Atheistforums

The Lobby => Introductions => Topic started by: Arik on December 23, 2018, 10:31:59 AM

Title: Hi
Post by: Arik on December 23, 2018, 10:31:59 AM
Let me introduce myself.
I am a non religious theist.
I have been interacting for several years in an other atheist forum until few weeks ago someone decided to boot me out.
The official reason is that I have been trolling.
In reality I insisted in asking for evidence.
Evidence that the consciousness is a product of the brain, evidence that when the body die also the consciousness die and other evidence.
These are beliefs that most atheists rely so I can not see why this has to do with trolling.
Atheists always ask for evidence about beliefs that theists have so I can not see why asking for evidence about atheists beliefs is trolling.
But please let me answer one question that atheists always ask to theist.
Evidence for God.
This topic is very interesting indeed.
To me it all boil down so to speak about evidence for love.
Love is not only physical.
It can also be mental and spiritual.
When a person is in physical-mental love his-her body produce extra hormones.
According to the type of love these hormones are produced by certain glands in the body or brain.
In physical-mental love this nice feeling is usually felt in the heart and in less part in the brain.
By practicing love for God this nice feeling that is given by hormones is felt in the pineal gland which since the antiquity is known as the third eye so to me this is clear evidence that God exist otherwise no hormones would be released.

What you think?






Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on December 23, 2018, 10:50:30 AM
Well, pay attention to what the moderators consider to be trolling.  And if warned, then modify your approach to be acceptable or get banned.  We do ban here.  Otherwise we are pretty tolerant ... after all, I am a freethinking theist myself ;-)

Most posters here are the regular kinds of atheists.  They may not want to debate you over things they have done with the many theists that came before you.  And some will project upon you, their pet objections to theism, without listening carefully to you.

My own POV is that psychology, not materialism, not dualism (here is where you probably fit), not philosophy in general ... is the correct foundation.  My evidence is the universal mean and spread of human feeling, thought and behavior.

Welcome.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Minimalist on December 23, 2018, 11:09:32 AM
Hello, there.

The obvious answer is that gods are human inventions designed to satisfy the fears of primitive men.  There are no gods.  There is however, religion and it has been a detriment to humanity from the beginning.  The fact that the notion of god still persists into the 21st century in advanced nations is not testimony to the reality of god but rather to the effectiveness of the marketing and indoctrination done by religions. 
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: aitm on December 23, 2018, 12:15:06 PM
Person 1 believes in a god
Person 2 says gods are not real
Person 1 says god is real because it makes me feel warm and loved.... therefor god must exist.



the end.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on December 23, 2018, 12:38:21 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Person 1 believes in a god
Person 2 says gods are not real
Person 1 says god is real because it makes me feel warm and loved.... therefor god must exist.



the end.

The eternal battle between IQ and EQ.  Between Science and Art.  The fight club of the High Brows.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Minimalist on December 23, 2018, 01:46:53 PM
Well said, B.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on December 23, 2018, 02:19:01 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Well said, B.

Most people are uncomfortable thinking in generalities.  It is possible to be too general, unless you are one.

This is not to say, that thinking about the minutae of individuals isn't valid.  That is what keeps the generalizations "real".

We can always look at what makes two people different.  But we always have something in common as well.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mike Cl on December 23, 2018, 03:48:22 PM
Welcome, Arik.
What you feel is no doubt real to and for you.  It is pure subjectivity to me.  All gods are fiction.  Your feelings or beliefs do not negate that fact.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Unbeliever on December 23, 2018, 05:17:49 PM
Hi Arik!

So, are you saying that your definition of "God" is "love"? But you don't believe in the Bible's version? I'm just trying to see where you're at, so I can better understand what you're saying. One of my main problems with the idea of God is the lack of a widespread, coherent definition of it. It seems that the word can mean anything at all, and so it means nothing at all. I believe in love too, but I just don't call it God.

Or are you saying that because our bodies produce certain chemicals when we attempt to "love" God, that means that God must exist?
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Minimalist on December 23, 2018, 06:08:23 PM
Quote
Most people are uncomfortable thinking in generalities.


I don't know about that.  Most people seem to do nothing else.

Someone once said something to the effect of "most people never think, they just rearrange their prejudices."
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mr.Obvious on December 23, 2018, 06:49:57 PM
Welcome Arik.

You say love is physical.

But what is love?

Baby don't hurt me. Don't hurt me, no more.

Nah, seriously mate, welcome.

When you say non-religious, does that mean you don't concider yourself hindu, or muslim, or jewish or christian or budhist or Hoodoo, or ... ? Or do you associate with some religion more than another?
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on December 24, 2018, 09:21:22 AM
Love is felt by both body, mind and if you engage in spirituality also there is felt so love (to me) does not have borders.

When I say non religious I simply means that I do not follow religions.
Religions (to me) do not represent what Jesus, Shiva, Krishna, Buddha and other were teaching.
I do not say that what is written in the so called Holy books is garbage.
In fact something make sense but a lot doesn't make any sense and get you nowhere.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mike Cl on December 24, 2018, 09:44:43 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Love is felt by both body, mind and if you engage in spirituality also there is felt so love (to me) does not have borders.

When I say non religious I simply means that I do not follow religions.
Religions (to me) do not represent what Jesus, Shiva, Krishna, Buddha and other were teaching.
I do not say that what is written in the so called Holy books is garbage.
In fact something make sense but a lot doesn't make any sense and get you nowhere.
I see and understand love to be a survival trait and was shaped by evolution; god is simply a fiction people use when they 'feel' something they cannot explain.  All are fictional.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on December 24, 2018, 09:52:01 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Hi Arik!

So, are you saying that your definition of "God" is "love"? But you don't believe in the Bible's version? I'm just trying to see where you're at, so I can better understand what you're saying. One of my main problems with the idea of God is the lack of a widespread, coherent definition of it. It seems that the word can mean anything at all, and so it means nothing at all. I believe in love too, but I just don't call it God.

Many religions with all their Saints and pictures of their God-s produce some sort of image representing a God in a human form so to believe that in reality God does not have any human form but is an entity made of pure love is quite difficult to digest to most.


Quote
Or are you saying that because our bodies produce certain chemicals when we attempt to "love" God, that means that God must exist?

Love (to me) can not be love unless two entity are involved.
Actually even if you fall in love with your car your mind will give you satisfaction by producing hormones but these hormones will not be secreted by your pineal gland as in the case of spiritual love.
The higher the form of love is and the higher the gland that will produce hormones will be situated along your spinal cord that is why the hormones secreted by the pineal gland can only be related to spiritual love. 
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on December 24, 2018, 10:00:28 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I see and understand love to be a survival trait and was shaped by evolution; god is simply a fiction people use when they 'feel' something they cannot explain.  All are fictional.


I do respect your belief but to me it doesn't make much sense.
If that would be the case why then my pineal gland produce a beautiful feeling when I practice my meditation which involve also to be one with the whole?
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mike Cl on December 24, 2018, 10:22:41 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I do respect your belief but to me it doesn't make much sense.
If that would be the case why then my pineal gland produce a beautiful feeling when I practice my meditation which involve also to be one with the whole?
So, for you, god is your pineal gland is where your god manifests itself?  So, god can only be present for species with backbones?  God did not create all, then.  As far as we now know, the pineal gland is basically a light sensing organ and helps create and regulate melatonin, which helps us sleep.  Don't know where god fits in there for you.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on December 24, 2018, 12:34:56 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I do respect your belief but to me it doesn't make much sense.
If that would be the case why then my pineal gland produce a beautiful feeling when I practice my meditation which involve also to be one with the whole?

Meditation then.  Dissociation of the individual identity.  Do you become the Salt Boy, or do you retain some individuality?

The epistles of John and the paen to love by Paul ... fit what you are saying.  Also Krishna playing with the Gopis.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Unbeliever on December 24, 2018, 01:11:56 PM
Why is the pineal gland so important?
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mike Cl on December 24, 2018, 02:06:03 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Why is the pineal gland so important?
It helps regulate the hormones that makes it easier for us to sleep apparently by sensing light and dark.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Unbeliever on December 24, 2018, 02:16:21 PM
Yeah, I know all that, but what does it have to do with God? I'm hoping our new poster can clarify that.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on December 24, 2018, 03:43:33 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yeah, I know all that, but what does it have to do with God? I'm hoping our new poster can clarify that.

Chakras, dude!
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mike Cl on December 24, 2018, 04:55:42 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yeah, I know all that, but what does it have to do with God? I'm hoping our new poster can clarify that.
Yeah, know what you mean. 
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: the_antithesis on December 24, 2018, 06:20:37 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
By practicing love for God this nice feeling that is given by hormones is felt in the pineal gland which since the antiquity is known as the third eye so to me this is clear evidence that God exist otherwise no hormones would be released.

(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/717pSj%2BQc6L._SL1335_.jpg)

So if you believe in god, a skinny dick will come out of your forehead?
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: aitm on December 24, 2018, 06:34:36 PM
Love is simply an emotion that each of us experiences in what may be completely different ways. We attach a word to this emotion and try to explain it to others and then we blanket all such emotions as "love" when we have no idea if the person next to us experiences the same love that we do.

When we try to suggest that "love" is a predetermined thing and it effects all the same way, we can run into problems. If a god gave us "love" it was mighty inept in its handling of the distribution of equal portions.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Blackleaf on December 25, 2018, 12:37:26 AM
That the mind is produced by the brain is very easy to prove. What happens if you take a blow to the head? You lose consciousness. What happens when your brain falls asleep? You become unconscious. What happens when you drink too much alcohol, and the alcohol impairs your brain's ability to function? Your consciousness is impaired, and you may even black out and lose memories. Heck, there have even been studies on people whose left and right hemispheres in their brains were separated, and both sides operated independently, as if they were both separate consciences. Everything points to the brain being the source of consciousness. Where's your evidence for the contrary?
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Blackleaf on December 25, 2018, 12:43:46 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yeah, I know all that, but what does it have to do with God? I'm hoping our new poster can clarify that.

The pineal gland is thought by some proponents of duelism to be the link between the brain and the soul. It's complete BS, of course. It doesn't even solve the problem it seeks to fix. How does an immaterial soul interact with a physical brain? With a physical gland... Of course!
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: the_antithesis on December 25, 2018, 01:13:22 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
In reality I insisted in asking for evidence.
That's rich.
Quote
Evidence that the consciousness is a product of the brain, evidence that when the body die also the consciousness die and other evidence.
Provide evidence of consciousness without a brain and/or body and then we'll have something to discuss.

Until then you are asking for us to provide evidence of table. Why should items fall to the floor when dropped? That's what you sound like. Stop it.
Quote
These are beliefs that most atheists rely so I can not see why this has to do with trolling.
PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF TABLE

That's why it's trolling.
Quote
Evidence for God.
This topic is very interesting indeed.
To me it all boil down so to speak about evidence for love.
Love is not god.

Love is created by various chemical in the body.
Scientist have made drugs that inhibit these chemicals. Does this mean they have destroyed god?
Quote
Love is not only physical.
Yes it is.
Quote
It can also be mental
Which is physical
Quote
and spiritual.
By which you mean emotional, which is also physical, caused by chemicals in the body.
Quote
When a person is in physical-mental love his-her body produce extra hormones.
According to the type of love these hormones are produced by certain glands in the body or brain.
In physical-mental love this nice feeling is usually felt in the heart and in less part in the brain.
By practicing love for God this nice feeling that is given by hormones is felt in the pineal gland which since the antiquity is known as the third eye so to me this is clear evidence that God exist otherwise no hormones would be released.

What you think?

I think you're stupid.

So your evidence for god is that feeling of love for this god thing is felt not in the heart but the pineal gland?

That has got to be the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

How do you know it's the pineal gland and not the pitutary gland or the cerebellum or a fucking tumor?

I'll answer for you. You don't. You're just guess and going by your feelings and expect that to be accepted.

It's not acceptable. This is not evidence. Go away. Learn what evidence is. Then come back.

I doubt you will.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on December 25, 2018, 04:34:44 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So, for you, god is your pineal gland is where your god manifests itself?  So, god can only be present for species with backbones?  God did not create all, then.  As far as we now know, the pineal gland is basically a light sensing organ and helps create and regulate melatonin, which helps us sleep.  Don't know where god fits in there for you.


God to me is everywhere and is everything.
Of course to understand why species with or without backbones may or may not feel God is all about evolution.
Evolution of the consciousness so if you are evolved to a certain degree you need a body able to store a certain amount of consciousness and here a spinal cord is needed.
Plants are aware yet they don't have a backbone because their awareness is very very small.
Animals are a step higher and human beings even higher so the higher you are in the evolution process and the more complex the spinal cord and glands you need to have.

I wish I could answer all other questions right now but work is waiting for me.
See you tomorrow.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Gawdzilla Sama on December 25, 2018, 06:29:59 AM
Namu amida butsu.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mike Cl on December 25, 2018, 08:41:14 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

God to me is everywhere and is everything.
Of course to understand why species with or without backbones may or may not feel God is all about evolution.
Evolution of the consciousness so if you are evolved to a certain degree you need a body able to store a certain amount of consciousness and here a spinal cord is needed.
Plants are aware yet they don't have a backbone because their awareness is very very small.
Animals are a step higher and human beings even higher so the higher you are in the evolution process and the more complex the spinal cord and glands you need to have.

I wish I could answer all other questions right now but work is waiting for me.
See you tomorrow.
Evolution works just fine without the input of any fictional god.  If your god is everywhere and everything, then what is the need of a pineal gland?  What of those who have a sick or malfunctioning gland?  Are they then without god? 

I can just as easily say (and I do) that god is nowhere and in nothing.  Your god and all others are simply fictions created by people to make themselves feel better.  God is not needed for the universe and Earth to function as it does and life does not need god to have it happen.  You simply want an easy answer.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: aitm on December 25, 2018, 09:28:05 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

God to me is everywhere and is everything.
Of course to understand why species with or without backbones may or may not feel God is all about evolution.
Evolution of the consciousness so if you are evolved to a certain degree you need a body able to store a certain amount of consciousness and here a spinal cord is needed.
Plants are aware yet they don't have a backbone because their awareness is very very small.
Animals are a step higher and human beings even higher so the higher you are in the evolution process and the more complex the spinal cord and glands you need to have.


Thats some......mighty fine...er.....thinkin there. Yessir, mighty fine critical thinkin.....whoo boy.

"Plants are aware yet they don't have a backbone because their awareness is very very small."

Holy crap on a cracker.......it's okay to think this stuff, all nice and comfortable....but man when you actually like....put it out there you kinda fall off the wagon full into whack-a-doddle land.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on December 25, 2018, 10:25:51 AM
Panpsychism or psycho?  Your call.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Cavebear on December 26, 2018, 12:46:45 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Let me introduce myself.
I am a non religious theist.
I have been interacting for several years in an other atheist forum until few weeks ago someone decided to boot me out.
The official reason is that I have been trolling.
In reality I insisted in asking for evidence.
Evidence that the consciousness is a product of the brain, evidence that when the body die also the consciousness die and other evidence.
These are beliefs that most atheists rely so I can not see why this has to do with trolling.
Atheists always ask for evidence about beliefs that theists have so I can not see why asking for evidence about atheists beliefs is trolling.
But please let me answer one question that atheists always ask to theist.
Evidence for God.
This topic is very interesting indeed.
To me it all boil down so to speak about evidence for love.
Love is not only physical.
It can also be mental and spiritual.
When a person is in physical-mental love his-her body produce extra hormones.
According to the type of love these hormones are produced by certain glands in the body or brain.
In physical-mental love this nice feeling is usually felt in the heart and in less part in the brain.
By practicing love for God this nice feeling that is given by hormones is felt in the pineal gland which since the antiquity is known as the third eye so to me this is clear evidence that God exist otherwise no hormones would be released.

What you think?

I think you are just another of a very long string of theists who thinks he/she can somehow "save" all us atheists if only we LISTENED to YOU and accepted THE WORD.  And I don't even care what superstition you profess to.  They are basically all the same. 

Your specific deity created the whole universe and everything in it, HE (it is almost always a HE) made things difficult to understand so we have to accept HIS WORD on faith, and there is some sort of everlasting punishment for those who refuse THE WORD. 

Spare yourself the effort...  Your initial posts will be long and involved.  They will shorten as you get frustrated when you don't convince us, and you will will eventually go away when you can't answer our questions.

Your kind bores me.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on December 26, 2018, 08:07:01 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I think you are just another of a very long string of theists who thinks he/she can somehow "save" all us atheists if only we LISTENED to YOU and accepted THE WORD.  And I don't even care what superstition you profess to.  They are basically all the same. 

Your specific deity created the whole universe and everything in it, HE (it is almost always a HE) made things difficult to understand so we have to accept HIS WORD on faith, and there is some sort of everlasting punishment for those who refuse THE WORD. 

Spare yourself the effort...  Your initial posts will be long and involved.  They will shorten as you get frustrated when you don't convince us, and you will will eventually go away when you can't answer our questions.

Your kind bores me.


I have no reason to get frustrated.
None at all Cavebear.
I rather get frustrated when I have no one to talk-comunicate to.
The fact that people agree with me or not is totally irrelevant.
I do not believe in hell or some sort of permanent punishment.
To me at the end everybody will understand how the system works so everybody will end up in the same beautiful place that I believe it exist.
The only problem is that those who cling to fantasied will take longer and longer to get there.
It does not means that I am right and you are wrong.
You could well have some important points that are quite valid that is why I am prepared to listen to everyone.
If you have noticed unlike religious believers I do not state........THIS IS RIGHT OR THIS IS WRONG...but I usually say.........to me
this is right and this is wrong.

Many atheists on the other hand behave same same as many religious people that state things void of any evidence as to say.......the consciousness is a product of the brain or that the life end with the physical death.

Can you see the difference between state something and instead saying..........MY BELIEF IS THAT THIS IS TRUE.
To me to state-declare-assert something must involve clear evidence.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on December 26, 2018, 08:21:31 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Thats some......mighty fine...er.....thinkin there. Yessir, mighty fine critical thinkin.....whoo boy.

"Plants are aware yet they don't have a backbone because their awareness is very very small."

Holy crap on a cracker.......it's okay to think this stuff, all nice and comfortable....but man when you actually like....put it out there you kinda fall off the wagon full into whack-a-doddle land.


In the past only hippies thought that plants are aware so some form of consciousness must be there.
Science these days is finally recognizing plants as sensual beings.
If you think that I am making up stories all you have to do is to go in your search engine and click......ARE PLANTS AWARE?

Have a good day.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on December 26, 2018, 08:42:55 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Meditation then.  Dissociation of the individual identity.  Do you become the Salt Boy, or do you retain some individuality?

The epistles of John and the paen to love by Paul ... fit what you are saying.  Also Krishna playing with the Gopis.


Interesting issue Baruch.

To me meditation has really nothing to do with DISSOCIATION but has all to do with union.
Union with the whole.

Suppose a drop of water by the push of mother nature (gravity if you like) try to reach the ocean.
What will happen to that drop?

It will happen that that drop will become the ocean itself.
Meditation follow the same logic.
Individual consciousness once it reach the universal consciousness will merge in it and become one with it.

This is my belief however.
 
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on December 26, 2018, 09:45:18 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It helps regulate the hormones that makes it easier for us to sleep apparently by sensing light and dark.


This is what science has so far discovered.
However science always keep on discovering new things so I wouldn't really stop at what we know so far.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on December 26, 2018, 10:13:05 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yeah, I know all that, but what does it have to do with God? I'm hoping our new poster can clarify that.


Let us go one step at the time brother.
According to yoga the pineal gland is the site of our consciousness.
Whether the pineal gland is there or has been removed it wouldn't really matter as far as having the consciousness because consciousness is an abstract entity so it would still be in that space where the pineal gland was however living without this gland would be very hard indeed.

It would be impossible however to live without the consciousness.
Even zombies have a tiny bit of consciousness.
But let me put why according to me consciousness is related to God.
One of the two thing that God can not do is to create an other God so God is one and all consciousness are but the reflexion of the same entity.
The only problem that humans have is to realize this point.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mr.Obvious on December 26, 2018, 10:46:13 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Let us go one step at the time brother.
According to yoga the pineal gland is the site of our consciousness.
Whether the pineal gland is there or has been removed it wouldn't really matter as far as having the consciousness because consciousness is an abstract entity so it would still be in that space where the pineal gland was however living without this gland would be very hard indeed.

It would be impossible however to live without the consciousness.
Even zombies have a tiny bit of consciousness.
But let me put why according to me consciousness is related to God.
One of the two thing that God can not do is to create an other God so God is one and all consciousness are but the reflexion of the same entity.
The only problem that humans have is to realize this point.

And what else, according to you, can't god do? What's THE second thing?
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on December 26, 2018, 10:56:37 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
And what else, according to you, can't god do? What's THE second thing?


He (He-she is a way to describe this spiritual entity) can not hate anyone that is also why the hell can not exist.
If there would be hell there also would be hate and that would show that God did mistakes in his creation but God being perfect can not do mistakes so hell which is a dumping ground for mistakes can not exist.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mike Cl on December 26, 2018, 11:46:16 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

This is what science has so far discovered.
However science always keep on discovering new things so I wouldn't really stop at what we know so far.
Yes science (people using the scientific method--'science' is not a magical word) keeps on discovering new things.  Scientists are not afraid of saying 'We don't know", and then keep trying to know.  Religious and theists have yet to prove anything.  They must rely on faith and belief, for they cannot prove any of those beliefs.  They have yet to demonstrate in any way anything supernatural.   We can only rely on what it is we know and not on what we speculate we will know later on. 
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on December 26, 2018, 12:26:17 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

He (He-she is a way to describe this spiritual entity) can not hate anyone that is also why the hell can not exist.
If there would be hell there also would be hate and that would show that God did mistakes in his creation but God being perfect can not do mistakes so hell which is a dumping ground for mistakes can not exist.

I must differ from your idealism.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Unbeliever on December 26, 2018, 01:33:46 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
According to yoga the pineal gland is the site of our consciousness.
"According to yoga"? Why should I even consider whatever "yoga" has to say? Yoga may well be good for physical health and such, but how does yoga know anything about consciousness? Has yoga performed repeatable experiments and devised a theory of consciousness? Has yoga got anything other than argument by assertion? Who is yoga, and why is yoga any sort of authority on consciousness?
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: aitm on December 26, 2018, 07:52:40 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

In the past only hippies thought that plants are aware so some form of consciousness must be there.


Oh...so hippies of the past knew plants had consciousness? Well why didn't we ask them about everything then? Surely they must have had a "higher" consciousness.   *Yawns*

I gotta admit some of todays youts sure can staple their asses to crazy ass shit based on crazier ass shit.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on December 26, 2018, 07:57:30 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
"According to yoga"? Why should I even consider whatever "yoga" has to say? Yoga may well be good for physical health and such, but how does yoga know anything about consciousness? Has yoga performed repeatable experiments and devised a theory of consciousness? Has yoga got anything other than argument by assertion? Who is yoga, and why is yoga any sort of authority on consciousness?

That is Hatha Yoga.  Yoga in India is an entire religion underlying Hinduism and Buddhism.  Yes, Indians were doing psychology over 3000 years ago.  Of course not using the most up to date techniques ... it was all introspection and teacher-pupil insight.

The West is crap.  Nuke it.  Science and Math are White privilege!  Read the Yoga Sutras (aphorisms) by Patanjali in the original Sanskrit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoga_Sutras_of_Patanjali

If you prefer to find the meaning of your life, by controlled experiments of white mice navigating a maze, by all means do so.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: aitm on December 26, 2018, 08:45:24 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I gotta admit some of todays youts

How about that? I said "youts" and god gave me a rerun of "My Cousin Vinny"....god sure is funny how he shows us his omnipotence eh? Instead of saving the world, he gives me "My Cousin Vinny".....
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Minimalist on December 26, 2018, 09:28:53 PM
Quote
Would I even consider whatever "yoga" has to say?

(https://static1.fjcdn.com/comments/To+master+yoda+you+must+listen+_54166ca2b6953b9366bf83e4fcf1b169.png)
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on December 27, 2018, 07:40:07 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Oh...so hippies of the past knew plants had consciousness? Well why didn't we ask them about everything then? Surely they must have had a "higher" consciousness.   *Yawns*

I gotta admit some of todays youts sure can staple their asses to crazy ass shit based on crazier ass shit.


Oh, well it look like you didn't do much search in the net about plants having awareness-consciousness.
Is that the case AITM?
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on December 27, 2018, 07:57:20 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That is Hatha Yoga.  Yoga in India is an entire religion underlying Hinduism and Buddhism.  Yes, Indians were doing psychology over 3000 years ago.  Of course not using the most up to date techniques ... it was all introspection and teacher-pupil insight.

The West is crap.  Nuke it.  Science and Math are White privilege!  Read the Yoga Sutras (aphorisms) by Patanjali in the original Sanskrit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoga_Sutras_of_Patanjali

If you prefer to find the meaning of your life, by controlled experiments of white mice navigating a maze, by all means do so.


According to me Yoga in India or any other place is not religion although has got something in common with Hinduism and Buddhism such as believing in God, in karma and in the immortality of the soul-consciousness.
Both Yoga and those religions rely on the teaching of Shiva and Krishna but these teachings are not follow in their entirety by Hinduism and Buddhism.
Hinduism created a myriad of Gods, it created the evil caste system the dowry system and crazy beliefs such as the  holy cows and so on beside strict vegetarianism and meditation is now only practiced by few.
Also Buddhism has lost the original direction and very few follow the original teachings. 
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on December 27, 2018, 08:27:14 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yes science (people using the scientific method--'science' is not a magical word) keeps on discovering new things.  Scientists are not afraid of saying 'We don't know", and then keep trying to know.  Religious and theists have yet to prove anything.  They must rely on faith and belief, for they cannot prove any of those beliefs.  They have yet to demonstrate in any way anything supernatural.   We can only rely on what it is we know and not on what we speculate we will know later on.



Not at all Mike.
You can not say that all theists rely on faith and belief.
Many do but not all of them.
I rely on evidence instead.
When my yoga  teacher did showed me how to practice the meditation he said..........if you follow my teachings you will clean your glands that control body-mind and your very soul-consciousness.........in this way you will find peace of mind and bliss so your unit consciousness at the proper time will merge into the cosmic consciousness.
After practicing these teaching seriously for sometime I did find that what the teacher said was real so this is evidence not faith or belief.
If his teaching would have not lead to any result I would have stop practicing after some time but these teachings really works.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on December 27, 2018, 08:33:45 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I must differ from your idealism.


Any chance you can tell me where you do not agree or differ?
Thanks.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on December 27, 2018, 08:54:55 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
"According to yoga"? Why should I even consider whatever "yoga" has to say? Yoga may well be good for physical health and such, but how does yoga know anything about consciousness? Has yoga performed repeatable experiments and devised a theory of consciousness? Has yoga got anything other than argument by assertion? Who is yoga, and why is yoga any sort of authority on consciousness?


Yoga follow the same logic and system that you would follow when you try to engage in a love relationship.
Once the thing works you feel good within.
You may not know where the hormones that trigger that nice feeling are located within you but you know that something within make you feel great.
Yoga being engaged in spiritual love for ages and ages learn how the system works and where the main glands that release these hormones are located.
Apparently the first yoga teacher was Shiva which according many lived 7000 years ago.
This is all I can tell you whether you believe it or not.




Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on December 27, 2018, 09:07:12 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The pineal gland is thought by some proponents of duelism to be the link between the brain and the soul. It's complete BS, of course. It doesn't even solve the problem it seeks to fix. How does an immaterial soul interact with a physical brain? With a physical gland... Of course!


Suppose you enter you car to drive somewhere.
You are not made of metal as the car.
In the same way when your consciousness enter the body for a lifetime YOU your consciousness are not your body but keep a relationship with the body as you would keep a relationship when you enter your car with the car.
This is my belief.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Hydra009 on December 27, 2018, 10:47:09 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Of course to understand why species with or without backbones may or may not feel God is all about evolution.
Evolution of the consciousness so if you are evolved to a certain degree you need a body able to store a certain amount of consciousness and here a spinal cord is needed.
That's...not how science works, to put it mildly.

Quote
Plants are aware yet they don't have a backbone because their awareness is very very small.
Animals are a step higher and human beings even higher so the higher you are in the evolution process and the more complex the spinal cord and glands you need to have.
This is basically a rehash of the great chain of being (a medieval idea), which is pseudoscience.

(https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/images/evo/laddervstree.gif)

Evolution does not have levels.  Plants, insects, birds, and humans have all undergone changes to adapt to changing environments.  Every species that is alive managed that in some form or another.  Complexity =/= "evolvedness"
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Hydra009 on December 27, 2018, 10:48:51 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Suppose you enter you car to drive somewhere.
You are not made of metal as the car.
In the same way when your consciousness enter the body for a lifetime YOU your consciousness are not your body but keep a relationship with the body as you would keep a relationship when you enter your car with the car.
This is my belief.
Ghost in the shell.  Proof by assertion fallacy.  Yawn.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on December 27, 2018, 12:52:09 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Any chance you can tell me where you do not agree or differ?
Thanks.

You - consciousness is everything
Me - consciousness and unconsciousness are everything (ignoring sub-conscious for the moment)
Idea-lism - the general prioritizing of ideas (aka bits of consciousness) over other aspects of experience

Excuse me if I have stereotyped what you have written so far.

Buddhists are also idealistic, in that the Super-ego is prioritized over the Ego and the Id.

Most atheists = some variety of materialism.  Quantum Mechanics is G-d, Niels Bohr says so, Ommmm.

Saivism ... Lord Shiva is the original meditation guru ... on Mt Kailash.

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

PS - Yoga is a system of metaphysical introspection and self discipline (per Patanjali).

Chan/Zen is the Chinese realization of Buddhist Yoga that arose out of Vedic Yoga.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjWZz839T8w

The Zen of drums ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZagsLrNzg3I
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mike Cl on December 27, 2018, 04:56:17 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


Not at all Mike.
You can not say that all theists rely on faith and belief.
Many do but not all of them.
I rely on evidence instead.
When my yoga  teacher did showed me how to practice the meditation he said..........if you follow my teachings you will clean your glands that control body-mind and your very soul-consciousness.........in this way you will find peace of mind and bliss so your unit consciousness at the proper time will merge into the cosmic consciousness.
After practicing these teaching seriously for sometime I did find that what the teacher said was real so this is evidence not faith or belief.
If his teaching would have not lead to any result I would have stop practicing after some time but these teachings really works.
Glad things worked for you.  But that is not evidence of anything other than it worked for you.  That is subjective.  It is not evidence you can use to 'prove' anything to me.  Or anybody else.  It is evidence that is proof to you--and that's it.  This is not scientific proof--it is subjective proof.  All theists and religious people from the very beginning of time have used that type of 'proof' and not any scientific proof of any kind.  Can you give me any scientific proof that your god exists or ever did?
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Unbeliever on December 27, 2018, 05:01:14 PM
I don't think Arik understands the concept of proof.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: the_antithesis on December 27, 2018, 05:14:13 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

After practicing these teaching seriously for sometime I did find that what the teacher said was real so this is evidence not faith or belief.

Anecdotes are not evidence.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on December 27, 2018, 06:35:16 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Anecdotes are not evidence.

Neither is your personal experience (or mine).  All personal info (as we misremember it) is invalid.  You are not a human, not alive, not male etc ... that is just you POV, which is subjective.  2+2=4 is objective ... the prophet, Pythagoras, says so.

OTOH ... when two or more drunk monkeys agree on something, that is objectionable, not objective.  Group think isn't evidence.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: aitm on December 27, 2018, 07:39:16 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't think Arik understands he concept of proof.
Plants don't need no stinkin proof.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on December 28, 2018, 10:00:56 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That's...not how science works, to put it mildly.
This is basically a rehash of the great chain of being (a medieval idea), which is pseudoscience.

(https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/images/evo/laddervstree.gif)

Evolution does not have levels.  Plants, insects, birds, and humans have all undergone changes to adapt to changing environments.  Every species that is alive managed that in some form or another.  Complexity =/= "evolvedness"


Many scientists GUESS that that is the case but as far as total prove and total evidence zero-nil-0.
Guessing is not evidence Hydra.

You may well say that also my belief is a guess but at least I got something that make sense.
Life teach us that the good things do not fall from the sky.
You surely must know that to get money we got to work hard and we have also to work hard to make our life easier.
Now you tell me how it is possible to get such an evolved consciousness unless we have first done the hard work to go from lower form of lives to what we are now?
Have you ever seen a small boy or girl that become a doctor just by attending the first year of the primary school?

What most scientist know is only related to physical changes which do not tell anything about changes in consciousness.
The day that scientists will understand how changes in consciousness affect changes in bodies then that will be a very great day for humanity.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on December 28, 2018, 10:27:00 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Glad things worked for you.  But that is not evidence of anything other than it worked for you.  That is subjective.  It is not evidence you can use to 'prove' anything to me.  Or anybody else.  It is evidence that is proof to you--and that's it.  This is not scientific proof--it is subjective proof.  All theists and religious people from the very beginning of time have used that type of 'proof' and not any scientific proof of any kind.  Can you give me any scientific proof that your god exists or ever did?


Scientific proof?

It really depend which science you try to use Mike.

If you expect to find proofs by using physical science then forget about that.
How on earth can a physical science understand what is not physical such as God?

To understand God you must use a science that study what is not physical such as the consciousness and that science is the science of yoga and yoga meditation in particular.

Love is felt individually according the effort that a person put in that relationship.
As you would be unable to provide evidence that your love for someone is real also no one that engage in spirituality would be able to show you that God exist because the relationship is strictly individual.
As I already said you can see physical evidence because the glands secrete hormones but other than that very little.

Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mike Cl on December 28, 2018, 11:38:56 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Scientific proof?

It really depend which science you try to use Mike.

If you expect to find proofs by using physical science then forget about that.
How on earth can a physical science understand what is not physical such as God?

To understand God you must use a science that study what is not physical such as the consciousness and that science is the science of yoga and yoga meditation in particular.

Love is felt individually according the effort that a person put in that relationship.
As you would be unable to provide evidence that your love for someone is real also no one that engage in spirituality would be able to show you that God exist because the relationship is strictly individual.
As I already said you can see physical evidence because the glands secrete hormones but other than that very little.
Clearly you are trying to remake 'science' into your own special belief system.  Science is not magic nor another form of belief.  It is simply growing to understand one point at a time.  One creates and states a hypotheses and then tries to prove it.  If one can prove it in such a way that another person can recreate the experiment and get the same results, then you have a theory and have added to the knowledge of the world.  One does not need to have belief in science--look at the evidence.  BTW, if one cannot prove a hypothesis, then it remains just that, a hypothesis.  That is what you are pushing--a hypothesis.  You 'tested' it within yourself, which means I cannot replicate that particular experiment.  So, your beliefs are just that, an unproven hypothesis.  And all theist beliefs are the same. 

Just as I don't have to prove that fairies or gnomes or Bugs Bunny are not real--they are clearly fictional--I don't need to prove your god does not exist.  Offer me some proof for your claim that god is real. 

Theists seem to be really put off by 'I don't know'.  Yes your fav gland does secrete a hormone.  You suggest that beyond that we know little.  We sure don't know all that we need to know about that gland; but we do know much more than we did 100 or 1000 years ago.  And we will know more in the future; and we will learn by using the scientific method, not yoga nor meditation nor simply believing something. 

So far I have not been shown any proof of your god.  Personal stories simply don't count.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on December 28, 2018, 12:27:23 PM
It is a mistake, in this culture to identify "science" as "knowledge" ... only most recent version of the scientific method can be meant.  Otherwise there is unnecessary semantic posturing.  Arik - please explain your epistemology.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: aitm on December 28, 2018, 01:28:07 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


It really depend which science you try to use Mike.


