Carol service in prod church review.

[Sir C]

The vicar told a joke.

A joke. In church.

:-(

[SWv2]

The vicar told a joke.

A joke. In church.

:-(

“An Irishman, English man and Scots man walked into a bar …… “

[Sir C]

“An Irishman, English man and Scots man walked into a bar …… “

"Three guys arrive at the Pearly Gates..."

:-(

[Pokster]

The vicar told a joke.

A joke. In church.

:-(

Did he say God exists? That always cracks me up

[SWv2]

"Three guys arrive at the Pearly Gates..."

:-(

Well to be fair it was a Protestant ceremony so what did you expect.

I went to mass a few weeks ago, it really is utter fúcking nonsense tbh.

[Sir C]

Did he say God exists? That always cracks me up

Did you miss the 'protestant' bit? They gave up on God years ago.

[Pokster]

Did you miss the 'protestant' bit? They gave up on God years ago.

Quite rightly so, stupid idea that there is one

[Sir C]

Quite rightly so, stupid idea that there is one

I'd say it's an utterly inevitable idea. Not one that I necessarily agree with, but far from stupid.

[Burney]

I'd say it's an utterly inevitable idea. Not one that I necessarily agree with, but far from stupid.

I don't think it's even an idea so much as a basic human need/instinct. There's a reason why no human society in history ever has developed without a spiritual element. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that, as a species, we naturally, unconsciously believe in God (or some variation thereof), but have to work to use our rational mind to consciously suppress that belief.

[Monty92]

I don't think it's even an idea so much as a basic human need/instinct. There's a reason why no human society in history ever has developed without a spiritual element. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that, as a species, we naturally, unconsciously believe in God (or some variation thereof), but have to work to use our rational mind to consciously suppress that belief.

You conflate spirituality with God, but the two need not have anything to do with each other whatsoever.

So when you say "or some variation thereof" what you actually mean is something entirely different to God (specifically, an acceptance that there is much about the world - and in particular human consciousness - that we do not yet understand). There is no reason at all - other than intellectual laziness - for this ignorance to manifest in a belief in God.

[Burney]

You conflate spirituality with God, but the two need not have anything to do with each other whatsoever.

So when you say "or some variation thereof" what you actually mean is something entirely different to God (specifically, an acceptance that there is much about the world - and in particular human consciousness - that we do not yet understand). There is no reason at all - other than intellectual laziness - for this ignorance to manifest in a belief in God.

By 'God', I mean a reflexive, unthinking belief in the supernatural. Call it what you like and intellectualise it as you like, but it's all the same mumbo-jumbo: a desire for some order and meaning in a chaotic and meaningless universe.

[Monty92]

By 'God', I mean a reflexive, unthinking belief in the supernatural. Call it what you like and intellectualise it as you like, but it's all the same mumbo-jumbo: a desire for some order and meaning in a chaotic and meaningless universe.

But 'supernatural' can also encompass matters that are spiritual. This need not have anything to do with God, which is why I objected to you conflating the two.

What you actually mean is "Anyone who has opened their mind for more than 5 minutes will be aware that there's loads we don't yet know or understand about the world - and will be open to the possibility of transcendental potential (for want of a better phrase)".

Fúck all to do with God.

[World's End Stella]

But 'supernatural' can also encompass matters that are spiritual. This need not have anything to do with God, which is why I objected to you conflating the two.

What you actually mean is "Anyone who has opened their mind for more than 5 minutes will be aware that there's loads we don't yet know or understand about the world - and will be open to the possibility of transcendental potential (for want of a better phrase)".

Fúck all to do with God.

That depends on how you define God. I subscribe to Gandhi's view:

'seek the truth and you will find God'

Quite the most beautiful thing, that.

[Monty92]

That depends on how you define God. I subscribe to Gandhi's view:

'seek the truth and you will find God'

Quite the most beautiful thing, that.

I would argue that there is no definition of God that is credible, helpful or necessary for human well-being and progress.

[Burney]

But 'supernatural' can also encompass matters that are spiritual. This need not have anything to do with God, which is why I objected to you conflating the two.

What you actually mean is "Anyone who has opened their mind for more than 5 minutes will be aware that there's loads we don't yet know or understand about the world - and will be open to the possibility of transcendental potential (for want of a better phrase)".

Fúck all to do with God.

