Jump to content
Psynews.org

Crying while listening to psytrance?


Void Mantra
 Share

Recommended Posts

Quote

Well, that's the difference, science doesn't believe. They observe, gather data and reach a consensus (and ready to change if data changes). Religion is about "truth" and science about knowledge. You cannot have the ultimate knowledge, ever, but religion believes it has the ultimate truth.

Science doesn't, but "scientists" definitely do...and by doing so they've stopped being scientists. Science certainly is about truth as much as religion is, one simply has yet to succeed in this project while the other claims it has.

Quote

Yes it more reasonable to believe something observable, measurable and experimentally proven than a dogma created by a group of people thousands years ago under constant recession to the corners of what science is not able yet to explain.

I've yet to meet someone who observed the big bang as some cosmic accident. Someone once said that religion is bad science; if I'm explaning the manifested world as some random cosmic accident, am I doing religion or science? The correct scientific answer to this is "we don't know". Some religions stop being scientific when they claim to know. When their evidence is dismissive of science and only rely on faith, they are not only dangerous but batshit delusional. My problem is when one throw all religions in the same basket and end-up with a flat-land perspective where any altitude or elevation is denied. Clearly you don't think that Christianity (as it is commonly thought and practiced today) is the equivalent of Dzogchen. Many scientists are so militant when it comes to the word "God" that their agenda is no longer to approach this incredibly complex question with doubt and openess but to systematically prove that ANY person subscribing to a worldview that includes Providence is wrong. As of today, science can't prove nor deny God. One way or another, saying otherwise is just being dishonest. 

Quote

We are working on that, and we have a pretty good idea. We just need to prove it. Give us a couple of decades please  BTW, evolution is a process, it is not created.

Well, best of luck with that. Problem is the scientific community has been saying this for decades now. And no, they don't have a pretty good idea on that. I've watched hundreds of hours of podcasts with well known scientists and they don't have a clue on what consciousness actually is; they (most of them) have no problems to acknowledge this. 

Quote

Exactly, but a group of people that decided to write a book and tell me what to believe shouldn't be humble? Science's understanding is limited, religions understanding is zero.

Again, that's far from the whole picture of religions. You're talking of exoteric, pre-rational religions, which are by default highly dogmatic. That isn't true of ALL religions. Some religions put an extraordinary emphasis on methodology and subjective exploration. In that sense, they are experimental to the core. They just look through the lens of the 1st person perspective where modern science do from a 3rd person. Both holds as much scientific value as the other, they just explore a different territory. Saying that the understanding of ALL religions is zero is just a baseless statement. What evidence do you have to say that Siddhartha Gautama had zero understanding whatsoever? 

Quote

Totally wrong, it has been recently observed that matter can appear from nothing. See, science, they change their "beliefs" depending on the evidence.

Wait, didn't you just said that science has no beliefs? ;) Anyway, if they're truly done with the reductionist point of view, great I say! 

Quote

What is that if not what religions are trying to do against god?

They do, but in spiritual terms.

Quote

Take note though that I am bashing only religion. Not god or our need to believe in god.

Reminds me of a fallacy I've seen numerous times in regard to God and darwinists. The argument goes as follow: "When it comes to the survival of our specie, it is useful to believe in God, therefore God doesn't exist." Pure fallacy right there. Incoherent as saying I can hallucinate a chair therefore all chairs are illusory. I'm not saying that it's particularly your case, but it certainly is a recurrent argument among atheists. 

Anyway, we might appear in total disagreement but I genuinely think it's not really the case. When it comes to words like "religion" and "God" there's such a tremendous historical and cultural baggage to it that it's hard to convey exactly what we mean by those words. Most of organized religions cause a colossal amount of suffering to humanity and rightfully deverve every bit of criticism on your end. No question here. I'm just pointing out that there's more to it. On a side note, I'm really under the impression that I'm debating an atheist here. What are your reasons for not being one? 

Anyway, thanks for having this talk with me. I greatly appreciate your input on this subject! 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Void Mantra said:

Anyway, thanks for having this talk with me. I greatly appreciate your input on this subject! 

 

Likewise:) I am surprised no other ppl jumped in. And to get back in track...