To understand God you must use a science that study what is not physical such as the consciousness and that science is the science of yoga and yoga meditation in particular.





In other words...sciency stuff you imagine when you be in meditation cause thats where god hides the sciency stuff, if'n not in your brain..he hides it in trees. Secretly cause they be a meditating too. Shhhh...don't scare the philodendron.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: the_antithesis on December 28, 2018, 05:46:36 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Neither is your personal experience (or mine).  All personal info (as we misremember it) is invalid.  You are not a human, not alive, not male etc ... that is just you POV, which is subjective.  2+2=4 is objective ... the prophet, Pythagoras, says so.

OTOH ... when two or more drunk monkeys agree on something, that is objectionable, not objective.  Group think isn't evidence.

You're making less sense than the OP. That must be a useful skill in day-to-day life.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on December 28, 2018, 06:54:50 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You're making less sense than the OP. That must be a useful skill in day-to-day life.

OK.  I am probably older than he is.  So more experienced at theism, and heresy (which seems to include him also) than he is ;-)
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Cavebear on December 28, 2018, 11:33:58 PM
Arik is just working you all up with nonsense arguments to waste your time.  He a religious troll.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on December 29, 2018, 12:03:03 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Arik is just working you all up with nonsense arguments to waste your time.  He a religious troll.

Perhaps.  Was willing to give him a chance, but it all seems all too lovey dovey.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Minimalist on December 29, 2018, 12:21:37 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't think Arik understands the concept of proof.


"Proof" is the wrong word.  "Evidence" is the right word and they have none of that, either.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on December 29, 2018, 12:28:05 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

"Proof" is the wrong word.  "Evidence" is the right word and they have none of that, either.

Correct.  Proof only applies to mathematics and whiskey, and sometimes not even math.  Evidence exists, but as rationalizing monkeys (not rational), we choose our conclusions and make specious arguments to defend those conclusions.  But yes, we can, to a degree, separate objective evidence from subjective evidence.  My contention is that both are of value, and to falsely deny that one has a subjective existence is a form of mania, of unbalance.  Just as if you were a solipsist (a person who only acknowledges subjective evidence and denies all objective evidence).
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Cavebear on December 29, 2018, 12:45:57 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

"Proof" is the wrong word.  "Evidence" is the right word and they have none of that, either.

Well, yes.  Theists tend to confuse things they are told (without evidence), with facts.  Some people are just weak-minded like that.   The rest of us have to try to help them out with that stuff.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Hydra009 on December 29, 2018, 12:53:30 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Many scientists GUESS that that is the case but as far as total prove and total evidence zero-nil-0.
Guessing is not evidence Hydra.
Clearly, the world's scientists cannot hope to match your dizzying intellect.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Cavebear on December 29, 2018, 01:00:12 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Clearly, the world's scientists cannot hope to match your dizzying intellect.

Yeah, theists tend to thing that opinions from religious texts are facts.  You just can't help them get rational sometimes...
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: aitm on December 29, 2018, 08:29:04 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yeah, theists tend to thing that opinions from religious texts are facts.  You just can't help them get rational sometimes...

we can't even get them off the ledge of whack-a-doo.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on December 29, 2018, 08:38:43 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Arik is just working you all up with nonsense arguments to waste your time.  He a religious troll.


Well, it look like you are an expert in religions.
I hope you don't mind if I ask you a simple question.

What is the difference between religion and spirituality?
Thanks.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mike Cl on December 29, 2018, 08:56:20 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login



What is the difference between religion and spirituality?
Thanks.
Hierarchy.  Religion tends to be structured and spirituality tends to be not structure in any official way--more individual.  Otherwise, the same fiction applies.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on December 29, 2018, 08:58:30 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Clearly you are trying to remake 'science' into your own special belief system.  Science is not magic nor another form of belief.  It is simply growing to understand one point at a time.  One creates and states a hypotheses and then tries to prove it.  If one can prove it in such a way that another person can recreate the experiment and get the same results, then you have a theory and have added to the knowledge of the world.  One does not need to have belief in science--look at the evidence.  BTW, if one cannot prove a hypothesis, then it remains just that, a hypothesis.  That is what you are pushing--a hypothesis.  You 'tested' it within yourself, which means I cannot replicate that particular experiment.  So, your beliefs are just that, an unproven hypothesis.  And all theist beliefs are the same. 

Just as I don't have to prove that fairies or gnomes or Bugs Bunny are not real--they are clearly fictional--I don't need to prove your god does not exist.  Offer me some proof for your claim that god is real. 

Theists seem to be really put off by 'I don't know'.  Yes your fav gland does secrete a hormone.  You suggest that beyond that we know little.  We sure don't know all that we need to know about that gland; but we do know much more than we did 100 or 1000 years ago.  And we will know more in the future; and we will learn by using the scientific method, not yoga nor meditation nor simply believing something. 

So far I have not been shown any proof of your god.  Personal stories simply don't count.


If you came to the conclusion that I do not like or believe in science (physical science) you certainly got it wrong.

My point is different.
What I am saying is that physical science can not possibly understand what is not physical.
It would be like to call a plumber when you instead need a carpenter or an electrician.
Can't you understand this simple point?

I love physical science but is pointless to rely on it when I instead need something that can NOT be delivered by this type of science.

 
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Cavebear on December 29, 2018, 08:59:37 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Well, it look like you are an expert in religions.
I hope you don't mind if I ask you a simple question.

What is the difference between religion and spirituality?
Thanks.

1.  I don't mind. 

2.  Text. 

I thought it might help you if I kept things simple...
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on December 29, 2018, 09:28:33 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Hierarchy.  Religion tends to be structured and spirituality tends to be not structure in any official way--more individual.  Otherwise, the same fiction applies.


I am afraid that all this has very little to do with the differences Mike even if your point has got a tiny bit of truth.

The main differences are that while in religions the effort goes towards the external reality in spirituality the effort goes within, within our own consciousness and that is where God is according to spirituality.
Religions ask God for the daily bread.
For them God is an external reality that at the due time will grant them the paradise.
For a spiritualist to ask God for the daily bread is an absolute taunting-mockery.
It would be like to ask your physical father the daily bread as if your father wouldn't know that you need food.
In the beginning also Hinduism and Buddhism were following spirituality but now most is lost in a circus of hundreds of Gods and meaningless rituals.

In reality even the first Christians were following spirituality but the priests of the past screwed everything up and now even Christianity follow a circus full of saints and meaningless rituals.

I don't follow an external God or meaningless rituals so I think that to call me RELIGIOUS TROLL is quite improper.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on December 29, 2018, 09:45:05 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It is a mistake, in this culture to identify "science" as "knowledge" ... only most recent version of the scientific method can be meant.  Otherwise there is unnecessary semantic posturing.  Arik - please explain your epistemology.


It is all very very simple Baruch.

Spirituality is not an external search but rather internal.
Externally there is only the physical-material reality which can not possibly solve the main human problem which is to find peace of mind and eternal and infinite bliss.
As I already point out in previous posts this FINITE reality is unable to solve the main human problem that is why only spirituality or the search for infinite bliss can accomplish this so my main work goes in that way although I don't forget that I still live in this physical-material reality.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Cavebear on December 29, 2018, 09:47:44 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

If you came to the conclusion that I do not like or believe in science (physical science) you certainly got it wrong.

My point is different.
What I am saying is that physical science can not possibly understand what is not physical.
It would be like to call a plumber when you instead need a carpenter or an electrician.
Can't you understand this simple point?

I love physical science but is pointless to rely on it when I instead need something that can NOT be delivered by this type of science.

Originally, people feared storms and tides and rains etc.  And the first thought of "If I don't understand it, it must be that a SOMETHING ALL POWERFUL did it). 

Which is of course, from what we know now, really ignorant (ignorance being the lack of knowledge).

Then, some screwy idiot who didn't want to work for a living, discovered he could organize all the fears and get food in return for "man-splaining" that stuff.

And decided that it was good...

Then some former helper challenged him and he had to UP his game.  They gods were not just gods, they all had specific duties,  And them others decided there were gods for damn near everything. 

I assume you can see where this is going...
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on December 29, 2018, 10:03:35 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

It is all very very simple Baruch.

Spirituality is not an external search but rather internal.
Externally there is only the physical-material reality which can not possibly solve the main human problem which is to find peace of mind and eternal and infinite bliss.
As I already point out in previous posts this FINITE reality is unable to solve the main human problem that is why only spirituality or the search for infinite bliss can accomplish this so my main work goes in that way although I don't forget that I still live in this physical-material reality.

1. Materialists can't admit to any metaphysics because it is subjective not objective.  Hence my question regarding epistemology.
2. Materialists can't admit that science can't provide them with every material thing they want.  They don't value the non-material e.g. love.
3. Materialists can't admit to the personal, beyond their own egos.  This is their strongest point IMHO.

Reality for me is both physical and metaphysical.  Human needs are both material and immaterial.  G-d/self is both internal and external, personal and impersonal.  So I get your points about metaphysics and the internal.  But almost no one else here will.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on December 29, 2018, 10:16:14 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Originally, people feared storms and tides and rains etc.  And the first thought of "If I don't understand it, it must be that a SOMETHING ALL POWERFUL did it). 

Which is of course, from what we know now, really ignorant (ignorance being the lack of knowledge).

Then, some screwy idiot who didn't want to work for a living, discovered he could organize all the fears and get food in return for "man-splaining" that stuff.

And decided that it was good...

Then some former helper challenged him and he had to UP his game.  They gods were not just gods, they all had specific duties,  And them others decided there were gods for damn near everything. 

I assume you can see where this is going...


When the level or degree of consciousness is not developed enough is obvious that people think in that way, don't forget however that when the degree of consciousness get more and more developed people change course and start thinking in a different way and that is just what I was saying some posts ago when I was pointing out that when people see no exit out this finite materialistic dimension they will surely start working towards the infinite reality which is also called spirituality.

Things move and change Cavebear so sooner or later people will change course.
The smart one for the better the fools for the worse.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on December 29, 2018, 10:24:16 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

When the level or degree of consciousness is not developed enough is obvious that people think in that way, don't forget however that when the degree of consciousness get more and more developed people change course and start thinking in a different way and that is just what I was saying some posts ago when I was pointing out that when people see no exit out this finite materialistic dimension they will surely start working towards the infinite reality which is also called spirituality.

Things move and change Cavebear so sooner or later people will change course.
The smart one for the better the fools for the worse.

Individual human development is slow and uncertain.  A person is rarely enlightened (spiritually) in one lifetime, hence the idea that it can only be achieved after many reincarnations.  I have changed over time, but it took a long time, a lot of negative experiences.  We learn more from failure than from success.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Cavebear on December 29, 2018, 10:32:10 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

When the level or degree of consciousness is not developed enough is obvious that people think in that way, don't forget however that when the degree of consciousness get more and more developed people change course and start thinking in a different way and that is just what I was saying some posts ago when I was pointing out that when people see no exit out this finite materialistic dimension they will surely start working towards the infinite reality which is also called spirituality.

Things move and change Cavebear so sooner or later people will change course.
The smart one for the better the fools for the worse.

Consciousness is not the basis of religious thought.  Lack of it is. 

Throughout history, the progression of human understanding has been from superstition to factual understanding of nature.  Religion is the opposite, kicking and screaming all the way.  I don't really care how ignorant you are of facts or dealing with facts, as we learn more about nature every day, religion or spirituality (same thing really) become less and less relevant. 

My personal opinion is that superstitious people of all sorts (call it what you wish) are basically all the same. 
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on December 29, 2018, 10:37:32 AM
But sometimes you have to let the donkey have the carrot.  At least Buddha claims this.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Unbeliever on December 29, 2018, 01:47:30 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
As I already point out in previous posts this FINITE reality is unable to solve the main human problem

What is it you see as "the main human problem"?
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mike Cl on December 29, 2018, 02:13:39 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

If you came to the conclusion that I do not like or believe in science (physical science) you certainly got it wrong.

My point is different.
What I am saying is that physical science can not possibly understand what is not physical.
It would be like to call a plumber when you instead need a carpenter or an electrician.
Can't you understand this simple point?

I love physical science but is pointless to rely on it when I instead need something that can NOT be delivered by this type of science.
Yes, I do understand your point--I have from the beginning.  I would imagine you would say that things like emotions and consciousness are not physical and cannot be explained by science. 

Wrong.  Everything--EVERYTHING--originates from a physical cause.  There is no supernatural.  There is no spiritual.  Emotions have their origins from chemicals.  Everything does.  This is the simple point you have a problem with--you simply don't want to understand this simple fact.  You simply want to believe otherwise.  Feel free to do so, but your beliefs are a pure fiction. 
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Unbeliever on December 29, 2018, 02:23:33 PM
Arik has his (her?) beliefs, whatever they happen to be, and they really don't affect me in any case. After all, Arik came here to our forum, we didn't seek him (her?) out to try to force our beliefs (or lack of same) on Arik. I have yet to see a coherent statement, much less an argument, from him (her?). It's hard to have a discussion when communication isn't really happening.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: aitm on December 29, 2018, 02:33:40 PM
The arrogance of humanity at its highest...is the belief that we are far more than the squirrel or acorn. We are not. The universe has shown we have no more nor less than anything else. But because we have achieved where the rock has not...we compare ourselves to gods....but still bury as us the rocks that we are.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on December 29, 2018, 04:37:50 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The arrogance of humanity at its highest...is the belief that we are far more than the squirrel or acorn. We are not. The universe has shown we have no more nor less than anything else. But because we have achieved where the rock has not...we compare ourselves to gods....but still bury as us the rocks that we are.

I consider most humans as less valuable than a good barbecued kielbasa.

Only materialists are gods ... because Plato's magic organ, allows them to see the Eternal Forms.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on December 29, 2018, 04:40:30 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yes, I do understand your point--I have from the beginning.  I would imagine you would say that things like emotions and consciousness are not physical and cannot be explained by science. 

Wrong.  Everything--EVERYTHING--originates from a physical cause.  There is no supernatural.  There is no spiritual.  Emotions have their origins from chemicals.  Everything does.  This is the simple point you have a problem with--you simply don't want to understand this simple fact.  You simply want to believe otherwise.  Feel free to do so, but your beliefs are a pure fiction.

Every human emotion, thought and behavior can be explained by psychology.  But it hasn't been demonstrated (other than there is no alternative argument) that materialism explains psychology.  As Spinoza would point out, regarding Descartes dualism ... matter and mind are just two different ways of looking at something that isn't really describable by either category.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on December 30, 2018, 08:28:29 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yes, I do understand your point--I have from the beginning.  I would imagine you would say that things like emotions and consciousness are not physical and cannot be explained by science. 

Wrong.  Everything--EVERYTHING--originates from a physical cause.  There is no supernatural.  There is no spiritual.  Emotions have their origins from chemicals.  Everything does.  This is the simple point you have a problem with--you simply don't want to understand this simple fact.  You simply want to believe otherwise.  Feel free to do so, but your beliefs are a pure fiction.


Let me explain why your point doesn't make sense.

Here we got two things Mike.
 
On one side we got the matter on the other we got the consciousness.
There is no question that the consciousness is superior to the matter.
If you think the opposite then you can also say that a vehicle is superior to the driver.
As the driver or human created the car also the consciousness create the body.
This is science Mike not fantasies.
Now to say that everything originate from a physical cause is like to say that the vehicle originate the driver.
Can't you see how wrong you are?

Have you ever seen something infinitely inferior that give birth to something infinitely superior?
That would go against the very science that you believe in.
Science does not supports your believe Mike.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: aitm on December 30, 2018, 08:48:16 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I have yet to see a coherent statement, much less an argument, from him (her?). It's hard to have a discussion when communication isn't really happening.

Your problem is you're not using your consciousness to understand the matter...or rather your matter is not understanding the consciousness of the matter....I mean it matters if the consciousness is not relative to the matter of the consciousness but it really matters......or some shit like that.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on December 30, 2018, 09:29:07 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
What is it you see as "the main human problem"?


Humans can not be satisfied with anything that is finite.
Materialist dream that anything material or physical will satisfied them but the fact that after a short time they will go back again and again in search of the object of their dreams clearly means that full and permanent satisfaction can not be achieved within the finite reality.
From this we can only deduct-conclude that only an infinite reality will be able to quench this human thirst and the infinite reality does not belong to this material-physical dimension so what?

So obviously the search to solve this human problem must be redirected in a different direction which is not physical nor material.

Most materialists say that they are quite happy as they are and with what they have and that is ok. with me.
The only thing that doesn't make sense is that sooner or later they will be sick and tired of all that and the change is unavoidable unless they sink down towards the animal life but again at the end the problem will pop up once again until reason prevail and they finally do the correct thing.
That is unavoidable.
Nobody like to sink down and live in the animal dimension that is why sooner or later the search will not be anymore external but internal.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on December 30, 2018, 09:35:08 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Your problem is you're not using your consciousness to understand the matter...or rather your matter is not understanding the consciousness of the matter....I mean it matters if the consciousness is not relative to the matter of the consciousness but it really matters......or some shit like that.

Gee, that is very clever aitm.
I never thought about that.
I will have to rethink all over again.

Have a good happy new year anyway.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on December 30, 2018, 09:43:04 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Consciousness is not the basis of religious thought.  Lack of it is. 

Throughout history, the progression of human understanding has been from superstition to factual understanding of nature.  Religion is the opposite, kicking and screaming all the way.  I don't really care how ignorant you are of facts or dealing with facts, as we learn more about nature every day, religion or spirituality (same thing really) become less and less relevant. 

My personal opinion is that superstitious people of all sorts (call it what you wish) are basically all the same.


Is quite bizarre Cavebear to hear that religion and spirituality are the same thing considering that you were unable or unwillingly  to explain the difference.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mike Cl on December 30, 2018, 10:26:27 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Let me explain why your point doesn't make sense.

Here we got two things Mike.
 
On one side we got the matter on the other we got the consciousness.
There is no question that the consciousness is superior to the matter.
If you think the opposite then you can also say that a vehicle is superior to the driver.
As the driver or human created the car also the consciousness create the body.
This is science Mike not fantasies.
Now to say that everything originate from a physical cause is like to say that the vehicle originate the driver.
Can't you see how wrong you are?

Have you ever seen something infinitely inferior that give birth to something infinitely superior?
That would go against the very science that you believe in.
Science does not supports your believe Mike.
We do observe the universe from different directions.  What is this 'superior' that you clammer about???  What does that mean you.  Clearly, consciousness happens when the physical is arranged just so.  So, yes, consciousness is material based--as is all else.  There is no meaning in the universe.  It does not care about you in one way or another.  There is no purpose to the universe, it just is.  You create whatever meaning the universe has and only for you. 

Infinitely superior--what does than mean?  You love to cast about and label things as superior or inferior--to what?  To you, I guess.  And remember, I don't 'believe' in anything.  I think it to be true--or not.  That is evidence based, not wishful believing or faith.   
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on December 30, 2018, 11:21:43 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
We do observe the universe from different directions.  What is this 'superior' that you clammer about???  What does that mean you.  Clearly, consciousness happens when the physical is arranged just so.  So, yes, consciousness is material based--as is all else.  There is no meaning in the universe.  It does not care about you in one way or another.  There is no purpose to the universe, it just is.  You create whatever meaning the universe has and only for you. 

Infinitely superior--what does than mean?  You love to cast about and label things as superior or inferior--to what?  To you, I guess.  And remember, I don't 'believe' in anything.  I think it to be true--or not.  That is evidence based, not wishful believing or faith.

As an Atom, not a man, you are clearly superior ;-)  But only in the Marvel universe ;-)

Consciousness is entwined with matter.  You as a materialist, do consider something superior, namely, matter.  Bottom up analysis, which is fine, but not the same as top down analysis.  That is the difference between a theist and an atheist ... different methodological POV.  And both usually claim superiority, because .. monkeys.  Choosing one thing over another, on the one hand is preference, but on the other is prejudice.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mike Cl on December 30, 2018, 03:37:40 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Consciousness is entwined with matter.  You as a materialist, do consider something superior, namely, matter.

Trying to make a point to you is like pissing into the wind. 

As a materialist I consider something superior, namely matter?   No.  I consider matter to be all there is.  So where and what is this choice I'm supposed to be making? Consciousness is intertwined with matter?  No shit.  Consciousness is derived from matter.  nature is all there is--otherwise there would be the supernatural; and that is simply fiction created by those who don't like reality and want to create their own.  Supernatural=fiction.  One does not chose to acknowledge matter--matter simply is and cares not at all that you acknowledge it or not.  Believing in it or not matters not to matter.  You are free to believe and have faith in whatever you want; if you use evidence to figure it out, you are left with only matter, for that is all there is.   
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on December 30, 2018, 04:24:20 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Trying to make a point to you is like pissing into the wind. 

As a materialist I consider something superior, namely matter?   No.  I consider matter to be all there is.  So where and what is this choice I'm supposed to be making? Consciousness is intertwined with matter?  No shit.  Consciousness is derived from matter.  nature is all there is--otherwise there would be the supernatural; and that is simply fiction created by those who don't like reality and want to create their own.  Supernatural=fiction.  One does not chose to acknowledge matter--matter simply is and cares not at all that you acknowledge it or not.  Believing in it or not matters not to matter.  You are free to believe and have faith in whatever you want; if you use evidence to figure it out, you are left with only matter, for that is all there is.

Exactly.  Only White males exist ... we are that privileged!  See, how it sounds when you use different words?  There is only time, there is no space.  There is only America, there are no other countries ...

For Arik - in the US, there are conventional theists and conventional atheists.  Anyone who doesn't fit a strict materialist definition of atheism, but who is not a conventional theist, is spiritual.  Per the Pew Research paper last year, 56% of US is conventional theist, 10% are conventional atheist, and 33% are spiritual.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on December 31, 2018, 08:21:19 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Trying to make a point to you is like pissing into the wind. 

As a materialist I consider something superior, namely matter?   No.  I consider matter to be all there is.  So where and what is this choice I'm supposed to be making? Consciousness is intertwined with matter?  No shit.  Consciousness is derived from matter.  nature is all there is--otherwise there would be the supernatural; and that is simply fiction created by those who don't like reality and want to create their own.  Supernatural=fiction.  One does not chose to acknowledge matter--matter simply is and cares not at all that you acknowledge it or not.  Believing in it or not matters not to matter.  You are free to believe and have faith in whatever you want; if you use evidence to figure it out, you are left with only matter, for that is all there is.


I find rather difficult to see people that say that matter is all there is.

Even zombies use a tiny bit of consciousness to walk to perceive some reality and to cause trouble.
Are you telling me that is the matter that make you think, eat, writing posts and all the rest?

Are you serious Mike?



Title: Re: Hi
Post by: aitm on December 31, 2018, 08:27:00 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Even zombies use a tiny bit of consciousness to walk ....

I sure hope you are saying that tongue in cheek......although as much as the rest of your stuff is bat shit crazy one never knows.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on December 31, 2018, 08:37:08 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
We do observe the universe from different directions.  What is this 'superior' that you clammer about???  What does that mean you.  Clearly, consciousness happens when the physical is arranged just so.  So, yes, consciousness is material based--as is all else.  There is no meaning in the universe.  It does not care about you in one way or another.  There is no purpose to the universe, it just is.  You create whatever meaning the universe has and only for you. 

Infinitely superior--what does than mean?  You love to cast about and label things as superior or inferior--to what?  To you, I guess.  And remember, I don't 'believe' in anything.  I think it to be true--or not.  That is evidence based, not wishful believing or faith.


Turning guesses into strong beliefs may be quite dangerous if these guesses will be proven wrong.

That is bizarre Mike.
Most Atheists say that science (physical science) is the way to go but since when science say that consciousness is material based?
Why are you turning your guess into a strong belief which has zero to do with science?

Doesn't the reality tell you that a vehicle which is pure matter can not possibly create the driver and the other way around is the truth?
Where did you get the knowledge that a body-brain create the consciousness?
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on December 31, 2018, 08:51:32 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I sure hope you are saying that tongue in cheek......although as much as the rest of your stuff is bat shit crazy one never knows.

This is exactly what the masses were saying to those few that explain them that the planet earth is not flat and is not the center of the universe.

By saying this I feel like my time in here may be almost over although I still hope I will not be kicked out once more from a forum.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on December 31, 2018, 09:33:50 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
This is exactly what the masses were saying to those few that explain them that the planet earth is not flat and is not the center of the universe.

By saying this I feel like my time in here may be almost over although I still hope I will not be kicked out once more from a forum.

Kicked out?  What do you think this is?  Twitter?  Facebook? ;-)

I have enjoyed reading your posts.

Materialism is an epistemological fundamentalism just as dogmatic as any Christian fundamentalism, and most here are true believers.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on December 31, 2018, 09:59:40 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Kicked out?  What do you think this is?  Twitter?  Facebook? ;-)

I have enjoyed reading your posts.

Materialism is an epistemological fundamentalism just as dogmatic as any Christian fundamentalism, and most here are true believers.

I do appreciate brother.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Blackleaf on December 31, 2018, 10:41:59 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I find rather difficult to see people that say that matter is all there is.

Even zombies use a tiny bit of consciousness to walk to perceive some reality and to cause trouble.
Are you telling me that is the matter that make you think, eat, writing posts and all the rest?

Are you serious Mike?

Zombies...? As in, the undead fictional monsters with little to no consciousness and a taste for flesh? Are you seriously using fiction to justify your fiction? OMFG.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on December 31, 2018, 10:48:02 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Zombies...? As in, the undead fictional monsters with little to no consciousness and a taste for flesh? Are you seriously using fiction to justify your fiction? OMFG.

He may mean the academic zombie model regarding consciousness.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie

A logically consistent materialist has to embrace this model.  We are just improved versions of fiberglass manikins.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mike Cl on December 31, 2018, 12:55:50 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I find rather difficult to see people that say that matter is all there is.

Even zombies use a tiny bit of consciousness to walk to perceive some reality and to cause trouble.
Are you telling me that is the matter that make you think, eat, writing posts and all the rest?

Are you serious Mike?
Totally serious.  Zombies?  You keep pushing fictions as being real.  Do you believe in the boogy man too???

We are a skin sack filled with chemicals and electrical charges animate us.  If you want to screw with a persons personality, screw with his chemical makeup.   Everything you ingest turns into chemicals or is rejected from out bodies.  All drugs are chemicals. 

Once again, I ask you to provide me with any (ANY) evidence that there is other than the material world.  I know you can't--but give it a good shot, eh????
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Hydra009 on December 31, 2018, 01:05:09 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
science (physical science)
As opposed to...?
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mike Cl on December 31, 2018, 02:25:37 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
This is exactly what the masses were saying to those few that explain them that the planet earth is not flat and is not the center of the universe.

By saying this I feel like my time in here may be almost over although I still hope I will not be kicked out once more from a forum.
????  You do seem to make about as much sense as Baruch usually does.  And you still have not offered us any evidence for your views; only personal observations.  And why would you get kicked out?  You are a pretty mild theist compared to many who pass through here.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: aitm on December 31, 2018, 03:19:17 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
By saying this I feel like my time in here may be almost over

Hoping thats a promise not a challenge.

There is always: consciousness&Imatter.com



hehehehe
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on December 31, 2018, 09:51:43 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
As opposed to...?

Vulcan logic.  Which would immediately conclude that humans are illogical.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on January 01, 2019, 08:07:00 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
As opposed to...?

Physical science is about the physical reality.
A reality that is also perceived by our senses.
The other science is about what is also real but what can not be perceived by our senses because it is abstract.

And here I am talking about the science that is related to our consciousness.
In Yoga this science is better known as INTUITIONAL SCIENCE.

Why intuitional?
Because to perceive it it is needed a different system from what is used to understand physical science and this system is called yoga.

Most people wrongly think that the consciousness is fixed.
What you got you got and that's it but that is not the case because consciousness can change for the better or the worse.
Everything in this universe move and change so if you have a system to make sure that the consciousness increase you win that is why this intuitional science is so important.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on January 01, 2019, 08:41:58 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Totally serious.  Zombies?  You keep pushing fictions as being real.  Do you believe in the boogy man too???

We are a skin sack filled with chemicals and electrical charges animate us.  If you want to screw with a persons personality, screw with his chemical makeup.   Everything you ingest turns into chemicals or is rejected from out bodies.  All drugs are chemicals. 

Once again, I ask you to provide me with any (ANY) evidence that there is other than the material world.  I know you can't--but give it a good shot, eh????


I already explained you in details but unfortunately you didn't get it.
Remember when I said that you can not prove that your love for a person can not be explained to anybody else and the only evidence that you experienced this love is the release of some extra hormones that are produced by our glands?

If you find so hard to prove a simple physical-mental love how on hearth can you prove something a lot more subtle such as spiritual love?

The only way to find evidence is to experience this love ourselves.
Nothing else will work because love is personal.

In the old times the Saints were depicted-portrayed with an aureola on the head and their image look like the one of a person full of bliss within.

Nothing is really changed in the meantime.
If you go around a pub you can see many people which engage in drinking-smoking or using drugs with a face showing failure in life and sinking in consciousness but in other places you can also see people with bliss and peace of mind impress in their look.

Don't take me wrong.
Even among Atheists you find a lot of really good people that sooner or later will overtake that fantasy that the universe pop up as per magic and nobody run it.
All is not lost after all but the evidence can only come by our hard work.






Title: Re: Hi
Post by: SGOS on January 01, 2019, 09:01:20 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Even zombies use a tiny bit of consciousness to walk to perceive some reality and to cause trouble.
And this from a guy who asks someone else if they are being serious.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: aitm on January 01, 2019, 10:55:50 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
All is not lost after all but the evidence can only come by our hard work.

Calling supposition and opinion evidence does not suggest any "hard work" was involved.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mike Cl on January 01, 2019, 11:56:21 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I already explained you in details but unfortunately you didn't get it.
Remember when I said that you can not prove that your love for a person can not be explained to anybody else and the only evidence that you experienced this love is the release of some extra hormones that are produced by our glands?

Oh, I get it.  I have from the beginning of your posts here.  You just don't want to see that emotions are based in the material world (since that is all there is).

Let science inform you:

Let’s Get Chemical
Lust is driven by the desire for sexual gratification. The evolutionary basis for this stems from our need to reproduce, a need shared among all living things. Through reproduction, organisms pass on their genes, and thus contribute to the perpetuation of their species.

The hypothalamus of the brain plays a big role in this, stimulating the production of the sex hormones testosterone and estrogen from the testes and ovaries (Figure 1). While these chemicals are often stereotyped as being “male” and “female,” respectively, both play a role in men and women. As it turns out, testosterone increases libido in just about everyone. The effects are less pronounced with estrogen, but some women report being more sexually motivated around the time they ovulate, when estrogen levels are highest.

Figure 1
Figure 1: A: The testes and ovaries secrete the sex hormones testosterone and estrogen, driving sexual desire. B and C: Dopamine, oxytocin, and vasopressin are all made in the hypothalamus, a region of the brain that controls many vital functions as well as emotion. D: Several of the regions of the brain that affect love. Lust and attraction shut off the prefrontal cortex of the brain, which includes rational behavior.
Love is its Own Reward
Meanwhile, attraction seems to be a distinct, though closely related, phenomenon. While we can certainly lust for someone we are attracted to, and vice versa, one can happen without the other. Attraction involves the brain pathways that control “reward” behavior (Figure 1), which partly explains why the first few weeks or months of a relationship can be so exhilarating and even all-consuming.

Dopamine, produced by the hypothalamus, is a particularly well-publicized player in the brain’s reward pathway – it’s released when we do things that feel good to us. In this case, these things include spending time with loved ones and having sex. High levels of dopamine and a related hormone, norepinephrine, are released during attraction. These chemicals make us giddy, energetic, and euphoric, even leading to decreased appetite and insomnia – which means you actually can be so “in love” that you can’t eat and can’t sleep. In fact, norepinephrine, also known as noradrenalin, may sound familiar because it plays a large role in the fight or flight response, which kicks into high gear when we’re stressed and keeps us alert. Brain scans of people in love have actually shown that the primary “reward” centers of the brain, including the and the caudate nucleus (Figure 1), fire like crazy when people are shown a photo of someone they are intensely attracted to, compared to when they are shown someone they feel neutral towards (like an old high school acquaintance).

Finally, attraction seems to lead to a reduction in serotonin, a hormone that’s known to be involved in appetite and mood. Interestingly, people who suffer from obsessive-compulsive disorder also have low levels of serotonin, leading scientists to speculate that this is what underlies the overpowering infatuation that characterizes the beginning stages of love.

The Friend Zone
Last but not least, attachment is the predominant factor in long-term relationships. While lust and attraction are pretty much exclusive to romantic entanglements, attachment mediates friendships, parent-infant bonding, social cordiality, and many other intimacies as well. The two primary hormones here appear to be oxytocin and vasopressin (Figure 1).

Oxytocin is often nicknamed “cuddle hormone” for this reason. Like dopamine, oxytocin is produced by the hypothalamus and released in large quantities during sex, breastfeeding, and childbirth. This may seem like a very strange assortment of activities – not all of which are necessarily enjoyable – but the common factor here is that all of these events are precursors to bonding. It also makes it pretty clear why having separate areas for attachment, lust, and attraction is important: we are attached to our immediate family, but those other emotions have no business there (and let’s just say people who have muddled this up don’t have the best track record).

We are on the road to further understand of our emotions using the scientific method to keep on gaining information.  We do not know all there is to know about emotions, but we know far far more than we did 100 years ago.  And far less than we will know in another 100 years.  We don't need belief or faith or wishful thinking, or calling upon fiction of any kind, to gain that info.  Just the scientific method.  You would do well if you studied that instead of ancient fictions you love to rely on.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mike Cl on January 01, 2019, 12:11:42 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


If you find so hard to prove a simple physical-mental love how on hearth can you prove something a lot more subtle such as spiritual love?

The only way to find evidence is to experience this love ourselves.
Nothing else will work because love is personal.


I think you are really a 15th cent. monk that has somehow escaped to the current times.  You use the same language of a monk of that time period.  And you seem to refuse to even consider anything science has to say about emotions and how our brain works.  You put more weight on old painting of religious people with halos over their heads and treat that as a proof of what you want to believe.  Of course the saints are depicted as being special and have a special connection of their god.  That is part of the snake-oil salesmanship that religion is; keep giving the masses what they want and charge them dearly for it.  Holy pictures, words, works, rules, scripture, and heroes are all part of the scam that keeps the common people in their place with promises of happiness later on, so don't worry about it now and just suffer along with god's words and demands and you will be just wonderful; and all the while the religious hierarchy gets rich and powerful.

As for love and how we experience it can be explained in detail (no, not perfectly yet) by science.  And more and more is learned each and every year.  But one has to be willing to put in the time and study of such subjects to hope to understand any of it.  It takes work and not faith or belief.  If you would spend half the time researching biological science as I have in researching religions, you may very well change your opinion on such subjects.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mike Cl on January 01, 2019, 12:24:03 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


If you go around a pub you can see many people which engage in drinking-smoking or using drugs with a face showing failure in life and sinking in consciousness but in other places you can also see people with bliss and peace of mind impress in their look.

Don't take me wrong.
Even among Atheists you find a lot of really good people that sooner or later will overtake that fantasy that the universe pop up as per magic and nobody run it.
All is not lost after all but the evidence can only come by our hard work.

Judgmental much???  You have the ability to simply look at people and tell if they are a failure in life or full of peace and bliss???  Wow!  And blissful people never enter pubs or bars?  Really?  And what is 'bliss' for you?  And how do you know you are experiencing it?  Joseph Campbell likes 'bliss'--he says that the purpose of life is life.  And we as individuals, need to find our bliss and when we do we will then be happy/content with life; and that bliss (whatever it is) will give our life meaning.   