:hehe: If you believe any of that shít, you're only a cùnt hair away from being a god-botherer yourself imo. I always find convinced atheists who then come out with this type of horseshít very funny, I must say. Proof - if it were needed - of my avatar's dictum that ''When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything."

Let's just say that 'god' is whatever it is that every human being instinctively tries to bargain with at times of stress. That exists within all of us.

[Monty92]

:hehe: If you believe any of that shít, you're only a cùnt hair away from being a god-botherer yourself imo. I always find convinced atheists who then come out with this type of horseshít very funny, I must say. Proof - if it were needed - of my avatar's dictum that ''When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything."

Let's just say that 'god' is whatever it is that every human being instinctively tries to bargain with at times of stress. That exists within all of us.

You think acknowledging that we have no real idea about the origins of human consciousness is only a **** hair away from being a God botherer?

My word.

[Burney]

You think acknowledging that we have no real idea about the origins of human consciousness is only a **** hair away from being a God botherer?

My word.

I think that a belief in human spirituality is simply a means of sublimating and rendering intellectually acceptable a pre-existing gut-level belief in a higher supernatural power. It's just a smokescreen thrown up by people who desperately want to believe in something, but won't let themselves believe in a 'God'. If you believe there are such things as 'matters spiritual', you are de facto admitting you believe in the human soul - a wholly religious construct.

[IUFG]

Quite frankly, the entire notion of religion (used to control people and amass riches through the ages) is preposterous.

If you proposed the idea now of living your life by means of 2000 year old folklore, you'd be sent to the Mental Hospital.

[Monty92]

I think that a belief in human spirituality is simply a means of sublimating and rendering intellectually acceptable a pre-existing gut-level belief in a higher supernatural power. It's just a smokescreen thrown up by people who desperately want to believe in something, but won't let themselves believe in a 'God'. If you believe there are such things as 'matters spiritual', you are de facto admitting you believe in the human soul - a wholly religious construct.

I would concede that the term 'spiritual' comes heavily loaded with religious connotations, and to that extent is certainly inadequate or imperfect.

But it only takes a small broadening of our traditional concept of spirituality to encompass matters such as the mysteries of consciousness that have absolutely nothing to do with God.

Believing in such matters is not a smokescreen - it's an inevitable and unavoidable consequence of 5 minutes of opening your mind.

[World's End Stella]

I would argue that there is no definition of God that is credible, helpful or necessary for human well-being and progress.

How about contentment and peace of mind? Imagine that everyone on this lovely planet of ours experienced both of these on a daily basis precisely because of their belief in God. Then add all that peace and contentment for every human being that has ever lived and you'll come up with something far more valuable than anything delivered by man in the name of progress.

[Monty92]

How about contentment and peace of mind? Imagine that everyone on this lovely planet of ours experienced both of these on a daily basis precisely because of their belief in God. Then add all that peace and contentment for every human being that has ever lived and you'll come up with something far more valuable than anything delivered by man in the name of progress.

But this is based on the assumption that the comfort and solitude gained from a belief in God cannot be replicated - improved, even - by anything else. I dispute this.

[World's End Stella]

But this is based on the assumption that the comfort and solitude gained from a belief in God cannot be replicated - improved, even - by anything else. I dispute this.

The overwhelming majority of this peace and contentment comes from their belief that at the moment of death you will not cease to exist for all eternity.

You'll struggle to come up with an alternative, Monty. Unless you're referring to crack? :sherlock:

[Monty92]

The overwhelming majority of this peace and contentment comes from their belief that at the moment of death you will not cease to exist for all eternity.

You'll struggle to come up with an alternative, Monty. Unless you're referring to crack? :sherlock:

But you can't measure the extent to which this ignorance reduces the quality of their life as they live it. So, if you accept there is nothing after death, you may well (and should be encouraged to) see more value in what you have here and now, since it is all you have and will ever have. What better motive to pursue your interests, dreams, and to expand your mind? And yes, taking crack could certainly be part of that - though I would personally suggest psychadelics.

In short, religiosity erodes the incentive to maximise your potential. Or to be more specific, it erodes the potential that can blossom from a lifetime of persuing truth.

[World's End Stella]

you may well (and should be encouraged to) see more value in what you have here and now, since it is all you have and will ever have. What better motive to pursue your interests, dreams, and to expand your mind?

