• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Noma?

Do you support NOMA?

  • Yes

    Votes: 7 11.1%
  • No

    Votes: 52 82.5%
  • Other (will explain)

    Votes: 4 6.3%

  • Total voters
    63
Your understanding is light-years behind mine.


pet peeve

A year is a measurement of time. A light-year is a measurement of distance.

/pet peeve

You have been religious-but you have also always been an atheist? Explain.


Is theism a requirement for following a religion? There are many atheists who consider themselves religious. Several of them of different religions post to this forum. Several religions are by definition atheistic.
 
And during all that time you were also an atheist?
when I said that I have always been an atheist, what do you think that means?

It is relevant, why won't you answer the question? I need to understand your perspective on religion. So I need to know your religious background. What are you hiding?
No, it is not relevant, I am not hiding anything, but I am not interested in discussing my religious past with you.


We ARE discussing NOMA. I'm trying to figure out why you are against it. So I'm trying to understand your background a bit, trying to figure out what goes through your head when the word "religion" is used.

So tell me which "religion" you practiced, why you stopped, and how you came to realize that "atheism" and "religion" are not incompatible.

My past religious practise is irrelevant to that discussion, I am against NOMA because religions, in the main do not restrict themselves to their "half" of the equation, and if they were to do so they would not be recognisable as modern religions (with one mainstream exception which I can think of).

In order for NOMA to hold the vast majority of modern religious practise and belief would have to be done away with "corrected" as you put it.
I know that you think that you know THE TRUTH (TM) abbout how religion should be practised, but that does not reflect how it is practised, and therefore it is irrelevant..
The "correction" you long for is not going to happen, and an attempt by those seen as representing science to do so would be a de facto attack on religion. However NOMA has another side, in that it can be used to give legitimacy to religious ideas which do tread on the toes of science.

NOMA is at best useless.
 
At the risk of bogging us both down in a pointless theological quagmire I will attempt to dispute that contention :boggled:

[Debating theology is like arguing over literary elements in a favored book series; ultimately useless but intellectually stimulating :D]

In Matthew 5:17 Jesus was declaring himself the [prophetic] culmination of old testament Hebraic law. His teachings weren't meant as a refutation of the law but the next more nuanced step in it's development; comparable to the transition from the era of the Newtonian laws of motion to that of Relativity.

Of course, one could argue that Jesus' statements were the expression of a delusional megalomania -- well, thats another discussion in and of itself...

I don't want to get bogged down either.

I simply quoted the person you referenced. He said he did not come to do away with the law. Most Christians take the same view you expressed.

Unfortunately, that's not what the 'Founder" of their religion said.

But of course, he may have been talking exoterically :covereyes

Anyway, you can probably dig a bit and find something that disagrees with what Jesus said (certainly Paul said much that disagrees with it). That does not change the fact that Jesus said he did not come to change or do away with the law though does it? But he did set a time limit on that! The law was only supposed to last "Till heaven and earth pass" ;)

With no desire to start a separate debate on the correctness (or lack thereof) of Christianity, could it be that Jesus' remark, and his mission, was to take the Jews beyond the letter of the law and to a new understanding of the intent of those laws? After all, wasn't it primarily Paul that took the teaching of Christ beyond the Jews, and to the Gentiles? Perhaps Christians should be Paulites, or Paulians, or something like that :)

Some Bible scholars dispute that the ending of Mark 16 (versus 9-20) which includes "15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature." was in the original text. Others argue against this idea. I don't know. I'm no Bible scholar.

Anyway, it's all pretty much BS. :)
 
Some Bible scholars dispute that the ending of Mark 16 (versus 9-20) which includes "15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature." was in the original text. Others argue against this idea. I don't know. I'm no Bible scholar.

Anyway, it's all pretty much BS. :)

The sad part is you probably know a lot more about the subject than the average fundie.
 
I would like to bring back up a point that I believe was made earlier. NOMA has little to do with the real world. Religious folkse don't live as though religion is strictly seperate from science. They are happy to pick through science and find the bits that promote their faith. They are happy to think that god will help them find their keys.

The god of NOMA doesn't interfere with people's lives.
 
I would like to bring back up a point that I believe was made earlier. NOMA has little to do with the real world. Religious folkse don't live as though religion is strictly seperate from science. They are happy to pick through science and find the bits that promote their faith. They are happy to think that god will help them find their keys.

The god of NOMA doesn't interfere with people's lives.

I'm with you on that. Mayhap NOMA works for this mysterious group of inner circle know it alls, though I've yet to figure out what this alleged group has to do with anything.

But for the other 99% of the people that make up any given religion, I think NOMA is nothing more than a wish. It might should apply, but in the real world, simply doesn't.
 
I'm with you on that. Mayhap NOMA works for this mysterious group of inner circle know it alls, though I've yet to figure out what this alleged group has to do with anything.