Oh, I have never taken you wrong.  You look down upon 'atheists' as simply wrong-headed and simply 'believe' in the wrong stuff.  We are mislead.  You are here to straighten our thinking out--to help us replace thinking with faith and belief for that is the way to god.  You want us to confess to believing in magic--for how could this super complicated universe be created other than by a super complicated god????--as you do (but in just the wrong magic).  Yes, all evidence (once again, you have not provided any evidence, only personal feelings and beliefs and anecdotes) comes only by our hard work.  It would be helpful if you would do some of that hard work and not just rely on fictions.  But then, you are a theist...............................
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on January 01, 2019, 01:02:26 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Calling supposition and opinion evidence does not suggest any "hard work" was involved.

Which is why the arts are bullshit?

Science?  How about Ohm's Law aka V=I*R.  This is actually semi-empirical.  That equation doesn't give a modern explanation, but it is used by engineers every day, because it is good enough.  The actual expiation is quantum mechanical (solid state physics).  But looking at this from a greater perspective, we have to conclude that QM is also a partial explanation (though not according to Neils Bohr).  We need String Theory or whatever ... when it comes.  And on it goes, superficial explanation one after another in layers.  Ultimately, there is no full explanation, just what is enough to convince a tribe of monkeys on a minor planet in a minor solar system in a minor galaxy.  Which is to say ... animal psychology.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: aitm on January 01, 2019, 03:21:05 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

 How about Ohm's Law

What about it? Was the gentlemen a street idiot walking around spouting various formula's until someone caught what he said and developed it? or was he...you know..maybe perhaps learned in the field whereas it would take a good deal of knowledge to start "guessing"?
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on January 01, 2019, 03:48:26 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
What about it? Was the gentlemen a street idiot walking around spouting various formula's until someone caught what he said and developed it? or was he...you know..maybe perhaps learned in the field whereas it would take a good deal of knowledge to start "guessing"?

Curve fitting.  Did you ever do that is science class in public school?  But you can fit any number of curves thru the same data.  And each curve, represents a different explanation of what is going on.  Of course, for engineers we need the simplest model, that is sufficient for government work ;-)  Meanwhile, in actual situations, not toy situations, you can't actually solve closed or numerically, the QM equations.  The problem with String Theory is that it is "fit any number of curves" in spades ... literally an infinite number of related equations will fit the data, because there are too many free parameters to nail down.  Compare to Ohm's Law.

And yes, per statisticians, including Big Data analysis, and partially in QM, yes we do pick randomly, just not completely randomly (Monte Carlo Analysis).

And of course, just like a 20 year old, you worship academics with fancy degrees.  Electrical engineering is pretty pat.  Medical science less so (non reproducibility).
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Blackleaf on January 01, 2019, 04:35:08 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Physical science is about the physical reality.
A reality that is also perceived by our senses.
The other science is about what is also real but what can not be perceived by our senses because it is abstract.

And here I am talking about the science that is related to our consciousness.
In Yoga this science is better known as INTUITIONAL SCIENCE.

Why intuitional?
Because to perceive it it is needed a different system from what is used to understand physical science and this system is called yoga.

Most people wrongly think that the consciousness is fixed.
What you got you got and that's it but that is not the case because consciousness can change for the better or the worse.
Everything in this universe move and change so if you have a system to make sure that the consciousness increase you win that is why this intuitional science is so important.

Yoga is not a science. Jesus fucking Christ. The study of the mind is the realm of psychology, which is my field. If you can't directly observe something or measure it, and if your claims are nonfalsifiable, it's not science. Even in the field of psychology, of course we can't directly observe the mind, so we infer about it based on behaviors. That's why it's often called a "soft science." Yoga, though? Fucking hell. You clearly don't understand a bloody thing about science if you really think "intuitional science" is a thing. That's an oxymoron. If it's intuition that drives the study, it can't be science. Personal experience is not scientific; it is anecdotal.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on January 01, 2019, 04:55:20 PM
Which is why a Nullification Field needs to be activated, to suppress all personal experience.  That way as a real NPC, we can be easier to collectivize.  Like those lame Trade Federation robots taken down by Jar Jar Binks ;-)

If there is no subjective (personal) experience of objective (collective) experience (say repeat observation or experiment) then how can we define "objective"?  Doesn't the fact that one or more humans are involved, spoil the whole thing?  Unless you are talking about Plato's Forms.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: aitm on January 01, 2019, 08:03:08 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

 yes we do pick randomly, just not completely randomly (Monte Carlo Analysis).


again....yet I don't know why, we are talking about people that have a more than familiar relationship with the field of study. As opposed to suggesting that ESP works mighty fine from the burger flipper at the local Micky D.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Hydra009 on January 01, 2019, 08:30:42 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Physical science is about the physical reality.
aka reality

Quote
The other science is about what is also real but what can not be perceived by our senses because it is abstract.
The imperceptible and the nonexistent look very much alike.

Also, it's a bit strange that you claim to know of the existence of something that you also claim is imperceptible.  Pretty obvious problem right out of the gate.

Quote
In Yoga this science is better known as INTUITIONAL SCIENCE.
Does nonsense sound more credible when you put it in ALL CAPS?
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Cavebear on January 02, 2019, 05:12:55 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The arrogance of humanity at its highest...is the belief that we are far more than the squirrel or acorn. We are not. The universe has shown we have no more nor less than anything else. But because we have achieved where the rock has not...we compare ourselves to gods....but still bury as us the rocks that we are.

I'm pretty sure I'm more than the average acorn...  But with all due respect, perhaps you are only speaking for yourself.  ;)
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: aitm on January 02, 2019, 08:25:32 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm pretty sure I'm more than the average acorn...  But with all due respect, perhaps you are only speaking for yourself.  ;)

Well I am sure our new guest thinks the consciousness of the acorn, not being of matter but of....whatever the hell he thinks it is, finds itself to be of more importance to the universe than we are. But we would all agree that the universe not only does not know us but could not care less. It's indifference is well known.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on January 02, 2019, 08:38:41 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Calling supposition and opinion evidence does not suggest any "hard work" was involved.


Oh, well.........put it in this way aitm.
Suppose you are a 7 or 8 years old child and you see a couple of adult kissing.
To you it all would seems very strange.
You would think.......why they do that?
That look stupid.
After you grow up a little bit more you surely understand why and at that stage you will want to experience the same thing yourself.

But love is not all physical or mental.
There are different stages of love so physical love sooner or later as the consciousness reach new level will play a less important role in the mind of anybody and to explore new high will be a must.

Now most people who are still stuck in the physical-material reality think exactly like a small child that can not understand what spiritual love is all about but the time and the higher level of consciousness will turn this child into an adult that will want to experience that kind of love too.

There is no alternative aitm.
At the end everybody will get to that stage because the alternative is an animal life.
The scope of life for an evolved human being is not to do what animals do.
That stage will have to be overcome and left behind because new high are waiting for us.

The simple fact that you are here in this forum is because your consciousness tell you to go ahead in your progress and learn more and more in a never ending drive to a goal that you yet can not perceive but nevertheless is there otherwise your consciousness wouldn't push you to go ahead.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on January 02, 2019, 08:53:52 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
aka reality
The imperceptible and the nonexistent look very much alike.

Also, it's a bit strange that you claim to know of the existence of something that you also claim is imperceptible.  Pretty obvious problem right out of the gate.
Does nonsense sound more credible when you put it in ALL CAPS?


You got it wrong Hydra.

The fact that consciousness can not be perceived by our physical senses doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

The mind is there otherwise you could not do anything or exist at all.

The only thing is that the conscious-mind being abstract in nature can not be seen, touch, smell or heard but surely is there.
I know it exist because I exist.
One of the Atheists problem is that according to them things must be perceived by our senses to exist.
This concept doesn't make any sense as it didn't make any sense in the past that according to most the planet earth was the center of the universe.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on January 02, 2019, 09:17:12 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yoga is not a science. Jesus fucking Christ. The study of the mind is the realm of psychology, which is my field. If you can't directly observe something or measure it, and if your claims are nonfalsifiable, it's not science. Even in the field of psychology, of course we can't directly observe the mind, so we infer about it based on behaviors. That's why it's often called a "soft science." Yoga, though? Fucking hell. You clearly don't understand a bloody thing about science if you really think "intuitional science" is a thing. That's an oxymoron. If it's intuition that drives the study, it can't be science. Personal experience is not scientific; it is anecdotal.


Ok. then let me discuss your point when you say.......................Even in the field of psychology, of course we can't directly observe the mind, so we infer about it based on behaviors...........................

The yoga that you knock down goes further than that.
Beside to see the outer physical expression is also able to strengthen the mind which is something that physical science can not do.

Oh, by the way did you know that at the CERN in Geneva there is a statue of Shiva the very first scientist according to many.


(https://welovecarbondioxide.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/screen-shot-2015-07-22-at-11-55-26-am.png)
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on January 02, 2019, 09:30:41 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Oh, I get it.  I have from the beginning of your posts here.  You just don't want to see that emotions are based in the material world (since that is all there is).

Let science inform you:

Let’s Get Chemical
Lust is driven by the desire for sexual gratification. The evolutionary basis for this stems from our need to reproduce, a need shared among all living things. Through reproduction, organisms pass on their genes, and thus contribute to the perpetuation of their species.

The hypothalamus of the brain plays a big role in this, stimulating the production of the sex hormones testosterone and estrogen from the testes and ovaries (Figure 1). While these chemicals are often stereotyped as being “male” and “female,” respectively, both play a role in men and women. As it turns out, testosterone increases libido in just about everyone. The effects are less pronounced with estrogen, but some women report being more sexually motivated around the time they ovulate, when estrogen levels are highest.

Figure 1
Figure 1: A: The testes and ovaries secrete the sex hormones testosterone and estrogen, driving sexual desire. B and C: Dopamine, oxytocin, and vasopressin are all made in the hypothalamus, a region of the brain that controls many vital functions as well as emotion. D: Several of the regions of the brain that affect love. Lust and attraction shut off the prefrontal cortex of the brain, which includes rational behavior.
Love is its Own Reward
Meanwhile, attraction seems to be a distinct, though closely related, phenomenon. While we can certainly lust for someone we are attracted to, and vice versa, one can happen without the other. Attraction involves the brain pathways that control “reward” behavior (Figure 1), which partly explains why the first few weeks or months of a relationship can be so exhilarating and even all-consuming.

Dopamine, produced by the hypothalamus, is a particularly well-publicized player in the brain’s reward pathway – it’s released when we do things that feel good to us. In this case, these things include spending time with loved ones and having sex. High levels of dopamine and a related hormone, norepinephrine, are released during attraction. These chemicals make us giddy, energetic, and euphoric, even leading to decreased appetite and insomnia – which means you actually can be so “in love” that you can’t eat and can’t sleep. In fact, norepinephrine, also known as noradrenalin, may sound familiar because it plays a large role in the fight or flight response, which kicks into high gear when we’re stressed and keeps us alert. Brain scans of people in love have actually shown that the primary “reward” centers of the brain, including the and the caudate nucleus (Figure 1), fire like crazy when people are shown a photo of someone they are intensely attracted to, compared to when they are shown someone they feel neutral towards (like an old high school acquaintance).

Finally, attraction seems to lead to a reduction in serotonin, a hormone that’s known to be involved in appetite and mood. Interestingly, people who suffer from obsessive-compulsive disorder also have low levels of serotonin, leading scientists to speculate that this is what underlies the overpowering infatuation that characterizes the beginning stages of love.

The Friend Zone
Last but not least, attachment is the predominant factor in long-term relationships. While lust and attraction are pretty much exclusive to romantic entanglements, attachment mediates friendships, parent-infant bonding, social cordiality, and many other intimacies as well. The two primary hormones here appear to be oxytocin and vasopressin (Figure 1).

Oxytocin is often nicknamed “cuddle hormone” for this reason. Like dopamine, oxytocin is produced by the hypothalamus and released in large quantities during sex, breastfeeding, and childbirth. This may seem like a very strange assortment of activities – not all of which are necessarily enjoyable – but the common factor here is that all of these events are precursors to bonding. It also makes it pretty clear why having separate areas for attachment, lust, and attraction is important: we are attached to our immediate family, but those other emotions have no business there (and let’s just say people who have muddled this up don’t have the best track record).

We are on the road to further understand of our emotions using the scientific method to keep on gaining information.  We do not know all there is to know about emotions, but we know far far more than we did 100 years ago.  And far less than we will know in another 100 years.  We don't need belief or faith or wishful thinking, or calling upon fiction of any kind, to gain that info.  Just the scientific method.  You would do well if you studied that instead of ancient fictions you love to rely on.


There is something that you find quite hard to understand Mike.

Science is not what drive you or motivate you to understand more and more because science being something without life can not do.

What motivate you to go ahead is your consciousness which is something alive.
Consciousness push you while science does not.
I am sure that one important day in your life you will understand this important concept.










Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mike Cl on January 02, 2019, 09:31:17 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login




One of the Atheists problem is that according to them things must be perceived by our senses to exist.
Many things incorrect in this statement.  First, atheists are not a formal (or informal) group.  Atheists agree on only one thing--that god/gods do not exist or there is no evidence that shows they exist.  There are no Atheists (with a capitol letter).  In a sense you are right that generally atheists don't think something exists until we can tell with our senses.  I cannot sense a dog whistle--does that mean it is not making a sound?  No, for I extend my senses with instruments that can hear for me.  So, dog whistles exist and I know that because of instruments that help us hear. 

Do atheists think things exist beyond what we, as humans, can sense with our unaided senses?  Of course.  Surely you don't suggest that scientific equipment used to enhance our senses are not real or accurate--are you?  Will most atheists accept that god exists but we can't tell that with our senses--even enhanced--??--I don't think so. 
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on January 02, 2019, 09:35:15 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I think you are really a 15th cent. monk that has somehow escaped to the current times.  You use the same language of a monk of that time period.  And you seem to refuse to even consider anything science has to say about emotions and how our brain works.  You put more weight on old painting of religious people with halos over their heads and treat that as a proof of what you want to believe.  Of course the saints are depicted as being special and have a special connection of their god.  That is part of the snake-oil salesmanship that religion is; keep giving the masses what they want and charge them dearly for it.  Holy pictures, words, works, rules, scripture, and heroes are all part of the scam that keeps the common people in their place with promises of happiness later on, so don't worry about it now and just suffer along with god's words and demands and you will be just wonderful; and all the while the religious hierarchy gets rich and powerful.

As for love and how we experience it can be explained in detail (no, not perfectly yet) by science.  And more and more is learned each and every year.  But one has to be willing to put in the time and study of such subjects to hope to understand any of it.  It takes work and not faith or belief.  If you would spend half the time researching biological science as I have in researching religions, you may very well change your opinion on such subjects.


Oh, well.....if you believe that physical science can understand what is not physical then you go back to the mistake to call a plumber when in reality you need a carpenter.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mike Cl on January 02, 2019, 09:35:58 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

There is something that you find quite hard to understand Mike.

Science is not what drive you or motivate you to understand more and more because science being something without life can not do.

What motivate you to go ahead is your consciousness which is something alive.
Consciousness push you while science does not.
I am sure that one important day in your life you will understand this important concept.

????:::))))  I have no idea what it is you are trying to say.  Taking an English class or two would really help you learn how to communicate in writing.

You have no clue what motivates me to do what I do.  I'm not sure you understand that for yourself.  Science (the scientific method--Science does not mean magic) drives me to learn more for science gives me reliable answers--your religion or spirituality gives me nothing; it is claptrap bullshit. 
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mike Cl on January 02, 2019, 09:42:12 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Oh, well.....if you believe that physical science can understand what is not physical then you go back to the mistake to call a plumber when in reality you need a carpenter.
You do have goggles on, eh?  Never listen to what another says, do you?  All science is physical science, since all that exists is physical.  Can one have a science of the supernatural?  I think you believe that that is so.  How do you test the supernatural, since there is no supernatural?  I actually did call a plumber to remodel my bathroom, for he was capable of doing the plumbing and the carpentry needed to get the job done.  You have STILL not given even a shred of evidence your fictional fanciful view of the universe is real.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Blackleaf on January 02, 2019, 12:01:08 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Ok. then let me discuss your point when you say.......................Even in the field of psychology, of course we can't directly observe the mind, so we infer about it based on behaviors...........................

The yoga that you knock down goes further than that.
Beside to see the outer physical expression is also able to strengthen the mind which is something that physical science can not do.

Oh, by the way did you know that at the CERN in Geneva there is a statue of Shiva the very first scientist according to many.


(https://welovecarbondioxide.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/screen-shot-2015-07-22-at-11-55-26-am.png)

Claiming to go further and actually going further are two very different things. Find me one article published by a yoga expert in a peer reviewed scientific journal. You can't, because it isn't science. It makes claims that it can't back up, which is the exact opposite of science. And I don't give a damn about Shiva. Not only does she not exist, but science had a much different definition back then. The high standards scientists hold themselves to now were only recently aquired.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on January 02, 2019, 12:40:24 PM
Find me one peer reviewed journal that can prove the last Star Wars movie to be Woke or not.

Oh, and if experts are to be listened to and obeyed ... they why not the Pope?  Why not choose to be Catholic?

Ah ... only Marxists are experts perhaps?
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on January 02, 2019, 12:42:21 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Oh, well.....if you believe that physical science can understand what is not physical then you go back to the mistake to call a plumber when in reality you need a carpenter.

There is only hardware.  Software doesn't exist.  To say so is to be a conspiracy theorist ;-)
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: aitm on January 02, 2019, 02:53:16 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

 spiritual love ...is gibberish intended to make humans think they are some special ordained creature for the universe. Nonsense.

There is no alternative aitm.
At the end everybody will get to that stage because the alternative is an animal life.  so...then there IS an alternative....also gibberish.
The scope of life for an evolved human being is not to do what animals do.  THe "scope" of regular humans is not to do what animals do, however all humans behave more animal than "human"
That stage will have to be overcome and left behind because new high are waiting for us.  gibberish, also...nonsense, wishful thinking, wave a candle around and sing kumbayah and spread some magic crystals around the room and feel the LOOOOVE.  Complete nonsense.

The simple fact that you are here in this forum is because your consciousness tell you to go ahead in your progress and learn more and more in a never ending drive to a goal that you yet can not perceive but nevertheless is there otherwise your consciousness wouldn't push you to go ahead.

Hoo-boy..you are one whack-a-doodle.

Title: Re: Hi
Post by: aitm on January 02, 2019, 03:01:33 PM
I picture young Arik here sitting in a sunny room full of colored glass on string swinging in the breeze created by a colorful ceiling fan painted with flowers on the blades. And of course you have to have some "dream catchers" hanging in front of all the windows and on the floor little piles of magic crystals and of course some guy playing really lousy wooden flute music on a 1987 cassette player, with the ever gentle waft of strawberry incense burning in a little clay pot with a peace symbol on it. He has given up on regular clothes and just wears a open frock.....and his mailbox has an arrow and flowers pointed to the house that say. "Find your consciousness inside"
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: aitm on January 02, 2019, 03:06:01 PM
Oh wait...do you have or want any kids named "moonbeam"?
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Hydra009 on January 02, 2019, 11:33:36 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The fact that consciousness can not be perceived by our physical senses doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
Consciousness is in fact perceived, at least on a subjective level.  So you're lying about it being imperceptible in addition to lying in claiming that I say it doesn't exist.  Twofer.

Quote
The mind is there otherwise you could not do anything or exist at all.
Certain people are showing me otherwise, heh.

Quote
One of the Atheists problem is that according to them things must be perceived by our senses to exist.
This concept doesn't make any sense as it didn't make any sense in the past that according to most the planet earth was the center of the universe.
Argument by non-sequitur.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Hydra009 on January 02, 2019, 11:37:52 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Oh, by the way did you know that at the CERN in Geneva there is a statue of Shiva the very first scientist according to many.
So what?  Also, who cares?
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on January 03, 2019, 08:05:10 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
????:::))))  I have no idea what it is you are trying to say.  Taking an English class or two would really help you learn how to communicate in writing.

You have no clue what motivates me to do what I do.  I'm not sure you understand that for yourself.  Science (the scientific method--Science does not mean magic) drives me to learn more for science gives me reliable answers--your religion or spirituality gives me nothing; it is claptrap bullshit.

1) You got a book that explains science right in front of you but you will not touch it until your consciousness tell you to open in order to learn what is written so the motivation start from within.
This is a very simple thing that I try to explain you.
What motivate you motivate everybody else because at the end all the roads lead to the same place.
Different consciousness are the same reflection of the same cosmic consciousness.
The moon in the night reflect her imagine in a lake.
You can see a myriad of moons according to the position in which you are around the lake but the moon is only one.
Once this concept of separation vanish then people understand who this cosmic consciousness is.

2) Surely science can give reliable answer but again everything move and change in this finite universe so what is reliable today may not make any sense tomorrow that is why I do not bet all my money (so to speak) on something that comes and goes as too many people do.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on January 03, 2019, 08:20:43 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So what?  Also, who cares?

It is obvious that you do not care.
The point that I try to make is that many important scientists working in such important center like the CERN understand what Shiva did to help human progress that is why they agree to have Shiva statue outside their center.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on January 03, 2019, 08:33:34 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Consciousness is in fact perceived, at least on a subjective level.  So you're lying about it being imperceptible in addition to lying in claiming that I say it doesn't exist.

That is not honest Hydra.
I point out and said that consciousness can not be perceived by our senses.
Surely I did.
That however does not means that there are no other ways to perceive consciousness in a non physical way.
Here we go back to what I explained in previous posts in which I said that consciousness is an abstract entity that can not be created by something physical such as the brain.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on January 03, 2019, 08:47:58 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Claiming to go further and actually going further are two very different things. Find me one article published by a yoga expert in a peer reviewed scientific journal. You can't, because it isn't science. It makes claims that it can't back up, which is the exact opposite of science. And I don't give a damn about Shiva. Not only does she not exist, but science had a much different definition back then. The high standards scientists hold themselves to now were only recently aquired.


Sorry BL but your confusion is really bad.

Here we got a science (physical science) that work within a finite arena or dimension which is constantly changing and on the other side we got a science that being within the dimension of the non finite it never change so what was good in the past is also good today unlike physical science.

By saying that this science does not exist you act like a small child that can not understand why two adult are kissing each other.
How would you know that it does not exist what smart people have practiced for the last seven thousand years long before physical science existed?
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Hydra009 on January 03, 2019, 08:50:11 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The point that I try to make is that many important scientists working in such important center like the CERN understand what Shiva did to help human progress that is why they agree to have Shiva statue outside their center.
The fact that some scientists may be religious is not in itself an argument.

Also, you desperately need cluing in about the statue: it's not CERN scientists endorsing Hinduism or anything like that.  It's just a gift from India  (https://cds.cern.ch/record/745737) which, to Hindus, draws a parallel between "the cosmic dance" of subatomic particles and Hindu religion.  But obviously, that meaning is in the eye of the beholder.  It has no more significance than one makes it out to have.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Hydra009 on January 03, 2019, 08:51:50 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That is not honest Hydra.
That's true.  You still are not being honest with us, even after correction.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on January 03, 2019, 08:57:55 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You do have goggles on, eh?  Never listen to what another says, do you?  All science is physical science, since all that exists is physical.  Can one have a science of the supernatural?  I think you believe that that is so.  How do you test the supernatural, since there is no supernatural?  I actually did call a plumber to remodel my bathroom, for he was capable of doing the plumbing and the carpentry needed to get the job done.  You have STILL not given even a shred of evidence your fictional fanciful view of the universe is real.

So you say that..............all that exists is physical............

If that is the case then you can touch, taste, hear or see the consciousness isn't it Mike?

Gee, you must be a super super semi-God to be able to do what nobody else is able to do.
Congratulation Mike.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Blackleaf on January 03, 2019, 09:08:08 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Sorry BL but your confusion is really bad.

Here we got a science (physical science) that work within a finite arena or dimension which is constantly changing and on the other side we got a science that being within the dimension of the non finite it never change so what was good in the past is also good today unlike physical science.

By saying that this science does not exist you act like a small child that can not understand why two adult are kissing each other.
How would you know that it does not exist what smart people have practiced for the last seven thousand years long before physical science existed?

That you think that science changing is a bad thing just goes to show how little you understand it. The willingness of science to expand its understanding, to correct itself when necessary, is a strength. The stubbornness of theists to claim they know the truth based on their own subjective opinions and perceptions, and refusing to change their minds, is a weakness.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on January 03, 2019, 09:13:51 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The fact that some scientists may be religious is not in itself an argument.

Also, you desperately need cluing in about the statue: it's not CERN scientists endorsing Hinduism or anything like that.  It's just a gift from India  (https://cds.cern.ch/record/745737) which, to Hindus, draws a parallel between "the cosmic dance" of subatomic particles and Hindu religion.  But obviously, that meaning is in the eye of the beholder.  It has no more significance than one makes it out to have.


Hindu religion?

No, Hydra.
Nothing to do with religion.
In fact Shiva was against what religions today are preaching but I guess to you religion and spirituality must be the same thing.

Shiva explained the cycle of creation, preservation and dissolution which is exactly what  the CERN is working on that is why there is a solid connection.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on January 03, 2019, 09:23:01 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That you think that science changing is a bad thing just goes to show how little you understand it. The willingness of science to expand its understanding, to correct itself when necessary, is a strength. The stubbornness of theists to claim they know the truth based on their own subjective opinions and perceptions, and refusing to change their minds, is a weakness.


Wrong again BL.

When I ever said that physical science is bad?

First I prefer a science that never change but that doesn't mean that I reject a science that change such as the physical science.
As far as I am living in a body-brain and consciousness that is in constant change I have no option but to go along with these changes so I can not reject physical science but at the same time I also bet most of my money (so to speak) in a science that never change.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mike Cl on January 03, 2019, 11:35:44 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So you say that..............all that exists is physical............

If that is the case then you can touch, taste, hear or see the consciousness isn't it Mike?

Gee, you must be a super super semi-God to be able to do what nobody else is able to do.
Congratulation Mike.
Thank you.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mike Cl on January 03, 2019, 11:41:01 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
1) You got a book that explains science right in front of you but you will not touch it until your consciousness tell you to open in order to learn what is written so the motivation start from within.
This is a very simple thing that I try to explain you.
What motivate you motivate everybody else because at the end all the roads lead to the same place.
Different consciousness are the same reflection of the same cosmic consciousness.
The moon in the night reflect her imagine in a lake.
You can see a myriad of moons according to the position in which you are around the lake but the moon is only one.
Once this concept of separation vanish then people understand who this cosmic consciousness is.

2) Surely science can give reliable answer but again everything move and change in this finite universe so what is reliable today may not make any sense tomorrow that is why I do not bet all my money (so to speak) on something that comes and goes as too many people do.
Clearly you have the universe figured out.  You refuse to take what I write into account on any level--in other words, you are willfully blind.  All I can do is to wish you luck on your journey.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Hydra009 on January 03, 2019, 01:09:10 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Hindu religion?

No, Hydra.
Nothing to do with religion.
Well, Shiva is one of the principal deities of Hinduism.  That's a fact.  Claiming that a deity has nothing to do with religion seems be quite the dubious claim.  I'm tempted to yet again call it lying, but I'm starting to think your knowledge of both religion and science is so poor that you might actually believe what you're saying.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on January 03, 2019, 01:22:41 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Thank you.

Shh ... I am the only self-acknowledged demi-god here!
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on January 03, 2019, 01:23:41 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Well, Shiva is one of the principal deities of Hinduism.  That's a fact.  Claiming that a deity has nothing to do with religion seems be quite the dubious claim.  I'm tempted to yet again call it lying, but I'm starting to think your knowledge of both religion and science is so poor that you might actually believe what you're saying.

There is such a thing as atheist Saivism.  We have had one of those post here in the past.  Just saying, not saying Arik is one.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Which postings, Baruch? I am a strong atheist of long standing. I do not believe in God, soul, heaven, hell, transference of Karmas to any non-existent future lives, judgment, birth, death, and creation. Tell me on what to explain my views and I will gladly do that.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: aitm on January 03, 2019, 04:37:07 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Sorry BL but your confusion is really bad.


hoo-boy....
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Blackleaf on January 03, 2019, 04:45:11 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

hoo-boy....

(https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/68386858.jpg)
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on January 04, 2019, 04:10:28 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Well, Shiva is one of the principal deities of Hinduism.  That's a fact.  Claiming that a deity has nothing to do with religion seems be quite the dubious claim.  I'm tempted to yet again call it lying, but I'm starting to think your knowledge of both religion and science is so poor that you might actually believe what you're saying.


I know very well that ......................Shiva is one of the principal deities of Hinduism..........I never said the contrary Hydra.

That however does not means that Hinduism follow what Shiva was preaching.
As I already said in previous posts Hinduism goes against Shiva principles.
Shiva teach yoga.
Today only an handful of Hindus practice it.
Shiva was against the caste system while for Hinduism is one of the pillar of their religion.
Shiva teach to be vegetarian.
Most of Hindus these days are not vegetarians.

Shiva never said that cows are sacred or holy but for Hindus is the opposite.
Shiva never said that to bath in the Ganges river you can purify yourself.
Shiva never said that women need to be reincarnate as man in order to achieve liberation as most Hindus say.

So Hindus may well take Shiva as their God but as far you do the opposite of what Shiva was teaching it all show that Hinduism and Shiva have nothing in common.   

This show how you know little about Shiva and Hinduism.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on January 04, 2019, 04:18:35 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Clearly you have the universe figured out.  You refuse to take what I write into account on any level--in other words, you are willfully blind.  All I can do is to wish you luck on your journey.

Are you saying that anyone who does not listen to you is blind.

Are you serious Mike?

I am always prepared to listen to anyone and prepared to change my mind AS FAR AS WHAT PEOPLE SAY MAKE SENSE.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on January 04, 2019, 05:59:59 AM
Arik - there are different kinds of yoga.  In the East, if you met a new person, you asked ... "What is your practice?".  Let's talk yoga.

Yoga of action (Krishna) aka Karma Yoga
Yoga of concentration (Shiva, Patanjali) aka Raja Yoga
Yoga of devotion (Krishna) aka Bhakti Yoga
Yoga of knowledge aka Jnana Yoga
Yoga of physical discipline aka Hatha Yoga

And numerous combinations of the above ...
Yogachara - Mahayana Buddhist
Sankhya - theoretical side of School of Yoga, two of the six orthodox forms of Hinduism
Asparsha Yoga - Gaudapada
Shiva Yoga - combines concentration and devotion (to Shiva as guru or god)

Tantric forms:
Mantra Yoga - magical
Kundalini Yoga - chakras
Laya Yoga - related to Kundalini, emphasis on male-female duality and Hatha Yoga
Integral Yoga - personal transformation

Atheist saivism involves Shiva Yoga, but with Shiva as guru, not deity.

Once we have a framework for discussion, we can discuss specific practices if you like.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mike Cl on January 04, 2019, 10:15:06 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Are you saying that anyone who does not listen to you is blind.

Are you serious Mike?

I am always prepared to listen to anyone and prepared to change my mind AS FAR AS WHAT PEOPLE SAY MAKE SENSE.
I am serious.  I am clearly and plainly saying that you do not take anything I have said seriously or try to understand what I am saying.  I am saying you are blind.  You say you are willing to listen but don't.  I do understand what you are saying.  It is little different than any other theist.  And you are so invested in your being right that you don't even want to listen to anyone who disagrees with your belief.  I have read your holy book and studied how it came about and how it was complied.  You haven't.   You are simply willfully ignorant to the point of appearing to be stupid.  You are a closed mind of the worst sort--the religious/spiritual mind.  Your universe is based upon magic--mine isn't.  But you are free to believe any way you want.  Just stop lying about it.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on January 04, 2019, 12:51:43 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I am serious.  I am clearly and plainly saying that you do not take anything I have said seriously or try to understand what I am saying.  I am saying you are blind.  You say you are willing to listen but don't.  I do understand what you are saying.  It is little different than any other theist.  And you are so invested in your being right that you don't even want to listen to anyone who disagrees with your belief.  I have read your holy book and studied how it came about and how it was complied.  You haven't.   You are simply willfully ignorant to the point of appearing to be stupid.  You are a closed mind of the worst sort--the religious/spiritual mind.  Your universe is based upon magic--mine isn't.  But you are free to believe any way you want.  Just stop lying about it.

Ahem ... which holy book?  The Yoga Sutras of Patanjali?  Which books of Saivism have you studied?
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Cavebear on January 05, 2019, 04:23:39 AM
I love it when religious nonsensicals appear briefly, state their strangest idea, and disappear after a few months.  This one will too.

But I have to admit that this one is weirder than the usual religious nut case.  He seems to even disagree with what seems to be his basic religion.

If I didn't think that most and any theists were the greatest threat to the continued existence of humanity, I would actually feel sorry for this sap.  I mean, he is opposing his cultural beliefs and can't EVEN get any comfort here because he is as nuts as the religious idiots he seems to oppose.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on January 05, 2019, 06:16:47 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I love it when religious nonsensicals appear briefly, state their strangest idea, and disappear after a few months.  This one will too.

But I have to admit that this one is weirder than the usual religious nut case.  He seems to even disagree with what seems to be his basic religion.

If I didn't think that most and any theists were the greatest threat to the continued existence of humanity, I would actually feel sorry for this sap.  I mean, he is opposing his cultural beliefs and can't EVEN get any comfort here because he is as nuts as the religious idiots he seems to oppose.


Well, well mate.

It remind me when Jesus try to kick the priests out from around the temple.
Even in that occasion some people said that this Jesus disagree with what seems to be his basic religion.

As far as corruption build up and take the roots then you got to stand up and try to stop it.

Oh, by the way don't you like that someone that doesn't necessary agree with you is here?
Wouldn't you find boring to talk to people that agree with you all the time?

Have a lovely day anyway.




Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on January 05, 2019, 06:23:24 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I am serious.  I am clearly and plainly saying that you do not take anything I have said seriously or try to understand what I am saying.  I am saying you are blind.  You say you are willing to listen but don't.  I do understand what you are saying.  It is little different than any other theist.  And you are so invested in your being right that you don't even want to listen to anyone who disagrees with your belief.  I have read your holy book and studied how it came about and how it was complied.  You haven't.   You are simply willfully ignorant to the point of appearing to be stupid.  You are a closed mind of the worst sort--the religious/spiritual mind.  Your universe is based upon magic--mine isn't.  But you are free to believe any way you want.  Just stop lying about it.


Look Mike do me a favor.

Tell me about some of the issues that according to you I didn't take any notice of so I can look at them again.
Maybe I was wrong who knows.
Unless you tell me what you are talking about I wouldn't know.
Thanks.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on January 05, 2019, 06:45:18 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Arik - there are different kinds of yoga.  In the East, if you met a new person, you asked ... "What is your practice?".  Let's talk yoga.

Yoga of action (Krishna) aka Karma Yoga
Yoga of concentration (Shiva, Patanjali) aka Raja Yoga
Yoga of devotion (Krishna) aka Bhakti Yoga
Yoga of knowledge aka Jnana Yoga
Yoga of physical discipline aka Hatha Yoga

And numerous combinations of the above ...
Yogachara - Mahayana Buddhist
Sankhya - theoretical side of School of Yoga, two of the six orthodox forms of Hinduism
Asparsha Yoga - Gaudapada
Shiva Yoga - combines concentration and devotion (to Shiva as guru or god)

Tantric forms:
Mantra Yoga - magical
Kundalini Yoga - chakras
Laya Yoga - related to Kundalini, emphasis on male-female duality and Hatha Yoga
Integral Yoga - personal transformation

Atheist saivism involves Shiva Yoga, but with Shiva as guru, not deity.

Once we have a framework for discussion, we can discuss specific practices if you like.


The options are endless Baruch.

You can try them all one by one until you find the right one or you can try one and stick with that or do as I did.