This is where I almost cry everytime :) 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, real men don't cry, but if we talk about melodious, emotional and touching psytrance, U-Recken always nails it

(sorry for the fugly cover in the last vid)

 

Anyway, what actually makes me cry is that both psy and goa as a whole are moving  into darker, louder and noisier territory in last few years completely leaving any melodic/emotional content behind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, recursion loop said:

Well, real men don't cry, but if we talk about melodious, emotional and touching psytrance, U-Recken always nails it

Anyway, what actually makes me cry is that both psy and goa as a whole are moving  into darker, louder and noisier territory in last few years completely leaving any melodic/emotional content behind.

Here's some real men's music for ya!

* "If you're not into Metal - you are not my friend!" -Joey DeMaio 

Where's your U-Recken now?

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 02/03/2018 at 12:30 AM, Void Mantra said:

Agnostic but spiritual? Can you explain this? ;)

On 01/03/2018 at 11:09 PM, psytones said:

 Aya: being a agnostic person if have to be put in a box, was Very genuine and beautifully spiritual.

What do you mean, but? Spirit. I don't get your doubt as a free human being on what agnostic (box) is compared to atheist (box - hello) - both discussing a question/faith of God and being Religious or not. We're living breathing creatures, that's pretty spiritual in it self. The rest is on PM, PLUUR (Peace, Love, Understanding, Unity, Respect).

 spiritual beings .... physical bodies ... 
I wouldn't like to have that Spaghettioctopus creature/spirit inside of me 

spaggggetttt.jpg

The introduction words, says it Much. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 02/03/2018 at 4:44 PM, Void Mantra said:
On 02/03/2018 at 4:44 PM, Void Mantra said:

Indeed, if the whole experience of listening to Bach can be explained in terms of synapses firing, neural pathways and dopamine, qualifying this kind of experience as "spiritual" is just preposterous.

:o how dare you :P It can be about exactly the same i think. Transcendent experience? Its another mean to reach a state. Pray, listen to music you love. Dance, meditate. It's just that some want there to be a God to masturbate. How your molecules shape and fire because of the way you direct your mind and being is about the way you direct your truth and energy, so to listen to Psykovsky for some can be close to God for a non-religious person because the same neurons etc fire...But this is where you feel its wrong and "preposterous" because I think you think and feel (?) that you have come further and know better in your search and experience for an ultimate approach to God and the including Spirituality. At least your opinion comes off like that for me. What is "spiritual" for you, and do use the Miriam Webster or smth to clear what spiritual means. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 05/03/2018 at 1:34 PM, thanosp81 said:

I don't understand why the awe I feel about the universe and that every molecule of my body was created in stars that died million years ago is less spiritual as an experience than someone believing he was created by intelligent design (I do that in the lab everyday). 


Exactly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 05/03/2018 at 2:55 PM, Void Mantra said:

My point is, we HAVE to be scientific, but also be humble about the fact that science's understanding of the universe is (very) limited. Otherwise, we might have much more in common with dogmatic religions than we'd like to think. 

No doubt. :wub: ... btw this reminds me of the slit-theory and observer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Life on other planets in our universe, it's not impossible that Earth is the only / first planet with what we presume to be intelligent physical life-forms. Why and how would I claim that "there is NO life on other planets", compared to "THERE IS life on other planets"? Also here, I'm agnostic B) -any extremism, ism, ism, is usually a negative. "agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist" Well, thats what he said. I have to find a new box now? - I find it interesting that someone once said that the universe would not have existed if it was perfect. So that means a perfect universe is a non-existing physical one? These are deep to steep, and fun questions, as long as you don't chopp off your arm, right? Also, i liked this one, "There is no racism, there is only tribalism" 


 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damn you psytones, WHY, WHY did you have to bump this one up? :P Man I swear these conversations will ruin my life; such a vast and complex topic, so little time. 

Give me some time please, I might give it a shot and post a reply. One thing though, your questions are all over the place. I suggest you begin with a single question and I'll answer it the best I can. Let's see if we can start from there and elaborate thereafter. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, psytones said:

What is God to you? I'd like to know. Love to read.

I'm agnostic; nothing from a 1st person perspective leads me to conclude with absolute certainty that there's such a thing as a great architect behind this madness we call reality. On the other hand, scientific materialism's narrative that the universe is the result of some random cosmic accident is no more convincing to me than the "big Daddy in the sky" tale. It's lame and it's lazy. Then you have the mystics, through the ages and across all cultures, sharing strikingly similar insights. Coincidence? I'll leave that open, we are not gonna resolve this one on psynews, believe me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...