Loading...

Saturday, 11 November 2017

;)


Didn't you know?

It is so easy to find butthurt on Youtube, some people don't realise how easy it is to find out a lot out then, their true names, the names of their kids, their home address, previous jobs, business activity, etc.  And how?  public information they leave public on social media. 

I used an example of Rose(Deborah) who left most of her data online for anyone to find, and with a little cooperation with various people to research evidence of her sexual activity online came to light.  needless to say I need not share her content here, her webcam stuff, semi-nude vlogs, etc.  Nor her personal details.  We found out a lot about her, and I don't want to know what has been found since.  Needless to say my view on Dropping Documents is you shouldn't.  

Why note this?  because you can be easily found online.  I know it's old news, but if you care about your information then I wouldn't leave it all public.  With Rose, she even had her failed business linked, her background, family links, and the fact she is an actress of sorts, while also being a spiritual healer. 

So the lesson is this, if I can find this then so can anyone. 












New Age Arguments

I've spoken many time in videos about New Age, or rather Warmed Up Old Mysticism Giving A Dusting Off, but that isn't catchy.  Everyone knows you need catchy bullshit to make it popular, and so New Age focuses on placebos, easy answers, the wishful and magical.  After all, isn't that the point of a nice world view, feel-good factors to the max and a soft sell, because to those who can't handle the full story there can be the ladybird book of quantum mechanics with very few words and lots of big pictures.  I jest, there are many smart spiritual and self-help types, and when they're not milking the cash cows they're fooling themselves with smart reasons to believe the untrue. 

"Reverse Racism"???

"Reverse Racism"?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

You can be racist about your own ethnic group, a national group or another racial identity type. Well, if you wish, it seems silly to me, as does the term "reverse racism". However, the concept of racism by a person towards their own general group or type isn't reverse racism as much as racism... Unless we talk of this argument being used as a cheap fallacy to undermine an argument that is a matter of a recognised social inequality. That's if it is an inequality.
However, even inequalities can be selected or suggested, and even if institutional in one place/region the local concern may be far from so elsewhere. In such cases, it can easily far from proven.

In the end, doesn't everything that matters come back to what is evident??

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

If we consider the evidence as opposed to reactionary opinions and selected factoids then what might be the best way to judge a case of this type of racism??

We shouldn't jump to conclusions, we cannot assume various facts nor selected quote for pro or con values to prop up a premise. And, we shouldn't confuse ignorance or indoctrination for malicious intentions. We could find our opinion are correct, yet until we're sure of this the barking of buzzwords is counter-productive and part of a mechanism to confront an argument while not truly engaging it. Just as any number of other methods used can respond to an argument while not truly arguing against it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

What are we left with after the dust has settled?

Our sound reasoning and our demand that we ever try to improve upon it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Reverse Racism" is a term that expresses very little other than the wholesale labelling of people and arguments that fall just over an imagined fence. And this line in the sand shift accord to the thinker's political views, making it far from a practical term. It is a meme in internet culture and lacks a clear definition, not that this stops the usage of the term. Indeed, the very real problem with internet culture is how definitions of serious terms are made cartoonish or are warped by feelings, or, for that matter, the effect in an argument. And that is the root of internet terms, or those made popular via internet culture, they're a rhetoric device and not a sound scientific or philosophical tool.

Tuesday, 7 November 2017

A few thoughts - 7th Nov. 2017.


The dead of the illusion of eternal life may lead more people to respect each other. Who can look at a murder or accident and not feel that a billion moments was lost early?? Who would raise arms against another if they understood the cost, and unless they're taxed by life and those who seek to repress them they'll see that harm is objectively immoral. When times call for defence you do what you must, but when you have no need to do harm is poisonoius to all of us apart from the sociopaths who don't care and the psychopaths who enjoy inflicting pain upon others. 