I realized that God can read my and everybody mind so I ask within that He show me the correct method to uplift myself spiritually speaking.

It didn't take long time to get across the type of yoga that now I follow.
Let me however clear something Baruch.
Yoga is a very good way but not all yoga is because a lot of rubbish that pretend to be yoga is now all around.

Yoga is not necessary the method for all.
People are different so a different method must be there for different people.
Some people learn in different ways.
Some people have an NDE that show them how the system works other people learn as they go year after year or life after life even atheists learn in their own way.
First rely on physical science then after sometime when they realize that this way lead to nowhere they surely will look in the proper direction.

Energy and consciousness that are the two side of the same sheet never die so at the end everybody will get there.






Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Cavebear on January 05, 2019, 06:56:18 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Well, well mate.

It remind me when Jesus try to kick the priests out from around the temple.
Even in that occasion some people said that this Jesus disagree with what seems to be his basic religion.

As far as corruption build up and take the roots then you got to stand up and try to stop it.

Oh, by the way don't you like that someone that doesn't necessary agree with you is here?
Wouldn't you find boring to talk to people that agree with you all the time?

Have a lovely day anyway.

You say "Jesus tr(ied) to kick the priests out from around the temple".

Were you there?
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Unbeliever on January 05, 2019, 07:06:00 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It remind me when Jesus try to kick the priests out from around the temple.
Even in that occasion some people said that this Jesus disagree with what seems to be his basic religion.

Jesus never existed, so this story is entirely fictional. So what good is it in furthering whatever you're arguing for?
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Cavebear on January 05, 2019, 08:33:58 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Jesus never existed, so this story is entirely fictional. So what good is it in furthering whatever you're arguing for?

Well stated and concise.  So much of the biblical tales (and other theistic stories) are both contradictory and obviously inaccurate.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mike Cl on January 05, 2019, 09:42:37 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Look Mike do me a favor.

Tell me about some of the issues that according to you I didn't take any notice of so I can look at them again.
Maybe I was wrong who knows.
Unless you tell me what you are talking about I wouldn't know.
Thanks.
How about some evidence for god--any god.  BTW, Jesus is a myth and a fiction, as well as any of your gods. 
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: aitm on January 05, 2019, 10:42:04 PM
The kid started doing yoga couple year ago, has had some success though so he thought, "hey, if I buy the whole fruit cake I can be even better"...not much diff than a born again alchy.

All in all....meh.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Cavebear on January 05, 2019, 11:20:14 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The kid started doing yoga couple year ago, has had some success though so he thought, "hey, if I buy the whole fruit cake I can be even better"...not much diff than a born again alchy.

All in all....meh.

The new generation will be "different" and that all *I* know...
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Minimalist on January 05, 2019, 11:29:56 PM
Quote
It remind me when Jesus try to kick the priests out from around the temple.


You do realize I hope that that is an inherently stupid story?  The temple courtyards covered acres and the guards I suppose just stood there watching?

Your boy "jesus" would have had a spear stuck up his ass in short order.  That's what the guards were there for.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: trdsf on January 06, 2019, 03:28:23 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Here we go back to what I explained in previous posts in which I said that consciousness is an abstract entity that can not be created by something physical such as the brain.
Prove that assertion.  You don't get to just assume something like that.  While the question of the nature of consciousness is obviously not solved, there is no evidence to date to suggest that it requires more than the physical brain and the electrochemical events therein, and the current lack of a solid explanation is not license to speculate randomly.

Obviously, I need to quote myself from another thread: the only 'therefore' that follows 'we don't know' is 'we need to do more research'.  You can not get from "we don't understand how consciousness works" to "therefore it's supernatural/non-physical/other woo".  You can only follow it with "therefore we need to research consciousness further".

And without evidence, your assertion isn't worth the electrons that put it on my monitor.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on January 06, 2019, 07:03:03 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
How about some evidence for god--any god.  BTW, Jesus is a myth and a fiction, as well as any of your gods.


Try to be a bit more clear in your request Mike.

Don't you think you should explain what sort of evidence you expect?
Physical evidence?
Mental?
Spiritual?

You expect to see a God looking like Jesus with the beard and long hairs?
Or maybe like a man.
Oh, no maybe something between a man and a female.
Or not, maybe like a flash of light.

What about a God that doesn't have any image or maybe all images at the same time.

I am afraid Mike that your expectations will end up (down) into nothing until you stop thinking at an eventual God external to yourself.
Personally I found God within same same as all those that since the universe exist found God in the same way.
There is no other way to find God because God is you, me, everybody and everything that exist so in order to find  (Him, her, everything) you got to look within in the same way as any other love whether is physical of mental.
God is love Mike and love does not have an image.
It is only felt and it is YOU.
The only problem is to realize all this.

Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on January 06, 2019, 07:13:22 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Prove that assertion.  You don't get to just assume something like that.  While the question of the nature of consciousness is obviously not solved, there is no evidence to date to suggest that it requires more than the physical brain and the electrochemical events therein, and the current lack of a solid explanation is not license to speculate randomly.

Obviously, I need to quote myself from another thread: the only 'therefore' that follows 'we don't know' is 'we need to do more research'.  You can not get from "we don't understand how consciousness works" to "therefore it's supernatural/non-physical/other woo".  You can only follow it with "therefore we need to research consciousness further".

And without evidence, your assertion isn't worth the electrons that put it on my monitor.


All very well said brother.
I suppose your critique is addressed mostly to atheists that believe that the consciousness is a product of the brain.
Personally I have some solid argument to prove my point in saying that something abstract and superior to the brain which brain is made of matter can not be created by the matter itself.

Thanks for your argument anyway.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Minimalist on January 06, 2019, 08:43:28 PM
Don't confuse solid "argument" with solid "evidence."  I'm sure you think your reasoning is brilliant.

I doubt the audience here will agree.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mike Cl on January 06, 2019, 08:50:09 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Try to be a bit more clear in your request Mike.

Don't you think you should explain what sort of evidence you expect?
Physical evidence?
Mental?
Spiritual?

You expect to see a God looking like Jesus with the beard and long hairs?
Or maybe like a man.
Oh, no maybe something between a man and a female.
Or not, maybe like a flash of light.

What about a God that doesn't have any image or maybe all images at the same time.

I am afraid Mike that your expectations will end up (down) into nothing until you stop thinking at an eventual God external to yourself.
Personally I found God within same same as all those that since the universe exist found God in the same way.
There is no other way to find God because God is you, me, everybody and everything that exist so in order to find  (Him, her, everything) you got to look within in the same way as any other love whether is physical of mental.
God is love Mike and love does not have an image.
It is only felt and it is YOU.
The only problem is to realize all this.
Come on man--we are going in circles; at least you are.  I have been nothing but plain about my stance.  I have said clearly from the beginning that material or physical is all there is.  Nothing else.  Love is based in the physical material world.  It is the result of chemicals and chemicals we are now aware of and are learning more and more how love works.  Love is NOT only felt, it is demonstrated.  And all love is not the same.  I love my wife (and has that love gone thru changes.), my dogs, my family (well, some of them), my fav sports players, my computer and computer games--and so on................None of those loves are the same.  All of those various loves is physical. 

If you had read anything that I have posted to you you must know that I don't 'expect' god to look like anything or anybody.  Do I expect faries to look a certain way?  No, how could I since they don't exist.  I do expect you to give me some evidence of any god; if you could do that then I may form an expectation of what that god looks like.  I have told you from the very start that god is a fiction and you have not give me any reason or evidence to suggest otherwise.  Just because you believe something does not mean that that is proof.  So, stop wasting our time and give us some evidence.   
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mike Cl on January 06, 2019, 08:52:13 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


Personally I have some solid argument to prove my point in saying that something abstract and superior to the brain which brain is made of matter can not be created by the matter itself.

What in the world does this mean??????
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on January 06, 2019, 09:38:09 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
What in the world does this mean??????

Quantum entanglement shows that real physical processes are non-local.  So mental processes might be tied to the brain, but extend beyond it.  Oh, how would that be?  Typing a message for example.  My typing this is an extension of my mind, well outside my neural matter.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Blackleaf on January 06, 2019, 09:45:28 PM
The brain creating the mind is not that difficult of a concept to grasp. A computer uses a combination of 0's and 1's to create all kinds of things, like pictures, videos, text files, and video games. How do 0's and 1's produce anything but more 0's and 1's? Must be magic! No, dude. It's emergence. Sometimes when you have a group of things coming together, they equal more than the sum of their parts. No god, spirits, or magic required.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on January 06, 2019, 10:08:51 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The brain creating the mind is not that difficult of a concept to grasp. A computer uses a combination of 0's and 1's to create all kinds of things, like pictures, videos, text files, and video games. How do 0's and 1's produce anything but more 0's and 1's? Must be magic! No, dude. It's emergence. Sometimes when you have a group of things coming together, they equal more than the sum of their parts. No god, spirits, or magic required.

You did the usual fallacy of personalizing a non-person.  A computer doesn't do anything, it is a thing, not a person.  The programmer makes it do what it does, like a puppet.  Are you a puppet?  Didn't think so.  Emergence = secular term for magic, supernatural.   Nothing is more than the sum of its parts.  That would be denying analysis, which is denial of science itself.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mike Cl on January 06, 2019, 10:10:17 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Quantum entanglement shows that real physical processes are non-local.  So mental processes might be tied to the brain, but extend beyond it.  Oh, how would that be?  Typing a message for example.  My typing this is an extension of my mind, well outside my neural matter.
I see.  Ah.  So god!!! Gotja........................
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on January 06, 2019, 10:12:19 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I see.  Ah.  So god!!! Gotja........................

No, demi-god.  That is obvious.  That the demi-gods might be images of a G-d, that is speculative and unprovable.  Though it is plausible.  You are billions of living cells.  Are you more than that?  Or is your ego just the collective delusion of those cells, that you, MikeCL are the deity they worship?  Quantum entanglement is science, not theology.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on January 06, 2019, 10:18:25 PM
Arik ... so which of these Ashtangayoga principles do you do?

Yama, niyama, asana, pranayama, pratyahara, dharma, dhyana or samadhi?

I first experienced samadhi 7 years ago, providing me with insight that I can refer to during normal activity.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mike Cl on January 06, 2019, 11:42:38 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
No, demi-god.  That is obvious.  That the demi-gods might be images of a G-d, that is speculative and unprovable.  Though it is plausible.  You are billions of living cells.  Are you more than that?  Or is your ego just the collective delusion of those cells, that you, MikeCL are the deity they worship?  Quantum entanglement is science, not theology.
Spoken as the theist you are.  Yes, I am billions of living cells--more than that?  Sure.  But that has nothing to do with god or even G_D.  You just can't get past the worship part can you.  You simply have to worship something.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Hydra009 on January 07, 2019, 12:14:23 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Personally I have some solid argument to prove my point in saying that something abstract and superior to the brain which brain is made of matter can not be created by the matter itself.
So...the brain is matter but can't be created by matter?  Seems kinda self-contradictory.

Plus, and I've noticed this thing a lot with theists, simply asserting REALLY STRONGLY that something is true doesn't actually make the case that it is true.  If anything, it just invites the audience to entertain the opposite and try to rule it out.  Can matter create brains minds?  I don't see why it couldn't, and you have yet to show why it couldn't.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Minimalist on January 07, 2019, 12:48:28 AM
So every human begins as an egg and a sperm and grows from there.  It seems to me that the brain grows as a result of the nutrients supplied by the mother's body.

I imagine at some point he envisions his personal invisible sky-daddy showing up with a eye-dropper full of this magic brain growing medium and implanting it into the head of the fetus?  I wonder at which stage of gestation he thinks that happens, Hydra?
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on January 07, 2019, 12:53:54 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Spoken as the theist you are.  Yes, I am billions of living cells--more than that?  Sure.  But that has nothing to do with god or even G_D.  You just can't get past the worship part can you.  You simply have to worship something.

People are inconsistent in their views.  I do point this out.  But it isn't illegal to be inconsistent.  You maybe worship your job, your family, your things, yourself ... whatever.  And you can call that atheism if you want.  People love some things and hate other things.

If you want to ban G and O and D from your dictionary, fine with me.  Hide under your bed from the KKK seeking to hunt you down (not really of course).  How are the atheists here any more or less paranoid than pr126?  And yes, spoken like the atheist you are.  But you aren't a übermensch because of it.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on January 07, 2019, 12:57:19 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So every human begins as an egg and a sperm and grows from there.  It seems to me that the brain grows as a result of the nutrients supplied by the mother's body.

I imagine at some point he envisions his personal invisible sky-daddy showing up with a eye-dropper full of this magic brain growing medium and implanting it into the head of the fetus?  I wonder at which stage of gestation he thinks that happens, Hydra?

That is a mystery.  To be consistent .. and we won't be ... life and consciousness make no sense in a world of semi-random atomic motions.  Unless you choose the "emergent" magic, or hylozoism (everything is alive) or panpsychism (everything has mind).  So go with "emergent" magic, because there is no other choice once an atheist has painted themselves into a corner.  Or just tell consistency to take a hike.  It isn't illegal to be illogical.

Yes, early theology imagined something like a pre-existence on a spiritual plane (with or without multiple births).  Or imagined how spirit (you don't have one do you?) could tie up with matter, with usually matter being considered gross and spirit being considered pure.  But those are just theologies.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on January 07, 2019, 01:01:40 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So...the brain is matter but can't be created by matter?  Seems kinda self-contradictory.

Plus, and I've noticed this thing a lot with theists, simply asserting REALLY STRONGLY that something is true doesn't actually make the case that it is true.  If anything, it just invites the audience to entertain the opposite and try to rule it out.  Can matter create brains minds?  I don't see why it couldn't, and you have yet to show why it couldn't.

Conservation of matter.  Matter is usually neither created nor destroyed.  It is just rearranged.  And yes, your sense of true could be wrong, anyone could be.  Emergentism or epiphenominalism is the magic theory (not science) that bridges that gap.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epiphenomenalism

But this is part of philosophy, not science.  And philosophy is completely wrong, so I am told here.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on January 07, 2019, 05:55:52 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So...the brain is matter but can't be created by matter?  Seems kinda self-contradictory.

Plus, and I've noticed this thing a lot with theists, simply asserting REALLY STRONGLY that something is true doesn't actually make the case that it is true.  If anything, it just invites the audience to entertain the opposite and try to rule it out.  Can matter create brains minds?  I don't see why it couldn't, and you have yet to show why it couldn't.


Sorry to tell you Hydra but your confusion is really out of control.

The brain IS NOT the mind.
The brain is made of matter while the mind or conscious mind is an abstract entity.
The brain give energy and allow the mind to operate same same as a vehicle allow the driver to drive and if you think that the matter or brain can create the mind then you also should think that the vehicle create the driver.

Can't you see how your beliefs are so defective?

So where suppose to be that science that back up atheism?
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on January 07, 2019, 06:13:49 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Come on man--we are going in circles; at least you are.  I have been nothing but plain about my stance.  I have said clearly from the beginning that material or physical is all there is.  Nothing else.  Love is based in the physical material world.  It is the result of chemicals and chemicals we are now aware of and are learning more and more how love works.  Love is NOT only felt, it is demonstrated.  And all love is not the same.  I love my wife (and has that love gone thru changes.), my dogs, my family (well, some of them), my fav sports players, my computer and computer games--and so on................None of those loves are the same.  All of those various loves is physical. 

If you had read anything that I have posted to you you must know that I don't 'expect' god to look like anything or anybody.  Do I expect faries to look a certain way?  No, how could I since they don't exist.  I do expect you to give me some evidence of any god; if you could do that then I may form an expectation of what that god looks like.  I have told you from the very start that god is a fiction and you have not give me any reason or evidence to suggest otherwise.  Just because you believe something does not mean that that is proof.  So, stop wasting our time and give us some evidence.


Sorry Mike but your beliefs are absolutely defective.

1) If you think that....................... Love is based in the physical material world..............then you should also believe that a driver is part of the vehicle.
Don't you get out your vehicle once you reach the destination?

2) Actually is you that are wasting my time.
The day you will be able to demonstrate that your love for anyone is real I also will demonstrate to you that God exist.

Can't you see the stupidity Mike?
How on earth can you demonstrate something within except of course (as I already said) the release of extra hormones?
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on January 07, 2019, 06:27:03 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Don't confuse solid "argument" with solid "evidence."  I'm sure you think your reasoning is brilliant.

I doubt the audience here will agree.


Actually I do not expect that.......the audience here will agree.

That would mean to throw away a lifetime of false beliefs for an atheist.

My objective is not that Min.
It is rather the clash of ideas that excite me but also to learn if that occur-eventuate.


Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on January 07, 2019, 06:40:48 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The brain creating the mind is not that difficult of a concept to grasp. A computer uses a combination of 0's and 1's to create all kinds of things, like pictures, videos, text files, and video games. How do 0's and 1's produce anything but more 0's and 1's? Must be magic! No, dude. It's emergence. Sometimes when you have a group of things coming together, they equal more than the sum of their parts. No god, spirits, or magic required.


That is incredible BL.

Most atheists always glorify science because according to them science back up their beliefs but since when science say that an inferior entity can create a superior entity?
Where is the evidence BL?

Your computer analogy is totally defective because a computer has been programmed by a human mind to do certain things.

Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on January 07, 2019, 06:52:08 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

That is incredible BL.

Most atheists always glorify science because according to them science back up their beliefs but since when science say that an inferior entity can create a superior entity?
Where is the evidence BL?

Your computer analogy is totally defective because a computer has been programmed by a human mind to do certain things.

AI is woo woo for the ignorant.  We want to be G-d, we want to create life ala Dr Frankenstein.  But with silicon instead of multiple dead body parts.  We are demi-gods, not G-d.  Real giant Japanese robots would be a menace.  For most people, science is "pop science" which is just something for the more educate guys to read a the barber shop, instead of "pop mechanics".
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: trdsf on January 07, 2019, 07:00:35 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

All very well said brother.
I suppose your critique is addressed mostly to atheists that believe that the consciousness is a product of the brain.
Personally I have some solid argument to prove my point in saying that something abstract and superior to the brain which brain is made of matter can not be created by the matter itself.

Thanks for your argument anyway.
Wow, what total intellectual cowardice.

My critique is addressed directly at you and your completely unsupported assertion.  It couldn't have been any clearer.  If you have evidence, provide it.  Stating that you have it and not providing it is not the same as providing evidence.

What you have told me in your non-answer here is that you cannot back up your claim -- you have made up something that sounds good to you and you have not actually thought about it in the slightest.

I say again: what is your evidence that consciousness requires more than the brain?  And please remember that "You can't explain it either" isn't evidence for anything more than the need for further research.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on January 07, 2019, 07:03:18 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Arik ... so which of these Ashtangayoga principles do you do?

Yama, niyama, asana, pranayama, pratyahara, dharma, dhyana or samadhi?

I first experienced samadhi 7 years ago, providing me with insight that I can refer to during normal activity.


They are all important Baruch but I shouldn't really worry about samadhi.
Samadhi will be given to you at the correct time by your guru when he-she will see that you have done-accomplished what he previously taught you.
Never before.
Before that there is only a lot of hard work.

Remember however that my yoga does not come from Sri K. Pattabhi Jois and T. Krishnamacharya in the 20th century.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: trdsf on January 07, 2019, 07:14:14 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
What in the world does this mean??????
It means he can't answer a direct question.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on January 07, 2019, 07:21:00 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Jesus never existed, so this story is entirely fictional. So what good is it in furthering whatever you're arguing for?


Sure, sure Jesus never existed.
Not even Pontius Pilate existed and the first Christians that prefer to be eaten alive by the lions rather than give away their beliefs for Jesus were a bunch of idiots because they must have followed a person that never existed.

Gee, I never thought about that mate.
I imagine that also Genghis Khan and Alexander the Great never existed or maybe not.
They existed because they were not theists.
Who knows.
I am so confused now.   



(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQXXEmLbzXWAM8JMXamfe-bUxBz-GnQE-_sKXXWoE8lWPJZIzkK)
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on January 07, 2019, 07:35:37 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Wow, what total intellectual cowardice.

My critique is addressed directly at you and your completely unsupported assertion.  It couldn't have been any clearer.  If you have evidence, provide it.  Stating that you have it and not providing it is not the same as providing evidence.

What you have told me in your non-answer here is that you cannot back up your claim -- you have made up something that sounds good to you and you have not actually thought about it in the slightest.

I say again: what is your evidence that consciousness requires more than the brain?  And please remember that "You can't explain it either" isn't evidence for anything more than the need for further research.


Are you saying that you need evidence to prove that the driver is not a product of the vehicle?

Is not the consciousness that tell the body-brain what to do or say?
So if the consciousness is in charge why on earth should we need evidence to demonstrate that the consciousness is not created by the brain?
Have you ever seen a soldier that tell a general in command what to do?

If you still need further evidence I suggest you to ask you car if it ever create you.
You never know mate.






Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mike Cl on January 07, 2019, 09:34:04 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
People are inconsistent in their views.  I do point this out.  But it isn't illegal to be inconsistent.  You maybe worship your job, your family, your things, yourself ... whatever.  And you can call that atheism if you want.  People love some things and hate other things.

If you want to ban G and O and D from your dictionary, fine with me.  Hide under your bed from the KKK seeking to hunt you down (not really of course).  How are the atheists here any more or less paranoid than pr126?  And yes, spoken like the atheist you are.  But you aren't a übermensch because of it.
Spoken like the theist you are--can't ever quite get to the point.  I'm not sure what you said, but are you saying if one does not believe in god then the KKK will get you?  Seems about on par for you and your theist folks.  No, I'm not a superman for my views--just an atheist.  And no, I don't want to get rid of god from my dictionary, just acknowledge it for the fiction it is--like acknowledging that Bugs Bunny is a fiction, as well.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Blackleaf on January 07, 2019, 09:36:49 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

That is incredible BL.

Most atheists always glorify science because according to them science back up their beliefs but since when science say that an inferior entity can create a superior entity?
Where is the evidence BL?

Your computer analogy is totally defective because a computer has been programmed by a human mind to do certain things.

First of all, I'm not going to justify the terms you made up. "Inferior entity" and "superior entity" are not things. Provide a clear definition for both, then we can discuss how you have no evidence to back up your definitions.

Second, your theism is showing. Stay on track. You've flipped from claiming that the mind couldn't be created by matter to claiming that intelligence requires intelligence to make it. Those are two different arguments, and if you can't see that, I'm done with you. The computer analogy works because there is no ghost in the computer. I've demonstrated how programming can create something entirely different than what it started with. If I open up a game of Skyrim, does the world of Skyrim actually exist? No. It's 1's and 0's firing to create the perception of that world, similar to how neurons fire in our brains to create the perceptions in our heads. Computers are basically mechanical brains, so unless you want to argue that computers have a soul, you're going to have to justify your special pleading.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: trdsf on January 07, 2019, 09:58:53 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Are you saying that you need evidence to prove that the driver is not a product of the vehicle?

Is not the consciousness that tell the body-brain what to do or say?
So if the consciousness is in charge why on earth should we need evidence to demonstrate that the consciousness is not created by the brain?
Have you ever seen a soldier that tell a general in command what to do?

If you still need further evidence I suggest you to ask you car if it ever create you.
You never know mate.

I asked for evidence, not metaphors and inaccurate analogies.  Do we really have to explain what evidence is?  Don't answer that, it's pretty obvious we do.

Evidence is observational data that can be independently examined and verified. Aphorisms are neither evidence nor data.

Can you or can you not provide evidence for your assertion?
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on January 07, 2019, 10:20:39 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
First of all, I'm not going to justify the terms you made up. "Inferior entity" and "superior entity" are not things. Provide a clear definition for both, then we can discuss how you have no evidence to back up your definitions.

Second, your theism is showing. Stay on track. You've flipped from claiming that the mind couldn't be created by matter to claiming that intelligence requires intelligence to make it. Those are two different arguments, and if you can't see that, I'm done with you. The computer analogy works because there is no ghost in the computer. I've demonstrated how programming can create something entirely different than what it started with. If I open up a game of Skyrim, does the world of Skyrim actually exist? No. It's 1's and 0's firing to create the perception of that world, similar to how neurons fire in our brains to create the perceptions in our heads. Computers are basically mechanical brains, so unless you want to argue that computers have a soul, you're going to have to justify your special pleading.


1) Animals are superior to plants but inferior to humans and even among humans there are those superior and those inferior because the level of consciousness varies from person to person.
Is this so difficult to understand BL?

2) What about your point in saying............You've flipped from claiming that the mind couldn't be created by matter to claiming that intelligence requires intelligence to make it. Those are two different arguments...............

Where suppose to be my FLIPPED?
Those arguments may well be different but why should be wrong when they both make sense?

3) Who ever argue that computers have a soul?
Computers are created by humans so they can only do what humans build them to do.


Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on January 07, 2019, 10:27:12 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I asked for evidence, not metaphors and inaccurate analogies.  Do we really have to explain what evidence is?  Don't answer that, it's pretty obvious we do.

Evidence is observational data that can be independently examined and verified. Aphorisms are neither evidence nor data.

Can you or can you not provide evidence[\b] for your assertion?


The evidence is right in your mind.
That mind that control your saying and doing.

I am afraid that you are in great need to understand how mind, body and brain work.
Isn't your mind that tell your little finger to push this or that key in your keyboard so you can reply to Arik?
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Minimalist on January 07, 2019, 10:49:30 AM
Quote
That is a mystery.

Not really.  We are coming up on 8 billion examples of human consciousness crawling around on this planet.  It seems to happen every time unless there is a severe brain problem during gestation.  The mystery exists only for people who want to shoehorn their particular chosen deity into a process which is entirely natural.

I don't need your god, allah, zeus or quetzlcoatl to provide an explanation for a natural process.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Blackleaf on January 07, 2019, 11:43:59 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

1) Animals are superior to plants but inferior to humans and even among humans there are those superior and those inferior because the level of consciousness varies from person to person.
Is this so difficult to understand BL?

2) What about your point in saying............You've flipped from claiming that the mind couldn't be created by matter to claiming that intelligence requires intelligence to make it. Those are two different arguments...............

Where suppose to be my FLIPPED?
Those arguments may well be different but why should be wrong when they both make sense?

3) Who ever argue that computers have a soul?
Computers are created by humans so they can only do what humans build them to do.

You didn't provide the definitions of the terms I requested. Your claim remains both vaguely defined and therefor indefensible. You can't expect me to understand your arguments if you don't understand them yourself. How is a plant inferior to an animal? Contrary to popular belief, no living thing is more highly evolved than another. Every living thing evolved to survive in its environment, and they are good at surviving. For example, some fruit bearing plants have a symbiotic relationship with animals, where animals obtain sustenance from the plants, and the animals in exchange spread and fertilize the seeds. Neither one is "superior" to the other, as I see it.

As for the rest, you clearly are set in your thinking and are not capable of honest thought. You can't focus, your arguments are all over the place, and you continually fail to provide evidence of your claims.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Hydra009 on January 07, 2019, 11:47:28 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Animals are superior to plants but inferior to humans
(https://i.imgur.com/vs9AG.gif)
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: trdsf on January 07, 2019, 12:28:41 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

The evidence is right in your mind.
That mind that control your saying and doing.

I am afraid that you are in great need to understand how mind, body and brain work.
Isn't your mind that tell your little finger to push this or that key in your keyboard so you can reply to Arik?
That's your evidence? 'You have a mind so I'm right'?

Well, thank you for assuming I possess a mind.  I wish I could return the compliment, but you have put forth one of the daftest things I've read in a very long time.

I'm going to recommend to you checking out a few lectures on consciousness by Daniel Dennett on YouTube -- I don't have any specific ones in mind, you can find them easily enough -- and the book The Mind's I by Douglas Hofstadter. Not that I necessarily agree with the conclusions of either, but you really need to think about what you think you think, and how and why you think you think it.

What you've offered here is just navel-gazing blather.  Your entire position right now is no more than a stoner's "so, the mind is like, I dunno, far out man."
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on January 07, 2019, 12:36:21 PM
Few people "introspect" here.  They deny the relevance of their own minds or that of other people.  Only external senses matter (and that is what materialists would say, wouldn't they?).
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on January 07, 2019, 12:38:01 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

They are all important Baruch but I shouldn't really worry about samadhi.
Samadhi will be given to you at the correct time by your guru when he-she will see that you have done-accomplished what he previously taught you.
Never before.
Before that there is only a lot of hard work.

Remember however that my yoga does not come from Sri K. Pattabhi Jois and T. Krishnamacharya in the 20th century.

I got my samadhi from personal development, and the Heart Sutra.  The unknown author of the Heart Sutra was my guru.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on January 07, 2019, 12:39:57 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Sure, sure Jesus never existed.
Not even Pontius Pilate existed and the first Christians that prefer to be eaten alive by the lions rather than give away their beliefs for Jesus were a bunch of idiots because they must have followed a person that never existed.

Gee, I never thought about that mate.
I imagine that also Genghis Khan and Alexander the Great never existed or maybe not.
They existed because they were not theists.
Who knows.
I am so confused now.   



(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQXXEmLbzXWAM8JMXamfe-bUxBz-GnQE-_sKXXWoE8lWPJZIzkK)

!. We only accept evidence, if it confirms our firmly held beliefs
2. Genghis Khan and Alexander the Great were demi-gods.  But then so am I.  Neither of them could type in English on the Internet.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on January 07, 2019, 12:41:06 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Are you saying that you need evidence to prove that the driver is not a product of the vehicle?

Is not the consciousness that tell the body-brain what to do or say?
So if the consciousness is in charge why on earth should we need evidence to demonstrate that the consciousness is not created by the brain?
Have you ever seen a soldier that tell a general in command what to do?

If you still need further evidence I suggest you to ask you car if it ever create you.
You never know mate.

In my un-experience, the unconscious ocean drives the waves of the conscious.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on January 07, 2019, 12:44:17 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Spoken like the theist you are--can't ever quite get to the point.  I'm not sure what you said, but are you saying if one does not believe in god then the KKK will get you?  Seems about on par for you and your theist folks.  No, I'm not a superman for my views--just an atheist.  And no, I don't want to get rid of god from my dictionary, just acknowledge it for the fiction it is--like acknowledging that Bugs Bunny is a fiction, as well.

"I'm not sure what you said" ... well put.  You don't nor do you want to.  Just a shark tank feeding frenzy (of newcomers) as usual, of group think.  My choice, and ability, is I can understand what Arik is saying.  His use of words isn't gibberish to me.  I also understand you as well, very well in fact.

But there is a long term undertow here of ... Republican/Southern monsters are going to eat my ass off.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on January 07, 2019, 12:47:54 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Not really.  We are coming up on 8 billion examples of human consciousness crawling around on this planet.  It seems to happen every time unless there is a severe brain problem during gestation.  The mystery exists only for people who want to shoehorn their particular chosen deity into a process which is entirely natural.

I don't need your god, allah, zeus or quetzlcoatl to provide an explanation for a natural process.

"I don't need your god, allah, zeus or quetzlcoatl to provide an explanation for a natural process." .. I agree.  Religion isn't necessarily primitive science.  Not everything in human experience is addressed thru epistemology, let along one-sided epistemology.  I can't speak for Arik, but I suspect he isn't a Southern Baptist.  And he might not need any explanations.  In my case, I don't.  Explanations by monkeys isn't of interest to me.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Unbeliever on January 07, 2019, 01:22:19 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Quantum entanglement shows that real physical processes are non-local.

No, it doesn't. It shows that some physical processes are non-local, not that all of them are.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Unbeliever on January 07, 2019, 01:37:36 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Are you saying that you need evidence to prove that the driver is not a product of the vehicle?

An analogy is only an analogy, and no analogies are perfect. Neither do they count as evidence.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Unbeliever on January 07, 2019, 01:45:26 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You didn't provide the definitions of the terms I requested. Your claim remains both vaguely defined and therefor indefensible. You can't expect me to understand your arguments if you don't understand them yourself. How is a plant inferior to an animal? Contrary to popular belief, no living thing is more highly evolved than another. Every living thing evolved to survive in its environment, and they are good at surviving. For example, some fruit bearing plants have a symbiotic relationship with animals, where animals obtain sustenance from the plants, and the animals in exchange spread and fertilize the seeds. Neither one is "superior" to the other, as I see it.

As for the rest, you clearly are set in your thinking and are not capable of honest thought. You can't focus, your arguments are all over the place, and you continually fail to provide evidence of your claims.
I think Arik's problem is one of being inarticulate, unable to put English sentences together in a way that we, the readers, can understand. My guess would be a lack of decent education is the cause of the inability to state things clearly and succinctly..
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mike Cl on January 07, 2019, 01:54:50 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Few people "introspect" here.  They deny the relevance of their own minds or that of other people.  Only external senses matter (and that is what materialists would say, wouldn't they?).
Generalize much????
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mike Cl on January 07, 2019, 01:55:54 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I think Arik's problem is one of being inarticulate, unable to put English sentences together in a way that we, the readers, can understand. My guess would be a lack of decent education is the cause of the inability to state things clearly and succinctly..
Amen!!!
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Unbeliever on January 07, 2019, 02:02:12 PM
I don't understand why emergent phenomena would be considered "magic," since it's obvious that emergent phenomena do exist. Water is wet, but not when there is only one molecule of it. Wetness emerges when the number of water molecules reaches sufficient numbers, and not before. How many that is I don't know, though. Brains are conscious, but not when there is only one neuron.

Quote
Consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, resulting from the communication of information across all its regions and cannot be reduced to something residing in specific areas.


Consciousness Is the Whole Brain. It's Not Reducible. (https://bigthink.com/ideafeed/consciousness-is-the-whole-brain-not-a-single-region)
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Minimalist on January 07, 2019, 02:03:06 PM
Quote
Explanations by monkeys isn't of interest to me.

We're all primates.  You're just going to have to deal with that.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: aitm on January 07, 2019, 05:47:36 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
My guess would be a lack of decent education is the cause of the inability to state things clearly and succinctly..

That's funny I was thinking about the same thing....like home schooled by some hippy mother what got too much mescaline in the 80's and burnt her mind into yoga doga do.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on January 07, 2019, 07:01:55 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
No, it doesn't. It shows that some physical processes are non-local, not that all of them are.

I clearly demonstrated that writing on the internet is an example of non-local mind.  Would you care to dispute that example?  I wasn't talking about the cost of tea in China.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Unbeliever on January 07, 2019, 07:05:40 PM
I have no idea what you're talking about, and, I fear, neither do you.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on January 07, 2019, 07:07:23 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Generalize much????

Yes, see my response to Unbeliever.  We generalize, categorize, specialize ... it is called thinking.  In Indian terms, y'all are Lokayata/Charvaka circa 800 BCE.

1. Perception is the only means to knowledge
2. Inference from sense data is unreliable
3. Only matter exists
4. In a body where an appropriate admixture of matter exists, consciousness spontaneously appears
5. Only concentration on immediate life is important
6. Scriptures are of no value

So congratulations, y'all have reinvented something from 2800 years ago.

Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on January 07, 2019, 07:08:43 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Amen!!!

English might not be his first language.  Ad hominems attacks are normal among the usual trolls here.  I would like to see any of you do as well in Hindi as he does in English.  Also, don't use Christian language, or Satan won't let you into Hell ;-)
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on January 07, 2019, 07:09:47 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't understand why emergent phenomena would be considered "magic," since it's obvious that emergent phenomena do exist. Water is wet, but not when there is only one molecule of it. Wetness emerges when the number of water molecules reaches sufficient numbers, and not before. How many that is I don't know, though. Brains are conscious, but not when there is only one neuron.
 