They aren't mutually exclusive, Monty. Many people do both. :shrug:

[Monty92]

They aren't mutually exclusive, Monty. Many people do both. :shrug:

I know that. But it is religiosity that provides a ready-made excuse not to. Indeed, arguably its central message is to resist many of the paths that can lead to the kind of fulfillment and human progress that I refer to. Non-religiosity can also have its downsides - a sense of nihilism, lack of meaning and purpose, etc - but as a concept it is value free. You can take what you want from it, without any of the bad ideas or outright lies that religion imposes on you.

[Burney]

I would concede that the term 'spiritual' comes heavily loaded with religious connotations, and to that extent is certainly inadequate or imperfect.

But it only takes a small broadening of our traditional concept of spirituality to encompass matters such as the mysteries of consciousness that have absolutely nothing to do with God.

Believing in such matters is not a smokescreen - it's an inevitable and unavoidable consequence of 5 minutes of opening your mind.

Sorry, but wishy-washy phrases such as ‘the mysteries of consciousness’ set alarm bells ringing. What mysteries? Our ‘consciousness’ is simply a series of biochemical reactions to which we imbue undue significance. If you’re that interested in it, I suggest the answers will be found in science, not ‘spirituality’.

[Ash]

The overwhelming majority of this peace and contentment comes from their belief that at the moment of death you will not cease to exist for all eternity.

Surely this depends on the verdict going your way, for those who believe in an upstairs-downstairs afterlife.

As one that doesn't, the prospect of ceasing to exist doesn't bother me at all personally, as long as pain isn't involved in the process. I'm far more concerned about the distress, inconvenience and possible mess left behind for others at such a cessation.

[Burney]

Surely this depends on the verdict going your way, for those who believe in an upstairs-downstairs afterlife.

As one that doesn't, the prospect of ceasing to exist doesn't bother me at all personally, as long as pain isn't involved in the process. I'm far more concerned about the distress, inconvenience and possible mess left behind for others at such a cessation.

I think some people would prefer an eternity of existence in hell to simply ceasing to exist.

[Sir C]

Sorry, but wishy-washy phrases such as ‘the mysteries of consciousness’ set alarm bells ringing. What mysteries? Our ‘consciousness’ is simply a series of biochemical reactions to which we imbue undue significance. If you’re that interested in it, I suggest the answers will be found in science, not ‘spirituality’.

"There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, / Than are dreamt of in your philosophy"

A mild cynicism towards scientific dogma would serve you well. See also: 'climate change'.

[Monty92]

Sorry, but wishy-washy phrases such as ‘the mysteries of consciousness’ set alarm bells ringing. What mysteries? Our ‘consciousness’ is simply a series of biochemical reactions to which we imbue undue significance. If you’re that interested in it, I suggest the answers will be found in science, not ‘spirituality’.

Wishy-washy phrases like "the mysteries of conciousness" are only toxic by association, because they've so often been utilised by wishy-washy idiots like Deepak Chopra. But that doesn't necessarily render them inherently useless.

What about the 'nature' of conciousness? Would you object to that too? You take a psychadelic drug to change the biochemistry of your brain and to get closer to understanding the nature of consciousness. In this sense, spirituality can often rely on science, yet you flippantly treat them as mutually incompatible.

[Monty92]

Surely this depends on the verdict going your way, for those who believe in an upstairs-downstairs afterlife.

As one that doesn't, the prospect of ceasing to exist doesn't bother me at all personally, as long as pain isn't involved in the process. I'm far more concerned about the distress, inconvenience and possible mess left behind for others at such a cessation.

Ash, I think you'd like this podcast with Brendan O'Neill in which he discusses his enduring fondness for Marxism and how his original ideas have been heavily distorted and stigmatised. Worth an hour of your time :thumbup:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ak51zb4G_Kk

[Ash]

Sorry, but wishy-washy phrases such as ‘the mysteries of consciousness’ set alarm bells ringing. What mysteries? Our ‘consciousness’ is simply a series of biochemical reactions to which we imbue undue significance. If you’re that interested in it, I suggest the answers will be found in science, not ‘spirituality’.

But consciousness is a mystery. That there is ultimately a scientific meaning to it doesn't stop it being mysterious or highly significant. And is it certainly biochemical? I have argued with someone who insists that we cannot rule out a sophisticated electronic intelligence acquiring consciousness.