The illusion crumbles but we like the good parts, so we might steal a few ideas and use them as a pseudo-belief and call it open-minded and spiritual while we're just trollin through ideas looking for the key to happiness.  And you may find a key in an unexpected place, beyond the magic and energy and day dreaming.  Where reason and hope run together, because a true immortality, or as true as you can get, is the mark you leave on the world.  Saving the world one step at a time and making things better for future generations.  No need to make up ideas or jump on a belief, but add something to the world, even if you're forgotten your acts will carry value as you make life for others a bit better. 

Saturday, 28 October 2017

Why I don't do Conspiracy videos???

A few people have requested that I focus on 'the real enemy', and I wonder who or what do they mean.  Without giving out names or too much detail they blame one or other group for the world's ills and think that simplistic view is why I should discuss and share thoughts with them. 

As if the suck they hate makes their suck suck less?!?!

Well, should I blame everyone for the world's ills??

Would it change anything??

And if your opinion is wrong then wouldn't I just be a sad fuck like you if I acted out with paranoid talk about Jews and the like??

The truth is many people find a group to blame, and when you disagree they call an agent. 

As if the CIA or MOSSAD pay my bills!
Or the Chinese Communists are funding my small flat in a not so cool part of this nation, Britain.

Well. what should I expect from the kinds of people who say this??

They start ranting about Freemasons or 9/11 being an inside job and just repeat what they were told in a documentary that may as well be a parody.

In this way, I don't see the point in attacking organisations or groups of people without cause.

Give me a case and point to cover and I'm there, crap over a keyboard and call it proof and I'll mock you. 



Post-Skyrim Civil War.

The Greater Nation of Skyrim.
[A Fan Scenario]



The dragonborn as a force in the war against imperial rule, forces out the imperial tyranny, effectively ending the empire, as only cyrodiil and high rick remain truly part of the empire.  The new skyrim returns to warrior culture traditions and the old Gods, and to increase his popularity Ulfric, Highking of Skyrim, at great cost, spreads more wealth to the people, lowing taxes while using his armies to end the bandit and forsworn drain on skyrims trade and resources.  Ensuring post-war prosperity.
 
A now united skyrim, with alliances with the great Orc strongholds and purged of its greatest internal weaknesses, the economy booms and trade with other provinces flourishes.  The casual racism of Skyrim in hard times fades as Man and Mer(such as the Dark Elves of Morrowind) find united efforts and Nord traditions make the nation of Skyrim mighty force.  Not that the nationalism of the sons and daughters of Skyrim is dead, simply where they can the Nords make use and co-operate with the other races.

The cost of the war is great, and the excuses for the large army and spending is to unite the province while culling it of bandits and highwaymen.  As well as the forsworn menace of the western region known as The Reach.  The cost in life is vast, years of conflict and a year of civil warfare have left many heroes in the ruins of fallen cities while families morn their losses.  Dragons and undead forces have done great harm too, Dragons destroying Helgen and attacking other settlments. 

The empire in this time of despiration agrees to trade with Skyrim for two reasons, it can't afford a war or cold war with Skyrim, and it needs to fund it's imperial legions to defend it's southern border against the dominion.  Although, it is obvious that they're living on borrowed time and the Empire is dead.  Likely fallout is the end of the Mede empire soon after with Cyrodiil becoming a Kingdom in Alliance to the disunited Kinglings of High Rock and Ulfric's Skyrim for a mutual defence.



And soon... Another war, the second great war, the war to end all wars.  Marking a dark age for all and the 5th Era.



Now...  Will this be the background to The Elder Scrolls 6?

Tuesday, 26 September 2017

argument over race, was I wrong?? [please explain why, I am interested.]


Maybe as I wrote my previous blog I was on a mental high from listening to a few science podcasts, but I'm very much open to learning more.  I dare say I've made a few errors, but I tend to learn from my mistakes. 

Feel free to comment, I will probably rely

A War On North Korea - Trump's War.

If It Should Happen A Few Thoughts That Must Be Accounted For. 