Consciousness Is the Whole Brain. It's Not Reducible. (https://bigthink.com/ideafeed/consciousness-is-the-whole-brain-not-a-single-region)

You worship what you do, I will worship what I do ;-)  This is what one gets taking monkeys seriously (but no insults to Hanuman, the monkey king who helped King Rama defeat the Demons).
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on January 07, 2019, 07:10:28 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
We're all primates.  You're just going to have to deal with that.

You monkey shit in your hand, I monkey shit in mine.  But some monkeys think their shit is special shit.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on January 07, 2019, 07:11:13 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I have no idea what you're talking about, and, I fear, neither do you.

You are projecting again.

I am intelligible in multiple languages.

And you usually are intelligible in English.

It is OK if you don't understand.

This isn't about egos or virtue signaling.

This is about human variability aka ability/handicap (at least at one point in time).
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mike Cl on January 07, 2019, 07:39:08 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I clearly demonstrated that writing on the internet is an example of non-local mind.  Would you care to dispute that example?  I wasn't talking about the cost of tea in China.
You and clearly demonstrating anything does not compute............................
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on January 07, 2019, 07:41:32 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You and clearly demonstrating anything does not compute............................

You are clearly one of Unbeliever's hundred personalities.  Is this server housed in a mental institution?  Just asking.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Unbeliever on January 07, 2019, 07:42:50 PM
I am legion...
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on January 07, 2019, 07:44:02 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I am legion...

You don't even know any Latin.  A barbarian horde perhaps ...
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Unbeliever on January 07, 2019, 07:50:46 PM
Sure I know some Latin. Veni vidi concursus - I came, I saw, I concurred.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: aitm on January 07, 2019, 09:49:48 PM
Oh lord...someone went off and broke Brauch......crap....who the fuck is gonna clean up this?
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on January 08, 2019, 04:43:41 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Oh lord...someone went off and broke Brauch......crap....who the fuck is gonna clean up this?

You can't type (me neither).

I have enjoyed reading Arik's stuff.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on January 08, 2019, 09:03:57 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You didn't provide the definitions of the terms I requested. Your claim remains both vaguely defined and therefor indefensible. You can't expect me to understand your arguments if you don't understand them yourself. How is a plant inferior to an animal? Contrary to popular belief, no living thing is more highly evolved than another. Every living thing evolved to survive in its environment, and they are good at surviving. For example, some fruit bearing plants have a symbiotic relationship with animals, where animals obtain sustenance from the plants, and the animals in exchange spread and fertilize the seeds. Neither one is "superior" to the other, as I see it.

As for the rest, you clearly are set in your thinking and are not capable of honest thought. You can't focus, your arguments are all over the place, and you continually fail to provide evidence of your claims.


Survival is very important BL but progress is even more important.
All creatures fight for survival but man (all humans, men and women) can go further.
He can also strive for progress which is something that plants and animals can not do.

Here I am talking about progress of the consciousness BL.
Of course if you reckon that ..................no living thing is more highly evolved than another..........then I imagine that you wouldn't mind to be an animal or a plant or even a prehistoric man.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on January 08, 2019, 09:36:08 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
An analogy is only an analogy, and no analogies are perfect. Neither do they count as evidence.


Analogy surely wouldn't count as evidence but when the thing is so so obvious then you would be a fool not to believe.
Would you really think that a driver is a product of the vehicle?

Doesn't your mind act as a driver that tell your body or mind what to do, exactly like a driver control the vehicle?
So where suppose to be the difference?
Are you waiting an other 20 or more years until even science confirm what yoga knew thousand of years ago?
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on January 08, 2019, 09:49:16 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I think Arik's problem is one of being inarticulate, unable to put English sentences together in a way that we, the readers, can understand. My guess would be a lack of decent education is the cause of the inability to state things clearly and succinctly..


Little to do with education brother.
It is rather the fact that my mother language is not English.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on January 08, 2019, 10:00:03 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't understand why emergent phenomena would be considered "magic," since it's obvious that emergent phenomena do exist. Water is wet, but not when there is only one molecule of it. Wetness emerges when the number of water molecules reaches sufficient numbers, and not before. How many that is I don't know, though. Brains are conscious, but not when there is only one neuron.
 

Consciousness Is the Whole Brain. It's Not Reducible. (https://bigthink.com/ideafeed/consciousness-is-the-whole-brain-not-a-single-region)


The world is full full of guesses and most of these guesses will never reach the stage to become evidence including the guess that the consciousness is the whole brain or the funny story that when the body die also the consciousness die.



Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on January 08, 2019, 12:33:12 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

The world is full full of guesses and most of these guesses will never reach the stage to become evidence including the guess that the consciousness is the whole brain or the funny story that when the body die also the consciousness die.

The spirit is multidimensional, death is the cessation of one of those dimensions.  Not necessarily the cessation of all of them.  My posts may outlive me, and are the product of my extended consciousness.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mike Cl on January 08, 2019, 01:04:27 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

The world is full full of guesses and most of these guesses will never reach the stage to become evidence including the guess that the consciousness is the whole brain or the funny story that when the body die also the consciousness die.
Theist guesses will forever remain guesses.  Scientific guesses are called an hypothesis and they will be tested; some will become established fact and the rest will be disproved or unproved guesses.

Huge difference, my man.  You can believe whatever your little heart demands.  I shall not 'believe' anything and only rely on fact or evidence. 
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: drunkenshoe on January 08, 2019, 02:23:56 PM
Do not type 'multidimensional spirit' on the research bar. <Spirituality could not be engaged>
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on January 08, 2019, 06:43:47 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Do not type 'multidimensional spirit' on the research bar. <Spirituality could not be engaged>

That is because your avatar is clearly 2-dimensional, but 2 is more than one, so you are at least minimally multidimensional yourself.  I have yet to discover how many dimensions I have ;-)
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mike Cl on January 08, 2019, 07:49:14 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That is because your avatar is clearly 2-dimensional, but 2 is more than one, so you are at least minimally multidimensional yourself.  I have yet to discover how many dimensions I have ;-)
Hey, buddy, I can help you out.  You have one just like the rest of us.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on January 08, 2019, 08:45:57 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Hey, buddy, I can help you out.  You have one just like the rest of us.

But my avatar is of a three dimensional person.  Her's is a line drawing.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Cavebear on January 09, 2019, 12:05:00 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Oh lord...someone went off and broke Brauch......crap....who the fuck is gonna clean up this?

He has been "broken" the couple of years I've been here.  Maybe all the time he has been here before me.

But as far as "cleaning up", well YOU are the Moderator...
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Hydra009 on January 09, 2019, 12:34:49 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Survival is very important BL but progress is even more important.
Kinda hard to make progress when you're dead, though.

Quote
Of course if you reckon that ..................no living thing is more highly evolved than another..........then I imagine that you wouldn't mind to be an animal or a plant or even a prehistoric man.
No one gets to choose their birth, so preferences are irrelevant.  You might as well ask people which planet they'd like to live on or what time period they'd like to grow up in.

And yes, all living organisms are equally evolved - they all have a chain of ancestors going back to the earliest life on the planet, life that diversified and changed over the aeons to adapt to wide range of habitats and changing conditions, especially the threats and opportunities posed by other ever-changing species.

You've misconceptualized evolution as some sort of progressive process (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthogenesis) with the goal of producing increasingly sophisticated consciousnesses.  This is not remotely the case.  For starters, biology has no teleology, no end goal.  Survival is what matters.  If it confers an evolutionary advantage for a cavefish population to lose its eyes, that's what's going to happen.  Second, consciousness/intelligence, while a hell of a successful adaption (so far) might not end all that well for us.  Meanwhile, cyanobacteria keep chugging along, oblivious to the rise and fall of humanity.  Humans are the only sentient species on Earth out of a ton of similarly-endowed primates which all went extinct.  If evolution is trying to crank out sentience, it's doing a remarkably poor job.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Blackleaf on January 09, 2019, 01:25:00 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
No one gets to choose their birth, so preferences are irrelevant.  You might as well ask people which planet they'd like to live on or what time period they'd like to grow up in.

And yes, all living organisms are equally evolved - they all have a chain of ancestors going back to the earliest life on the planet, life that diversified and changed over the aeons to adapt to wide range of habitats and changing conditions, especially the threats and opportunities posed by other ever-changing species.

You've misconceptualized evolution as some sort of progressive process (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthogenesis) with the goal of producing increasingly sophisticated consciousnesses.  This is not remotely the case.  For starters, biology has no teleology, no end goal.  Survival is what matters.  If it confers an evolutionary advantage for a cavefish population to lose its eyes, that's what's going to happen.  Second, consciousness/intelligence, while a hell of a successful adaption (so far) might not end all that well for us.  Meanwhile, cyanobacteria keep chugging along, oblivious to the rise and fall of humanity.  Humans are the only sentient species on Earth out of a ton of similarly-endowed primates which all went extinct.  If evolution is trying to crank out sentience, it's doing a remarkably poor job.

It's funny. Throughout the many years of evolution, convergent evolution has resulted in many different species adopting similar traits independently. Especially after a mass extinction event, life will rapidly diversify to fill the niches that were made vacant. Humans, however, are quite unique. The only other species I'm aware of that has been even slightly similar to us has been the neanderthal, and they were just apes who shared a common ancestor with us. No lizards have ever been like us. No birds have ever been like us. Humans are in a niche of their own making. Like you said, if we're the end goal of evolution, evolution is not doing a very good job.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Cavebear on January 09, 2019, 03:38:19 AM
Hydra makes a good [point.  Evolution is not directional, nor toward a point.  There is no "intent".

And Blackleaf is also correct.  Humans are quite unique.

Those are not contradictory thoughts...
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on January 09, 2019, 05:20:23 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It's funny. Throughout the many years of evolution, convergent evolution has resulted in many different species adopting similar traits independently. Especially after a mass extinction event, life will rapidly diversify to fill the niches that were made vacant. Humans, however, are quite unique. The only other species I'm aware of that has been even slightly similar to us has been the neanderthal, and they were just apes who shared a common ancestor with us. No lizards have ever been like us. No birds have ever been like us. Humans are in a niche of their own making. Like you said, if we're the end goal of evolution, evolution is not doing a very good job.

Neanderthals had limited culture and were cold adapted.  Modern humans were equatorial in origin, and only slightly more cultural.  Your model is prejudiced.

Cro-magnon art happened after inter-breeding between Neanderthals and modern humans.  That is where the leap in culture happened, on accident.  Modern humans on their own had only achieved limited rock art (San people).  Modern people (with or without Neanderthal additions) are monkeys, who share a common ancestor the with superior Homo Erectus ancestor, who was around on their own for 500,000 years.  This happened because they didn't overburden the environment.  The hybrid version (and the culturally adapted pure modern humans) are a mega-extinction event.  Is that superior?  Does Twitter actually demonstrate progress, or a beau jeste of a self destructive species?
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Cavebear on January 09, 2019, 06:21:24 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Neanderthals had limited culture and were cold adapted.  Modern humans were equatorial in origin, and only slightly more cultural.  Your model is prejudiced.

Cro-magnon art happened after inter-breeding between Neanderthals and modern humans.  That is where the leap in culture happened, on accident.  Modern humans on their own had only achieved limited rock art (San people).  Modern people (with or without Neanderthal additions) are monkeys, who share a common ancestor the with superior Homo Erectus ancestor, who was around on their own for 500,000 years.  This happened because they didn't overburden the environment.  The hybrid version (and the culturally adapted pure modern humans) are a mega-extinction event.  Is that superior?  Does Twitter actually demonstrate progress, or a beau jeste of a self destructive species?

Your nonsense is really very tiresome.

Just about the simple stuff...

1.  The Cro-Magnon Africans were doing obvious art before they ever met a Neanderthal.
2.  The San are simply where more ancient people were, and have no positive connection to the old rock paintings.
3.  But that doesn't really matter because Early Homo Sapiens left Africa long before that.
4.  Modern homo sapiens art predates Neanderthal contact.
5.  "Modern people (with or without Neanderthal additions) are monkeys".  You have to be a half wit-theist to think THAT.    Seriously...

I'm glad I'm not you.




Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mr.Obvious on January 09, 2019, 06:29:10 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
But my avatar is of a three dimensional person.  Hers is a line drawing.

Oh My God!

(https://news.nationalgeographic.com/content/dam/news/2016/01/12/prayingmantis/01prayingmantis3d.ngsversion.1452632400349.adapt.1900.1.jpg)

He's not wrong!
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on January 09, 2019, 07:29:41 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Kinda hard to make progress when you're dead, though.


Where is the evidence that people die?
Have you ever seen a dead consciousness next to a dead body?


Quote
No one gets to choose their birth, so preferences are irrelevant.  You might as well ask people which planet they'd like to live on or what time period they'd like to grow up in.


Guessing again Hydra?
You keep on pretending that your guesses are evidence when in reality stay guesses.
It is more likely that your consciousness follow you wherever you go so if you are a fair person your dreams and your expectations will eventuate into a future life.
There are thousand of example in which small children are so clever even if nobody teach them anything.
You may wonder where they learned those skills.
Take Mozart and Beethoven.
At the age of 3 or 4 Mozart and 6 or 7 Beethoven they were already skilled enough to give their first concert.
Obviously they learned those skills in previous lives.



Quote
And yes, all living organisms are equally evolved - they all have a chain of ancestors going back to the earliest life on the planet, life that diversified and changed over the aeons to adapt to wide range of habitats and changing conditions, especially the threats and opportunities posed by other ever-changing species.


More guesses Hydra.
Nobody is equal to anybody else.
Diversity is the norm.
Life is like a run to the treasure hunt.
You can not expect that everybody get there at the same time.


Quote
You've misconceptualized evolution as some sort of progressive process (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthogenesis) with the goal of producing increasingly sophisticated consciousnesses.  This is not remotely the case.  For starters, biology has no teleology, no end goal.  Survival is what matters.  If it confers an evolutionary advantage for a cavefish population to lose its eyes, that's what's going to happen.  Second, consciousness/intelligence, while a hell of a successful adaption (so far) might not end all that well for us.  Meanwhile, cyanobacteria keep chugging along, oblivious to the rise and fall of humanity.  Humans are the only sentient species on Earth out of a ton of similarly-endowed primates which all went extinct.  If evolution is trying to crank out sentience, it's doing a remarkably poor job.


Everybody survive Hydra.
Consciousness and energy are the two sides of the same sheet and because energy is behind destruction also consciousness is.
What really happen according to me is that those who are not able to keep up with the fast race will end up in a different race in which they can compete.
It is like a mosaic tiles.
A particular tile can only fit in a particular mosaic



Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on January 09, 2019, 07:48:18 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Hydra makes a good [point.  Evolution is not directional, nor toward a point.  There is no "intent".

And Blackleaf is also correct.  Humans are quite unique.

Those are not contradictory thoughts...


Plenty of guesses CB.

As the destiny of a simple drop of water is to end up (down) into the ocean to become the ocean itself also our destiny is to end up in a different ocean in order to become that ocean ourselves.

Gravity may make sure that a drop of water end in a ocean of water but for humans a different form of gravity do the job.
This is what people will learn when they will realize that physical science lead them nowhere.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: trdsf on January 09, 2019, 10:31:45 AM
Aaaand there it is, all-out Deepak Chopra mode, except even less coherent. I'm impressed, in a slightly nauseated way, that was even possible.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on January 09, 2019, 06:35:51 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Your nonsense is really very tiresome.

Just about the simple stuff...

1.  The Cro-Magnon Africans were doing obvious art before they ever met a Neanderthal.
2.  The San are simply where more ancient people were, and have no positive connection to the old rock paintings.
3.  But that doesn't really matter because Early Homo Sapiens left Africa long before that.
4.  Modern homo sapiens art predates Neanderthal contact.
5.  "Modern people (with or without Neanderthal additions) are monkeys".  You have to be a half wit-theist to think THAT.    Seriously...

I'm glad I'm not you.

French caves in Central Africa ... who knew!

Or maybe you think Wakanda was real?  Maybe San people had the only Earth source of Unobtanium?

Not knocking San people, they were incredible until we domesticated them in my generation.  They are no longer able to hunt prehistoric style, and are on reservations.

https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/noma/hd_noma.htm  ... like other early modern people.  Neanderthals before integration, not so much.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_behavior#Claims_of_art_and_adornment ... no essay at my favorite Art Museum for Neanderthals, because there isn't much to show, other than stone tools.

https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/lasc/hd_lasc.htm ... Cro-Magnon were already integrated non-Equatorial people.  Many Equatorial Africans never intermarried with Neanderthals, because after 20,000 BCE, they didn't exist.

But continue to hate on anyone not Sub-Saharan African if you want to.

Here is easy access to all of pre-historic art images at the Met ...
https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/keywords/prehistoric-art/
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: aitm on January 09, 2019, 09:04:34 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Where is the evidence that people die?

There....in a nutshell. Pretty much lays bare the crux of the boys whole thesis. The grandest of human arrogance. That humans don't die like "other" creatures. We are "special". No evidence of that, but hey....this kid don't need no frickin evidence he has gawd. The great equalizer, and by that, everyone is equal, whether you believe or not. Meh....what good is a god what don't cater to his own eh?
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Hydra009 on January 09, 2019, 10:05:59 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Where is the evidence that people die?
So I take it you've never seen a cemetery?

Quote
You keep on pretending that your guesses are evidence when in reality stay guesses.
People who live in glass houses...

Quote
It is more likely that your consciousness follow you wherever you go so if you are a fair person your dreams and your expectations will eventuate into a future life.
You have no idea whether or not this is this case.  It is something you want to believe is real so you've convinced yourself that it's real.

Quote
There are thousand of example in which small children are so clever even if nobody teach them anything.
You may wonder where they learned those skills.
Take Mozart and Beethoven.
At the age of 3 or 4 Mozart and 6 or 7 Beethoven they were already skilled enough to give their first concert.
Obviously they learned those skills in previous lives.
Baruch?

Quote
Nobody is equal to anybody else.
I take it no one explained to you that evolution operates at the level of populations.  No wonder your claims about evolution are so wonky.

Quote
Consciousness and energy are the two sides of the same sheet and because energy is behind destruction also consciousness is.
It's so strange that you think this is a coherent thought, let alone a cogent argument.

Quote
What really happen according to me is that those who are not able to keep up with the fast race will end up in a different race in which they can compete.
It is like a mosaic tiles.
A particular tile can only fit in a particular mosaic
(http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/hsop.gif)

Whatever.  Find somewhere else to peddle your BS.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on January 10, 2019, 04:53:37 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
There....in a nutshell. Pretty much lays bare the crux of the boys whole thesis. The grandest of human arrogance. That humans don't die like "other" creatures. We are "special". No evidence of that, but hey....this kid don't need no frickin evidence he has gawd. The great equalizer, and by that, everyone is equal, whether you believe or not. Meh....what good is a god what don't cater to his own eh?

"Baruch?" inarticulate much, Hydra009?  I believe that Arik is referring to the Socratic/Platonic theory of knowledge:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic_epistemology

i don't agree with Socrates/Plato.  And that philosophy relies on a rationalism of disembodied Platonic Forms that the hoi polloi can tap into:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method ... basically a form of psychological rationalism ... that is anti-empirical.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meno%27s_slave ... here is the "demonstration" of the method ... ignorant slave vs geometry.

Per Heraclitus, I have to agree with Arik "Nobody is equal to anybody else.", and per Cratylus, you aren't even equal to yourself (because you are constantly changing).

http://faculty.evansville.edu/tb2/trip/cratylus.htm
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on January 10, 2019, 05:08:35 AM
Human beings aren't special, just another monkey.  Yes, treat humans as cattle.  Breed them for food.  "It's a cookbook!".  White people, the other white meat.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on January 10, 2019, 09:09:21 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
There....in a nutshell. Pretty much lays bare the crux of the boys whole thesis. The grandest of human arrogance. That humans don't die like "other" creatures. We are "special". No evidence of that, but hey....this kid don't need no frickin evidence he has gawd. The great equalizer, and by that, everyone is equal, whether you believe or not. Meh....what good is a god what don't cater to his own eh?


1) The day you will see a dead consciousness (whether human, animal or from a plant and real so no hallucinations) please let me know so I will send you a truck load full of 24 carat gold.
This is my promise to you AITM.
I am pretty honest with my promises.

2) Now what about.............what good is a god what don't cater to his own eh?.......

You mean that the inventor of the universal game should tell you where the treasure is?
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on January 10, 2019, 09:38:32 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So I take it you've never seen a cemetery?


Been there Hydra, yet I haven't seen any dead consciousness.


Quote
People who live in glass houses...


(https://data.whicdn.com/images/135924258/original.gif)



Quote
You have no idea whether or not this is this case.  It is something you want to believe is real so you've convinced yourself that it's real.


At least I do bring something that make a lot of sense.
You on the contrary bring nothing.


Quote
I take it no one explained to you that evolution operates at the level of populations.  No wonder your claims about evolution are so wonky.
It's so strange that you think this is a coherent thought, let alone a cogent argument.


I guess that nobody ever told you that Darwin idea of evolution is only related to the evolution of the body.
The guy was too busy with this part or portion of evolution that never study the other evolution which is the evolution of the consciousness.
Sad indeed because now the intellectual fraternity wrongly think that the evolution is all about body evolution.


Quote
Whatever.  Find somewhere else to peddle your BS.


Have a lovely day Hydra.





Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mike Cl on January 10, 2019, 09:50:27 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


I guess that nobody ever told you that Darwin idea of evolution is only related to the evolution of the body.
The guy was too busy with this part or portion of evolution that never study the other evolution which is the evolution of the consciousness.
Sad indeed because now the intellectual fraternity wrongly think that the evolution is all about body evolution.

What have I learned to date from Arik?  You are a typical theist; trots out belief after belief, assertion after assertion, and thinks that saying something over and over and in a loud voice makes it real.  Sprinkle in some insults and name calling and there your have it; the typical theist, Arik.  You do bring to the table an astounding lack of evidence, thinking or reasoning--or even just plain listening to what others say.  Astounding--yet completely typical willful ignorance and a proud display of stupidity.  Your typical theist. 

Nothing to see here folks, just move along...............................
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Blackleaf on January 10, 2019, 05:00:50 PM
Arik sounds like the Creationist who demands to see a crocoduck as evidence for evolution. If we somehow found the nonsensical evidence they demanded ("seeing dead consciousness," OMFG), we would be proving ourselves wrong.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: trdsf on January 10, 2019, 05:56:11 PM
Don't forget the hypocrisy of refusing to provide evidence when they're asked for it.  And the cowardice of running like hell from questions they can't answer.

Especially since there's no forum more willing to accept "I don't know" for an answer.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Hydra009 on January 10, 2019, 06:06:08 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Don't forget the hypocrisy of refusing to provide evidence when they're asked for it.
Who needs evidence when you can just take things that are already givens and claim them as evidence?  Consciousness exists therefore [insert religious beliefs here].  Checkmate, atheists.

Quote
And the cowardice of running like hell from questions they can't answer.  Especially since there's no forum more willing to accept "I don't know" for an answer.
Yeah, that would be the humble option, but there's no glory or self-importance in that, so it has much less appeal.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Hydra009 on January 10, 2019, 06:12:04 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I guess that nobody ever told you that Darwin idea of evolution is only related to the evolution of the body.
Smarter than Darwin, now?  My, someone's a bit conceited. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aprcqLMY2QY

Quote
The guy was too busy with this part or portion of evolution that never study the other evolution which is the evolution of the consciousness.
When this "other evolution" becomes a legitimate scientific field, then the words pouring out of your cakehole might have merit.  Until then, tell it to the marines.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on January 10, 2019, 07:11:04 PM
Some say, there is no body, just spirit.  Others say there is no spirit, just body.  Yet others say there is both body and spirit, that interact.  But there are yet two more possibilities ... that there is no body and no spirit ... and that body and spirit are just two names for something that has no name.

Perhaps the vanity is in Adam naming things, categorizing them.  There is just All, any categorizing being superficial hair splitting.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Unbeliever on January 10, 2019, 07:16:18 PM
I think they have a great shampoo for those split ends...
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on January 11, 2019, 05:53:57 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I think they have a great shampoo for those split ends...

Weak ;-)  Can you name any other possibilities (besides choosing one particular possibility as your favorite)?  I am interested in what people think, not what they merely ideologue.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on January 11, 2019, 08:05:53 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Arik sounds like the Creationist who demands to see a crocoduck as evidence for evolution. If we somehow found the nonsensical evidence they demanded ("seeing dead consciousness," OMFG), we would be proving ourselves wrong.


If the atheists can not provide evidence that the consciousness die when the body die why then they keep on saying that there is only one life?

Can't you see the contradiction?
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on January 11, 2019, 08:19:39 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Smarter than Darwin, now?  My, someone's a bit conceited.

Not me Hydra but Shiva that gave yoga is much smarter than Darwin.
However is not that Darwin was an idiot.
He was quite good but in his own field of knowledge.
I for example I am a disaster in playing music not for this reason I should be called an idiot.
Everybody is smart in their own field.



Quote
When this "other evolution" becomes a legitimate scientific field, then the words pouring out of your cakehole might have merit.  Until then, tell it to the marines.


Oh, I see.
So you reason like those folks that were waiting for the Pope or for any other important person that would explain them that the planet earth was not flat to change their mind.





Title: Re: Hi
Post by: SGOS on January 11, 2019, 08:49:55 AM
This thread is too much.  I need a break (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTIpkFwDkV4)
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on January 11, 2019, 08:54:38 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Don't forget the hypocrisy of refusing to provide evidence when they're asked for it.  And the cowardice of running like hell from questions they can't answer.

I thought I was quite clear in answering Mike question about evidence for God.
Evidence is there but it is individual.
As you can not show any evidence that your love for your lover is real I also can not show that MY spiritual love for God is real.
All physical evidence for any kind of love boil down to extra hormones released by the glands in question and that's all.
Finding God is like finding a treasure.
What you find belong to you not to other people.
Why should it belong to people who are not interested in finding the treasure within?

That what it is.
God lie within not up in an external heaven.
It is like a seed who need to be germinated in order to manifest.

This is my personal experience and your are free to dismiss it as no evidence.
Please yourself.


Quote
Especially since there's no forum more willing to accept "I don't know" for an answer.


I don't know is an excellent answer in case you really do not know.
Unfortunately a lot of people who say I don't know one moment the next moment take things void of any evidence as golden evidence like...........we only got one life.........when you die is all over.........Jesus never existed......and so on.





Title: Re: Hi
Post by: trdsf on January 11, 2019, 11:37:57 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Evidence is there but it is individual.
Then it's not evidence and you need to quit calling it evidence.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't know is an excellent answer in case you really do not know.
Unfortunately a lot of people who say I don't know one moment the next moment take things void of any evidence as golden evidence like...........we only got one life.........when you die is all over.........Jesus never existed......and so on.
I don't have any evidence to say you're not a child rapist and serial killer.  By your own "logic", I am therefore justified in thinking you are one.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Unbeliever on January 11, 2019, 02:25:28 PM
Frankly, Arik, I don't think anyone here cares one little bit what you believe. Believe whatever floats your boat, but you're not going to persuade anyone here to believe as you do - certainly not with arguments from mere assertion.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on January 11, 2019, 07:36:14 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Frankly, Arik, I don't think anyone here cares one little bit what you believe. Believe whatever floats your boat, but you're not going to persuade anyone here to believe as you do - certainly not with arguments from mere assertion.

I care.  But then I have an open mind on religious matters.  Very closed on political matters though ;-)
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Unbeliever on January 11, 2019, 07:48:37 PM
Is your mind so open that your brain fell out?
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on January 11, 2019, 08:06:07 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Is your mind may be so open that your brain fell out?

Very old joke.  Even older commercial, for the decongestant .. this line cartoon guy had the sniffles, and because he didn't get some effective decongestant, his head just floated off his shoulders.  But the real reason he wanted Sudafed was to distill meth amphetamines ;-)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a62yhOC4isA
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Unbeliever on January 11, 2019, 08:27:47 PM
You bet your sweet bippy!
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Cavebear on January 12, 2019, 12:42:09 AM
I see Arik as a typical theist, unable to to distinguish between fact and fiction, and unable to comprehend a logical argument, imagining that his beliefs represent reality in spite of all evidence of fact.  As such, I don't really much care about anything he posts.

Fools can post what they want.  When they get too moronic, I will reply.  But most of you will save me the trouble, LOL!
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on January 12, 2019, 08:44:50 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Then it's not evidence and you need to quit calling it evidence.


What is evidence to you may not be evidence to me and the other way around.
You can tell me that your relationship with your lover is build on love but you could not produce any solid evidence that you are right.

Evidence for God travel along the same path so to speak.
What belong to you can not be transferred to anybody else so is only evidence to you and not anybody else.
In other words evidence exist.
This is undeniable but in most cases it may not be evidence to other.


Quote
I don't have any evidence to say you're not a child rapist and serial killer.  By your own "logic", I am therefore justified in thinking you are one.

This is a logic that is gone astray.
Why don't you instead explain how your evidence for something that belong to you as explained in my previous example can be turned into evidence for everybody else?
It is impossible that is why is not possible for me or anybody else to produce evidence for God unless you yourself build up a relationship with Him.
So to say that God does not exist doesn't make sense.
There is no evidence as there is no evidence to say that your love for your lover does not exist.


Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Cavebear on January 12, 2019, 08:49:52 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

What is evidence to you may not be evidence to me and the other way around.
You can tell me that your relationship with your lover is build on love but you could not produce any solid evidence that you are right.

Evidence for God travel along the same path so to speak.
What belong to you can not be transferred to anybody else so is only evidence to you and not anybody else.
In other words evidence exist.
This is undeniable but in most cases it may not be evidence to other.


This is a logic that is gone astray.
Why don't you instead explain how your evidence for something that belong to you as explained in my previous example can be turned into evidence for everybody else?
It is impossible that is why is not possible for me or anybody else to produce evidence for God unless you yourself build up a relationship with Him.
So to say that God does not exist doesn't make sense.
There is no evidence as there is no evidence to say that your love for your lover does not exist.

OK, you are saying that the soul is separate from the person and does not belong to them to control.  I get that.  What about vaccines?  How about if a pregnant women dares to venture out of the house?  Is that wrong?  What if her actions help other women to give birth and she loses her child?  What happens to her in God's eyes? 
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mike Cl on January 12, 2019, 09:04:02 AM
This is for Arik--not Cavebear--sorry.
OK, you are saying that the soul is separate from the person and does not belong to them to control.  I get that.  What about vaccines?  How about if a pregnant women dares to venture out of the house?  Is that wrong?  What if her actions help other women to give birth and she loses her child?  What happens to her in God's eyes?
[/quote]
You really are crazier than a shithouse rat, aren't you?!!  It really would be better for this world for you to be contained somewhere where you can't hurt yourself or others. 
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Cavebear on January 12, 2019, 09:08:34 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You really are crazier than a shithouse rat, aren't you?!!  It really would be better for this world for you to be contained somewhere where you can't hurt yourself or others.
 

Hey wait man, that got aimed at ME...

Did you intend that?
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Hydra009 on January 12, 2019, 09:10:32 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

What is evidence to you may not be evidence to me and the other way around.
That's...not how evidence works.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Cavebear on January 12, 2019, 09:13:15 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That's...not how evidence works.

Indeed, evidence goes one way.  And usually, not in favor of theists...
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mike Cl on January 12, 2019, 09:13:35 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
 

Hey wait man, that got aimed at ME...

Did you intend that?
Cavebear--how could you even think that was intended for you, my fine clear thinking bruin????  You are the opposite of what I wrote about Arik.  He is demonstrating the worst of the theist ideas--they are hurtful and dangerous for any society to take seriously.  Yet many theists do believe those crazy, dangerous, stupid things--witness all the religious 'leaders' who actively support Trump.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Cavebear on January 12, 2019, 09:35:04 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Cavebear--how could you even think that was intended for you, my fine clear thinking bruin????  You are the opposite of what I wrote about Arik.  He is demonstrating the worst of the theist ideas--they are hurtful and dangerous for any society to take seriously.  Yet many theists do believe those crazy, dangerous, stupid things--witness all the religious 'leaders' who actively support Trump.

OK, let's say It SEEMED like a comment was aimed at me, so that's why I asked.  LOL!  I was pretty sure it wasn't, but it makes sense to check. 

"my fine clear thinking bruin????"?  Thank you.

And I blush...
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on January 12, 2019, 09:41:02 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
OK, you are saying that the soul is separate from the person and does not belong to them to control.  I get that.  What about vaccines?  How about if a pregnant women dares to venture out of the house?  Is that wrong?  What if her actions help other women to give birth and she loses her child?  What happens to her in God's eyes?


I am afraid my friend that your philosophy is too difficult for me to understand.
Any chances that you can explain in simple words what you are talking about?
Thanks.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on January 12, 2019, 09:47:14 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That's...not how evidence works.


I agree that it wouldn't work in a court of law but on the other hand love has very little to do with laws and rules which the society base their arguments upon.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on January 12, 2019, 09:54:36 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Indeed, evidence goes one way.  And usually, not in favor of theists...


Are you saying that most atheists carry any evidence?

Are you serious?

Where is the evidence that Jesus never existed or that when you die is all over or that the consciousness is a product of the brain?


Better stop fooling yourself into believing that you are right and theists are wrong.
Theists especially religious theists are often wrong so are atheists that is why is not one way.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Cavebear on January 12, 2019, 09:55:10 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I am afraid my friend that your philosophy is too difficult for me to understand.
Any chances that you can explain in simple words what you are talking about?
Thanks.

I understand your difficulty in comprehending complex ideas.  So I will put it in simpler terms you might be able to understand.

Superstitions of deities throwing lightning, DUMB.  Non-theistic evidence makes sense of thunder and lightning; GOOD!

I hope that helped...
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on January 12, 2019, 11:21:19 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Indeed, evidence goes one way.  And usually, not in favor of theists...

Materialism goes one way.  But it is like giving all the powerful chess pieces to one side.  If one wants confirmation bias (most people do), then you arrange the assumptions in your favor, and teflon your assumptions.  Like how Hillary ran the Dem primary in 2016.  That isn't open discussion.  But open discussion isn't what this forum is about.  I get that.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Cavebear on January 12, 2019, 11:30:25 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Materialism goes one way.  But it is like giving all the powerful chess pieces to one side.  If one wants confirmation bias (most people do), then you arrange the assumptions in your favor, and teflon your assumptions.  Like how Hillary ran the Dem primary in 2016.  That isn't open discussion.  But open discussion isn't what this forum is about.  I get that.

You underestimate your potential influence.  Get your reputation back to more thoughtful posts and you might be surprised at the positive attention you get.  Many people would respond to that.  Doesn't mean the replies will all be positive; that is a risk you take.  But I would sure love to see you post more seriously.  I know there is more in that empty vessel you pretend to inhabit sometimes...
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on January 12, 2019, 11:41:40 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You underestimate your potential influence.  Get your reputation back to more thoughtful posts and you might be surprised at the positive attention you get.  Many people would respond to that.  Doesn't mean the replies will all be positive; that is a risk you take.  But I would sure love to see you post more seriously.  I know there is more in that empty vessel you pretend to inhabit sometimes...

Yeah, like Avis, I try harder ... so do you ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gMsusVaLng
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Cavebear on January 12, 2019, 01:24:06 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yeah, like Avis, I try harder ... so do you ...

I like the "Mayhem" commercials better.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on January 12, 2019, 01:54:55 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I like the "Mayhem" commercials better.

I guess you want to be a claims adjuster in your next life?
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on January 13, 2019, 09:02:01 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I understand your difficulty in comprehending complex ideas.  So I will put it in simpler terms you might be able to understand.

Superstitions of deities throwing lightning, DUMB.  Non-theistic evidence makes sense of thunder and lightning; GOOD!

I hope that helped...