And if you think, as you indicated earlier, that a belief in god is a perfectly natural response to seeking patterns of order in a chaotic universe, it isn't unreasonable that the process of consciousness reflecting upon itself (meta-consciousness) would be part of that belief, based in the feeling of detachment from the material body that such reflection can cause. I suspect that this sense of detachment may have been the 'spirituality' that Monty was alluding to in his clumsily-constructed post.

[Burney]

Wishy-washy phrases like "the mysteries of conciousness" are only toxic by association, because they've so often been utilised by wishy-washy idiots like Deepak Chopra. But that doesn't necessarily render them inherently useless.

What about the 'nature' of conciousness? Would you object to that too? You take a psychadelic drug to change the biochemistry of your brain and to get closer to understanding the nature of consciousness. In this sense, spirituality can often rely on science, yet you flippantly treat them as mutually incompatible.

Drugs do things to your brain that alter your perceptions. But that is not a spiritual issue, it’s a chemical one. If you choose to believe what you experience when you’re fúcked up is ‘truer’ than what you experience when you’re not, you’re no different to a religious adherent who thinks they’ve achieved religious ecstasy. It’s all the same thing.

[Ash]

Ash, I think you'd like this podcast with Brendan O'Neill in which he discusses his enduring fondness for Marxism and how his original ideas have been heavily distorted and stigmatised. Worth an hour of your time :thumbup:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ak51zb4G_Kk

Ah, thanks. :thumbup:

[Burney]

"There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, / Than are dreamt of in your philosophy"

A mild cynicism towards scientific dogma would serve you well. See also: 'climate change'.

I retain a cynicism about all dogma. Dogma and good science are mutually exclusive.

[Sir C]

I retain a cynicism about all dogma. Dogma and good science are mutually exclusive.

Well then. Dismissing the possibility of there being some 'mystery' to human consciousness because 'science' told you so would be dependent on you knowing that this 'science' is the 'good science', rather than the 'climate change' or 'moon landing' science.

[Monty92]

Drugs do things to your brain that alter your perceptions. But that is not a spiritual issue, it’s a chemical one. If you choose to believe what you experience when you’re fúcked up is ‘truer’ than what you experience when you’re not, you’re no different to a religious adherent who thinks they’ve achieved religious ecstasy. It’s all the same thing.

I use 'spiritual' to describe the exploration of one's own mind. In other words, following the evidence in a wholly scientific way. You paint the two as mutually incompatible, but they are so compatible that any exploration of one's own mind that doesn't rely on science is likely to lead you to one place and one place only: religion.

Religion happens when you don't follow the evidence.

[Burney]

Well then. Dismissing the possibility of there being some 'mystery' to human consciousness because 'science' told you so would be dependent on you knowing that this 'science' is the 'good science', rather than the 'climate change' or 'moon landing' science.

No. Good science does not acknowledge ‘mystery’ - simply stuff science hasn’t yet understood. ‘Mystery’ is - again - a religious concept.

[Ash]

Drugs do things to your brain that alter your perceptions. But that is not a spiritual issue, it’s a chemical one. If you choose to believe what you experience when you’re fúcked up is ‘truer’ than what you experience when you’re not, you’re no different to a religious adherent who thinks they’ve achieved religious ecstasy. It’s all the same thing.

Not just perceptions, but ideas. Those ideas can remain after the psychedelic state has subsided.

As to your last point, I read somewhere a claim from a Christian that the altered brain patterns observed when stimulated by maijuana were similar to those observed when 'stimulated' (atheistic scare quotes) by prayer.

[Sir C]

I use 'spiritual' to describe the exploration of one's own mind.

In other words, following the evidence in a wholly-scientific way. You paint the two as mutually incompatible, but they are so compatible that any exploration of one's own mind that doesn't rely on science is likely to lead you to one place and one place only: religion.

Religion happens when you don't follow the evidence.

Anyone exploring your mind would want to be wearing an NBC suit. :-(

[Sir C]

No. Good science does not acknowledge ‘mystery’ - simply stuff science hasn’t yet understood. ‘Mystery’ is - again - a religious concept.

Semantic, with all due respect, bóllocks.

[Burney]

I use 'spiritual' to describe the exploration of one's own mind. In other words, following the evidence in a wholly scientific way. You paint the two as mutually incompatible, but they are so compatible that any exploration of one's own mind that doesn't rely on science is likely to lead you to one place and one place only: religion.