N Korea says it will shoot down US Bombers if they should attack. I say the US will use high-altitude craft and cruise missile technology making N Korea's 1970s tech look totally impotent. And this not to mention the wooden N Korean dummy missiles, the poorly supplied army, and their general lack of serious fighting forces beyond the border with S Korea, which is where almost all of their artillery is located to keep threatening the S Korean capital, Seoul. Most of the reason why no wants a war is that it'll lead to many losses, although the N Korean forces and nuclear capacity could be taken out in very short order. The Million man army of N Korea is half-starved, the claim they could call up 6 million more is a lie, they lack reliable and fully functional equipment for most of the army, and keep the crack troops for the border and the parades in the N Korean capital city, Pyongyang.  Although much of the nation's resources to fight a war are in the rocket program and their nuclear program. Meaning they may have more surprises than a starving army and Soviet surplus stock from the cold war era.

Wednesday, 6 September 2017

Ramble - Untitled annoyance.

Many people on the far left are pro-harsh laws against far-right white racists, many far right types are for very harsh limits on immigrants and muslims.

And what makes this even more painful?  How about the fact that removing rights and having invacive laws doesn't mean they'll just use it against your enemies.

The far right neo-nazis and muslims extremists are the same but rival clubs that encourage extreme responses that could bring ruin to many personal freedoms.

The moment we create a law to reduce our liberty is the day we live on the edge of a dragger, and if fearful politics continues then we could find a boot stamping on a human face in a destopian future.

Over reaction?  If nothing else, pondering the unpleasant thoughts may save us from the worst scenario. 

Ramble - Nationalism and ignorance.

I find nationalism to be an oddity, whenever you can call someone great one of you you do. And, due to the unreasonable pride you hold dear, you will down play the contributions of those who can't be made to fit your view of nationality.

How many great Irish figures are claimed by Britain, and if you look the same reasoning is common in many nations. Maybe all nations suffer from the delusion.

The down play part is fun too, get into an argument with an indian who is a nationalist, they crow about indian culture and dismiss criticism of their spiritual leader(s). They ignore the idea that their guru is a total fraud, then in the same ignorant way as any British nationalist, they'll make foolish generalisations and use unfair and untrue examples.

I was told by one guru fan, and his guru was in court for serious crimes, that "your pope rapes children". This was after he said my religion was worse than his, even though his guru was in court for the crimes that he thought the pope does.

I wasn't aware I had a pope, it seemed like he had assumed all westerners were christian and all christians were catholic. This doesn't differ much from the nationalist here in the UK who thinks all of the middle east, persia and india are dusty and sandy places who follow in every case a horrid Islam, or a uniform Hinduism in the case of most indians. Obviously, not true to anyone who has ever don't as little as use google for more than looking up fiction.


Friday, 1 September 2017

Race in a nutshell.

In essence there are no races between humans.  
 
Race used to be the tribe down the river, then the next region or nation, later the next people with common looks, then the next continent or wherever difference is great for the recent bigot.
Now it's a world away, as genetic commonality means that scientifically an alien from another world with no shared history is the true alien or race apart from why evolving Earthlings.

Turns out the idea of race at a real level due to our shared heritage is best argued as not between people but between separate abiogenesis and evolution.  Alternatively, the Darwinian version is one regarding species and not ethnic type, survival of race of people being far from scientific reasoning. Ethnicity being very grey, with every one of you being a mongrel, and so at best race is a belief based on data before modern knowledge, such as genetics. 
 
 So, as I said, there are no races between humans.  Or so it would be, if not for common ignorance and ideology based reasoning, the unequality in various cases, and so race beyond reason is a continuing irrationality.  

Tuesday, 29 August 2017

I disagree, and I could go on...

Preaching vegans on youtube annoy me and may think you can avoid them. You're wrong. Camera reviews and tutorials include them adding their politics.

I found a review of a canon I was thinking of buying, the kid called Vegan Socialist ending his review with an audio test. At this point, he got preachy and decided to say 'stop killing 150 billion animals a year, yourself and the planet'.

My thoughts are so fucking what, sure you can cut production of farming, you can make it more humane, but over farming to feed everyone with the ideal vegan diet won't save the planet either. All you'll do is drive pigs to extinction while feeling better about yourself.

