>
<p>Why would I do that?</p>
<p>
It’s quite true, I am. :/</p>
<p>
There are jobs for sarcastic people?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>To be come a comedian! But you wouldn’t earn any money with that humor.</p>
<p>Sarcasm/parody/satire does not have to be particularly funny (though “funny” is subjective). That is at least, not its main point. I am glad that you think that I somehow have aspirations of being a comedian simply because you read a few posts of mine, though.</p>
<p>Actually, the reason I said don’t quit your day job was because I don’t think you would have a chance of supporting yourself if you became a comedian.</p>
<p>I concur. I never said I wished to be a professional comedian, though, so I don’t know what you are talking about.</p>
<p>I am saying age does matter, because the more we live the more we know. Most people out age, in my opinion, don’t believe in anything. I never mentioned god. People at 16-18 or however old you are don’t have the life experiences of a 30 year old. I think I said I had a life changing spirtual experience, and I felt things I didn’t know were possible in a short but intense experience where I excited reality. When people are young they rarely think of mortality, of death. A lot of young people don’t really think that one day they’ll be dead, because that’s years from now. Not really thinking about death means people aren’t in a hurry to explain their being, their existance. Sure, some people do, but at what age do philosphers publish books that explore religion and death? How can a person that lack life experiences really make an informed decision about spirtuality? Age matters. Experience mAtters. The longer we live, the more we know and the more our views change. People who don’t experience death rarely think about it. They don’t think about one day ceasing to exist. I mean it’s hard to deny that humans are unique. And that there is something that makes us human, beyond genetics. I feel bad for people who haven’t had a spiritual experience. I’m not talking about meeting or seeing god, or god in general. </p>
<p>Spirituality does not mean god. It is grossly ignorant to assume such. Going through time and feeling every emotion a person could feel, dying and feeling yourself reborn is pretty amazing. Realizing how short our lives really are by seeing the timeline of the world is really cool. I mean feeling yourself live your life in comparison to earth is eye opening. I can’t even explain everything, but it did make me realize how ignorant it is to deny the existance of things when I’ve only lived about a fourth of my life. It’s sad to see young people so quick to fully deny spirituality. How can you be sure at 18 that there isn’t anything when you barely lived? I mean I felt my soul leave my body and then become reborn. I’m glad I felt something different because I thought at a young age I had everything figured out and solved the question of religion. You can’t prove a god doesn’t exist or that religion and sprituality don’t exist, just like you can’t prove it does. So yeah, going around at 18 or 19 thinking you know nothings out there is ignorant. Live at least Half your life before making such a big judgement. Things change when you get older. In just a couple years my views on life have changed drastically. I really thought I knew nothing was out there before. Seriously, at 18 you think you know more about what does and doesn’t exist than a 45 year old? Please. Adults get annoyed at young people because they act like they know everything. But guess what? Even 10 years from now you’ll be somewhere completely different than you are now. I really can’t believe you think a young person is qualified to answer some of lifes biggest questions. I’m keeping an open min spirtually instead of jumping to conclusions because I haven’t been here that long. Sure, I’ve had a lot of experiences, felt a lot of things, been around death and suffering, but I hardly have the answers. Denying everything is ignorant when youre 18. When I was 18 I had different perspectives on life than I do now. </p>
<p>I think it’s really immature to think you really are enlightened or more insightful than people twice your age. I still am learning things about life. I am searching for an explanation, because why would I have one right now? You can only do so much living in 21 years. Alough nihilits like sartre make good points, they can’t explain why we are here. They’re right when they say nothing we do really matters, in the sense that were are such insignificant creatures. That’s where I find a lot of truth in Buddhism. I mean I think it’s complete bullshib to dismiss all things without really reading and studying them. To think there’s any rational explanation to things is ignorant. No matter what you believe, you have to have faith in those beliefs, because you can’t prove them. There isn’t a right belief except the one in keeping an open mind. There’s truth in a lot of differenb things. Deny all of it seems close minded and ignorant to me. Making judgements really young is ignorant. Period. You don’t know everything, ever, and thinking you have figured out a timeless question when you still live with your parents baffles me. Most young people don’t have real world experience and really don’t have the insight middle aged folks do, because as much living as I’ve done, a 45 year old has done twice as much. It baffles me that young people believe so strongly that there’s nothing spiritual about the world. I think it’s incredibly immature and misguided. So yeah, in my mind, a young person isn’t equipted to know what does and doesn’t exist. Even guys like neitschze revised their opinions as they aged. I bet what you think now is not what you’ll think 15/20/30 years from now.</p>