If you were to take the time to study the comparative fields you would figure it out. There is a wealth of information out there that people just aren't aware of. The underdeveloped and underestimated field of comparative mysticism alone has the power to change the way people think of religion...atheist and theist alike. Toss in comparative mythology and comparative religion, mix them all together with a dash of wisdom and you have an explosive combination of facts and insights which shatter the many misconceptions people have about world religion. Once these misconceptions are shattered, NOMA becomes much more do-able.
 
Last edited:
If you were to take the time to study the comparative fields you would figure it out. There is a wealth of information out there that people just aren't aware of. The underdeveloped and underestimated field of comparative mysticism alone has the power to change the way people think of religion. Toss in comparative mythology, comparative religion, and mix them all together and you have an explosive combination of insight which shatters the misconceptions people have about religion. Once these misconceptions are shattered, NOMA becomes much more do-able.

First I'd like for you to present some verifiable facts to back up your claim of having experienced a "mystical experience", along with a description of said experience.

Second, how about a list of these inner circle folks you clammer on about, and some verifiable facts to back up their existence, and exactly how they impact the notion of NOMA.

Then, maybe we can talk.

Of course I can't MAKE you do these things, but this is what I would like :)
 
First I'd like for you to present some verifiable facts to back up your claim of having experienced a "mystical experience", along with a description of said experience.


Verifiable facts? Like what?

Do you know anything about mysticism and mystical experiences that you didn't learn from pop-culture and from people like Randi and Dawkins? I am talking about mystical experiences within the context of comparative mysticism. So if you want to talk about them in that context, then you will have to do a little homework.

For starters, you can read the chapter on mysticism in The Varieties of Religious Experience. Here it is:

http://www.psywww.com/psyrelig/james/james12.htm

Then please read this entry on mysticism:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mysticism/

And this article:

Into the mystic: scientists confront the lazy realm of spiritual enlightenment

Then, maybe we can talk.

Second, how about a list of these inner circle folks you clammer on about, and some verifiable facts to back up their existence, and exactly how they impact the notion of NOMA.


You seem to think I'm talking about a contemporary group of people. I'm not. I'm talking about the structure of religion and mythology, as it has been for tens of thousands of years. I'm talking about the mystics who have had the experiences and wrote the myths and the sacred texts since the time of the first shamans.
 
Last edited:
Limbo, you make a great deal of noise about studying comparative mysticism, mythology, and religion, however all of the links and books you have recommended on the topics have been studies of the study. None of it has been original source material, but references to it, and I think it is weakening your arguments dreadfully. As an example, you have read Armstrong and Campbell, but how many of the following original texts have you read, and which translations?

The Upanishads
The Tao Te Ching
The Bible (Old and New Testaments, Jewish and Christian versions as they are different)
The Qur'an
The Dhammapada

Those are just the major religious texts I can think of off the top of my head. How much source material of the non-textual religions have you read? It sounds to me more like you have studied what others have said about comparitive religion, but you have not studied the religions themselves. This makes it very hard to take most of your crowing about "you know nothing about comparative whatever" seriously at all.
 
How much source material of the non-textual religions have you read?


Enough.

This makes it very hard to take most of your crowing about "you know nothing about comparative whatever" seriously at all.


Well then don't. No one is holding a gun to your head. I couldn't really care less if you take anything I say seriously, or if you read any links or books I post. There are others here I can talk to. Put me on ignore or whatever. It's not like I'm out to save your soul from hellfire or anything.
 
Last edited:
Verifiable facts? Like what?

Do you know anything about mysticism and mystical experiences that you didn't learn from pop-culture and from people like Randi and Dawkins? I am talking about mystical experiences within the context of comparative mysticism. So if you want to talk about them in that context, then you will have to do a little homework.

For starters, you can read the chapter on mysticism in The Varieties of Religious Experience. Here it is:

http://www.psywww.com/psyrelig/james/james12.htm

Then please read this entry on mysticism:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mysticism/

And this article:

Into the mystic: scientists confront the lazy realm of spiritual enlightenment

Then, maybe we can talk.




You seem to think I'm talking about a contemporary group of people. I'm not. I'm talking about the structure of religion and mythology, as it has been for tens of thousands of years. I'm talking about the mystics who have had the experiences and wrote the myths and the sacred texts since the time of the first shamans.

Still nothing to link any of this stuff you spout to NOMA.

That's OK. I don't want to talk to you that bad.

So far you appear to be talking crap.

Or, I'm just to stoopid to get it.

Either way,

Have a nice life :)
 
Still nothing to link any of this stuff you spout to NOMA.

That's OK. I don't want to talk to you that bad.

So far you appear to be talking crap.

Or, I'm just to stoopid to get it.

Either way,

Have a nice life :)


Translation: "I'm a lazy ape and so I don't want to read all that. Plus, if I read all that and actually use critical thinking I might discover that I'm wrong about some things, and I don't like being wrong. So I'm going to rationalize some BS reason to get the fudge out of here."
 