The most obvious and humane food production with easy protein is to breed bugs by the 100 trillion and process them into artificial nuggets and burgers, etc. It's probably a lot easier than farming a perfect vegan diet for billions of people.

And, to troll people like this could dream up good arguments for humane cannibalism that are as morally consistent as the vegan arguments.
In any case, a radical rethink on morality would be required.

Another thought that works far better than the above ramblings is to lower meat production by the supermarket that floods their stores with cheap meat but means a vast sum of it will be wasted every day and as a result, keep the demand for meat high. Same for fast food places and many others establishments that waste huge amounts of food per year.

Lower the need or desire for meat and you may have run out of Tesco pork chops, but you'll kill fewer animals every year.

Saturday, 5 August 2017

The Ideological Dream


How many so-called 'good people' were hoodwinked by National Socialism, Leninism and Stalinism, and many other cases of sociopolitical change and reform that from a selective view seemed to be a progression towards a better society?

Politics is in part about truth, however, it is as often about personal and ideological desperation as well. The Early signs from Nazism wasn't that of camps and murder, 'the Soviet project' was praised even after the bloody civil war, purges and show trials. It seems that many would rather believe in the perfect future than treat reality with the kind of harsh scepticism it deserves.

We see much the same of Islam, with many Muslims who at least don't ignore the actions of ISIS but they may quietly desire a new Muslim super-power and religious authority to usher in a new golden age of the faith. In that way, the examples of religious fundamentalism across the world are a kind of inspiration, much like many-an-old-Marxist was hopeful that the Soviet project, despite a shaky start, would offer up fruit.

You can find western communists who seem to be unable to accept the insanity of North Korea, any bad news is called capitalist propaganda, and so easily dismissed by all true communists. They, as with many Muslims, Neo-nazis and other ideological views, think we in free societies are living on borrowed time and out of the chaos, they'll bring about a better world. I can only assume that something about the idea of knowing the ultimate truth breeds arrogance and even greater credulity as they swallow lie after lie from their comrades in arms. As if their conspiratorial tones are more than musings of those who dream of their ideological victory.

It's actually odd that rather than respecting facts first, many millions of people would rather believe in the coming of their hopes by some kind of inevitable process. Instead of noting their errors and noticing the irrationality they hold dear they would rather ignore those things that may move them out of their comfort zone. I suppose I've been too narrow, and as I ponder this I can imagine this frame of mind with any number of beliefs.

In general, when reason leads you will discover, and when faith leads you will make excuses.

Sunday, 23 July 2017

A bit random... [incomplete ramble]

Do you ever ponder the scope of human suffering before widely available modern medicine came into play. I think the history fantasists forget or remain ignorant of the fearful suffering before the 20th century. And, I should add the obvious, for many people that fear and suffering is still the status quo.

To imagine any number of historically inspiring times as healthy is largely ignorant. Much of humanity in the now-developed world until the modern era was suffering greatly.

I can't believe the lack of knowledge some have, to an ancient person a herb that helps stop itchy skin would be a god send or witch craft. It is a cliche that middle-ages witches were likely herbalists or those who got on the wrong side of a witchfinder general. But, it isn't unreasonable in some cases.

Imagine a healer of this kind in any region of the world a thousand more years ago, he or she might be called a magician, a prophet or the son of God. To uninformed people and slightly informed quacks a few herbal treatments might seem to be as magical are curing leprosy. And, as our history is warped by story tellers, one who is said to cure a horrid disease simply helped ease their suffering.

Maybe then, as is common, superstition filled the gaps for the people. To be told an old potion will cure an ill might be understood as a miracle, and refined medicines that are hard to replicateseem to be even more remarkable

Wednesday, 5 July 2017

Philosophy Group Review - July 5th 2017

I said a week ago that I was going to a philosophy discussion group, it was at a community centre near me. I went, it was a bit long-winded and should have had a coffee before hand. Apart from the length of it, it was reasonable.

I was a sugar-crashing rambling amateur next to people between 55 and 75, many of whom had an academic background. I made a few good points, but we all agreed that experiences don't teach us much.

I should be had said that the group's discussion this evening was meant to be "do religious experiences provide evidence of God?", They changed it to "what can we learn from religious experiences". A pity.

Did they change it due to the possibility that they'd get the wrong audience? If nothing else, someone got my hopes up for a good debate.
As it was the debate was agnostic from the person covering the debate, but we all agreed that experiences are unlikely to result in anything we can be sure of as proof for a higher power.

the troubles started straight away, and WTF is a religious experience?
From the get go these intellectuals in their own right, even if medicated and retired, they seemed not to know what a religious experience was.

Did they mean a brainwashed person was seeing Christ? Well, no. The lecturer seemed to be suggesting that William James was onto something regarding experience but not the religious meaning added after. I guess they meant religious experience is a sense of wonder with a message untouched by ideology. Various argument were based on other definitions.

I was annoyed, I didn't get the chance to correct a few errors over Richard Dawkins that the speaker made. I got to mention a few history stories, which they confused, such as Joan of Arc finding a sword and if the myth holds she claimed it was a gift from God. I had a guy think I was on about King Authur, corrected him though.

There were many things I haven't noted here. It isn't the place for me, I lost confidence a bit. And, I think if anything I should organise my own group. Maybe see about renting a room once a month, invite some friends for a debate. Recorded prehaps.

In any case, I think I was throw by a few things, the group used to be bigger, it used to be more defined, and it wasn't a circle of chairs. I find it better to debate the speaker, share thoughts with 20+ people, instead of 9(not including myself), and have a subject defined enough to discuss.

Not saying the group was horrid, just that I used to enjoy it mopre two years ago. About two years ago I was a regular, now I'm not as headstrong and care about definition not general discussion.

Sunday, 26 March 2017

Quoted Wisdom, Quotable Quackery

Quoted Wisdom, Quotable Quackery


Quotes are selected, often general, and commonly removed from context, meaning you can quote whoever you wish, it cannot add to evidence of a claim unless it's from an expert in that area of knowledge and hasn't been surpassed since it was stated.
In other words, wisdom is overrated; quotes are biased by definition.  The simplification of concepts is not an outright error, and in such cases the definition is incomplete.  And this is including popular scientists, who will make an explanation easier to understand, then others will use this simplified version of the facts, people love to use these as if the intellect is a point scoring system.  They'll select diluted ideas that seem very talented and may have a philosophical quality, even if these quotes will likely lack nuance.  In many ways, wisdom is not the work of explaining but the art of personal understanding, in which case wisdom is subjective, inspired by possibilities in a way that gives pause for thought.  And a fool may find inspiration in the unreal just as a pure intellect can find nothing there but the puzzled thoughts of lesser minds. 

The best examples of quotes are often pseudo-scientific, the quacks use selected factual quotes or those from scientists to support an unscientific series of opinions.  And clear the goal is often to fleece the convinced once you have developed a following.  These shameless entities leach onto the hunger for knowledge that most of us enjoy, they trick the somewhat ill-informed and make a business from a half-baked philosophy.  In fact, the lowest blow is where a person clear has originated the deception, so rather than accepting an inferior authority, they have gone through the various statements of a respected historical figure to winkle out a few choice words.  This can be to support or dismiss claims, as with the criticism of atheist authors, although, this is often applied by amateurs and on either side of the debate.  Where they dishonest can use a statement to support or defame a person or idea, they will likely do so. 

A person wishing to misrepresent a position will select quotes and even those cited by the person they debate, as happened in one instance of a debate between William Lane Craig and Sam Harris.  Dr Craig used selected quotes that Harris had quoted from others and were not his position.  And to those who aren't interesting in context, it seems to be a refutation.  This kind of misrepresent is common enough, in my opinion, it's the lowest form of debate since a dishonest selection process is used to discredit the individual and not to deal with the factual arguments.  I don't doubt that many sceptics would do the same to discredit their opposition in a debate, although, if we are honest, we should point out these errors regardless of who uses these methods.  What matters more than spin is the facts, their meaning and context, and who passes on the facts isn't as important.

The best quotes are those that hold meaning, not those from the famous and wise, and most quotes are just ripe cherries that you pick them from where you can and use them you will.  Relying on quotes, sayings and parables, or anything you take from the world, is ultimately meaningless if you fail to think for yourselves. 

The moon is made of cheese. ;)

The title isn't serious, nor is anyone of sound mind claiming this to be true, yet, it is the kind of claim that one could keep alive by moving the goal posts.  If anything the idea of the moon being made of cheese is a joke about the power of ignorance and what things may look like to simple minds.

When we talk of god, heaven, or any such idea, it is easy enough to say without canonical reasoning that the trouble must be that we haven't disproved god as much as one idea of god.  We can go to the extreme of examining the stories of every holy book and the idea of god(s), and when we test what we can the faithful can always move god beyond our ability to test.  Long ago it was normal to image the gods walking the hills and mountains, meeting on the highest mountains, such as Olympus, and when we conquered these high places the gods became kings of the sky.  As modern science kicked in the ability to test the skies and the vastness of space pushed the room for god to an every greater extent, until, at some point, god is no longer in our universe, or not visible in our dimension.  The process is one that the god of the Israelites is now the god of the gaps. 

To the ignorant and thought-reformed, the idea of a small universe, a young earth, etc.  Isn't hard to accept, from a point of ignorant faith it is easy to imagine a god unseen watching mankind and helping the flock.  It isn't unlike the stories we tell to children, the idea that fairies live in the garden, that pixies look after the forests, or giants live in the sky and are reached by climbing magic bean stalks.  Or, the moon is made of cheese, a fun idea added into children stories and cartoons, and because it looks a bit like a kind of cheese with pits and holes.  We troll our off-spring in this way, giving the kinder an inspired imagination in their earliest years. 

The link between ideas of god and the cheese based moon is to not understand where we come from via a natural selection process and cheese comes from cow.  The outspoken theist and outspoken child may well speak with the honest belief that this is so, one at 44 years and the other at 4 years.  The arguments used would stem from the ideas they have, every step back they make would require them to deny or change view to the nearest safe position, thus, in a fashion, they are alike. 

To give an example, when addressing the theist you may point out the universe is not geocentric, they will likely disagree and agree, the universe seems to be not geocentric.  But if the universe is centred on us then how could you truly refute it if it is at a cosmic level if not as far as our star system nor our galaxy.  So we both aren't the centre yet are the focus of the universe.  The argument moves the centric view while making it more concrete to the faithful via a leap of faith and imagination. 

The child's view of a moon of fermented curds might make similar moves, denial can't last in children on such issues for long, adsorption is the logical step, thus, they would incorporate the ideas or adapt them to fit their model of reality.  Literal cheese or otherwise may as well be cheese since it is so far that we cannot touch it, but then mankind has visited the moon, and so a staggering realisation can take place.  The obvious takes place, they learn or remain foolishly uninformed, the latter kind is most like the devout religious person.  In which case faith or trust in an idea is coupled with imagination, and when one ponders possibility and not literal philosophy one can create universes of near nonsense.  In an extreme case we could dream up a character that thinks the cheese of the moon is to refer to the feminine energies of both the moon and cheese being aligned, or indeed an idea of other worldly cheese, a food of the gods.  Such people would find themselves in padded cells in adulthood, yet to those innocent youths the idea of the lunar emmental is believable, and only because you have no yet developed your rational faculties. 

So, what the hell am I talking about?  I'm using an odd example of the moon being made of cheese and the comparison to irrational beliefs to express that one should outgrow the unrealistic over time, yet the idea of religion often linger for a lifetime.  At which point the health answer is not to move the goal posts and suggest multi-dimensional forces, but instead to recognise that you do not know the answer.  In cases of the moon and god, we can accept the evidence and need not jump to any conclusions.  Even if we have way of making our mistaken views seem to be less irrational as we mess with the perimeters.  Final clarification, to make claims of knowledge when you know little is to know almost nothings, to warp reality to your beliefs prove nothing at all. 


[A bit random, I know.]

























Saturday, 25 March 2017

Spiritual Pebbles - A Response To Crystal Power

Spiritual pebbles.

Probably the oddest idea I know of is how an ancient piece of coloured glass can improve your health.  The experts use long and overly complicated terms to suggest they know how things work, and the believers who don't yet have this the spiritual lexicon will only say 'I don't know how it works, but it does.'  In this kind of case, I don't know what's worst, the people saying they know because they can make poorly supported arguments sound smart, or the sad cases who accept the bad arguments and cannot explain why they get a kick out of crystals. 

It doesn't have to be old and natural, just fused glass with a beautiful colour works great on people who don't know better.  Such as blue obsidian, commonly this is just light blue glass and is quite popular as a polished pebble, which means many people are buying a machine smoothed piece of glass because it's a lovely colour.  Traditional shapes for such items include pyramids and spheres, that pseudo-experts claim help energises an environment, help with channelling and cosmic energy, etc.  There is nothing to the science-like claims other than the placebo built up by a new age mystics and salespeople.  Even if they refer to ancient cultures liking fancy looking pieces of old glass, such as the long historical use of jade in the Far-East or ancient cultures having rituals which included them.  The ancient Jewish high priest breastplate which is said to of had twelve gems in it to represent the twelve tribes of Israel, so the new ager with an Israelite fetish might buy each of these stones to get closer to spirit. 

Pointing out where other cultures use gemstones doesn't confirm that since they had them, they must have thought of them as you think of them now.  Even if they did, how does that prove anything real unless it is something demonstrable?  To an Eastern mystic, a crystal may be a helpful thing to focus on, but if it is the centre alone then what does it matter if you carry a pebble or a piece of wood or bone?  If a symbol in mind is enough for people to have engaging experiences in meditation then what use is a stone that is only as useful as a mental tool, and maybe that is what it truly is, a psychological tool. 

Often the creation of a false history takes place, in which the selected stories and facts of the past are expressed as if we have lost a great secret.  For decoration and superstition a gem encrusted crown, in the 12th century Europe, may convey a sense of power, but can we find anything near the magical ideas of the modern new age movement?  If we find enough examples that we can rewrite as evidence in a pseudo-history when is that somehow real?  The fact that you need to change things to make it fly says a lot about the honesty of the new age spiritualist' search for knowledge. 

In essence, the practices of meditation and devotion with stones is a throwback belief, grounded more in thought-reform rather than practicality.  The practice offers self-induced states of delusion, not real mindstates that would be far more attractive to critics.  It's just collecting pebbles and carvings with the hope that they have magical properties.  

Maybe the best thing you can say about the properties of crystals and minerals is that the spiritual/psychic claims cannot be utterly refuted.  It's not unlike fairies and gods, they cannot be totally debunked in the minds of the faithful, but as science continues, there are fewer places for them to hide.  One day science may shine some light on such topics, even if modern psychology and neurology explain the experience basis for spirituality. 

We seem to be right???

We seem to be right.

On which issues are we right?! On God, yes, well most probably there is no God by the facts that we have and the universe that we understand to a significant degree, meaning the Abrahamic God is philosophically dead. Not to say some kind of maybe is false, but every reason to believe in a god that answers prayers is based on defeated faiths and those who refuse to admit the grievous error in their faith-based claims. On everything else, we can disagree on a vast number of issues, and we share our reasonable doubts about religious/spiritual concepts. Politically we differ, we are intellectually diverse, we are human beings that are unconvinced by the arguments for any deity, and we feel no need to worship the big bang, nor that blackholes listen to our prayers. We are reasonably sure that God is not a factor in our lives, not that we see any reason to act badly to each other either.

At best be accused of the obvious, our lack of wishful thinking, we know we cannot create reality from our desperate hopes, no matter how much we may want to live on forever, we don't escape the void, we return the universe that born us. We don't cease concern over this end, and we do the best we can to come to terms with our finite existence.

A Very Leftist Labelling Problem.


Interestingly, in the usage of terms in times past there liberal, progressive, socialist, and communist were very much apart. Today the lines are confused, and yet the same left divides exist.  A progressive could be ignorant and confused and think him or herself a communist, while not having taken the time to study Marx and work out if they are or are not of the ilk. 

A liberal might well think themselves a progressive while in reality not wishing for serious reform and so being more centrist than they like to admit. And so it is with a wide range of ideas. 
The idea or the fraction of it that you like creates a sense of identity, a great label that you think describes you well enough.  And, this is often regardless of the implications of a name and regardless of how others may perceive you as belonging to this mix and match belief. People are often pseudo as far as ideology. 

[will continue this line of thought soon.]

Personal Spirituality and Irrationality without Religion

Personal Spirituality, irrationality without religion

The best you can gain from spirituality without religion may be a delusional view of reality, minus the traditional culture of indoctrination, you have another style, if still the voodoo of faith.  Escaping the bastion of traditional religious organisations, with their rules and conformity, so you have free choice, exploration, and the ability to disagree massively, even if you cling to the mystical and experiential as critical for a serious view of reality.  Religion minus the church, minus the priesthood, and without a holy book, it sounds superior to religion indoctrination, even though you still have groups and organisations, experts and officials, and, you have many books that offer spiritual knowledge.  You may have broken free in some ways, yet you are still very much caged in others, the limits of an orthodox religion have been surpassed, but you cling to fun ideas that religious thinking can offer.  'Spirituality' is often just a term used to say personal religion, you mix and match based on what you wish, not what's traditional, nor what's evident, and commonly, its bias to own desires and the arguments you use to support your views. 

The removal of Hell is an example of this with moderate Christians. Liberal Christians may rethink the concept, making it philosophical, non-literal, we see this process being watered down even more, which isn't a bad thing.  Although most religions like to select texts, in new age spiritualism almost anything goes, and any nonsense will do.  Such as the idea that Jesus spent time in India learning from great masters, at the feet of gurus, or even travelled to Tibet.  Even though there is no serious evidence to confirm this idea in the least, you may as well suggest he moved to China while you're at it.  This kind of thinking and that of moderates means the books are a starting point, how they proceed to include ideas depends on common sense.  You can quickly dismiss a pet theory that is true but unknown and call a thing the true while not knowing that this is the case. 

Many suggest a foundation to spirituality, so they kind God in all religions with a few wild interpretations.  It's all selection, and who says what is the foundation and the errors created afterwards?  Fundamentalists say their belief is right and the rest became corrupted, the spiritualists claim the cute stuff and then claim the unpleasant things are to do with negativity and materialism. 

Even if many possibilities are used to say that the things you hold dear are correct, selection for fundamentalist Christians is to select stories about great floods in ancient times.  Searching the history books and ancient legends to find anything that suggests that the biblical stories are true, and often finding a flood myth is enough for them to say that the global flood is reported in every culture.
To pose the idea that a global flood took place, even if their flood story is Atlantis, is simple enough.  The way they prove the faith is by poor connections, so a spiritual person selects data to fit it into a lost global civilisation belief, and then without question will accept reincarnation stories as evidence, just because they have a bias the idea that one can reincarnate, as well as spirit channelling, and other mystic ideas.

Data selection based on bias includes the acceptance of hearsay and supportive ideas, which are held together by a unifying hypothesis, or series of hypotheses, and from the shaky ground the unsound idea is constructed.  This can including the unaccounted years of Jesus meaning that he must have been in India learning from gurus, just as ignoring the periods of floods reported in various cultures and myths can seem to support a biblical view of a global event, well, if you are fine with selecting what you want, not that which is in full context and backed by solid evidence.  And you may even say the great flood was evidence of the planetary shift that sank Atlantis, or even that it was the result of a near miss, as a planet X passed close to the earth, but you would still be trying to support beliefs with unsubstantiated legends. 

The issue is how we rationalise things based on limited information, even using hearsay as evidence, so beyond myths, the concern is poor reasoning based on belief, a poor comprehension of terms and concepts, and this ignorance, and a kind of arrogance has a knock-on effect on society.  Moderate people, whether religious or spiritual, are often very vulnerable to such leaps.