<p>You wrote a 900 word response. I have to disagree with you on principle.</p>
<p>While I agree an 18 year old doesn’t have the life experience of a 40 year old, I disagree with the rest of your post.</p>
<p>I’m stuck at work I have nothing better to do. I don’t understand what there is to disagree with. I mean, do you really think 18 year olds know as much as they think they do? Young people are so ignorant.it’s sad to think people at 18 think they’re dead right on spiritual issues. I can’t even begin to explain how wrong that is. Do you really, truly think 18 yr olds have sufficient answers to life questions? I sure as hell don’t. I guess the new rational thing is to deny spiritual existence at a young age. Even though there’s no proof one way or the other. Sound pretty misguided to me. It’s like reading the first line in a book and then acting as if you know the whole story and the ending. It’s stupid to think you know something that you won’t know until you die. I guess athiesm is the new cool thing to believe. Even though they can’t support their views anymore than a ln islam, buddhist, christain or sceintologist. People should at lest realize that no matter how rational they think their views are, they can’t prove them. Athiesm is as far fetched as any other religion. I mean, can athiests explain how the world went from absolutely nothing to something anymore than a christain? No. Everything comes from something. And science hasn’t been able to explain the creation of a world, universe, whatever you want to call all of this.</p>
<p>It’s also amazing to think how little we utilize or thoughts and how far away people are from attaining consciousness. We use so little of our capabilities it’s astounding. I guess the only way for people to knwo that is to have an out of body experience or to trip so hard you blackout. Sorry, but Noone is going to sell me on knowing what all exists. You may think you are right, but it’s way too early in life to make such a big judgement.</p>
<p>Did you actually count the words? I have to disagree in principle with that.</p>
<p>^I’m guessing the person copied and pasted your mini-essay or diatribe or whatever it is.</p>
<p>I must admit, your posts seem way too long and I just feel too overwhelmed to read them. Brevity, please.</p>
<p>Well everytime I try and make short posts on here, people take it compltely wrong and I hav to explain myself to them. I want to lay it all out there and explain it completely so people can get an idea of what I’m trying to say. 900 words is nothing. But maybe that’s because I’m used to reading so much more than that for classes and whatnot. You can just skim over it. At least it’s not 900 words on why I hate my school, my stats and every activity I ever participated in while at said hated school. Like I said, when I try to write a paragraph on an interesting topic, people on here miss the point completely unless it’s spelled out for them. And if it’s too long, Save yourself that extra 5 minutes and don’t read it.</p>
<p>
What other way is there to get the word count?</p>
<p>@tiff90</p>
<p>While I’m not an atheist, I can understand where they are coming from. Their atheism is usually born out of the idea that reason and science are the only valid epistemologies, which is quite rational. Atheists usually assert that there is no reason to believe that god(s) exist. My only issue with them is that they usually argue from a perspective of absolute certainty where there is none. Science asserts no truths, it only approximates truths to a high degree of accuracy based on what we know and experience. I think this is something that many atheists I have encountered do not understand. I think that it is rational to trust science over personal experiences; but I do not believe that humans are truly rational creatures all around; some are more rational, some less; some embrace their irrationality while others do all they can to eliminate it.</p>
<p>You speak of feelings, emotions, and how they lead to understanding for you (or at least you expect them to). Understand that this is utterly contrary to the perspective and methodology of science (which has, for all intents and purposes, been established as the modern epistemology). You can choose to reject science if you like, but don’t expect atheists or rational empiricists to take you seriously.</p>
