Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Dclements]

Creating humankind, the Lord already knew there was disobedience and rebellion in them, but he could not deny them paradise, solely on what he knows.

It seems rather unfair to be deliberately designed to have "disobedience and rebellion" within us and then be punished or sent to oblivion after death for acting in accordance our nature.

Then again, believers always give God a get out of jail free card. Frail little struggling humans are judged and damned for the tiniest of errors while the (near) omnipotent and omniscient creator can get way with absolutely anything, no matter how awful. In that sense God reminds me of fossil fuel billionaires, who control so much of our standard and style of living and create ever more problems for ever more people, but those problems are always blamed on others, or on nature.

When problems with the purported Iron Age Abrahamic deity are pointed out, suddenly we find that God isn't very powerful after all - "the morality of the gaps". As it turns out, most people seem to worship a god who is actually just a really big nonmaterial guy who creates living stuff to be tortured and killed, and occasionally, be lucky. It reminds me of the way humans treat pigs - a very few lucky ones are pets, valued and treated well, but the rest are chattel.

But you forget Greta, to Christian it isn't a problem if 'God works in mysterious ways' (or in ways that appear no different than just nature itself), it is just a problem for non-believers who do not understand him. Neither is it a problem for 'God' to punish human beings for being human beings, or for animals (and servants/slaves) to be merely property of the master, or any other contradiction between our morality and the morality that existed when the bible was written. In short you have to replace a bit of 'rationality' with 'faith' in order for your mind to be at ease with it. Or as some people put it 'you have to drink some of the kool-aid'.

Part of it was designed to be an 'opiate for the masses', some of it seems no different than pagean/primitive religions, and some of it was used as a way to create fanatics if need be. For me it has been easier to distill useful ideas and concepts from certain Dharmic sources than Abrahamic religions, but in end I think one has too think for themselves if the kool-aid doesn't work, even if that makes you like the rest of us skeptics. As I used to like to say 'the only truth is that there is no truth' or as another way someone put it 'We do what we do, because that it the way we do it'; which I believe definitely applies to Abrahamic beliefs and most of Western society as a whole,

[Whitedragon]

Dclements said,

As I used to like to say 'the only truth is that there is no truth'

If there is no truth, does that mean what you write here can also be wrong?

[Felix]

Fooloso4: There is no textual support for the claim that their consciousness was united with God’s.

I didn't mean that their consciousness was literally united with God's, but that their minds were in harmony with His, until they ate the forbidden fruit and a division arose. If the fruit was truly "forbidden," they'd have no access to it. But if eating the fruit was a necessary "evil" for the evolution of human consciousness, the outcome of the tale was inevitable.

[Dclements]

dclements said,

That is even if Jesus ever existed in the first place. A lot of history is fabricated and a story of a guy that could walk on water and can pretty much perform any other miracle at the drop of a hat sounds to me too fantastical to be true. As far as I can tell, the story of Jesus was created piecemeal from various stories of other people and interwoven along other mythical ideas and figures; in order to create the 'messiah' everyone was waiting for if nobody really fitting such a description could be found.

It is not uncommon to set a prominent historical figure in a model of older narratives

But your missing my point if Jesus and the bible are a fabrication (along with every other piece of doctrine concerning 'God') what is the 'truth' behind such teachings if at best you have to go through a lot of BS/dogma before there is any chance of even finding a nugget of useful info. Many people have more or less have given up on mainstream religion(partly because of reasons I just stated), but haven't given trying to find there own way which I have heard referred to something along the lines of being 'spiritual' but not 'religious'. While to no surprise both some atheist and some theist have problems with it at least some atheist are happy that such beliefs are personal and not directly tied to any particular church, and theist are just happy that they at least try to continue to find their way.

I kind of wonder how you and Ormond feel about such people that think/believe along the lines of being 'spiritual' but not 'religious' since even if I don't really agree with such mentality, I'm pliable enough to say that my beliefs could sort of fit in such a category. It may not be the most elegant 'middle of the way' between theism and atheism, but I think it may be better always being unable to solve one's differences.

-- Updated December 24th, 2016, 6:38 pm to add the following --

Dclements said,

As I used to like to say 'the only truth is that there is no truth'

If there is no truth, does that mean what you write here can also be wrong?