Last edited:


Which ones?

Well then don't. No one is holding a gun to your head. I couldn't really care less if you take anything I say seriously, or if you read any links or books I post. There are others here I can talk to. Put me on ignore or whatever. It's not like I'm out to save your soul from hellfire or anything.


Nah, I would rather show other people why they shouldn't take you seriously. Maybe it will convince you to examine these precepts you are clinging to with a bit of, dare I say, critical thinking.
 
Although mystical experiences can't easily be diced up and quantified, they affect a surprisingly large number of people. National surveys in the United States and England find that roughly one-third of adults say that they've had, for example, a moment of sudden religious awakening or felt close to a powerful, spiritual force that seemed to lift them out of themselves.
Such experiences may extend far back into human prehistory. According to archaeologists, cave and rock art from Africa to Australia depicts shamans' supernatural encounters, which occurred during conscious states achieved through chanting, dancing, hallucinogenic drugs, or other means (SN: 10/5/96, p. 216). In traditional societies, shamans act as spiritual leaders and healers.
"Mystical experiences occur on a continuum," says psychologist David M. Wulff of Wheaton College in Norton, Mass. "Even if they're not religiously inspired, they can be striking, such as the transcendent feelings musicians sometimes get while they perform. I have colleagues who say they've had mystical experiences, although they have various ways of explaining them."
In Varieties of Anomalous Experience, Wulff reviews current scientific evidence and theories about mystical experience. He defines such events as those that deviate sharply from a person's ordinary state of awareness and leave the person with an impression of having encountered a higher reality. Mystical encounters are rare and fleeting, yet they stand out as defining moments in the lives of those who have them, Wulff says.
To say there is nothing behind all this is just a lie but only because I believe the other two thirds are skeptical because they haven't experianced anything remotly close to something mystical and I have to wonder why?
Although there are explanations of the reasons why in the Bible.
As far As the op I have to read it some more but I find that Gould is pretty right on so far.

Limbo,
This link will take a while but it seems to have some very good truths about the mystical as they are real experiences and will take a while to read also.
I glanced over it but booked marked it so I can absorb it.
http://www.psywww.com/psyrelig/james/james12.htm
 
NOMA is a cheap attempt to lend credibility to a specific subset of untestable and unfalsifiable concepts, with no good reason given as to why we should respect such a subset of the untestable and unfalsifiable but not the entire set. It is arbitrary and solves nothing.
Although you bore me, this was apt and I agree:

"..a blessedly simple and entirely conventional
resolution to ... the supposed conflict between
science and religion."


.."a domain where one form of teaching holds
the appropriate tools for meaningful discourse
and resolution"


Gould continues:

"..the magisterium of science covers the empirical realm: what the Universe is made of (fact) and why does it work in this way (theory). The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for example, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty)."


Metaphysics and pataphysics would not however address "ultimate meaning and moral value". Outside his useless attempt at diplomacy the term is very useful conversationally to distinguish a gap that does really exist between two different processes of nature separate in human experience and witnessed only by a few, and the great source of confusion the world over.
 
Last edited:
If you were to take the time to study the comparative fields you would figure it out. There is a wealth of information out there that people just aren't aware of. The underdeveloped and underestimated field of comparative mysticism alone has the power to change the way people think of religion...atheist and theist alike. Toss in comparative mythology and comparative religion, mix them all together with a dash of wisdom and you have an explosive combination of facts and insights which shatter the many misconceptions people have about world religion. Once these misconceptions are shattered, NOMA becomes much more do-able.
Sure, you bet. Wouln't it be great if we all got together and discussed comparative religion and then made cookies in our Easy-Bake oven?

There's nothing there. Ok, it's important from a historical and cultural undertanding perspective but that's it.

Susan Blackmore spent a good part of her life trying to prove mystisicm and finally concluded that there is no evidence for anything that she studied. Hokum. Sorry, but it is. If there was any validity to any of it surely something by now would have emerged.
 
Do you know anything about mysticism and mystical experiences that you didn't learn from pop-culture and from people like Randi and Dawkins?
Randi has spent a lifetime and travled the world over in search of proof of any of it.

There's nothing there. There's not even anything new.

Your ad hom changes nothing.
 
I'm with you on that. Mayhap NOMA works for this mysterious group of inner circle know it alls, though I've yet to figure out what this alleged group has to do with anything.

But for the other 99% of the people that make up any given religion, I think NOMA is nothing more than a wish. It might should apply, but in the real world, simply doesn't.

I thought about it this way today.

Is there any question that is 1) worth answering? and 2) Not answerable by science?

If so, then NOMA makes sense.


One might argue that if science cannot answer the question, then neither religion nor philosophy can answer that question, either. All they can do is claim answers without proof. Well, yes. That's what they do.
 

Back
Top Bottom