<p>Many young people do indeed claim to be highly knowledgable about the world, and they may be wrong or right–but so do middle-aged+ people, and they may be wrong or right as well. The passage of time does not, unfortunately, automatically bring one closer to Truths.</p>
<p>Attaining consciousness? Most people are conscious for most of their lives…</p>
<p>As for using psychoactive drugs in order to explore the nature of the universe: you can try to enhance your experiences of life, but understand that it is incumbent upon you to judge those experiences rationally while sober.</p>
<p>tiff90, I don’t understand.</p>
<p>I am part of an institutional religion at 19. Is this somehow incredibly problematic? You seem to say that age is the limiting factor here. But my religion has tons of old people running everything. How does that fit into your argument?</p>
<p>Or were you claiming only things about atheists? In that case, why would one be off-base if he were to make the claim that you did except include spirituality in the realm of rejection of religion?</p>
<p>In my opinion, science only offers a certain amout of truth. Emotions are more real to me than those abstract theories that people win Nobel prizes for solving. Or for creating a new element. Whoop de doo. What practical application does that have? I get athiests think science is the only way to truth, but emotions are more real than a bunch of formulas. </p>
<p>There is a huge difference between being conscious and reaching consciousness. Why do you think Buddhist monks devote their lives to meditating? That’s why guys like Ginsberg used drugs to meditate and Reach a point you can’t otherwise reach. You would really be shocked at what drugs can do in terms of opening up the mind. Read up on stuff by Ginsberg and company for a better explanation. Consciousness is in my opinion a higher level of understanding. The human mind is capable of incredible things and just being is limiting. I guess if you haven’t experienced it you won’t get it. There was really interesting experiments and writings about acid and other drugs in the 60s and 70s. It was a movement. </p>
<p>I don’t think it’s fair to discount emotion as truth when emotion is all we have. Theories may or may not be real, but human emotion is one of the few real things. You may want to pick science and it’s emotionless nonsense, but I choose to invest in things that are real. There’s no equation for what happens when you die or a theorom that explains the existence of a human soul. Science is overrated and only explains some things. Athiests invest too much in an imperfect field. </p>
<p>In terms of psyhchedelics- I def don’t think everyone should do them, but countless people have found a heightened level awareness from them. They allow your brain to tap into another level of thought. If they didn’t, people wouldn’t do them multiple times. It’s not ideal, but people have some amazing trips. I mean there are groups and religions that use drugs to achieve consciousness. Native Americans using peyote is just one example. I would say people who talk down on certain drugs typically have no experience with them, or even understand them fully, so they are quick to judge.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Dump it into MS Word. It will count the words for you.</p>
<p>Things have been explained!</p>
<p>"Dump it into MS Word. It will count the words for you. " -> <em>Headdesk</em></p>
<p>
The purpose of Buddhist meditation is to eliminate the sense of self-awareness, not to make it stronger.</p>
<p>Emotions:
The philosophical question is: how do you know that emotions are more real than equations/scientific theories? They may seem more real on a personal level, but how do you know that they give you an accurate depiction of objective reality? Unless you assert that there is no objective reality? (this position is not really popular in philosophy any more, but to each his/her own, I suppose) I would contend that emotions are not “all we have.” Human beings have, by whatever means, the relatively unique gift of Reason. Scientifically speaking, emotions are important, as it has been shown that those with a massively damaged amygdala (the emotional center of the brain) have extreme difficulty in making decisions. Mostly, for humans, decision making = reason+emotion.</p>
<p>I’ve read about psychadelic drugs and how they work wonders for some people; to infer that they connect you to some “higher knowledge” is magical thinking, though. One does not need to experience drugs first hand to have an understanding of how they work, either. Correct me if I’m wrong, but usually psychadelics induce a subjective experience depending on state of mind, environment, etc. This is problematic from a perspective that values objectivity.</p>
<p>Of course, I’m not really sure if you believe what you’re saying, or part of what you’re saying, or if you are also attempting parody/partial parody (that would be lame).</p>