Well if what I wrote is wrong than maybe as somebody that studies philosophy you can tell me.

First you need to know that I defined 'truth' something along the lines of either a fact that is always true (like if the sky could be blue for the rest of eternity) or something along the lines of Kant's categorical imperatives such as you 'ought' to never lie even to the murder trying to hunt down one of your friends. Things that merely are because we say they are are (like a certain street being called main street, and 1+1=2) are not truths because they are either merely labels and/or abstract mental constructs in our head.

There might be some other nuances, but it is unlikely you try hard enough to have to deal with them Other than that all I think I have to say is if you can find one of these 'truths' you can easily debunk my entire argument that there are no truths, however I believe you don't realize how difficult it is to find an actual 'truth' so I'm not worried about it.

[Fooloso4]

Whitedragon:

… in other texts outside the Bible, we read of Lilith, who was complete, but turned out to be evil.

There are many myths of Lilith. She was not part of the Genesis story. According to biblicalarchaelogy.org:

Sometime prior to the year 1000, The Alphabet of Ben Sira was introduced to medieval Jewry … To some extent, The Alphabet of Ben Sira shows a familiar Lilith: She is destructive, she can fly and she has a penchant for sex. Yet this tale adds a new twist: She is Adam’s first wife, before Eve, who boldly leaves Eden because she is treated as man’s inferior …
Another plausible theory about the creation of this Lilith story, however, is that Ben Sira’s tale is in its entirety a deliberately satiric piece that mocks the Bible, the Talmud and other rabbinic exegeses. Indeed, The Alphabet’s language is often coarse and its tone irreverent, exposing the hypocrisies of biblical heroes such as Jeremiah and offering “serious” discussions of vulgar matters such as masturbation, flatulence and copulation by animals.12In this context, the story of Lilith might have been parody that never represented true rabbinic thought. It may have served as lewd entertainment for rabbinic students and the public, but it was largely unacknowledged by serious scholars of the time.
biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cu ... le/lilith/

Whether it is a mockery or not, it has no bearing on the story of Adam and Eve.

Taking from man to create Eve did not mean Eve was incomplete or Adam lost anything.

What the text says is:

Then God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the person; and while he was sleeping, he took one of his ribs and closed up the place from which he took it with flesh. The rib which Adonai, God, had taken from the person, he made a woman-person; and he brought her to the man-person. 23 The man-person said, “At last! This is bone from my bones and flesh from my flesh. She is to be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” This is why a man is to leave his father and mother and stick with his wife, and they are to be one flesh. (2:21-24)

If a rib was taken from him then he lost it. We are told that it is because she was taken from man that they are to be one flesh. She is both a part from and apart from Adam, to be joined together. Whether you accept the idea that together they form a whole that neither by themselves can be or not, this does not address the fact that God made them in such a way that they would have sexual desire, the desire to “know”, to be one flesh.

Again, if you wish to frame this discussion in terms of error then God’s errors include: making man, making him with desires and disobedience, and putting within his reach the very thing that will cause his downfall.

[Sy Borg]

But you forget Greta, to Christian it isn't a problem if 'God works in mysterious ways' (or in ways that appear no different than just nature itself), it is just a problem for non-believers who do not understand him.

Believers don't understand their deity either, hence the "mysterious ways". They just have faith that all will work out for the best.

I don't believe much but I have a similar "faith", myself, albeit based on the Earth's evolutionary history (I disagree with Gould about evolution being a bush, a statement made before the emergent technological leaps in the Information Age). If an intelligent species, human or other, breaks through "the hard barrier" and continues to develop, then the progress they could make in billions of years is beyond imagining.

My point has always been that, even if a glorious future awaits, that's not very useful for those acting as collateral damage in the process of creating this dream. Yes, that new highway may ultimately benefit many more people than someone's home due to be bulldozed, but let's not forget that it's not a house being bulldozed but a home being sacrificed for a glorious future. If the universe is in the process of creating something godlike, it would still be remiss to ignore the extraordinary suffering inflicted on innocents along the way, and to question why such extremity of awfulness is necessary.

[Dark Matter]

Again, if you wish to frame this discussion in terms of error then God’s errors include: making man, making him with desires and disobedience, and putting within his reach the very thing that will cause his downfall.

You must be a Democrat.

[Whitedragon]

dclements said,


(Nested quote removed.)


It is not uncommon to set a prominent historical figure in a model of older narratives

But your missing my point if Jesus and the bible are a fabrication (along with every other piece of doctrine concerning 'God') what is the 'truth' behind such teachings if at best you have to go through a lot of BS/dogma before there is any chance of even finding a nugget of useful info. Many people have more or less have given up on mainstream religion(partly because of reasons I just stated), but haven't given trying to find there own way which I have heard referred to something along the lines of being 'spiritual' but not 'religious'. While to no surprise both some atheist and some theist have problems with it at least some atheist are happy that such beliefs are personal and not directly tied to any particular church, and theist are just happy that they at least try to continue to find their way.

I kind of wonder how you and Ormond feel about such people that think/believe along the lines of being 'spiritual' but not 'religious' since even if I don't really agree with such mentality, I'm pliable enough to say that my beliefs could sort of fit in such a category. It may not be the most elegant 'middle of the way' between theism and atheism, but I think it may be better always being unable to solve one's differences.

-- Updated December 24th, 2016, 6:38 pm to add the following --

Dclements said,


(Nested quote removed.)


If there is no truth, does that mean what you write here can also be wrong?

Well if what I wrote is wrong than maybe as somebody that studies philosophy you can tell me.

First you need to know that I defined 'truth' something along the lines of either a fact that is always true (like if the sky could be blue for the rest of eternity) or something along the lines of Kant's categorical imperatives such as you 'ought' to never lie even to the murder trying to hunt down one of your friends. Things that merely are because we say they are are (like a certain street being called main street, and 1+1=2) are not truths because they are either merely labels and/or abstract mental constructs in our head.

There might be some other nuances, but it is unlikely you try hard enough to have to deal with them Other than that all I think I have to say is if you can find one of these 'truths' you can easily debunk my entire argument that there are no truths, however I believe you don't realize how difficult it is to find an actual 'truth' so I'm not worried about it.

There is useful info in all scriptures; you just have to know how to look for it. You cannot see the forest through the trees. It seems you are also implying that the people from those times just wrote down anything they fancied and that they did not put any thought behind it. It may very well be that they were more intelligent than we were; their languages were more complicated and almost the largest part of the written texts are set in grimoire style. They also have a good measure of Kabbalistic properties.

Perhaps some people are just not willing to work through the allegory to find the message in the texts. Are we truly going to discriminate against a collection of texts based on its abstract style of writing? Moreover, who are we to say what truth is; perhaps it is as simple as, the book does not tell us to kill one another, but tells us to live a good life, could that be a sign? There is no other religion where a deity sacrifices so much for his people as the Abrahamic one. Others never seem to reach a point of such a level of selflessness.

You are looking for truth, Pilot asked the same thing to the Son and we all know what his answer was. In other words since we are having these conversations and are not really getting anywhere, it seems we should seek a higher power for our questions.

-- Updated December 25th, 2016, 4:04 am to add the following --

Foolso4, you seem to be implying that the Lord created man to have a disobedient nature, which is simply not true: “This only have I found: the Lord created mankind upright, but they have gone in search of many schemes.” (Ecclesiastes 7:29) [New international version].

[Ormond]

I agree. And this is one reason why knowledge is double edged. There is something gained and something lost.

Yes, it's a holistic phenomena. Thought is both the best and worst thing to ever happen to humans. Thought gives us enormous powers, and the price tag is our psychic separation from reality.

Thought gives us life, and thought gives us death. Thought has given us modern civilization and benefits that exceed the wildest dreams of our ancestors. And as part of that process, thought has given us the ability to erase all these gains in just a few minutes. Thought has made us smart enough to be able to create nuclear weapons, and insane enough to actually do it.

The most rational response to this human condition would be to become experts at managing the double edged sword presented by thought. Philosophy represents one side of such a process, but only half of what is required. Just as we should sharpen the blade of rational thought via philosophy, we need also to learn where the off button of the thought machine is.

One problem with this theory is that Genesis makes a sharp distinction between God and nature.

Yes, that's true. But let us recall, the Genesis story was written by humans already deep in to the illusion of division generated by the emergence of thought. The Genesis authors wrote a story about being divided from God/Nature because that was what they were experiencing. The clerics who followed created religions about "getting back to God" because they perceived that we are separated from God/Nature.

The errors in this process were the mistaken beliefs that:

1) the perceived separation is real, and not just an illusion generated by thought, and...

2) the perceived separation could be healed by applying more of the very thing that is the cause of the apparent separation, thought.

This is what I've been getting at all over the forum. It's not possible to cure the fundamental human predicament with either pro-religious or anti-religious thoughts, because it is thought itself which is generating that situation.

If everyone on Earth were to adopt the exact same religious beliefs that wouldn't solve the problem because those beliefs, whatever they might be, are all made of thought. If everyone on Earth were to become atheist, that wouldn't solve the problem either because atheism is just another pile of thought. Seen this way, the God debate is essentially pointless because whoever might someday win the fundamental human situation would remain unchanged, and thus all the same old problems would continue.

[Fooloso4]

Whitedragon:

Foolso4, you seem to be implying that the Lord created man to have a disobedient nature …

I am following your lead:

Creating humankind, the Lord already knew there was disobedience and rebellion in them

It might interest you to know that there is no word for human nature in the Hebrew Bible. Men are said to have ‘ways’. Which way they go is open, which path they take is a matter of choice. Although there is more to it. We are not completely plastic and are not born tabula rasa. Perhaps this has something to do with God visiting the iniquity of the father on his sons and generations being cursed.

Ormond:

Philosophy represents one side of such a process, but only half of what is required. Just as we should sharpen the blade of rational thought via philosophy, we need also to learn where the off button of the thought machine is.

Although philosophy has become largely cerebral, ancient philosophy was a way of life that required discipline and practice in addition to thought and contemplation. There are some philosophers today who understand it in that way. They may not describe it as turning thought off but rather of attending to the whole person rather than an disembodied intellect and the Whole. Philosophy as transformative practice.

But let us recall, the Genesis story was written by humans already deep in to the illusion of division generated by the emergence of thought.

If thought emerged I think it occurred further down the evolutionary scale. Mammals think, they just have not developed rational modes of thought, language, imagination, and self-consciousness.

The Genesis authors wrote a story about being divided from God/Nature because that was what they were experiencing.

Some commentators think they were responding to the worship of natural entities such as the sun as a god. Although that itself might already be a reflection imaginative thought.

The clerics who followed created religions about "getting back to God" because they perceived that we are separated from God/Nature.

But the idea of nature as a god or gods is already to have conceptualized nature.

The errors in this process were the mistaken beliefs that:
1) the perceived separation is real, and not just an illusion generated by thought, and...
2) the perceived separation could be healed by applying more of the very thing that is the cause of the apparent separation, thought.

That we are thinking beings is not an illusion. That our experience is mediated is not an illusion. Is it possible to experience the “suchness” of things, of things as they are without conceptual constructs? I don’t know. There are some who seek to do this and do not succeed. There are a few who claim to have done this but not always as a result of their efforts. On the other hand, 'unity' is itself a mental construct, a concept that creates its own illusion of separateness.

It's not possible to cure the fundamental human predicament with either pro-religious or anti-religious thoughts, because it is thought itself which is generating that situation.

It may be that it is not possible to cure what you call the fundamental human predicament at all. It may be that that predicament is itself something we have created that we attempt to find an answers to. I do not think the solution is to stop thinking, simply because we cannot. We can, however, become more aware of our thoughts and conceptual constructs. We can become more aware of the imposition of our pictures and frameworks on what we see. We can become aware of our mental chatter and mental traps and quiet them. We can learn to open ourselves to listen and look and experience, but to do so in an attempt to overcome the perception of separateness creates separateness.

[Whitedragon]

To all bloggers; in light of the current state of discussions on this thread, perhaps it is wise we take a step back and look at what those who study in the topic has to say. There is a promising Youtube video, which despite its length might provide us all with a fresh approach to the problem. You are more than welcome in sharing the study on the Eden story.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZDGGvhS898

-- Updated December 25th, 2016, 12:33 pm to add the following --

Please note that WhiteDragon will be engaged until Wednesday, happy holidays.

[Ormond]

Although philosophy has become largely cerebral, ancient philosophy was a way of life that required discipline and practice in addition to thought and contemplation. There are some philosophers today who understand it in that way. They may not describe it as turning thought off but rather of attending to the whole person rather than an disembodied intellect and the Whole. Philosophy as transformative practice.

Ok, cool, perhaps you might introduce us to such philosophers and their works?

If thought emerged I think it occurred further down the evolutionary scale. Mammals think, they just have not developed rational modes of thought, language, imagination, and self-consciousness.

Yes, agreed, it's a continuum, not a hard dividing line. As I see it religion emerged as thought, and thus the perception of division, took on increasing prominence in the human experience. A key problem for religion is that it often (not always) turns to thought as the solution, when it is thought that is the problem.

Some commentators think they were responding to the worship of natural entities such as the sun as a god. Although that itself might already be a reflection imaginative thought.

I like the idea of Sun worship, not a bad plan. The worship of something tangible which can be experienced directly. And it's pretty logical too, given the central role the Sun plays in our existence.

But the idea of nature as a god or gods is already to have conceptualized nature.

Well, calling it nature, a collection of random mechanical forces, is to conceptualize it too.

My sense is that the god concept is a personalization of nature. You know, here we are in this beautiful deadly place. What is our relationship with where we find ourselves? This is the practical question, because this is something we can have some control over. The rational act is to be in love with reality, because what good does shaking our fist at the rain do? If personalizing reality in the form of a human-like character makes it easier to fall in love, if it gets the job done, it can fairly be called a rational act.

Yes, there's fantasy involved. But so when is that new? Here we great philosophers are, typing daily on this tiny forum as if it will accomplish something. As we type we enjoy the fantasy of performing a meaningful act. If that fantasy helps us be at peace with being nerds, so be it.

That we are thinking beings is not an illusion.

The word "being" implies a division between "the being" and "everything else". So let me ask you this. When does that glass of water you just drank become you? Where is the boundary between the water and you? This exercise demonstrates that we can draw those boundaries any number of places, thus the boundaries are convenient inventions of the human mind, and not some fixed property of reality.

Is it possible to experience the “suchness” of things, of things as they are without conceptual constructs?

Yes, it is possible. One just turns off the machine generating the concepts. Or more likely, turns the volume of that machine down. It's not complicated, but just as philosophy takes some patience and diligence, so does "a-philosophy". Philosophy and "a-philosophy" are complementary, because resting the mind helps sharpen it. And sharpening the mind helps us see the value of rest.

There are some who seek to do this and do not succeed.

My sense is that those who don't succeed are typically being greedy and trying to turn the process in to some kind of fantastical glorious esoteric becoming trip leading to profound permanent change etc, ie. just another form of mind stimulation. That is, they have defined success in such an extravagant manner as to torpedo their own project.

There are a few who claim to have done this but not always as a result of their efforts.

I suggest it's not practical to concern ourselves with the few, whatever they may have achieved. It's true that in any field there are rare people way out at the end of the talent bell curve, but um, so what? What's that got to do with us? Yes, Mozart could teach us how to play piano, but he couldn't teach us how to be a Mozart, so as you say, that's not a result of personal effort.

On the other hand, 'unity' is itself a mental construct, a concept that creates its own illusion of separateness.

Yes, all language reinforces the illusion of division, because it's made of thought. This tends to make such discussions highly problematic and self contradictory. As example, the phrase "we all are one" contains the word "we".

It may be that it is not possible to cure what you call the fundamental human predicament at all.

Yes, I agree. We can however seek to manage the human situation more skillfully.

It may be that that predicament is itself something we have created that we attempt to find an answers to. I do not think the solution is to stop thinking, simply because we cannot.

We can't stop thinking in a permanent way, agreed. But we can better manage thinking.

We can, however, become more aware of our thoughts and conceptual constructs. We can become more aware of the imposition of our pictures and frameworks on what we see. We can become aware of our mental chatter and mental traps and quiet them. We can learn to open ourselves to listen and look and experience, but to do so in an attempt to overcome the perception of separateness creates separateness.

These seem like wise words well put.

I would add only that the perception of separateness is not a fixed permanent part of the human condition. It's a by-product of thought. Thus, we can to some degree manage that perception by gaining better control of the on/off button for thought.

Is it not remarkable that as philosophers we invest so much energy in to sharpening the blade of thought, and yet we typically don't even know where the on/off button of this machine is? We're like gardeners who cut impressive complex patterns in the grass with our lawnmower, but we don't know how to turn the lawnmower off.

[Dark Matter]

Doubting God's existence and trying to imagine what he did wrong all seems pretty ridiculous to me.

[Fooloso4]

Ormond:

Ok, cool, perhaps you might introduce us to such philosophers and their works?

Probably the best known is Marcus Aurelius. His biggest influence was Epictetus. Philosophy as a Way of Life by Pierre Hadot is a good modern introduction. According to Hadot, for all the ancient schools including Plato’s academy and Aristotle’s Lyceum, philosophy was a way of life.

Here we great philosophers are …

I have to excuse myself from that company.

… typing daily on this tiny forum as if it will accomplish something.

I suspect that we each have different things we hope to accomplish. Plato called philosophy serious play. What does one hope to accomplish by playing? One thing I do hope to accomplish is to get others or even one person to look at things differently and thus see things that they had not. This might be something about the work of a philosopher or even something about themselves. I do not think it is a one way street though. So one thing that might be accomplished is not something I give but something I get. Will any of this make a difference? To me it does.

This exercise demonstrates that we can draw those boundaries any number of places, thus the boundaries are convenient inventions of the human mind, and not some fixed property of reality.

I agree to an extent, but not all boundaries are inventions. Membranes are boundaries. They allow certain things through and keep others out. Without membranes there would be no life. Without membranes that water in the glass would not become part of you. Without the glass there would be no glass of water.

Yes, it is possible. One just turns off the machine generating the concepts.

Have you been able to do this? I have not. I have learned to quiet my mind but not function without thinking or concepts.

My sense is that those who don't succeed are typically being greedy and trying to turn the process in to some kind of fantastical glorious esoteric becoming trip leading to profound permanent change etc ,ie. just another form of mind stimulation.

Perhaps there is a gateless gate, but still only a few manage to pass through even though they are humble and disciplined in their efforts.

I suggest it's not practical to concern ourselves with the few, whatever they may have achieved. It's true that in any field there are rare people way out at the end of the talent bell curve, but um, so what? What's that got to do with us?

The point is that it is one thing to say it can be done, but quite another to have actually done it. All too often we read about all things being one and freeing ourselves of the mind in order to experience things as they are, but I fool myself if I think that we have actually done this. So, I say, maybe it is doable, I don’t know. What I do know is that I have not done this and many who have devoted their lives to doing this have not done this. From the outside, based on what I have read, it is not a matter of degree but of being on one side of the gate or the other, of union with the divine or the whole or not, or some such thing or perhaps different things as is described in different terms in different cultures and practices.

Mozart could teach us how to play piano, but he couldn't teach us how to be a Mozart, so as you say, that's not a result of personal effort.

There is no agreement in the literature. There are some mystics, for example, who claim that mystical experience can result from effort or deprivation or some other form of intention and others say that it cannot, that the best we can do is prepare ourselves. In Zen Buddhism we find the same thing, with different schools saying different things and strong criticism of those who claim it is easy. Then there are those like Paul and Mohammed who claim to have gained divine knowledge without actually having done anything.

Yes, all language reinforces the illusion of division, because it's made of thought.

Perhaps the illusion is that we can step outside of language. I have not had the experience of unity. If someone says that they have I do not know what it is that they have experienced, only what they call it.

We can however seek to manage the human situation more skillfully.

Right, but what is the human situation? Is it a man made separation created by thought or is that thought creates a problem it calls separation? Do we yearn for unity because we have become separate or do we create the notion of separateness because we yearn for something and call it unity?

I would add only that the perception of separateness is not a fixed permanent part of the human condition. It's a by-product of thought.

Right, but this cuts both ways. It may be that the thought of separateness creates the perception of separateness. It may be a philosophical disease. It may be that since philosophy has gotten us into it philosophy can get us out of it. In other words, the problem is not thinking but what we think. Plato and Wittgenstein shared this notion of philosophical therapy.

Thus, we can to some degree manage that perception by gaining better control of the on/off button for thought.

I do not think there is an on/off button. I am not saying that you are wrong or trying to convince you that I am right. It is just that we see this differently, and yet, I think we are still in agreement on many points.

[Felix]

Fooloso4: I do not think there is an on/off button (on thought).

Maybe not, but there is a Mute button, which will have to suffice for most people.... the two buttons are easily confused.