Religion happens when you don't follow the evidence.

But that idea is inherently solipsistic. It relies on the idea that ‘you’ are some unique entity. You aren’t. Science tells us that we are actually all boringly alike. ‘Your’ mind has no particular mystery. You are not a unique snowflake. You just wantbto be special because you lack the humility to accept that there’s nothing particularly interesting about you.

[Monty92]

Anyone exploring your mind would want to be wearing an NBC suit. :-(

And that's just the stored images of your mum.

[Monty92]

But that idea is inherently solipsistic. It relies on the idea that ‘you’ are some unique entity. You aren’t. Science tells us that we are actually all boringly alike. ‘Your’ mind has no particular mystery. You are not a unique snowflake. You just wantbto be special because you lack the humility to accept that there’s nothing particularly interesting about you.

No, not at all, actually. I do not think there is anything uniquely interesting about my mind. I believe that the most stupid person in the world has just as much potential as Einstein to discover untapped truths about the nature of consciousness. Not their consciousness - consciousness in general.

[World's End Stella]

No. Good science does not acknowledge ‘mystery’ - simply stuff science hasn’t yet understood. ‘Mystery’ is - again - a religious concept.

The assumption being that science (and therefore man) is capable of understanding everything.

I disagree, or at least I disagree with the idea that we should assume that is true. Man is product of evolution, the engine of evolution is arbitrary genetic change. I find it unlikely that something that has evolved as a result of arbitrary genetic change should attain such a degree of sophistication that they could understand absolutely everything.

It strikes me as superficially arrogant. No wonder Monty supports this view. :-)

[Burney]

Semantic, with all due respect, bóllocks.

But the semantics do matter. Our thought is still hugely shaped by a language given to us by thousands of years of monotheism and I think it's important to bear that in mind.

[Burney]

No, not at all, actually. I do not think there is anything uniquely interesting about my mind. I believe that the most stupid person in the world has just as much potential as Einstein to discover untapped truths about the nature of consciousness. Not their consciousness - consciousness in general.

But you want mystery, don't you? You don't want everything explained, you want stuff to be just out of reach because that suggests there is more than the grindingly physical. You may want to explore it, but you don't truly want to understand it. Not really.

What I'm trying to explain is that that instinct - that inherently insatiable desire for the ineffable - is what I'm talking about.

[Burney]

The assumption being that science (and therefore man) is capable of understanding everything.

I disagree, or at least I disagree with the idea that we should assume that is true. Man is product of evolution, the engine of evolution is arbitrary genetic change. I find it unlikely that something that has evolved as a result of arbitrary genetic change should attain such a degree of sophistication that they could understand absolutely everything.

It strikes me as superficially arrogant. No wonder Monty supports this view. :-)

Why should we not be? We are by some distance the most intelligent creatures to have appeared that we know of. Why should any aspect of nature be closed off to us?

[Luis Anaconda]

But the semantics do matter. Our thought is still hugely shaped by a language given to us by thousands of years of monotheism and I think it's important to bear that in mind.

Them semantics are just as bad them Musrealites though, b. Throw 'em out

[Monty92]

But you want mystery, don't you? You don't want everything explained, you want stuff to be just out of reach because that suggests there is more than the grindingly physical. You may want to explore it, but you don't truly want to understand it. Not really.

What I'm trying to explain is that that instinct - that inherently insatiable desire for the ineffable - is what I'm talking about.

Thanks for mansplaining my own brain :-(

[Burney]

Thanks for mansplaining my own brain :-(

It's everyone's brain, to be fair. :shrug:

[Burney]

But consciousness is a mystery. That there is ultimately a scientific meaning to it doesn't stop it being mysterious or highly significant. And is it certainly biochemical? I have argued with someone who insists that we cannot rule out a sophisticated electronic intelligence acquiring consciousness.

And if you think, as you indicated earlier, that a belief in god is a perfectly natural response to seeking patterns of order in a chaotic universe, it isn't unreasonable that the process of consciousness reflecting upon itself (meta-consciousness) would be part of that belief, based in the feeling of detachment from the material body that such reflection can cause. I suspect that this sense of detachment may have been the 'spirituality' that Monty was alluding to in his clumsily-constructed post.

I would side with your chum who believes we can manufacture something with a consciousness. And, of course, once something can be manufactured, it has no more mystery than a tennis ball, a nail or a Boeing 747. :shrug: