Should we let go of our feelings?

Kenneth Taylor3 said:Mhm. So, just because we lack the equipment to test metaphysical claims—which is total nonsense, by the way—that somehow means we have to accept them? With certainty? Are you serious? Is that the expectation? That we should just nod along and say 2+2=4 even though we haven't even learned how to add yet? We don't even know what numbers or addends actually *are*. Should we just be making wild guesses?
There's the logic for you...🤣

You're contradicting yourself... you can't reject metaphysical questions as a whole, but you can reject "individual myths"... Based on what?

How can I not reject them? Read what I wrote above!

I try to avoid generalizations of that kind...

But...

And "common sense" can fail too... it isn't infallible.

Oh, and reason fails too, apparently, when it comes to scientific precision? Give me a break...
Sure, if you go off to get a PhD in Common Sense Failure Studies. 😁

You don't *have* to, but because of all the intellectual gaps created by the messy, fragile way the human brain is wired, a lot of people just accept it and start guessing... and that's how religions get started.

Joseph Bailey41 said:We haven't really "settled" anything since I'm not a religious person. Honestly, reading through other people's posts here helped me wrap my head around where your beliefs are coming from, so we can probably move past that. Now, I'm just wondering why you're asking people on a spirituality forum about "clearing emotions" instead of just asking your own guru.🤷

Alright, look—you're an atheist who just dropped a straight-up incorrect statement.

Quavo:

Now I’m just left wondering why you’re hitting up the Spirituality subforum with questions about "clearing emotions" instead of just asking your own guru. 🤷

I’m asking the forum users because I want an answer from them—is there some other secret reason I'm doing this? 🤷

goldenjackal6 said:You don't *have* to, but because of all the intellectual gaps created by the messy, fragile way the human brain is wired, a lot of people just accept it and start guessing... and that's how religions get started.

Exactly. We're talking about religious authority here. It's a well-known fact—or maybe it isn't? But an authority wouldn't even be considered an authority if it were based on religion.
Total frauds...🤣

neonmarlin39 said:It really just depends on what terminology you're leaning on. In biblical terms, when people talk about the soul, they’re usually referring to the mind (the psyche), whereas the spirit is that even deeper layer—something beyond both the body and the mind.

Nah. It's blood. Like in the Old Testament. When Jesus gave up his spirit on the cross, I think he meant something else entirely.

bluemason3 said:Specific myths usually lean on pseudo-scientific or pseudo-historical claims that are easy to debunk.

The problem is, once those are stripped away, there isn't enough left to sustain a particular religion. None of them really stand on philosophical theism or pure metaphysics alone; they rely on a cluster of myths, paranormal claims, and beliefs in esoteric mechanisms.

Take Christianity, for example. It doesn't survive solely—or even primarily—on the idea that God exists, an idea shared by plenty of other faiths. The core is the Jesus myth: the sacrifice, salvation, esoteric initiation "mysteries," and those pseudo-scientific attempts to prove things through fake miracles (as I mentioned in a previous post about logical fallacies), and so on.

Even with the purely philosophical elements, I wouldn't say they're wrong, but I'd also argue their proponents can't claim they're definitely right.
It’s just one option among many, none of which carry a high statistical probability of being true.

And yet, myths tend to be true.

casualmoose82 said:Nah. It's blood. Like in the Old Testament. When Jesus gave up his spirit on the cross, I think he meant something else entirely.

I think you might be oversimplifying things—maybe even dogmatizing it a bit—if you're just equating blood directly with the soul like that in this context.

https://www.biblestudytools.com/clas...and-blood.html

loneskipper10 said:And yet, myths tend to be true.

Man, you clearly have zero clue what the word "myth" actually means.

loneskipper10 said:And yet, myths tend to be true.

I think you might have things a bit mixed up. Greek tragedy is built on myth. America is built on corruption. 🧐

bluemason3 said:Specific myths usually lean on pseudo-scientific or pseudo-historical claims that are easy to debunk.

The problem is, once those are stripped away, there isn't enough left to sustain a particular religion. None of them really stand on philosophical theism or pure metaphysics alone; they rely on a cluster of myths, paranormal claims, and beliefs in esoteric mechanisms.

Take Christianity, for example. It doesn't survive solely—or even primarily—on the idea that God exists, an idea shared by plenty of other faiths. The core is the Jesus myth: the sacrifice, salvation, esoteric initiation "mysteries," and those pseudo-scientific attempts to prove things through fake miracles (as I mentioned in a previous post about logical fallacies), and so on.

Even with the purely philosophical elements, I wouldn't say they're wrong, but I'd also argue their proponents can't claim they're definitely right.
It’s just one option among many, none of which carry a high statistical probability of being true.

The only way they work is if people frame those specific myths as scientific truth... otherwise—it's not just difficult, it's actually impossible... from a scientific standpoint.

If you try to dismantle a myth using the lens of another myth, though, then sure, anything goes.

Science is the only road to truth? Don't be absurd

Once you strip those away, there isn't enough left to sustain a specific religion—because none of them actually stand on philosophical theism or any other metaphysics; they all lean on a mess of myths, paranormal claims, and belief in esoteric mechanisms, etc.

Look, religions don't just base themselves on philosophical theism or whatever metaphysics you want to throw at them.

Take Christianity, for example—it doesn't survive solely, or even primarily, on the idea that God exists, which it shares with tons of other religions. The core is the Jesus's myth—the sacrifice, the salvation...

Exactly...

..., esoteric initiatory "mysteries," pseudo-scientific attempts at proof through fake miracles (like I mentioned in an earlier post about flawed reasoning) and so on.

It's just this messy blend of methodological naturalism and mystical experience...

James Miller2 said:That is a cult. 😉

That’s a pretty broad take, unfortunately... it hides behind "science" while actually just tanking its own credibility.

We could easily call it a pseudo-religion... honestly, if you look at how religion, ideology, and worldviews overlap, it’s just part of the universal human experience—both for individuals and society—since the dawn of time.

Lisa Jackson7 said:The only way they work is if people frame those specific myths as scientific truth... otherwise—it's not just difficult, it's actually impossible... from a scientific standpoint.

If you try to dismantle a myth using the lens of another myth, though, then sure, anything goes.

Science is the only road to truth? Don't be absurd

Once you strip those away, there isn't enough left to sustain a specific religion—because none of them actually stand on philosophical theism or any other metaphysics; they all lean on a mess of myths, paranormal claims, and belief in esoteric mechanisms, etc.

Look, religions don't just base themselves on philosophical theism or whatever metaphysics you want to throw at them.

Take Christianity, for example—it doesn't survive solely, or even primarily, on the idea that God exists, which it shares with tons of other religions. The core is the Jesus's myth—the sacrifice, the salvation...

Exactly...

..., esoteric initiatory "mysteries," pseudo-scientific attempts at proof through fake miracles (like I mentioned in an earlier post about flawed reasoning) and so on.

It's just this messy blend of methodological naturalism and mystical experience...

I’m guessing you did what you always do and stopped reading after the headline. 😁

goldenjackal6 said:I’m guessing you did what you always do and stopped reading after the headline. 😁

Wrong assumption—seriously. Go ahead, point out one single part of the actual text that contradicts the title.

Lisa Jackson7 said:Wrong assumption—seriously. Go ahead, point out one single part of the actual text that contradicts the title.

The whole thing is a total mismatch. The title claims one thing, but the actual body of the text fails to provide even a shred of evidence or a solid argument to prove that science isn't the absolute final word on truth.

goldenjackal6 said:The whole thing is a total mismatch. The title claims one thing, but the actual body of the text fails to provide even a shred of evidence or a solid argument to prove that science isn't the absolute final word on truth.

Look, we're just talking about whether the headline actually matches what's written... and honestly, they're saying the same thing.

As for proving things or making an argument... you can't exactly prove or debunk the idea that "Science is the only path to truth" using science itself.
It's basically just a worldview or some kind of pseudo-religion... which means the claim relies on having a specific belief system, not just raw data.

goldenjackal6 said:Actually, you already fell for it twice by dodging a dead-simple question both times.

Maybe a third stroke of luck is coming, but what kind of cultist scientists are we even talking about here?

Do you even understand American? 🤔

Lisa Jackson7 said:That’s a pretty broad take, unfortunately... it hides behind "science" while actually just tanking its own credibility.

We could easily call it a pseudo-religion... honestly, if you look at how religion, ideology, and worldviews overlap, it’s just part of the universal human experience—both for individuals and society—since the dawn of time.

To me, it seems similar to Satanism. They share similarly nasty rules.

bluemason3 said:When you lose common sense to sectarian indoctrination, you end up fantasizing about "truths" that aren't actually there.

Spot on.

And let’s not forget how you constantly troll this board with ignorant nonsense—just pure products of brainwashing, one-track minds, and neurotic little power trips.
Now this guy thinks he’s some enlightened rebel against "spirituality" just because he didn't have the same psychedelic breakthroughs while sitting in a lotus position. It’s not about character, it's just ego.

Lisa Jackson7 said:Look, we're just talking about whether the headline actually matches what's written... and honestly, they're saying the same thing.

As for proving things or making an argument... you can't exactly prove or debunk the idea that "Science is the only path to truth" using science itself.
It's basically just a worldview or some kind of pseudo-religion... which means the claim relies on having a specific belief system, not just raw data.

Honestly? You're just spinning your wheels trying to argue with people who have been hardwired with fanaticism.

Lisa Jackson7 said:Look, we're just talking about whether the headline actually matches what's written... and honestly, they're saying the same thing.

As for proving things or making an argument... you can't exactly prove or debunk the idea that "Science is the only path to truth" using science itself.
It's basically just a worldview or some kind of pseudo-religion... which means the claim relies on having a specific belief system, not just raw data.

Not really. The author is just spinning their wheels by saying "that's not how it works" without actually providing a shred of reasoning to back up why they think that.

Lisa Jackson7 said:Look, we're just talking about whether the headline actually matches what's written... and honestly, they're saying the same thing.

As for proving things or making an argument... you can't exactly prove or debunk the idea that "Science is the only path to truth" using science itself.
It's basically just a worldview or some kind of pseudo-religion... which means the claim relies on having a specific belief system, not just raw data.

Based on everything we actually know, it’s pretty much been proven that it's the only way we have to find answers.

Personal whims and fantasies about "something higher" are just that—whims and fantasies—unless someone manages to prove otherwise.

Lisa Jackson7 said:Look, we're just talking about whether the headline actually matches what's written... and honestly, they're saying the same thing.

As for proving things or making an argument... you can't exactly prove or debunk the idea that "Science is the only path to truth" using science itself.
It's basically just a worldview or some kind of pseudo-religion... which means the claim relies on having a specific belief system, not just raw data.

That’s just wrong. It’s a classic projection from a religious mindset where people insist on something "indescribable" based on their own desires and fantasies. It’s ironic, honestly, because superstitious beliefs usually stem from an inability to wrap one's head around reality and hard facts.

James Miller2 said:Do you even understand American? 🤔

To me, it seems similar to Satanism. They share similarly nasty rules.

Extremely well, thanks for the ad hominem attack.

Science can't possibly be the sole gateway to truth, if nothing else because its supposed objectivity is a total myth when you consider that every single researcher is inevitably operating from a subjective standpoint... Certain scientific breakthroughs would almost certainly look completely different if they had been achieved by people with entirely different perspectives or worldviews. And honestly, the constant bickering and bitter infighting we see within academic circles just proves my point...
I’m not exactly a man of science myself, but these shifts hit home for me when I think about things like medical breakthroughs or the pharmaceutical industry. It seems like massive changes are brewing in those fields, where the standard American medical model—the kind we've all grown up with—is slowly being pushed aside in favor of something new, like personalized medicine... because people are finally realizing the human body isn't some universal machine, and that every individual is a unique psycho-physical entity, meaning a drug might work for one person but be totally ineffective, or even lethal, for another.
If scientists had actually embraced that kind of holistic approach much earlier, maybe half these illnesses wouldn't even exist, and we wouldn't be living in a world where medicine has "advanced" so much that they can find a specific pill for every single ailment imaginable.

rustymaker5 said:Science can't possibly be the sole gateway to truth, if nothing else because its supposed objectivity is a total myth when you consider that every single researcher is inevitably operating from a subjective standpoint... Certain scientific breakthroughs would almost certainly look completely different if they had been achieved by people with entirely different perspectives or worldviews. And honestly, the constant bickering and bitter infighting we see within academic circles just proves my point...
I’m not exactly a man of science myself, but these shifts hit home for me when I think about things like medical breakthroughs or the pharmaceutical industry. It seems like massive changes are brewing in those fields, where the standard American medical model—the kind we've all grown up with—is slowly being pushed aside in favor of something new, like personalized medicine... because people are finally realizing the human body isn't some universal machine, and that every individual is a unique psycho-physical entity, meaning a drug might work for one person but be totally ineffective, or even lethal, for another.
If scientists had actually embraced that kind of holistic approach much earlier, maybe half these illnesses wouldn't even exist, and we wouldn't be living in a world where medicine has "advanced" so much that they can find a specific pill for every single ailment imaginable.

In your own words, what does the concept of science actually mean to you?