Personally I can not see much difference between religious superstitions and atheists dogmas such as .........when we die is all over or the consciousness is a product of the brain just to mention two.
The way you carry on CB is the hard way to the top which will be so hard that it will be impossible for you to climb much further.
Life doesn't have to be so complicate.
As a seed can not yet understand what a tree that produce it is all about also a small consciousness can not yet understand what the cosmic consciousness is all about that is why is so much better take a step at the time instead of trying to understand what is not yet possible to understand.

As a seed need to germinate and grow before it can become a mature tree also humans need to exit the dogma trap that we are separate from everything else and our life means nothing to anybody.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: aitm on January 13, 2019, 10:00:19 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
..... also a small consciousness can not yet understand what the cosmic consciousness is all about that is why is so much better take a step at the time instead of trying to understand what is not yet possible to understand.
A fitting close. I don't know or understand the cosmic universe, but I believe I am special therefore I spew bullshit and proclaim it truth and no one, NO ONE can disprove me.

You nor more can prove consciousness exists outside of the human brain than you can prove trees don't have consciousness. But if you get a stiffy blabbering bullshit, by all means stroke your skull.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: trdsf on January 13, 2019, 10:26:49 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
What is evidence to you may not be evidence to me and the other way around.
Let's see, what's the clearest way to put this?  Oh, yes.

WRONG.

Evidence is by definition independent of the individual.  It is data, not feelings or impressions or ideas.

Let's say you and I walk into a room.  I think it's just right, you think it's cold.  Is it just right or is it cold?  It's neither, because those are individual and subjective assessments.  Now, we can measure the temperature, the pressure and the humidity.  I still might think that a room at 65F is just right, and you might think it's cold, and the data doesn't give a fuck what either of us think.

Your impressions are your own, and I don't question that you believe them, but that does not make them evidence, and unless you can crowbar this fact into your cranium, this conversation serves absolutely no purpose, outside of your own mental masturbation.

You do not get to redefine terms to fit any damned thing you want them to be.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on January 13, 2019, 12:54:46 PM
There is evidence for life.  Materialist deny it.  There is evidence for consciousness.  Materialists deny it.  Common denominator?  Autistic 13 year old males, who can't get over that Santa Claus isn't real.  There are many stages on the path to full nihilism; including misanthropy and self hatred.  Think of a three year old having a tantrum on the floor of the grocery store, embarrassing his mother who spoiled him.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mike Cl on January 13, 2019, 01:03:26 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
There is evidence for life.  Materialist deny it.  There is evidence for consciousness.  Materialists deny it.  Common denominator?  Autistic 13 year old males, who can't get over that Santa Claus isn't real.  There are many stages on the path to full nihilism; including misanthropy and self hatred.  Think of a three year old having a tantrum on the floor of the grocery store, embarrassing his mother who spoiled him.
I think of that child when I think of you--and all the other theists that want so very much to have their favorite fantasy be true.  When nobody accepts there 'evidence' is where the child comes out--the tantrums.  There are many steps to self delusion and religion accelerates those steps.  Just because you believe in your own personal fiction does not mean I, or anybody else, will embrace them.  Grow up.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on January 13, 2019, 01:08:25 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I think of that child when I think of you--and all the other theists that want so very much to have their favorite fantasy be true.  When nobody accepts there 'evidence' is where the child comes out--the tantrums.  There are many steps to self delusion and religion accelerates those steps.  Just because you believe in your own personal fiction does not mean I, or anybody else, will embrace them.  Grow up.

No need to kill your father and marry your mother, eh Oedipus? (sarc)  My father was Santa Claus, and my mother Mrs Santa Claus.  The real kind, not the marketing kind.  Not a belief, but for real.  Of course if you had no parents (raised by wolves) or your parents only gave you lumps of coal, I weep for your lost childhood.

Ah, all grown up?  The ultimate growing up is attending your own funeral.  Are you looking forward to being "fully" mature/over-ripe?  Will you be giving the world, the middle finger (right hand) during the viewing of your body?  So many pr126 folks here, whose inner child is long dead.

Arik, being of S Asian persuasion, he will understand at least as metaphor, that reality is the lila (play) of the sleeping Brahman, a wet dream.  Those who can't even "get it up" can't relate to that.  It does get harder and harder as you age.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: aitm on January 13, 2019, 03:47:59 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
There is evidence for life.  Materialist deny it.  There is evidence for consciousness.  Materialists deny it.  Common denominator?  Autistic 13 year old males, who can't get over that Santa Claus isn't real.  There are many stages on the path to full nihilism; including misanthropy and self hatred.  Think of a three year old having a tantrum on the floor of the grocery store, embarrassing his mother who spoiled him.

I know in your "consciousness" that made sense......after your sentence the rest is grabbing words off a plate. Even your enlightened "consciousness" must understand that if your statement makes no sense to those you present it to, it means nothing. Try harder, I know you can do it.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on January 13, 2019, 05:12:06 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I know in your "consciousness" that made sense......after your sentence the rest is grabbing words off a plate. Even your enlightened "consciousness" must understand that if your statement makes no sense to those you present it to, it means nothing. Try harder, I know you can do it.

But ... but atoms have no life, no consciousness.  Please demonstrate, other than hand waving, how their combination produces life and consciousness.  Saying that "science" has already figured this out, or will some day ... is hand waving.  Epiphenomenalism is a philosophy, not science.  Claiming "there is no other choice" isn't rational.  If one wants to legitimate a philosophy, fine with me, we can talk philosophy, including metaphysics ;-)  There is a section to discuss that.

But this guy, Arik, he is talking philosophy more than theology, psychology more than religion.  Claiming that psychology is BS, isn't rational either.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mike Cl on January 13, 2019, 07:34:40 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
No need to kill your father and marry your mother, eh Oedipus? (sarc)  My father was Santa Claus, and my mother Mrs Santa Claus.  The real kind, not the marketing kind.  Not a belief, but for real.  Of course if you had no parents (raised by wolves) or your parents only gave you lumps of coal, I weep for your lost childhood.

Ah, all grown up?  The ultimate growing up is attending your own funeral.  Are you looking forward to being "fully" mature/over-ripe?  Will you be giving the world, the middle finger (right hand) during the viewing of your body?  So many pr126 folks here, whose inner child is long dead.

Arik, being of S Asian persuasion, he will understand at least as metaphor, that reality is the lila (play) of the sleeping Brahman, a wet dream.  Those who can't even "get it up" can't relate to that.  It does get harder and harder as you age.
All grown up?  Yes..............and no.  I am in at least my third childhood; maybe never left my first one.  I can now pretty much do what I want and I love that part.  Growing old is something that is happening.  Do I like it?  Yes.............and no.  There is good/bad at every stage or life.  Take it one day at a time and deal with any issues as they pop up.  As my late great mom said many times--growing old is not for the weak.  Yep.  But there are enjoyable things about being/growing old (and older).  And it does beat the alternative.  And when that alternative comes, that will be that.  Back to my original state of atoms. 
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on January 13, 2019, 10:20:50 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
All grown up?  Yes..............and no.  I am in at least my third childhood; maybe never left my first one.  I can now pretty much do what I want and I love that part.  Growing old is something that is happening.  Do I like it?  Yes.............and no.  There is good/bad at every stage or life.  Take it one day at a time and deal with any issues as they pop up.  As my late great mom said many times--growing old is not for the weak.  Yep.  But there are enjoyable things about being/growing old (and older).  And it does beat the alternative.  And when that alternative comes, that will be that.  Back to my original state of atoms.

Your atoms come and go every 3 years, in your body.  You aren't atomically the same person you were 3 years ago.  You just think you are.  But that is part of the rhetoric of Buddhism to deny the ego.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mike Cl on January 13, 2019, 11:12:32 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Your atoms come and go every 3 years, in your body.  You aren't atomically the same person you were 3 years ago.  You just think you are.  But that is part of the rhetoric of Buddhism to deny the ego.
No, I don't think I am the same as I was 3 yrs ago.  I may not be a great fan of change, but the simple fact is that change is constant.  The only thing that is constant is change.  That can be upsetting and something I can try to resist.  But it is simply a fact that I have never been the same in any 3 yr. span.  You do like to make pronouncements, don't you.  I have never thought I did not change.  Yes, some of the rhetoric of Buddhism (or each and every religion) is positive.  I don't care what you believe; what I take exception to is theists insistence that I believe what they do, act as they tell me to, when they tell me what my morals should be--or even what morals are--what to accept, or do anything they tell me to do. 
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Hydra009 on January 13, 2019, 11:40:36 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I agree that it wouldn't work in a court of law but on the other hand love has very little to do with laws and rules which the society base their arguments upon.
If it wouldn't work in a court of law, it most likely won't work here.  You should assume an extremely skeptical stance on your position then work on things that support your conclusion (things that are difficult/impossible to explain with another conclusion), eventually making the case that your conclusion is the most likely explanation to explain a body of known facts.

TL;DR:
Good evidence:  The Roman Empire never conquered Japan due to maps showing the Roman Empire's borders never extending nearly that far, no evidence of contact between these two peoples, etc
Bad evidence:  Pizza is better than pasta, you know it in your heart.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on January 14, 2019, 04:03:32 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
No, I don't think I am the same as I was 3 yrs ago.  I may not be a great fan of change, but the simple fact is that change is constant.  The only thing that is constant is change.  That can be upsetting and something I can try to resist.  But it is simply a fact that I have never been the same in any 3 yr. span.  You do like to make pronouncements, don't you.  I have never thought I did not change.  Yes, some of the rhetoric of Buddhism (or each and every religion) is positive.  I don't care what you believe; what I take exception to is theists insistence that I believe what they do, act as they tell me to, when they tell me what my morals should be--or even what morals are--what to accept, or do anything they tell me to do.

Oppression is bad.  But that comes with being in society.  In society "I" am the correct one, and everyone else is wrong.  The more authoritarian society, the badder it is.  Doesn't matter to me what the excuse is (crime, foreign enemies etc).  But no human is autonomous, though we like to pretend we are.  Getting along with coworkers and bosses/customers for instance.  So annoying.  Would be so nice to be able to just tell them to fuck off, right?  And the government, OMG, taxes and traffic laws etc.  But compromise is necessary to be a functional adult.  When an individual absolutely insists on some behavior, that society sanctions ... then problems arise.  Individualism is good, sociopathy is bad.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on January 14, 2019, 08:58:10 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Your atoms come and go every 3 years, in your body.  You aren't atomically the same person you were 3 years ago.  You just think you are.  But that is part of the rhetoric of Buddhism to deny the ego.


Interesting issue Baruch.

The cells that make up the body die every so many days and new cells replace them until the final death of the body.
These new cells that replace the dead ones will be created and reflect the consciousness of that particular person so not all cells will be the same person to person that is why the cells of a drunkard can not be as sentient as those of a good person.

To me it is the consciousness that control the way these new replacing cells will have to be.

The materialist idea that the brain produce the consciousness is just the opposite of what in reality happen.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on January 14, 2019, 09:26:42 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
All grown up?  Yes..............and no.  I am in at least my third childhood; maybe never left my first one.  I can now pretty much do what I want and I love that part.  Growing old is something that is happening.  Do I like it?  Yes.............and no.  There is good/bad at every stage or life.  Take it one day at a time and deal with any issues as they pop up.  As my late great mom said many times--growing old is not for the weak.  Yep.  But there are enjoyable things about being/growing old (and older).  And it does beat the alternative.  And when that alternative comes, that will be that.  Back to my original state of atoms.


How can you go back to your original state of atoms?
They are gone by now.
Apparently the cells which are made by atoms die every so many days with the exception of the brain cells that last a life time and even those will go as physical death come so you can not possibly go back to your atoms.

The only place you can go back is to your consciousness but that is something that you will find out later on.





Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on January 14, 2019, 09:40:52 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If it wouldn't work in a court of law, it most likely won't work here.  You should assume an extremely skeptical stance on your position then work on things that support your conclusion (things that are difficult/impossible to explain with another conclusion), eventually making the case that your conclusion is the most likely explanation to explain a body of known facts.


Also your evidence that you are in love with somebody wouldn't work in a court of law.
That doesn't mean that your love is not real.



Quote
Good evidence:  The Roman Empire never conquered Japan due to maps showing the Roman Empire's borders never extending nearly that far, no evidence of contact between these two peoples, etc
Bad evidence:  Pizza is better than pasta, you know it in your heart.

You don't get it Hydra, do you?

Your failing is that you expect that everything must be explained in a physical way even what is not physical.






Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Hydra009 on January 14, 2019, 10:11:18 AM
It is no vice to be wary of hucksters, apologists, and madmen.  Which one are you?
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mike Cl on January 14, 2019, 10:20:13 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Oppression is bad.  But that comes with being in society.  In society "I" am the correct one, and everyone else is wrong.  The more authoritarian society, the badder it is.  Doesn't matter to me what the excuse is (crime, foreign enemies etc).  But no human is autonomous, though we like to pretend we are.  Getting along with coworkers and bosses/customers for instance.  So annoying.  Would be so nice to be able to just tell them to fuck off, right?  And the government, OMG, taxes and traffic laws etc.  But compromise is necessary to be a functional adult.  When an individual absolutely insists on some behavior, that society sanctions ... then problems arise.  Individualism is good, sociopathy is bad.
I guess your outlook is just naturally pessimistic.  Not mine.  I have no urge to 'tell' 'them' off.  Yes, I do become impatient at times, angry, even; but that comes with being alive.  Yes, I did rail against my bosses until I learned how to deal with that.  I just told them what they wanted to hear and went ahead and did what I thought was best.  It worked.  Yes, I live in a society and that shapes/shaped me.  I've accepted that and do work arounds when I need to.  Individuality is good, individualism (anarchy at the extreme) not always that good.   
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on January 14, 2019, 01:06:45 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Interesting issue Baruch.

The cells that make up the body die every so many days and new cells replace them until the final death of the body.
These new cells that replace the dead ones will be created and reflect the consciousness of that particular person so not all cells will be the same person to person that is why the cells of a drunkard can not be as sentient as those of a good person.

To me it is the consciousness that control the way these new replacing cells will have to be.

The materialist idea that the brain produce the consciousness is just the opposite of what in reality happen.

I see it as a dialectic, not one sided.  The idea that the replacement of cells is done independently of the rest of the body, is ridiculous.  The idea that the mind has no impact on the function of the body (one direction, the mind is just one directional neural one-off) is also ridiculous.  Materialism isn't just one sided, it is an over simplification.   A rationalization.  For agenda/issues completely unrelated (I want to rob banks, I want to rape women etc).
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on January 14, 2019, 01:08:30 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I guess your outlook is just naturally pessimistic.  Not mine.  I have no urge to 'tell' 'them' off.  Yes, I do become impatient at times, angry, even; but that comes with being alive.  Yes, I did rail against my bosses until I learned how to deal with that.  I just told them what they wanted to hear and went ahead and did what I thought was best.  It worked.  Yes, I live in a society and that shapes/shaped me.  I've accepted that and do work arounds when I need to.  Individuality is good, individualism (anarchy at the extreme) not always that good.

So you are Tip Toe, Through The Tulips With Me?
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Unbeliever on January 14, 2019, 01:17:03 PM
Wow, invoking Tiny Tim? What an eye-opener! LOL
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on January 14, 2019, 07:21:57 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Wow, invoking Tiny Tim? What an eye-opener! LOL

I have portrayed a bizarre elderly Tiny Tim for Halloween.  I think I made him a Goth in his old age.

For younger members, here is the original ...

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

I think he rather looked like Baruch Spinoza himself.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Unbeliever on January 14, 2019, 07:31:39 PM
If he'd been on the Gong Show he wouldn't've got past half a minute with that crap! LOL
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on January 14, 2019, 07:38:37 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If he'd been on the Gong Show he wouldn't've got past half a minute with that crap! LOL

I think it was the pre-Pee Wee Herman falsetto that got to people.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Unbeliever on January 14, 2019, 07:53:11 PM
I think I saw him on Ed Sullivan when he was on, way long ago. It was a really big shoe...
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on January 15, 2019, 07:58:58 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It is no vice to be wary of hucksters, apologists, and madmen.  Which one are you?


I suppose some people call me a madman but eh, don't forget that also those that in the past were called madmen for saying that the earth is not the center of the universe went through the same hard time in having to put up with the real madmen.

Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on January 15, 2019, 12:39:59 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I suppose some people call me a madman but eh, don't forget that also those that in the past were called madmen for saying that the earth is not the center of the universe went through the same hard time in having to put up with the real madmen.

People who ad-hominem, do that because they have no argument.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mike Cl on January 15, 2019, 12:51:47 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I suppose some people call me a madman but eh, don't forget that also those that in the past were called madmen for saying that the earth is not the center of the universe went through the same hard time in having to put up with the real madmen.
Madman?  Hardly.  You are simply misguided and willfully ignorant.  Those 'madman' were usually called heretics but your kind.  And they proved their case by using the scientific method--they demonstrated they were correct.  Theists of any and all ages and all stripes have yet to use the scientific method (or any other) to prove anything.  You make assertions and call them proof and evidence.  You don't rise to the level of a madman, only blind and willfully so; one of the masses.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: trdsf on January 15, 2019, 06:29:30 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Your failing is that you expect that everything must be explained in a physical way even what is not physical.
You have to demonstrate the non-physical even exists before it can be considering as an explanation for anything.  It's not that damn difficult; an unexplained event is unexplained until it's explained, and making up something that you happen to like isn't explaining it.

This is exactly the same logical flaw committed by those who think UFOs are alien spacecraft.  You know what?  If they're alien spacecraft, then they are by definition not unidentified flying objects.

Do flying objects exist that are not identified?  Sure, that's any moving object in the sky that you don't know what it is.  There is no path from there to alien spacecraft, and calling them that is logically flawed.

In the same way, do we know how consciousness works?  No.  But there is no path from there to "therefore supernatural" and claiming it's somehow transcendent and beyond material explanation is equally logically flawed for the exact same reasons.  All you can say is "we don't know how it works yet".  Nothing more.

You can believe what you like about the nature consciousness.  You may not call your belief a theory or a hypothesis or an explanation, you may not call your opinions evidence, and you certainly may not call it knowledge or fact or demonstrated.

Them's the rules if you don't want to be considered a crank.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Hydra009 on January 15, 2019, 06:54:29 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I suppose some people call me a madman but eh, don't forget that also those that in the past were called madmen for saying that the earth is not the center of the universe went through the same hard time in having to put up with the real madmen.
Galileo gambit. (https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/216/Galileo-Fallacy)

GG no re
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on January 16, 2019, 08:08:28 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Madman?  Hardly.  You are simply misguided and willfully ignorant.  Those 'madman' were usually called heretics but your kind.  And they proved their case by using the scientific method--they demonstrated they were correct.  Theists of any and all ages and all stripes have yet to use the scientific method (or any other) to prove anything.  You make assertions and call them proof and evidence.  You don't rise to the level of a madman, only blind and willfully so; one of the masses.


Wrong again Mike.

Yoga is the oldest and the best scientific method that there is and ever existed.
The physical science that you rely to day after day after day came few thousand years after the science of yoga.

One of your problem Mike is that you haven't got the slightest idea what science is all about.
Without going in details science in general is all but knowledge on a particular subject which subject doesn't have to be necessary of physical nature and by practicing yoga is possible to get the best of all knowledge.

Because this knowledge is achieved only by those who practice this science is obvious that is not transferable to other although other people can get it themselves if they so desire.


A last point Mike.

Why yoga is the best among all science?
Easy Mike.
Because it lead to the infinite which is what all form of life conscious or unconscious strive for.
Physical science on the other hand is all about survival only.
Survive is a must but after survival something else something bigger is expected.









Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on January 16, 2019, 08:38:40 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You have to demonstrate the non-physical even exists before it can be considering as an explanation for anything.  It's not that damn difficult; an unexplained event is unexplained until it's explained, and making up something that you happen to like isn't explaining it.

This is exactly the same logical flaw committed by those who think UFOs are alien spacecraft.  You know what?  If they're alien spacecraft, then they are by definition not unidentified flying objects.

Do flying objects exist that are not identified?  Sure, that's any moving object in the sky that you don't know what it is.  There is no path from there to alien spacecraft, and calling them that is logically flawed.


Does this means that you can transfer to a child that has never experienced physical-mental love what the love between you and your lover is all about?

Can you?
So if you can not how on earth are you expecting that a materialist that is billions of light years far away from any from of spirituality be able to understand what God is all about?



Quote
In the same way, do we know how consciousness works?  No.  But there is no path from there to "therefore supernatural" and claiming it's somehow transcendent and beyond material explanation is equally logically flawed for the exact same reasons.  All you can say is "we don't know how it works yet".  Nothing more.

You can believe what you like about the nature consciousness.  You may not call your belief a theory or a hypothesis or an explanation, you may not call your opinions evidence, and you certainly may not call it knowledge or fact or demonstrated.


1) Consciousness is there even when the cells that make up your body die and new pop up.
From here you can work out that consciousness is not physical in nature otherwise she also would die when all the rest die and a new consciousness would pop up but that is not the case.

2) As far as ...........we do not know how consciousness works............
that is a defective response because through the art of intuitional science is possible to know how the consciousness works.


Quote
Them's the rules if you don't want to be considered a crank.


Them's the rules?
What?



Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on January 16, 2019, 08:45:42 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
People who ad-hominem, do that because they have no argument.


I suppose that it also must be quite hard to say............I was wrong.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mike Cl on January 16, 2019, 09:22:21 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Wrong again Mike.

Yoga is the oldest and the best scientific method that there is and ever existed.
The physical science that you rely to day after day after day came few thousand years after the science of yoga.

One of your problem Mike is that you haven't got the slightest idea what science is all about.
Without going in details science in general is all but knowledge on a particular subject which subject doesn't have to be necessary of physical nature and by practicing yoga is possible to get the best of all knowledge.

Because this knowledge is achieved only by those who practice this science is obvious that is not transferable to other although other people can get it themselves if they so desire.


A last point Mike.

Why yoga is the best among all science?
Easy Mike.
Because it lead to the infinite which is what all form of life conscious or unconscious strive for.
Physical science on the other hand is all about survival only.
Survive is a must but after survival something else something bigger is expected.
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha..............................................................What a riot--you are just one belly laugh after another! :)))))))))))))  Keep on posting, I need a good laugh every now and again!! :)))))) :grin:
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Hydra009 on January 16, 2019, 09:31:03 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yoga is the oldest and the best scientific method that there is and ever existed.
(https://i.imgur.com/y91Dmrk.gif)

Quote
One of your problem Mike is that you haven't got the slightest idea what science is all about.
Without going in details science in general is all but knowledge on a particular subject which subject doesn't have to be necessary of physical nature and by practicing yoga is possible to get the best of all knowledge.
Well that's totally wrong (and partially incoherent)

The correct answer has to do with the process of systematizing knowledge.  Basically, the exact opposite of the mysticism you espouse.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on January 16, 2019, 01:12:20 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I suppose that it also must be quite hard to say............I was wrong.

Inconceivable ... everyone here is like this guy ....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhXjcZdk5QQ
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: trdsf on January 16, 2019, 07:45:41 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Does this means that you can transfer to a child that has never experienced physical-mental love what the love between you and your lover is all about? (1)
Can you? (2)
So if you can not how on earth are you expecting that a materialist that is billions of light years far away from any from of spirituality be able to understand what God is all about? (3)
Fallacy.  I've numbered your comments above for clarity below.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
1) Consciousness is there even when the cells that make up your body die and new pop up.
From here you can work out that consciousness is not physical in nature otherwise she also would die when all the rest die and a new consciousness would pop up but that is not the case.
Deeply and profoundly wrong.  Consciousness is dependent upon the electrochemistry of the brain, not on individual atoms or even individual neurons.  The fact that through electroencephalography we can show which parts of the brain handle language, math, vision, and other conscious and unconscious functions -- and the fact that physical damage to the brain in these areas affects these functions -- is evidence in favor of a material basis for consciousness.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
2) As far as ...........we do not know how consciousness works............
that is a defective response because through the art of intuitional science is possible to know how the consciousness works.
There is no such thing as 'intuitional science'.  Science is based on data and observation, not "I like this idea so I'll believe it".  If you want to put forward a theory of consciousness, you have to provide the concrete data to support that idea.  "Yeah, but you can't explain it!" is not evidence.  Or are you going to claim that you know more about how the brain works than not only anyone who has already studied the problem of consciousness, but also anyone who ever will in the future?  If so, you need to have a deep think about your arrogance.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Them's the rules?
What?
Yup.  If you want to put forth a theory and have it taken seriously, them's the rules.  If you don't like them or don't think they apply to you, feel free to go fuck yourself.  You came to us to put forth your drivel and nonsense -- I am obliged to question your intelligence and rationality if you genuinely thought coming here among the rationalists and materialists you could offer a proposition explicitly based on woo and magical "thinking" and be taken seriously.

If you want to re-label what you've suggested about consciousness as your opinion or your belief, I will have no argument with that.  If you want to suggest it's anything more than that, you have the responsibility to provide the concrete evidence and repeatable observations and independent data to support that proposition.

If you can't do that, then the hell with you.  You're not worth wasting any more time on.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on January 17, 2019, 09:39:32 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Fallacy.  I've numbered your comments above for clarity below.
  • You are confusing subjective feelings with objective data in statement 1.  What feelings I can explain have nothing whatsoever to do with what data I can demonstrate.
  • Non sequitur.  Neither the truth nor falsity of statements 1 and 2 lead to 3.  They are unrelated statements
  • In statement 3, you cannot appeal to a god as an answer, or even as a datum, without first demonstrating the existence of one.
You turn something very very simple into something very very complicate, intellectual and philosophical that is not really needed in  this case.
The point was all about providing evidence about something that is not physical.
Atheists expect to see physical evidence of something that is not physical which obviously is not possible and my simple example explained how this doesn't make sense.


Quote
Deeply and profoundly wrong.  Consciousness is dependent upon the electrochemistry of the brain, not on individual atoms or even individual neurons.  The fact that through electroencephalography we can show which parts of the brain handle language, math, vision, and other conscious and unconscious functions -- and the fact that physical damage to the brain in these areas affects these functions -- is evidence in favor of a material basis for consciousness.


That is a lot of garbage Mister.
Although is true that the consciousness is dependent on the brain to function as long as we are alive that doesn't mean that the consciousness is created or is a product of the brain.
There is no evidence of whatsoever that this is the case.
Yours is just your guessing and some scientists guessing which has zero to do with evidence.



Quote
There is no such thing as 'intuitional science'.  Science is based on data and observation, not "I like this idea so I'll believe it".  If you want to put forward a theory of consciousness, you have to provide the concrete data to support that idea.  "Yeah, but you can't explain it!" is not evidence.  Or are you going to claim that you know more about how the brain works than not only anyone who has already studied the problem of consciousness, but also anyone who ever will in the future?  If so, you need to have a deep think about your arrogance.


Oh, well then it means that all the people that in the last seven thousand years or so practice intuitional science were a bunch of idiots.
How can you dismiss something that you never practice?
Here we go back to my previous point in which it is impossible to give evidence about something personal such as love.
Everybody knows that it exist but at the same time it is personal between two entity and not transferable.



Quote
Yup.  If you want to put forth a theory and have it taken seriously, them's the rules.  If you don't like them or don't think they apply to you, feel free to go fuck yourself.  You came to us to put forth your drivel and nonsense -- I am obliged to question your intelligence and rationality if you genuinely thought coming here among the rationalists and materialists you could offer a proposition explicitly based on woo and magical "thinking" and be taken seriously.


Oh, well there is a little big problem with materialists because for them only matter exist.
But the consciousness is not made of matter.
Nobody can touch, smell, see, or taste it and this consciousness keep on living even when body cells die.
That should indicate that matter is not all it exist and that consciousness is superior to matter.



Quote
If you want to re-label what you've suggested about consciousness as your opinion or your belief, I will have no argument with that.  If you want to suggest it's anything more than that, you have the responsibility to provide the concrete evidence and repeatable observations and independent data to support that proposition.

If you can't do that, then the hell with you.  You're not worth wasting any more time on.



The fact that consciousness is not made of matter is not only my belief.
Even a demented idiot knows that consciousness is not made of matter.



[/list]
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on January 17, 2019, 10:01:15 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Well that's totally wrong (and partially incoherent)

The correct answer has to do with the process of systematizing knowledge.  Basically, the exact opposite of the mysticism you espouse.


Gee, you must be a super super bright-brilliant-smart person considering that you know everything about something that you never practiced.
Congratulation Hydra.


(https://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/2369345/1020928852/stock-photo-the-happy-businessmen-pat-on-the-shoulder-in-the-office-1020928852.jpg)




Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Hydra009 on January 17, 2019, 11:34:34 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Gee, you must be a super super bright-brilliant-smart person
Only in comparison.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on January 17, 2019, 12:58:57 PM
There were philosophers who thought that thought was a very fine powder or gaseous substance.  Early materialism.  This is before modern physics and chemistry created ... physicalism.  When we say materialism today, we mean physicalism, not that primitive materialism of Democritus.

With physicalism, even though light is a quantum mechanical mess ... it can be counted as physical, even if not material.  It is the prime example of something physical, that is non-material, that can interact with something that is both physical and material.  And that is exactly where quantum mechanics steps in, because that interaction in detail, is non-classical.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: aitm on January 17, 2019, 07:45:17 PM
time to be bored elsewhere.....chow!
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: trdsf on January 17, 2019, 07:59:47 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yours is just your guessing and some scientists guessing which has zero to do with evidence.
Despite the fact that you actually did make this statement, I find it difficult to believe one human being is capable of that spectacular a degree of hypocrisy.

It's real simple.  If you have evidence for your proposition, you need to provide it, and "it isn't currently explained" is not evidence.  "I think it's that way" is not evidence.  "You materialists just can't understand" is not evidence.  "I have a magical understanding" is not evidence.  I repeat, them's the rulesYou do not get to make up your own rules of evidence.

So far, the only evidence I can glean from your posts is that yoga has made you limber enough to stick your head up your own ass.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on January 17, 2019, 11:40:15 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Despite the fact that you actually did make this statement, I find it difficult to believe one human being is capable of that spectacular a degree of hypocrisy.

It's real simple.  If you have evidence for your proposition, you need to provide it, and "it isn't currently explained" is not evidence.  "I think it's that way" is not evidence.  "You materialists just can't understand" is not evidence.  "I have a magical understanding" is not evidence.  I repeat, them's the rulesYou do not get to make up your own rules of evidence.

So far, the only evidence I can glean from your posts is that yoga has made you limber enough to stick your head up your own ass.


Thousand of NDEs already established that consciousness never die.
Even strong ex atheists that had one of this experience agree with me.

Evidence is there Mister.
Real people, real death as established by real doctors in real hospital with real witnesses.
You just can not deny anymore.






Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Hydra009 on January 18, 2019, 12:06:58 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Thousand of NDEs already established that consciousness never die.
Even strong ex atheists that had one of this experience agree with me.
Ah, ex atheists agreed with you.  Well, why didn't you say so?!  That makes your argument a lot stronger.  Did the whole hospital clap, too?

I'm a bit religiously challenged (and therefore unable to easily follow such transcendent, sciency thinking) so you're going to have to walk me through it.

P1:  Some people almost die and some of them say they had out-of-body experiences.
P2:  ???
Conclusion:  consciousness is eternal (therefore?)
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: trdsf on January 18, 2019, 12:37:14 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Thousand of NDEs already established that consciousness never die.
Even strong ex atheists that had one of this experience agree with me.

Evidence is there Mister.
Real people, real death as established by real doctors in real hospital with real witnesses.
You just can not deny anymore.
You need to either halve, or double, whatever medication you're on.  Your current dosage isn't working.

NDEs are the misfirings of a brain in trauma either from oxygen starvation or gross physical damage.  No need to call magic in to "explain" anything.

Established?  Let's see your peer-reviewed papers.  Let's see the reproducible data.  Until you can provide those, evidence is most emphatically NOT there.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on January 18, 2019, 06:22:20 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Thousand of NDEs already established that consciousness never die.
Even strong ex atheists that had one of this experience agree with me.

Evidence is there Mister.
Real people, real death as established by real doctors in real hospital with real witnesses.
You just can not deny anymore.

There was a school of psychology called Behaviorism.  It taught that it was irrelevant if people had emotions or thoughts ... because these can't be objectively observed and quantified by people outside of yourself.  This is where some people here are coming from.  So introspection as a method is completely irrelevant to them.  This is the internalization of nihilism.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on January 18, 2019, 09:13:51 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You need to either halve, or double, whatever medication you're on.  Your current dosage isn't working.

NDEs are the misfirings of a brain in trauma either from oxygen starvation or gross physical damage.  No need to call magic in to "explain" anything.

Established?  Let's see your peer-reviewed papers.  Let's see the reproducible data.  Until you can provide those, evidence is most emphatically NOT there.


Brain in trauma?

Don't be ridiculous Mister.
After 10 or so second that the heart stop there is no more blood-oxigen going through the brain and that is called death.
Brain in trauma is something different and in most cases is caused when the head suddenly and violently hits an object, or when an object pierces the skull and enters brain tissue in those cases the blood still go through to a certain extent.

If you would have read some of the reason why many people end up in the emergency room (ER), or casualty department where they went through their NDE you would know that there were a lot of different reasons and accidents other than head injuries that would cause a brain trauma.

A brain trauma doesn't produce a real NDE.
NDEs are not hallucinations that can experienced during a brain trauma.

This only show how fast you are in coming up with comments that are void of any evidence in order to justify your failings.

Swearing and calling me with names doesn't reinforce your arguments either.
A poor arguments stay poor no matter what.


Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on January 18, 2019, 09:32:56 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
There was a school of psychology called Behaviorism.  It taught that it was irrelevant if people had emotions or thoughts ... because these can't be objectively observed and quantified by people outside of yourself.  This is where some people here are coming from.  So introspection as a method is completely irrelevant to them.  This is the internalization of nihilism.


I suppose it takes time to work out how the system works.
Most probably in some past lives I also was very stubborn but as the old granny said..........IS NEVER TOO LATE BOY.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: trdsf on January 18, 2019, 12:10:22 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Brain in trauma?

Don't be ridiculous Mister.
After 10 or so second that the heart stop there is no more blood-oxigen going through the brain and that is called death.
Brain in trauma is something different and in most cases is caused when the head suddenly and violently hits an object, or when an object pierces the skull and enters brain tissue in those cases the blood still go through to a certain extent.

If you would have read some of the reason why many people end up in the emergency room (ER), or casualty department where they went through their NDE you would know that there were a lot of different reasons and accidents other than head injuries that would cause a brain trauma.

A brain trauma doesn't produce a real NDE.
NDEs are not hallucinations that can experienced during a brain trauma.

This only show how fast you are in coming up with comments that are void of any evidence in order to justify your failings.

Swearing and calling me with names doesn't reinforce your arguments either.
A poor arguments stay poor no matter what.
Well, all the observations, data and evidence are on my side.  I'm not "coming up with comments", that's your tactic, and this is just more cowardice and dishonesty and hypocrisy on your part.

PROVIDE YOUR DATA.

If you can't do that, you don't have evidence.  Period.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on January 18, 2019, 01:07:56 PM
You (a person) are conscious.  You don't know what that means.  If you were a nihilist you would deny that it has any meaning.  Nihilism bad.

People ascribe meaning to things.  Occasionally they agree partially on what that meaning is, if it is an external event in particular, or because they have a disconnected yet shared experience (they both went fishing with their father, but they didn't have the same father).  Their feelings about going fishing, as opposed to the external facts of going fishing, might be something they share or they may have opposite reactions (like vs dislike).

Each individual ascribes their own meaning, which may or may not be the same as the shared meaning.  They might only dreamt or imagined that they had gone fishing, after having read about it once.  Such day dreaming (and night dreaming) is common enough.

When will we all have the exact same feelings, thoughts and expressions?  Aka Objectivity?  When there is only one person on Earth, the last one.  This is why uniformity of opinion is hard to achieve, it requires maximal extermination (Hell is other people).  Of course this doesn't solve all epistemological problems ... that last person may have had a varying view of a particular experience, over time, and might remember that is the case.

We are all witnesses to our own experiences, and shared witnesses to anything we have directly or indirectly shared.  That is the evidence.  Outside of human observation and experiment, evidence doesn't exist that matters at all.  Solipsism is the flip side of nihilism.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Unbeliever on January 18, 2019, 01:12:12 PM
Well, if Arik has had thousands of NDEs then it's no wonder he believes in weird shit. Must have brain damage after nearly dying so many times.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on January 18, 2019, 07:14:33 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Well, if Arik has had thousands of NDEs then it's no wonder he believes in weird shit. Must have brain damage after nearly dying so many times.

After all, a cat only gets 8 NDEs ;-)
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on January 21, 2019, 09:22:15 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Well, all the observations, data and evidence are on my side.  I'm not "coming up with comments", that's your tactic, and this is just more cowardice and dishonesty and hypocrisy on your part.

PROVIDE YOUR DATA.

If you can't do that, you don't have evidence.  Period.


You could well be smart in many ways but there is something that at this stage in time you can not possibly be smart enough and that is to be a detective.
In this job you are not clever enough.
No way Mister.

You come to fast conclusion without even look at all details.

On the contrary I did.
I studied these NDEs for quite sometime and I found the evidence that the consciousness never die.

Step by step I got there.
You got to start from the very beginning.
People are real, doctors and hospitals where it all happen are real and witnesses are real.

We got these people who really died as confirmed by real doctors so hallucinations are out  because hallucinations happen when the brain is not dead yet but the brain is dead.
That only means that the consciousness that experience these NDEs has left the brain-body.
While hallucinations are hardly remember clearly and only for a short time  NDEs are remembered quite clearly even after many years.
A brain in trouble can not possibly put together something clear, sharp, neat and well-defined.
That obviously means that wasn't the brain that experienced these NDEs.
With no oxigen-blood flowing through how could a brain do that?

But let us come to more evidence Mister.
Most of these people who had an NDE lie dead on the casualty room and doctors and nurses try to bring the chap back to life.
While all this happen these dead people (body-brain dead not consciousness dead) can see from above what goes on below and once the doctors succeed to bring them back they can describe what was going on to the incredulity of the doctors and nurses.
This could only happen because the consciousness was well alive outside their dead body.

Sorry Mister but unlike you I done my homework by going through many  NDEs so I can be able to know what you ignore.

Do the home work yourself before you shout swearing, calling names and scream with big words in red so people may have some more respect for you.
Thanks.


https://www.nderf.org/Archives/exceptional.html




Title: Re: Hi
Post by: trdsf on January 22, 2019, 02:02:43 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Do the home work yourself before you shout swearing, calling names and scream with big words in red so people may have some more respect for you.

https://www.nderf.org/Archives/exceptional.html
I looked up this website.  An oncologist and an attorney are not neuroscientists, and all they do is collect anectodal reports.  So, still no evidence.  Saying "more" evidence is dishonest since you haven't provided any to begin with.

If you would pay attention and actually deliver what's asked rather than dodge, weave, bluff, bluster, and make shit up, we wouldn't have to swear, namecall, and otherwise rail to get you to take care of your responsibilities as the claim-maker, and I will continue doing it until you either actually do so, or admit that you cannot, so I say again:

PROVIDE YOUR DATA.

Since you have trouble with what data and evidence actually means, let's just have you provide something simple: point me to a refereed paper in a journal of neuroscience — or even a journal of general science, like Nature — backing up your claims.

And here's where you dodge and weave and bluff and bluster and make shit up to try to weasel out of your responsibility as the claimant again.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on January 22, 2019, 09:46:41 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I looked up this website.  An oncologist and an attorney are not neuroscientists, and all they do is collect anectodal reports.  So, still no evidence.  Saying "more" evidence is dishonest since you haven't provided any to begin with.

If you would pay attention and actually deliver what's asked rather than dodge, weave, bluff, bluster, and make shit up, we wouldn't have to swear, namecall, and otherwise rail to get you to take care of your responsibilities as the claim-maker, and I will continue doing it until you either actually do so, or admit that you cannot, so I say again:

PROVIDE YOUR DATA.

Since you have trouble with what data and evidence actually means, let's just have you provide something simple: point me to a refereed paper in a journal of neuroscience — or even a journal of general science, like Nature — backing up your claims.

And here's where you dodge and weave and bluff and bluster and make shit up to try to weasel out of your responsibility as the claimant again.


Oh, well if you need the opinion of a neuroscientist-neurosugeon here I got one in Eben Alexander.
He had an NDE.

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=eben+alexander&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-ab&gfe_rd=cr&dcr=0&ei=rjFTWpD8Oq3r8AfElb2ACg

However I am sure that you will dismiss even his evidence.
In fact you will dismiss the evidence of anyone who contradict your beliefs no matter what.
In order to keep alive your fantasy no evidence will work.
Nothing.

Once the fact that the consciousness never die become more and more real to the materialists then all other dogmas will collapse one by one but of course people like you will try to cling to your fantasy even with the nails until the grip can't hold anymore and swearing, shouting and write big words in red will only be the last show of a clown that doesn't make laugh anymore.
This must be the mental bankruptcy at his very best Mister.

Oh, by the way how do you explain how a dead person can witness what doctors and nurses think and do to his body and then once back in his body describe to them the particulars?






Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on January 22, 2019, 12:50:17 PM
If the ego is an illusion, how can someone defend it? ;-)
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Blackleaf on January 22, 2019, 04:14:53 PM
NDE's are proof that NDE's happen. That's it. It's not proof of any immortal consciousness any more than a dream is evidence that alternate dimensions exist. We know why NDE's happen. When a person experiences an NDE, their neurons are firing like crazy. Because they're not completely dead yet. Which is why they're called near death experiences. They're little more than hyperactive dreams.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Unbeliever on January 22, 2019, 04:20:20 PM
The phrase "near death" just means near death, it doesn't mean dead. Like Wesley, the Man in  Black, was "mostly dead," not all the way dead.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on January 22, 2019, 10:07:05 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
NDE's are proof that NDE's happen. That's it. It's not proof of any immortal consciousness any more than a dream is evidence that alternate dimensions exist. We know why NDE's happen. When a person experiences an NDE, their neurons are firing like crazy. Because they're not completely dead yet. Which is why they're called near death experiences. They're little more than hyperactive dreams.

Correct.  But then when interpretation is applied to raw data (from external or internal sources) the wicket gets sticky, doesn't it?

If one accepts that Plato is right about Eternal Forms, and that modern science is the way to determine at least approximately what those Forms are ... then one accepts that the majority are in The Cave, and that only the Illuminati who have escaped the cave, can see reality for what it is, not as shadows on the wall.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfydro4X2t0

Believing in a very narrow version of Platonism ... isn't that White Privilege.  Should we check our privilege?  Are you super-Greek, and the rest are either hoi polloi or barbaroi?

Also, we are always trapped in the trap net of words, in how not only we express ourselves to others, but also how we express ourselves, to ourselves aka thought.

As in Japanese Bunraku, you have to make a suspension of disbelief to enjoy it ...  the puppeteers, however plainly visible (though they wear black to blend in) are "invisible" to the audience.  But not literally.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qcBSAwQVpw

So guys, Occidental much?  Get some Timothy Leary and Ram Dass, tune in and drop out?  Doesn't this link right back to story-telling, to the desire to control the narrative for fun and profit?
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on January 22, 2019, 10:08:54 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The phrase "near death" just means near death, it doesn't mean dead. Like Wesley, the Man in  Black, was means "mostly dead," not all the way dead.

Semantics.  Y'all say I am not a demi-god.  But I am, because you can't privilege your own dictionary.  Within my ever improving dictionary, my claim makes sense.  Stick that up your Funk & Wagnalls ;-)
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: trdsf on January 23, 2019, 02:58:45 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Oh, well if you need the opinion of a neuroscientist-neurosugeon here I got one in Eben Alexander.
He had an NDE.

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=eben+alexander&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-ab&gfe_rd=cr&dcr=0&ei=rjFTWpD8Oq3r8AfElb2ACg
Oh, lookie!  He found exactly none!  You were asked for a refereed paper from a journal, not a non-scientific book of anecdote and opinion.

And not a very good neuroscientist, considering all the firings and malpractice suits and the altering medical records to try to cover up his mistakes (https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/interviews/a23248/the-prophet/).

His basis for his position?  He just "decided" that science can't explain it.  This is the fallacy of personal incredulity: "I can't figure out how it happened, therefore woo."  Also, this is a position of deep arrogance since the proclaimer by extension makes the subsumed claim of knowing that something can never be explained.

Still not evidence, just opinion and gobbledygook.

Still waiting for real, reputable data.  Not expecting it.  The only evidence you've provided me is that you haven't the faintest idea how evidence works.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on January 29, 2019, 07:34:58 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Oh, lookie!  He found exactly none!  You were asked for a refereed paper from a journal, not a non-scientific book of anecdote and opinion.


I wished I could have answered before but with no internet connection for over a week I was stuck.

Never mind, now I can so let us talk about your ...........refereed paper from a journal.

Have you ever seen anyone who published any evidence about his-her love for an other entity in any scientific journal?
You keep on beating the same drum of nonsense Mister.
How on earth can anyone do that?
You keep on asking stupid questions as if something abstract could turn into something physical and from there it would be easy to see some physical evidence.
You don't get it Mister, do you?

(https://i2.wp.com/www.bookofdaystales.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/stupid1.jpg)



Quote
And not a very good neuroscientist, considering all the firings and malpractice suits and the altering medical records to try to cover up his mistakes (https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/interviews/a23248/the-prophet/).

I have no idea whether the allegations are real or fabricated.
Even if they are real that wouldn't make any difference regarding his own ND experience.
We all do mistakes here and there during our life so what?
Shell we live in the past and be locked out from any possible progress?
Shell we live with the guilt feeling for ever?
Life goes on Mister and the good that follow must stand.
That is what evolution of the consciousness is all about.


Quote
His basis for his position?  He just "decided" that science can't explain it.  This is the fallacy of personal incredulity: "I can't figure out how it happened, therefore woo."  Also, this is a position of deep arrogance since the proclaimer by extension makes the subsumed claim of knowing that something can never be explained.


That is a load of garbage.

He didn't decided anything.
Even a demented idiot knows that it is not possible to explain in a physical way what is not physical.
Consciousness is not physical but fools still think that something abstract can be explained in a physical way.
Evidence is there but is strictly personal.
As you can not give evidence that your love for somebody is real also nobody can give evidence that spiritual love is real.
So evidence is there but is limited to the one who perceive and that make a lot of sense.


Quote
Still not evidence just opinion and gobbledygook.

Still waiting for real, reputable data.  Not expecting it.  The only evidence you've provided me is that you haven't the faintest idea how evidence works.


Oh, well if the love that you may feel within for someone is just an opinion then you are very very confused.
Time to open your eyes Mister and leave the fantasy world where you so far lived.
Good luck.

(http://image.blingee.com/images17/content/output/000/000/000/67c/583317420_262189.gif)







Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Plu on January 29, 2019, 07:44:47 AM
Quote
Have you ever seen anyone who published any evidence about his-her love for an other entity in any scientific journal?

The concept of love and how it works is a huge subject within neuroscience, with entire books written on the topic.

Also, hi. You have a very long introduction topic :)
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on January 29, 2019, 08:41:44 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The concept of love and how it works is a huge subject within neuroscience, with entire books written on the topic.

Also, hi. You have a very long introduction topic :)

Neuroscience which study the brain and the nervous system can only see an elevated release of hormones when love permeated the life of an individual but  that is where it all stopped so far.
If the hormones are released by this or that gland neuroscience could not yet understand whether that related to physical love, mental or spiritual love but day after day is getting closer.
In any case even if this science would say that spiritual love related to God atheists still wouldn't believe a single thing.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Plu on January 29, 2019, 09:25:34 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Neuroscience which study the brain and the nervous system can only see an elevated release of hormones when love permeated the life of an individual but  that is where it all stopped so far.
If the hormones are released by this or that gland neuroscience could not yet understand whether that related to physical love, mental or spiritual love but day after day is getting closer.
In any case even if this science would say that spiritual love related to God atheists still wouldn't believe a single thing.

I don't know what a "spiritual love" is, but it seems that all forms of love are related to hormones and glands, including for things like "God", whatever those are. :-)
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on January 29, 2019, 09:53:33 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't know what a "spiritual love" is, but it seems that all forms of love are related to hormones and glands, including for things like "God", whatever those are. :-)


...................... all forms of love are related to hormones and glands...........as far as the consciousness stay inside a body-brain.
As soon as the body die the consciousness leave and the relation with glands cease to exist.
That however doesn't mean that love cease to exist.
This has been proved by thousand of NDEs.

https://www.nderf.org/Archives/exceptional.html

Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Blackleaf on January 29, 2019, 10:50:02 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

...................... all forms of love are related to hormones and glands...........as far as the consciousness stay inside a body-brain.
As soon as the body die the consciousness leave and the relation with glands cease to exist.
That however doesn't mean that love cease to exist.
This has been proved by thousand of NDEs.

https://www.nderf.org/Archives/exceptional.html

OMG, you are so dense. As I've already said, NDEs are known, through actual science, to be caused by hyperactivity in the brain, which happens shortly after the body begins to die. The person is not totally dead until that activity in the brain totally stops, and people do not recover from that. That's why NDE stands for "near death experience," not just "death experience." Sorry, but NDEs are not proof of life after death. They are hyperactive dreams, caused by neurons firing in the brain, just like every other conscious experience.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Plu on January 29, 2019, 11:06:41 AM
Quote
That however doesn't mean that love cease to exist.

Well obviously. It just ceases to exist in the now-dead-person. There's still plenty of other love left to go around.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on January 29, 2019, 12:59:53 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't know what a "spiritual love" is, but it seems that all forms of love are related to hormones and glands, including for things like "God", whatever those are. :-)

Plus - yes.  EQ vs IQ.  Poetry is EQ, algebra is IQ.  However, on another post, the question of abstractions was addressed.  Fo

Arik ... the materialist simply denies that abstractions have any validity, they all have the substance of delusion (except for the abstractions they like, such as deconstructive analysis).  The materialist senses each avenue of vulnerability to their own groupthink, and cleverly blocks each approach that is a threat to its secular ego.  An example of this was The Vienna Circle, that denied any meaning to any metaphysics.  For the materialist, there are only atoms, nothing else.  Delusion is simply the attribution of form or identity to any particular random group of atoms.  A car and a man are the same (made of atoms).  Their variant form doesn't matter.  And the fact that the man has an identity, but a car does not, is something also to be ignored.  And this is true in this sense ... the atom of iron in the man's blood is just like the atom of iron in the car frame.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on January 29, 2019, 01:01:23 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Well obviously. It just ceases to exist in the now-dead-person. There's still plenty of other love left to go around.

Conservation of existence ... nothing comes into existence, nothing goes out of existence.  There is only a change of form.  But what is one form vs another, other than the attribution like a child seeing a cloud that looks like a dragon.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: trdsf on January 30, 2019, 12:38:58 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I wished I could have answered before but with no internet connection for over a week I was stuck.

Never mind, now I can so let us talk about your ...........refereed paper from a journal.

Have you ever seen anyone who published any evidence about his-her love for an other entity in any scientific journal?
THAT WASN'T THE QUESTION.  ANSWER THE ONE THAT WAS PUT AND QUIT TRYING TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT.

I don't give half a flying fuck about someone scientifically proving love, because that's not what I asked you for.

At least have the honesty to admit that you can't provide what you were asked for.  Or, if you can, provide it.

SHOW YOUR DATA.

You keep running around doing everything BUT that.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Cavebear on January 30, 2019, 06:56:44 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
THAT WASN'T THE QUESTION.  ANSWER THE ONE THAT WAS PUT AND QUIT TRYING TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT.

I don't give half a flying fuck about someone scientifically proving love, because that's not what I asked you for.

At least have the honesty to admit that you can't provide what you were asked for.  Or, if you can, provide it.

SHOW YOUR DATA.

You keep running around doing everything BUT that.

There is always someone like that person around.  Drives me to distraction, too.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on January 30, 2019, 06:59:01 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
There is always someone like that person around.  Drives me to distraction, too.

You are living, breathing and posting.  But you ignore that.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Cavebear on January 30, 2019, 07:06:02 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are living, breathing and posting.  But you ignore that.

But I am perfection itself in all my posts.  How could I not share my brilliance with all of my friends?
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on January 30, 2019, 08:55:53 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Plus - yes.  EQ vs IQ.  Poetry is EQ, algebra is IQ.  However, on another post, the question of abstractions was addressed.  Fo

Arik ... the materialist simply denies that abstractions have any validity, they all have the substance of delusion (except for the abstractions they like, such as deconstructive analysis).  The materialist senses each avenue of vulnerability to their own groupthink, and cleverly blocks each approach that is a threat to its secular ego.  An example of this was The Vienna Circle, that denied any meaning to any metaphysics.  For the materialist, there are only atoms, nothing else.  Delusion is simply the attribution of form or identity to any particular random group of atoms.  A car and a man are the same (made of atoms).  Their variant form doesn't matter.  And the fact that the man has an identity, but a car does not, is something also to be ignored.  And this is true in this sense ... the atom of iron in the man's blood is just like the atom of iron in the car frame.


Yes, and that is mostly bizarre.
Materialists always talk about evolution but for them evolution only relate to a change in the body in order to survive.
Evolution of the consciousness is something unknown to them that is why an atom in the car is the same as an atom in a developed human.

Sometime it make me think at those horses going around with the blinkers on the eyes while pulling the heavy cart not knowing where they head to.
Just incredible considering that we are in 2019 and not in the middle ages.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on January 30, 2019, 09:05:10 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Well obviously. It just ceases to exist in the now-dead-person. There's still plenty of other love left to go around.

A dead person?

Oh, I see.
You must have seen a dead consciousness next to a body?
Gee, that is incredible Plu.
This must be the first time in the history of this universe that somebody has seen a dead consciousness and can say without any doubt that people really die.
Good on you mate.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on January 30, 2019, 09:19:59 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
OMG, you are so dense. As I've already said, NDEs are known, through actual science, to be caused by hyperactivity in the brain, which happens shortly after the body begins to die. The person is not totally dead until that activity in the brain totally stops, and people do not recover from that. That's why NDE stands for "near death experience," not just "death experience." Sorry, but NDEs are not proof of life after death. They are hyperactive dreams, caused by neurons firing in the brain, just like every other conscious experience.


As you already said?

Oh, I see.
Because you already said it means that it must be true, isn't it BL?

Well, well, also the doctors that declare the chap dead already said that the chap is really dead (body dead, brain dead) so why should I believe you and not doctors that study the human body for years and years?

Where is your evidence that what you say is true?
Beside if would be even true what you say then it would not be possible for a brain under stress to put together a clear, sharp and well-defined experience that is recollected even after years and years?

You rather would get an hallucination that is not clear, sharp and well-defined and is forgotten after a short time.

Sorry BL but your idea is a total failure put up in order to shovel away the fact that consciousness never die.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on January 30, 2019, 09:53:46 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
THAT WASN'T THE QUESTION.  ANSWER THE ONE THAT WAS PUT AND QUIT TRYING TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT.

I don't give half a flying fuck about someone scientifically proving love, because that's not what I asked you for.

At least have the honesty to admit that you can't provide what you were asked for.  Or, if you can, provide it.

SHOW YOUR DATA.

You keep running around doing everything BUT that.



Michael Shermer states that, in reality, all experience is mediated and produced by the brain, and that so-called paranormal phenomena like out-of body experiences are nothing more than neuronal events. The study of patients with NDE, however, clearly shows us that consciousness with memories, cognition, with emotion, self-identity, and perception out and above a life-less body is experienced during a period of a non-functioning brain (transient pancerebral anoxia). And focal functional loss by inhibition of local cortical regions happens by “stimulation” of those regions with electricity (photons) or with magnetic fields (photons), resulting sometimes in out-of-body states.



http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/Mediaskeptics/vanLommel.html
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Plu on January 30, 2019, 10:25:34 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
A dead person?

You must have seen a dead consciousness next to a body?

You can't see a dead consciousness. The whole reason it's so hard to convince people a consciousness remains after you die is because there's no particles to make it up out of, so definitely it can't be something visible, audible, or otherwise perceptible to the still living.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Blackleaf on January 30, 2019, 11:01:11 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

As you already said?

Oh, I see.
Because you already said it means that it must be true, isn't it BL?

Well, well, also the doctors that declare the chap dead already said that the chap is really dead (body dead, brain dead) so why should I believe you and not doctors that study the human body for years and years?

Where is your evidence that what you say is true?
Beside if would be even true what you say then it would not be possible for a brain under stress to put together a clear, sharp and well-defined experience that is recollected even after years and years?

You rather would get an hallucination that is not clear, sharp and well-defined and is forgotten after a short time.

Sorry BL but your idea is a total failure put up in order to shovel away the fact that consciousness never die.

It doesn't matter how many times someone says something, although you seem to be the one under the impression you can ignore the facts and say whatever you want. I don't care if you think "my idea" is a failure or not. Unlike you, I have research on my side. Brainwaves have been observed in people at the point of medically declared "death." On the medical table, you are declared "dead" when your heart stops, not when your brain stops. These people are not braindead, as you claim. That has been debunked. And no, I'm not going to do the Google search to find the articles. I'm wasting any more effort on you than I have to.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on January 30, 2019, 01:01:31 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You can't see a dead consciousness. The whole reason it's so hard to convince people a consciousness remains after you die is because there's no particles to make it up out of, so definitely it can't be something visible, audible, or otherwise perceptible to the still living.

Correct.  It might be electromagnetic, but I doubt it.  Studies have show that out-of-body isn't able to see things hidden to the awake person.  There may be more than one explanation for that.  The connection between mind and brain was an unsolved problem for Descartes.  We know more now after 400 years of medical and psychological science.  This devolves from the natural into the supernatural, and therefore not amenable to scientific confirmation.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on January 30, 2019, 01:03:51 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It doesn't matter how many times someone says something, although you seem to be the one under the impression you can ignore the facts and say whatever you want. I don't care if you think "my idea" is a failure or not. Unlike you, I have research on my side. Brainwaves have been observed in people at the point of medically declared "death." On the medical table, you are declared "dead" when your heart stops, not when your brain stops. These people are not braindead, as you claim. That has been debunked. And no, I'm not going to do the Google search to find the articles. I'm wasting any more effort on you than I have to.

There is a whole spectrum to dying.  Declaration of death is a legal concept not a medical one.  But definitely not anybody coming back from complete death.  Hence the Jesus resurrection is symbolic/mythical, as described.  If it was otherwise, then it was a coma recovery.  This ambiguity is why it used to be that very cold drowning victims could have been saved, but weren't because they were considered unrecoverable, but were recoverable.  Of course they weren't totally dead.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Cavebear on January 30, 2019, 01:05:44 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Well obviously. It just ceases to exist in the now-dead-person. There's still plenty of other love left to go around.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Correct.  It might be electromagnetic, but I doubt it.  Studies have show that out-of-body isn't able to see things hidden to the awake person.  There may be more than one explanation for that.  The connection between mind and brain was an unsolved problem for Descartes.  We know more now after 400 years of medical and psychological science.  This devolves from the natural into the supernatural, and therefore not amenable to scientific confirmation.

Applauds...
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Blackleaf on January 30, 2019, 01:07:08 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Correct.  It might be electromagnetic, but I doubt it.  Studies have show that out-of-body isn't able to see things hidden to the awake person.  There may be more than one explanation for that.  The connection between mind and brain was an unsolved problem for Descartes.  We know more now after 400 years of medical and psychological science.  This devolves from the natural into the supernatural, and therefore not amenable to scientific confirmation.

This is the most sensible post I've seen from you in a long while. Answer me this. If the brain accounts for our ability to function, and we know the specific areas responsible for communication, interpretation, sleep, memories (of several different types), the senses, etc, what is left for the soul to account for? What does the soul do that the brain doesn't? How is the very idea of a soul not completely obsolete?
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on January 30, 2019, 01:07:51 PM
Yes, there are overlap where reasonable people can agree ;-)  Ideology though isn't susceptible to reason.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Unbeliever on January 30, 2019, 01:16:56 PM
Where does the consciousness reside before birth? Is it in another body? Is it just floating around not doing anything? Is it still enmeshed in the greater consciousness of the universe?

And how does it know when to inhabit a body, and which body to inhabit?
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on January 30, 2019, 01:19:09 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
This is the most sensible post I've seen from you in a long while. Answer me this. If the brain accounts for our ability to function, and we know the specific areas responsible for communication, interpretation, sleep, memories (of several different types), the senses, etc, what is left for the soul to account for? What does the soul do that the brain doesn't? How is the very idea of a soul not completely obsolete?

When we are talking medicine, technology etc ... there is more grounds for agreement.  Politics, religion and sex ... no agreement possible.

The "soul" was made obsolete in philosophy by Descartes, 400 years ago.  That is when "mind" became the preferred meme over "soul".

The brain is certainly required for the body to function (except for brain dead people supported by artificial means), and necessary for consciousness etc in the ordinary sense.  As far as we know, in terms of deep sleep, there is nothing more.  Dead people don't dream.  That is the modern view.  We can "see" consciousness, deep sleep and dreaming (REM) externally.  Now what else there may be, is speculative.  No NDE has been demonstrated, externally, to have been anything other than a hallucination.  Ah, but what is a dream, what is a hallucination?  Ordinary science still is working on that, and consciousness itself.

Like I have been moved here to change, to a purely psychological view, not a philosophical view, on all these issues.  And psychology isn't perfect, but it has more empirical basis than philosophy.

What does the "soul" account for?  That is an epistemological question.  So it isn't psychology, so there is no need to answer that, scientificly.

Arik is coming from a pre-modern psychology (of introspection) that comes from India.  Back in the day, they were more scientific than the West.  But that ended about 100 years ago.  Master yogis of course, still master introspection than Westerners do, but that isn't the main technique for psychology today.

So "soul" doesn't apply to science anymore, because of the advance of medical/psych research.  Not that "mind" is completely understood at this time (in the limited sense).

Science from the beginning, in Greece, not India, involved the restriction of data to external quantified evidence.  Internal or qualified evidence is not admitted.  That doesn't mean that doesn't exist, but that science originally admitted that its aims were modest.  It is with scientism which is an ideology, that hubris has come into play.  And reductionism in physical science has greatly aided this trend.  Reductionism itself, analysis itself ... however is not free of problems when looked at philosophically.  But then ... that takes us past the boundaries of psychology again ;-)
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on January 30, 2019, 01:22:10 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Where does the consciousness reside before birth? Is it in another body? Is it just floating around not doing anything? Is it still enmeshed in the greater consciousness of the universe?

And how does it know when to inhabit a body, and which body to inhabit?

Don't ask a science question, that requires a philosophical or theological answer  In the scope of science, consciousness comes out of nowhere, and returned to nowhere.  This happens multiple times, every night, not just at conception and death.  Conception/birth is the first consciousness more or less (hence abortion questions).  Death is the final unconsciousness.

So ask me, which Romantic painter would I choose to change my car tire?

Your notions of philosophy and theology are simple, and there is no problem with that, it is simply who you are now.  Nobody, including you, know who or what you will be tomorrow.  Both atheists and theists violate that humility.  Monkeys throw poo without shame.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Blackleaf on January 30, 2019, 01:25:14 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Where does the consciousness reside before birth? Is it in another body? Is it just floating around not doing anything? Is it still enmeshed in the greater consciousness of the universe?

And how does it know when to inhabit a body, and which body to inhabit?

What happens if a consciousness is bad with directions and gets lost trying to find its body? Does the body live as a soulless husk? Does the consciousness pull out its spiritual smartphone and use the spiritual Google Maps app to find its way? And how does this consciousness get anywhere if it's not affected by the forces of gravity? The earth is moving 67,000 miles per hour. Imagine trying to dock with your body when it's on an object moving that fast, as it is also spinning in a circle at 1,000 miles per hour.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Plu on January 30, 2019, 01:41:00 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Correct.  It might be electromagnetic, but I doubt it.  Studies have show that out-of-body isn't able to see things hidden to the awake person.  There may be more than one explanation for that.  The connection between mind and brain was an unsolved problem for Descartes.  We know more now after 400 years of medical and psychological science.  This devolves from the natural into the supernatural, and therefore not amenable to scientific confirmation.

So... pointless to think or talk about. Got it.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on January 30, 2019, 07:51:25 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So... pointless to think or talk about. Got it.

If you limit your thinking to physicalism ... then there is no point in talking about art, music, love or ideas in general.  You do need to limit yourself to that if you are talking about physics or chemistry.  Psychology isn't limited to physicalism, neurology is ... and that is made up of biology, chemistry and physics.

Neurology can help you getting a limited amount of quantitative objectivity on something that tends to be both qualitative and subjective.  EEG, PET, MRI and CT scans for instance have important uses.  PET detailed brain activity.  EEG shows general brain activity.  MRI and CT show the static structure.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: trdsf on January 30, 2019, 09:24:29 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


Michael Shermer states that, in reality, all experience is mediated and produced by the brain, and that so-called paranormal phenomena like out-of body experiences are nothing more than neuronal events. The study of patients with NDE, however, clearly shows us that consciousness with memories, cognition, with emotion, self-identity, and perception out and above a life-less body is experienced during a period of a non-functioning brain (transient pancerebral anoxia). And focal functional loss by inhibition of local cortical regions happens by “stimulation” of those regions with electricity (photons) or with magnetic fields (photons), resulting sometimes in out-of-body states.



http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/Mediaskeptics/vanLommel.html

And it's still not a refereed paper in a scientific journal.  Unlike several of the ones referenced here (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/peace-of-mind-near-death/) that explain what NDEs are.  Spoiler alert:
Sorry but you are not allowed to view spoiler contents.

By the bye, author of your link?  Cardiologist.  Not neurologist, not even a psychologist.  WRONG FIELD OF EXPERTISE.  Would I see him professionally if I had heart trouble?  Maybe.  Brain tumor?  Fuck no.

You are now at the point where you need to just admit, no, you do not have any actual scientific evidence to support your opinion, just the desire for it to be true as some sort of psychological security blanket.  At least have the honesty to do that.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on January 30, 2019, 09:32:28 PM
Correct, to be a proper refereed paper (and we aren't talking cuck social science) .. it has to be objective, external, quantitative.  NDE by nature don't meet that on any level.  But then consciousness barely meets that criteria anyway.  For a materialist, it has to always be a "ghost in the machine".
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Plu on January 31, 2019, 02:40:57 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If you limit your thinking to physicalism ... then there is no point in talking about art, music, love or ideas in general. 

All of these things have a pretty clear effect on the physical part of my brain, so they are not at all pointless to talk about.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on January 31, 2019, 02:48:53 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
All of these things have a pretty clear effect on the physical part of my brain, so they are not at all pointless to talk about.

Except, if you are a physicalist/materialist, you have no explanation for it.  I agree, the non-physical and the physical are in a dialectic.  My original avatar was Baruch Spinoza, who overcame Descartes' dualism with his monism.  Physical and metaphysical are two sides of an unknown.  Spinoza thought he could create a deductive system that would illuminate that unknown.  Structurally similar to Euclid's Elements.

We only know things by categorizing them ... which is two or more sides of some other thing.  If the simplest number system is binary, can there be a unary system?  Not with placeholders.  Without categorizing we can only point in a random direction and say Ugh like our caveman ancestors.  It is not for nothing, that in the Eden mythology, Adam's first job is to name the animals aka Linneaus.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Plu on January 31, 2019, 02:54:49 AM
Quote
Except, if you are a physicalist/materialist, you have no explanation for it.

So? I don't need to explain it to notice it's having some kind of effect. Nor do I need to explain it to enjoy the effect, or steer it.

If people needed an explanation for anything before thinking about it or doing anything with it, they would never be able to get anywhere. It's just that some people have been taught that a dumb explanation is better than no explanation, and that's what got us this current mess.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on January 31, 2019, 03:02:23 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So? I don't need to explain it to notice it's having some kind of effect. Nor do I need to explain it to enjoy the effect, or steer it.

If people needed an explanation for anything before thinking about it or doing anything with it, they would never be able to get anywhere. It's just that some people have been taught that a dumb explanation is better than no explanation, and that's what got us this current mess.

Correct.  But geeks want explanations for everything, it is part of their protective camouflage to protect themselves from alpha-males.  The SJWs are just Woody Allen's clones (see cloning of dead leader's nose from Sleeper), endlessly loosing their hot girlfriends at the beach.  Not Popeye.

My point of radical empiricism, is that we don't need to rationalize things in the first place.  That reality is irrational to begin with, so rationalizing  can be positively negative in its effect .. when we falsely think we understand something.  As it turns out, all our explanations are more or less false.

Example .. I have my right hand typing this, I can see I have 4 fingers and a thumb on my right hand.  There is no reason for me to build a deductive system to justify this "belief" because it isn't a damn belief.  It is an empirical observation.  The problem comes with trying to interpret what this means.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Plu on January 31, 2019, 03:05:50 AM
Quote
But geeks want explanations for everything, it is part of their protective camouflage to protect themselves from alpha-males.

Guess I'm not a geek according to your dictionary, then.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on January 31, 2019, 03:22:13 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Guess I'm not a geek according to your dictionary, then.

That is the problem with stereotypes and all such categorization.  We have to do it to make sense of things, but it also hides the messy details behind a clean abstraction.  I still struggle with the need for explanation.  But I know it is futile.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on January 31, 2019, 07:20:10 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You can't see a dead consciousness. The whole reason it's so hard to convince people a consciousness remains after you die is because there's no particles to make it up out of, so definitely it can't be something visible, audible, or otherwise perceptible to the still living.


It is most bizarre to see materialists saying that when you die is all over with no evidence of whatsoever that the consciousness die when the body die.
These same folks however go around and around millions of times saying that without evidence nothing is proved.
This hypocrisy must be the peak of moral bankruptcy at his best.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on January 31, 2019, 07:42:02 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

It is most bizarre to see materialists saying that when you die is all over with no evidence of whatsoever that the consciousness die when the body die.
These same folks however go around and around millions of times saying that without evidence nothing is proved.
This hypocrisy must be the peak of moral bankruptcy at his best.

More accurately, they only count what they can see, while awake.  So what happens when you are asleep, or what happens that you don't or can't see, is irrelevant.  The most logical people are agnostic, they aren't rationalizing like theist and atheists do.  Because they have no agenda.

For me personally, what happens when we die isn't important either.  Being awake is completely theistic to me, I don't need any special experiences, nor do I have to die, to see G-d.  I see G-d every day, anthropomorphically with the people (and other creatures) that I share this world with.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on January 31, 2019, 07:48:58 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It doesn't matter how many times someone says something, although you seem to be the one under the impression you can ignore the facts and say whatever you want. I don't care if you think "my idea" is a failure or not. Unlike you, I have research on my side. Brainwaves have been observed in people at the point of medically declared "death." On the medical table, you are declared "dead" when your heart stops, not when your brain stops. These people are not braindead, as you claim. That has been debunked. And no, I'm not going to do the Google search to find the articles. I'm wasting any more effort on you than I have to.


Good BL.

You really shouldn't waste anymore of your time guessing and guessing.
Much better let the professional do their job and let them say whether the bloke is alive or dead.

Oh yes, I refer to those scientists that study years and years.
These same people that materialists applaud as researches of science which materialists rely on when support their ideas but ignore them when their opinion goes against their ideas-beliefs.





(http://satitias.com/assets/images/lamp.png)
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on January 31, 2019, 07:57:27 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
More accurately, they only count what they can see, while awake.  So what happens when you are asleep, or what happens that you don't or can't see, is irrelevant.  The most logical people are agnostic, they aren't rationalizing like theist and atheists do.  Because they have no agenda.


Ummmm, I am a bit confused Baruch.
Are you saying that there is much of a difference between materialists and atheists?


Quote
For me personally, what happens when we die isn't important either.  Being awake is completely theistic to me, I don't need any special experiences, nor do I have to die, to see G-d.  I see G-d every day, anthropomorphically with the people (and other creatures) that I share this world with.


A fairly good philosophy in life although I definitively go a lot further than that.


Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on January 31, 2019, 08:26:28 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
There is a whole spectrum to dying.  Declaration of death is a legal concept not a medical one.  But definitely not anybody coming back from complete death.  Hence the Jesus resurrection is symbolic/mythical, as described.  If it was otherwise, then it was a coma recovery.  This ambiguity is why it used to be that very cold drowning victims could have been saved, but weren't because they were considered unrecoverable, but were recoverable.  Of course they weren't totally dead.


It can be argue for ever and ever whether a person is dead or not or whether a flat EEG means anything at all.
What make me believe that the consciousness leave a body is that the consciousness is able to go through (during an NDE) a clear, sharp and well-defined experience that wouldn't be possible with a person being still alive (brain not dead yet).
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Plu on January 31, 2019, 08:33:19 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

It is most bizarre to see materialists saying that when you die is all over with no evidence of whatsoever that the consciousness die when the body die.

Note that I said no such thing; I only said it's dumb to say that I "saw a dead consciousness" when you're claiming the "consciousness lives on after death" is a supernatural thing.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on January 31, 2019, 08:51:51 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
And it's still not a refereed paper in a scientific journal.  Unlike several of the ones referenced here (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/peace-of-mind-near-death/) that explain what NDEs are.  Spoiler alert:
Sorry but you are not allowed to view spoiler contents.

By the bye, author of your link?  Cardiologist.  Not neurologist, not even a psychologist.  WRONG FIELD OF EXPERTISE.  Would I see him professionally if I had heart trouble?  Maybe.  Brain tumor?  Fuck no.

You are now at the point where you need to just admit, no, you do not have any actual scientific evidence to support your opinion, just the desire for it to be true as some sort of psychological security blanket.  At least have the honesty to do that.


You are an absolute joke Mister.

You propose a link that is a pure and simple opinion pretending that in reality is a prove.
I can go through a myriad of opinions.
Some back your belief some mine and we wouldn't get anywhere in this way.
So far none that has studied NDEs has ever come up with any sort of REAL evidence.
Why?
Simple.
Because NDEs go behind the physical aspect of this reality-dimension and all studies so far related to the physical aspect only.

The real prove is elsewhere Mister.
These so called people who went through an NDE could see from above their DEAD body but most of all they could perceive what the nurses and doctors that were there try to bring them back from their death were doing and thinking.
Once back in their body they could describe what they have seen and what the doctors and nurses were thinking.

This wouldn't be possible unless the consciousness left their dead bodies.

You keep on declaim your superior knowledge by swearing, shouting in red big words but so far you haven't be able to explain how these people could see and perceive what was going on while their body lie dead in the casualty room.


Grow up Mister.

Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on January 31, 2019, 09:04:40 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Note that I said no such thing; I only said it's dumb to say that I "saw a dead consciousness" when you're claiming the "consciousness lives on after death" is a supernatural thing.

I was referring to the materialists idea that when the body die also the consciousness die that is why I said..have you ever seen a dead consciousness?
If that cause a misunderstanding then I do apologize.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on January 31, 2019, 01:00:30 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Ummmm, I am a bit confused Baruch.
Are you saying that there is much of a difference between materialists and atheists?



A fairly good philosophy in life although I definitively go a lot further than that.

Rhetorically theists and atheists are the same, in the sense that they have an agenda.  Since I am theist, I also have an agenda.  I am not unbiased.  Agnostics have no bias, or agenda.  But I am not saying that agnostics are superior.  It may be that they are just lazy and dull witted ;-)

----

Of course, there are more than one kind of atheist.  Bhakti Vaishnavas are classic theists.  But there are even atheist Shaivas.  India has a spectrum of traditions.  And India long ago had Charvakas (materialists) .  With the understanding that divinity in S & E Asia is very different than the W Asia kind (Abrahamic).

The often sited Western varieties are rationalist (theism makes no sense) and empiricist (theism has no evidence).  It is the latter group you face here.  Usually materialists are of the second type ... because if it is material, it isn't divine, but natural ... and they contend that everything is material, so everything is natural.  They also consider divine and material mutually exclusive.  That syllogism is as far as their logic need go.  QED, if you accept their premises and their syllogism.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Hydra009 on January 31, 2019, 02:12:03 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
have you ever seen a dead consciousness?
Repeating this because you think it's such a knock-down argument that you want to bask in its brilliance or because of substantial reading difficulty?
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You can't see a dead consciousness. The whole reason it's so hard to convince people a consciousness remains after you die is because there's no particles to make it up out of, so definitely it can't be something visible, audible, or otherwise perceptible to the still living.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on January 31, 2019, 07:51:34 PM
Your own human experience counts for nothing, Popular Science articles are everything.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on February 01, 2019, 07:23:51 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Rhetorically theists and atheists are the same, in the sense that they have an agenda.  Since I am theist, I also have an agenda.  I am not unbiased.  Agnostics have no bias, or agenda.  But I am not saying that agnostics are superior.  It may be that they are just lazy and dull witted ;-)

----

Of course, there are more than one kind of atheist.  Bhakti Vaishnavas are classic theists.  But there are even atheist Shaivas.  India has a spectrum of traditions.  And India long ago had Charvakas (materialists) .  With the understanding that divinity in S & E Asia is very different than the W Asia kind (Abrahamic).

The often sited Western varieties are rationalist (theism makes no sense) and empiricist (theism has no evidence).  It is the latter group you face here.  Usually materialists are of the second type ... because if it is material, it isn't divine, but natural ... and they contend that everything is material, so everything is natural.  They also consider divine and material mutually exclusive.  That syllogism is as far as their logic need go.  QED, if you accept their premises and their syllogism.


Oh, well if they reckon that everything is material then they must have a way to smell, see, taste and touch the consciousness.
Something that the poor Arik can not grasp.

Brilliant, absolutely blazing brilliant.





Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on February 01, 2019, 07:36:22 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Repeating this because you think it's such a knock-down argument that you want to bask in its brilliance or because of substantial reading difficulty?


I try my very best to say this only when someone else say that with the physical death is all over.
Atheists are not the only people that are allowed to ask for evidence after all.

Right?

 
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on February 01, 2019, 08:17:29 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Your own human experience counts for nothing, Popular Science articles are everything.


I call this.........smart philosophy.
I like it.


(https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/traditional-pattern-korean-castle-gate-traditioanl-architecture-31662027.jpg)
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Plu on February 01, 2019, 08:26:51 AM
Quote
Oh, well if they reckon that everything is material then they must have a way to smell, see, taste and touch the consciousness.

Yes, the neurons in the brain. But they go away when the person dies.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on February 01, 2019, 08:37:35 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yes, the neurons in the brain. But they go away when the person dies.


Oh well, considering that you must have a good amount of knowledge regarding this subject I hope you don't mind to tell me what is the difference between neurons and consciousness.

Thanks Plu.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Plu on February 01, 2019, 09:29:24 AM
I have no idea, is there one? You're the one claiming there are supernatural parts to the consciousness, not me.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on February 01, 2019, 09:45:39 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I have no idea, is there one? You're the one claiming there are supernatural parts to the consciousness, not me.


Not at all Plu.

I never said that the consciousness is supernatural.
I rather said that there are different level of awareness within the conscious but this doesn't mean that the consciousness is supernatural.
A dog is conscious but his consciousness is not as wide as the one in humans.
So the conscious is only one but each individual has got different level of awareness of who they are.

Is this so complicated and out of your reach to grasp?


By the way why you ask if there is one?
One what?
One consciousness?
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Plu on February 01, 2019, 10:31:54 AM
Quote
I never said that the consciousness is supernatural.

Are there only natural parts that make up the consciousness? You seem to claim it lives on after the body dies, but if a body if fully obliterated, then the only way a consciousness can live on if it is supernatural.

Either the consciousness dies when the body is gone, or it's supernatural. There's no real other way; the body itself is an entirely natural thing, made of atoms and measurable energies and all of them stop when you die.

Note that being "supernatural" simply means it's not made of natural components. I'm not using the word in any mystical or spiritual sense here.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mike Cl on February 01, 2019, 12:24:34 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


Something that the poor Arik can not grasp.

That takes in the entire universe!!
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on February 01, 2019, 01:11:10 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yes, the neurons in the brain. But they go away when the person dies.

When the radio breaks, grandpa can't listen to Amos & Andy, but the transmitted radio program still exists.

Actually, per solipsism, when you die, the universe ceases to exist.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on February 01, 2019, 01:13:13 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I have no idea, is there one? You're the one claiming there are supernatural parts to the consciousness, not me.

But there is no consciousness, per materialism.  Non-material things (ideas) are invalid (if they don't match my prejudice).  The neurons are real, but their activity isn't.  And their activity, in context, is incomprehensibly complicated.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on February 01, 2019, 01:16:21 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Are there only natural parts that make up the consciousness? You seem to claim it lives on after the body dies, but if a body if fully obliterated, then the only way a consciousness can live on if it is supernatural.

Either the consciousness dies when the body is gone, or it's supernatural. There's no real other way; the body itself is an entirely natural thing, made of atoms and measurable energies and all of them stop when you die.

Note that being "supernatural" simply means it's not made of natural components. I'm not using the word in any mystical or spiritual sense here.

There is no life.  So neurons aren't alive.  They are just arbitrary atomic arrangements, same as a rock in my driveway.  Things don't become alive or go out of life.  Same as they don't become conscious or go out of consciousness.

Natural vs supernatural, theism vs atheism are ... distractions.  Lines drawn in the sand between irreconcilable ideologies.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on February 01, 2019, 01:21:04 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That takes in the entire universe!!

Yes, the boundary problem.  The Schroedinger's Cat.  What separates one thing from another?  Nothing, same as boundaries on a map.  These boundaries that separate you from me for example, is an idea, and all ideas are delusions (to materialists).  Otherwise if ideas are not delusions, then if a Christian believes that Jesus died for is sins, then it is true.  Unless we are not equal (you are Illuminati and I am not).  But that is the point, virtue signaling as a tool to achieve total political power.

See Plato, didn't like Homer, because that dead poet prevented Plato from seizing power over the narrative.  The average Athenian preferred the common narrative, not Plato's Republic.  Today we are the opposite.  Because we failed to terminate all the egg-heads.  Socrates ... scratch.  Plato?  That one got away.  The reason why your colleges are shit, is because the whole idea was created by a Greek egg-head 2400 years ago.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mike Cl on February 01, 2019, 01:43:19 PM
That's a weak reply, even for you.  I don't know and don't care what your definition of what a materialist is--I don't necessarily agree that I am one--and I don't care.  Ideas exist because we see the results of those ideas.  And we now know that when a person is thinking that particular parts of the brain are fired up and working.  I can't see the wind, but I can see the result; and science now can demonstrate how wind is generated and why.  I can't hear a dog whistle, yet my dog can.  None of that is supernatural; it is totally and completely natural.  Theists seem to hate 'I don't know', and so when faced with one they simply say--goddidit.  And they are happy.  We are all interconnected because we live in this universe and are constructed of the same building blocks as the universe is.  We can never be totally connected because we are all unique.  I really do not know and can't know, what you think.  But I can make guesses based upon your actions.  None of that is supernatural.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on February 01, 2019, 07:00:46 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That's a weak reply, even for you.  I don't know and don't care what your definition of what a materialist is--I don't necessarily agree that I am one--and I don't care.  Ideas exist because we see the results of those ideas.  And we now know that when a person is thinking that particular parts of the brain are fired up and working.  I can't see the wind, but I can see the result; and science now can demonstrate how wind is generated and why.  I can't hear a dog whistle, yet my dog can.  None of that is supernatural; it is totally and completely natural.  Theists seem to hate 'I don't know', and so when faced with one they simply say--goddidit.  And they are happy.  We are all interconnected because we live in this universe and are constructed of the same building blocks as the universe is.  We can never be totally connected because we are all unique.  I really do not know and can't know, what you think.  But I can make guesses based upon your actions.  None of that is supernatural.

Words are bad?  Ban all words.  Less the weak get triggered.  You can say tomato, and I can say tomAto ... but the fruit stays the same.  Don't like natural or supernatural as words ... tough.  Ban words, or change or invert their meaning thru the Party.

Dualist ... there is white and black
Maniac ... there is only white or there is only black
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: trdsf on February 01, 2019, 08:14:11 PM
So, you have no evidence, and you're either too dishonest or too cowardly to admit it.

If you have to resort to the "prove [sic] is elsewhere", then you have no proof.  You either have it or you don't, and you don't get to make up your own rules for what constitutes proof.

Feel free to believe what you like, but if you're going to assert an answer for an unsolved question, there are rules of evidence and logic that you have to adhere to, whether you like it or not, and if you can't do that, then the most you can say is that you believe it.  In no honest way can you claim it's objectively true.  But, seeing the way you've conducted yourself here, it's pretty obvious you don't have much more a grasp on honest debate than you do on the rules of evidence.

We're going to boil this down to a level simple enough for even you to grasp.

All I want is a one word answer, a 'yes' or a 'no'.

Can you provide a refereed paper from a legitimate journal in the relevant discipline that supports your position?

One word answer, yes or no.  Anything else will be ignored.

Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on February 01, 2019, 08:42:45 PM
Not my fight.  I just like a good fight between matched opponents.

I don't need refereed papers, I have my broadsword.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mike Cl on February 01, 2019, 09:05:58 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Words are bad?  Ban all words.  Less the weak get triggered.  You can say tomato, and I can say tomAto ... but the fruit stays the same.  Don't like natural or supernatural as words ... tough.  Ban words, or change or invert their meaning thru the Party.

Dualist ... there is white and black
Maniac ... there is only white or there is only black
There you go, dribbling off into the woods shouting nonsense ................If one is trying to communicate then it does not matter how you pronounce tomato, only if it is close enough that each can get that idea of what fruit we are trying to talk about.  All communication is flawed for we all see the world through unique eyes.  Yet communicate we can and do.  It takes effort and to be done well, a certain level of honesty.  I can fully understand why you don't like the word 'supernatural' for you think there really is much that is supernatural.  You seem to love it for some reason---oops, sorry-----not some reason, but some belief.  And you just can't shake 'belief' to answer your questions. 
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on February 01, 2019, 11:09:23 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
There you go, dribbling off into the woods shouting nonsense ................If one is trying to communicate then it does not matter how you pronounce tomato, only if it is close enough that each can get that idea of what fruit we are trying to talk about.  All communication is flawed for we all see the world through unique eyes.  Yet communicate we can and do.  It takes effort and to be done well, a certain level of honesty.  I can fully understand why you don't like the word 'supernatural' for you think there really is much that is supernatural.  You seem to love it for some reason---oops, sorry-----not some reason, but some belief.  And you just can't shake 'belief' to answer your questions.

Thinking with your head (typical I know) not thinking wit your heart.  We are incommensurate.  We don't have equivalent experience upon which to base common vocabulary.  Except when we do (Dr Carrier).  But I think that Arik and I do have some equivalent experience upon which to base common vocabulary.  You experienced church, not G-d.  I have church experience too.  We just celebrated our rabbi's birthday at tonight's worship service.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on February 02, 2019, 09:19:48 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So, you have no evidence, and you're either too dishonest or too cowardly to admit it.

If you have to resort to the "prove [sic] is elsewhere", then you have no proof.  You either have it or you don't, and you don't get to make up your own rules for what constitutes proof.

Feel free to believe what you like, but if you're going to assert an answer for an unsolved question, there are rules of evidence and logic that you have to adhere to, whether you like it or not, and if you can't do that, then the most you can say is that you believe it.  In no honest way can you claim it's objectively true.  But, seeing the way you've conducted yourself here, it's pretty obvious you don't have much more a grasp on honest debate than you do on the rules of evidence.

We're going to boil this down to a level simple enough for even you to grasp.

All I want is a one word answer, a 'yes' or a 'no'.

Can you provide a refereed paper from a legitimate journal in the relevant discipline that supports your position?

One word answer, yes or no.  Anything else will be ignored.


You got a big problem Mister.

You came at the conclusion that ...............a refereed paper from a legitimate journal...........is evidence.
What a load o'crap Mister.

Your conclusion goes against nature.
In this universe everything move and change.
Nothing stay the same for long time.
What was correct yesterday is no longer valid today and what is valid today will be cast in the rubbish bin of history in the near future to be replaced again later on with new evidence.

But dreamers like you don't get it.
They cling to the present thinking that what they got is the real McCoy of knowledge.
That is the problem when you live in this finite universe where everything last only for short time.

To me the real evidence only lie in the infinite arena but that is something that a materialists is unable to grasp yet.
In the meantime I base my evidence on thousand of people who witness a dead person to be revived later on and tell to the people present there what he-she saw and what people were thinking while he-she was out his-her body, SOMETHING THAT WAS CONFIRMED AS TRUTH BY THE NURSES AND DOCTORS PRESENT there.

I did asked how this is possible but you pretend that I never asked you this and at the same time still blabber........EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE.......





Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on February 02, 2019, 09:45:15 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Are there only natural parts that make up the consciousness? You seem to claim it lives on after the body dies, but if a body if fully obliterated, then the only way a consciousness can live on if it is supernatural.

Either the consciousness dies when the body is gone, or it's supernatural. There's no real other way; the body itself is an entirely natural thing, made of atoms and measurable energies and all of them stop when you die.

Note that being "supernatural" simply means it's not made of natural components. I'm not using the word in any mystical or spiritual sense here.


Please let me try to dispel your confusion.

Suppose you got a car that you have been driven for long time.
One day your car become a wreck which obviously will end up in the wrecking yard.
From that time on you leave that wreck.
Have you become a different person just because you do not have anymore a relationship with that old car?

Of course not Plu.
Why should you have changed?
You still are Plu like before.

When the consciousness leave a dead body such a consciousness is still the same although being now free from the body it can perceive better what is going on but to say that the consciousness become supernatural doesn't make any sense.



Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Plu on February 02, 2019, 09:48:33 AM
Quote
Have you become a different person just because you do not have anymore a relationship with that old car?

Clearly you will become a different person. Wreck or no wreck. Change is constant. The idea of a persistent self is a human illusion; a useful one, but still an illusion.

Quote
You still are Plu like before.

You overestimate how much I am still the same Plu I was 4 years ago, when I left the forums. Let alone the same Plu I was 10 years ago. I would barely recognize the Plu I was 20 years ago, and I'm him.

Quote
When the consciousness leave a dead body such a consciousness is still the same although being now free from the body it can perceive better what is going on but to say that the consciousness become supernatural doesn't make any sense.

Right. Saying it became supernatural doesn't make any sense. It must've always been supernatural, given that it defies detection at all times. That's what the word "supernatural" means. Outside the realm of science.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on February 02, 2019, 10:29:20 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Clearly you will become a different person. Wreck or no wreck. Change is constant. The idea of a persistent self is a human illusion; a useful one, but still an illusion.

You overestimate how much I am still the same Plu I was 4 years ago, when I left the forums. Let alone the same Plu I was 10 years ago. I would barely recognize the Plu I was 20 years ago, and I'm him.


Everything move and change so obviously there is a change for the better or the worse during our life.
This however is not what I tried to tell you.
The point was whether or not the consciousness become supernatural NOT IN THE COURSE OF OUR LIFE BUT ONLY WHEN WE LEAVE OUR BODY.

Can you see the difference among the two situation Plu?


Quote
Right. Saying it became supernatural doesn't make any sense. It must've always been supernatural, given that it defies detection at all times. That's what the word "supernatural" means. Outside the realm of science.

The realm of science?

Not really Plu.
It is all about awareness.
An animal has got little awareness in his consciousness if we compare that to an human consciousness but also an human has got little awareness if we believe that God exist and God has got his awareness so there is no such a thing as natural or supernatural.
It is all natural but an entity with less awareness in his consciousness think that what he-she can not perceive is supernatural when in reality is more than natural.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Plu on February 02, 2019, 10:34:55 AM
I really think you need to read up on the words "natural" and "supernatural" in the dictionary before there is any point to continuing this discussion.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: trdsf on February 02, 2019, 11:24:07 AM
Wow, you don't even understand the words "one word answer".  Guess you don't give a fuck about actually making your point, if you even have one.

You're either a dishonest and cowardly debater, or a thundering moron.  Either way, welcome to my twitfilter.  You're not even fun to poke anymore.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on February 02, 2019, 12:27:47 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I really think you need to read up on the words "natural" and "supernatural" in the dictionary before there is any point to continuing this discussion.

Dictionary ... as controlled by the Newspeak division of IngSoc?  Some examples ...

Democrat = demon spawn

Republican = the other demon spawn

How do you like my poetic license?  I don't get that license from the MSM DMV.

Use any definition you like, provided that you make it clear which one you are using, and I am cool with it.  I don't see language as neutral, it is a weapon.

Democrat = saints of democratic socialism?

Republican = neo-Nazis?

So ...

natural = what atheists claim is the one true ontology

supernatural = what theists claim is the one true ontology

As a freethinking theist, I reject both definitions.  Any definition is a rhetorical tool to hide what you really think.

I also reject the notion that religious orientation is politics free ... that is an Anglophone fantasy.  No other culture is that stupid.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Cavebear on February 03, 2019, 01:34:30 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Wow, you don't even understand the words "one word answer".  Guess you don't give a fuck about actually making your point, if you even have one.

You're either a dishonest and cowardly debater, or a thundering moron.  Either way, welcome to my twitfilter.  You're not even fun to poke anymore.

Are we actually witnessing a debate about logic from 2 theists (Plu and Arik)?  Amazing...
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on February 03, 2019, 03:19:46 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Are we actually witnessing a debate about logic from 2 theists (Plu and Arik)?  Amazing...

Is PLU a theist?  Arik is not a materialist.  Does that make Arik a theist?  He hasn't spoken of Vishnu/Shiva etc.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Plu on February 03, 2019, 03:34:23 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Are we actually witnessing a debate about logic from 2 theists (Plu and Arik)?  Amazing...

Doubtful, given that I am not a theist and Arik is not 2 people.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on February 03, 2019, 03:40:25 AM
Cavebear is given to snap judgements ... he is part snapdragon.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Cavebear on February 03, 2019, 03:47:24 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Doubtful, given that I am not a theist and Arik is not 2 people.

Well. I haven't seen much yet that suggests you are an atheist.  You might well be, but I haven't seen anything to demonstrate it.  It's not like I know you from years past.  Just a thought.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on February 03, 2019, 03:59:57 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Well. I haven't seen much yet that suggests you are an atheist.  You might well be, but I haven't seen anything to demonstrate it.  It's not like I know you from years past.  Just a thought.

Check your White paranoid privilege ;-)
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Cavebear on February 03, 2019, 04:16:33 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Check your White paranoid privilege ;-)

You never cease to misunderstand any statement, do you?  OK, here it is word by word!

1.  I can't see anything "White" about atheism.
2.  I don't see anything "paranoid" about looking for evidence that people who claim to be atheist are.  I've seen posters at other sites evade direct answers for many months until they finally let on that they are theists in a moment of anger.  And a few here for shorter times.
3.  "Privilege".  Yeah that's real funny.  Whens the last time being an "atheist" made anyone "privileged" in any way.  We are and will be the last hated group.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on February 03, 2019, 09:40:02 AM
You don't "get it".  Your universal suspicion = paranoia (not literally).  "Woke" politics is all about "check your White privilege".  Neither of which involve atheism.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on February 03, 2019, 10:11:49 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I really think you need to read up on the words "natural" and "supernatural" in the dictionary before there is any point to continuing this discussion.

The dictionary may say that natural is what we understand and supernatural is what we or the science can not understand.

In reality whether we understand or not there is no such a thing as non natural because it is all natural.
I know that all this may sound a bit strange but as a dog can not understand our level of awareness most people also can not understand that may exist a superior awareness such as God and that is why so many people come to the wrong conclusion that there is nothing outside our awareness.

The problem for these people is that they have a wrong understanding of what evolution is all about.
They are still stuck to the feeling that what can not be understood does not exist.
At least a dog doesn't understand because his awareness is tiny but for an human there is no excuses.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on February 03, 2019, 10:28:29 AM
Post-humanism.  Many people here are dog lovers.  So they consider dogs to be higher beings than themselves.  As a cat person, I know they are completely wrong, and my cats agree.  Worshippers of Bastet unite!
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: trdsf on February 03, 2019, 11:57:53 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Are we actually witnessing a debate about logic from 2 theists (Plu and Arik)?  Amazing...
That would require Plu to be a theist, and Arik to be a debater.  :)
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on February 04, 2019, 09:50:38 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Post-humanism.  Many people here are dog lovers.  So they consider dogs to be higher beings than themselves.  As a cat person, I know they are completely wrong, and my cats agree.  Worshippers of Bastet unite!

According to yoga dogs and monkeys that are sharing the company of humans find very easy to evolve quickly to the stage of humans in the next reincarnation.
On the other hand many humans that like some animals over the normal will be reborn as animals.
It is a law of nature to enter the dimension that is mostly compatible with our desires that is why my desires are focus towards God rather than material-mundane objects.
However I like (like only nothing over the normal) the magpies that live around my house and i regularly feed by hands.

(https://www.vetwest.com.au/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/images/article/bigstock-magpies-feeding-7761278_0.jpg?itok=wZYoiZuY)
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Hydra009 on February 04, 2019, 10:23:44 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Atheists are not the only people that are allowed to ask for evidence after all.
"Betcha can't prove a negative" is not skepticism, it's a burden-shifting technique masquerading as an argument.

You're no skeptic.  You're not fooling anyone.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on February 04, 2019, 12:42:22 PM
Magpies are among the smarter birds.  Like cats and dogs, they are probably using you, for their own purposes ;-)  Woke .. like welfare denizens.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on February 05, 2019, 09:12:16 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Magpies are among the smarter birds.  Like cats and dogs, they are probably using you, for their own purposes ;-)  Woke .. like welfare denizens.


Now you make me feel like a fool.

(https://richesandrhymes.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/simpsonsnelsonmuntzhaha.gif?w=500)
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on February 05, 2019, 09:30:48 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
"Betcha can't prove a negative" is not skepticism, it's a burden-shifting technique masquerading as an argument.

You're no skeptic.  You're not fooling anyone.


I guess it must be very hard to fool someone however is very easy to fool ourselves.

Personally I don't try to fool either.
What about you Hydra?
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on February 05, 2019, 12:35:47 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I guess it must be very hard to fool someone however is very easy to fool ourselves.

Personally I don't try to fool either.
What about you Hydra?

Even Heracles had a hard time slaying the Hydra ;-)
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on February 06, 2019, 09:31:56 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Even Heracles had a hard time slaying the Hydra ;-)


Tell me about you if you don't mind Baruch.

You like history, philosophy and a lot of other things but what is your real agenda in life?
Thanks.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on February 06, 2019, 01:25:24 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Tell me about you if you don't mind Baruch.

You like history, philosophy and a lot of other things but what is your real agenda in life?
Thanks.

Later, after work.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: aitm on February 06, 2019, 02:58:06 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

On the other hand many humans that like some animals over the normal will be reborn as animals.

and they taste just like chicken......
Quote
It is a law of nature to enter the dimension that is mostly compatible with our desires

a law?  You may want to open the windows son.....those "magical" crystals you bought may just be meth.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on February 06, 2019, 07:54:56 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Tell me about you if you don't mind Baruch.

You like history, philosophy and a lot of other things but what is your real agenda in life?
Thanks.

I am alone in the Theater of Dionysus in Athens, I am one of many there -> Sometimes I am the protagonist, or the antagonist, or in the chorus or in the audience.  Sometimes a comedy is in progress, but more often a tragedy.  Those are the dimensions of my witnessing.  What I was, I have not yet become ... what I will be, I already have been, and where those cross over, here am I.  My witnessing is a becoming, is interwoven with the play's progress.  I have arrived, but I have never left.  What I may be, lies beyond speech, beyond revealing.  My purpose is to embody that mystery, which is to live a life ... Dionysius am I.  Let's drink to that!
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on February 07, 2019, 08:20:04 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I am alone in the Theater of Dionysus in Athens, I am one of many there -> Sometimes I am the protagonist, or the antagonist, or in the chorus or in the audience.  Sometimes a comedy is in progress, but more often a tragedy.  Those are the dimensions of my witnessing.  What I was, I have not yet become ... what I will be, I already have been, and where those cross over, here am I.  My witnessing is a becoming, is interwoven with the play's progress.  I have arrived, but I have never left.  What I may be, lies beyond speech, beyond revealing.  My purpose is to embody that mystery, which is to live a life ... Dionysius am I.  Let's drink to that!


That agenda would be a little complicated for me to follow but me is me and you is you so go for it.

But as an old saying goes............all roads lead to Rome ................and at the end we all end up in the same beautiful place.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dd_eMY2V0AE5-qf.jpg)
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on February 07, 2019, 08:41:57 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
and they taste just like chicken......
a law?  You may want to open the windows son.....those "magical" crystals you bought may just be meth.


Sorry aitm but there is far far too much evidence to prove that people reborn in the dimension that is most compatible with their desires as I already shown in which artists like Beethoven, Mozart and others were able to give concerts when they were less than 10 years old.
Where would they have achieved that skill other than in previous lives but that are only some examples of the most famous.
In reality we all follow the same thing that is why there is no need to use meth to understand how the system works.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: aitm on February 07, 2019, 10:32:46 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Sorry aitm but there is far far too much evidence


there is NO evidence except in your addled brain.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on February 07, 2019, 12:54:53 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

That agenda would be a little complicated for me to follow but me is me and you is you so go for it.

But as an old saying goes............all roads lead to Rome ................and at the end we all end up in the same beautiful place.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dd_eMY2V0AE5-qf.jpg)

Elysium?  Only heroes go there.  The rest are lucky to drink from the Lethe ... river of forgetfulness, as restored NPCs they get recycled.

But I have eidetic dreams, been to many worlds, been many beings ... so Elysium is real.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on February 08, 2019, 12:25:53 AM
Arik and I can see things inside-out.  The norm here is outside-in ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eehz5YKnBf4

The mind isn't in the body, the body is in the mind.  And mind is merely the secular word for spirit.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on February 08, 2019, 10:12:58 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Elysium?  Only heroes go there.  The rest are lucky to drink from the Lethe ... river of forgetfulness, as restored NPCs they get recycled.

But I have eidetic dreams, been to many worlds, been many beings ... so Elysium is real.

I guess that in previous reincarnations I also was drinking from the Lethe but one day I did wake up and grow up so now here I am trying my very best to reach Elysium where one day everybody will end up.
As I did learn also everybody is bound to learn sooner or later.
There is no other way to go.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on February 08, 2019, 10:34:54 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Arik and I can see things inside-out.  The norm here is outside-in ...

The mind isn't in the body, the body is in the mind.  And mind is merely the secular word for spirit.


I would put it slightly differently.

The body-brain is the vehicle in which the consciousness-mind stay until life is there.
As soon as the vehicle die the consciousness-mind leave and reincarnate in a new body-brain or if it has reached the superconscious mind merge in it to become one with the whole.


Quote
And mind is merely the secular word for spirit.


(https://www.hawkinspersonnel.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/iStock_000061661004_XXXLarge-1024x683.jpg)

Agree.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on February 08, 2019, 10:48:58 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
there is NO evidence except in your addled brain.


Oh, well in this case then the knowledge that people got when they born must have fallen from the sky in a miraculous way.

Gee, I thought that atheists believe in science not in miracles?
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on February 08, 2019, 07:08:45 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Oh, well in this case then the knowledge that people got when they born must have fallen from the sky in a miraculous way.

Gee, I thought that atheists believe in science not in miracles?

Since 500 BCE, all rationalists are son's of Plato, they have unique insight into the Eternal Forms.  And are entitled to be the natural Guardians of society.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: aitm on February 08, 2019, 08:07:46 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Oh, well in this case then the knowledge that people got when they born must have fallen from the sky in a miraculous way.


of course you are right...thats why we don't need to teach our children to speak or even shit in a bucket.....your brilliance is lost in a brillo pad.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Unbeliever on February 08, 2019, 08:15:49 PM
Of course, we all have miraculous knowledge when we're born, but most of us are smart enough to hide it. Only the stupid people like Mozart are too dumb to keep it a secret.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on February 08, 2019, 09:11:38 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Of course, we all have miraculous knowledge when we're born, but most of us are smart enough to hide it. Only the stupid people like Mozart are too dumb to keep it a secret.

That and "Baby Geniuses" ... a movie from 1999.  This was also Socrates/Plato's theory ... the pre-knowledge being the Eternal Forms.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dgjvh4_h_lQ

I saw a officer promoted to Major yesterday, his two year old girl was there, wanting daddy more than mommy, and being terrible-two ;-)  Feminists start young ;-))
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on February 09, 2019, 08:20:49 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Of course, we all have miraculous knowledge when we're born, but most of us are smart enough to hide it. Only the stupid people like Mozart are too dumb to keep it a secret.


Wrong again mate.
Children do not hide much at all.
It is when they grow up that they stop behaving in a natural way as when they were young.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on February 09, 2019, 09:01:20 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
of course you are right...thats why we don't need to teach our children to speak or even shit in a bucket.....your brilliance is lost in a brillo pad.


Not at all Mister.

Having to go through reincarnation (if you believe in it) all the knowledge that we had in previous lives does not pop up all of a sudden for the simple reason that when you are a baby the body-brain is still growing towards his full potential but hasn't reach that stage yet that is why babies need to be reminded how to live.
This of course has zero to do with whether the potential and knowledge of children from previous lives are there or not.

The fact is that those children that are most knowledgeable manifest their knowledge and skill earlier while those less knowledgeable manifest it later if at all regardless whether we teach them to speak or to poop in the pot.

Your problem is that by not believing in reincarnation you put everybody on the same starting line when in reality this starting line started millions years ago and in the meantime the smarter got ahead while the lazy one got behind and that is quite obvious when we see genius in children. 

Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on February 09, 2019, 09:12:07 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Wrong again mate.
Children do not hide much at all.
It is when they grow up that they stop behaving in a natural way as when they were young.

Rousseau would agree with you.  Civilization is unnatural.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on February 09, 2019, 09:34:19 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Rousseau would agree with you.  Civilization is unnatural.


My spiritual teacher said that this planet is in a transition phase so a lot of changes take place all the time.
Not all these changes are for the better as we can see at the moment with wars, famine, climate changes and other but by doing mistakes we can also learn provide we survive this difficult time.

He was however optimistic that we will get through and reach new level of knowledge especially in the spiritual field so people will stop behaving in a non natural way.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mr.Obvious on February 09, 2019, 12:00:47 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

My spiritual teacher said that this planet is in a transition phase so a lot of changes take place all the time.
Not all these changes are for the better as we can see at the moment with wars, famine, climate changes and other but by doing mistakes we can also learn provide we survive this difficult time.

He was however optimistic that we will get through and reach new level of knowledge especially in the spiritual field so people will stop behaving in a non natural way.

That's nice.

The guy who lives three Blocks away from me, in a cartboard box, said something similar.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on February 09, 2019, 01:25:43 PM
Belgium is hosting refugees from Venezuela now?  Or is that Zimbabwe?
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mr.Obvious on February 09, 2019, 01:36:19 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Belgium is hosting refugees from Venezuela now?  Or is that Zimbabwe?

There was a time antwerp had most different nationalities in it, out of all of Europe. Outdone only by new york. Don't know it's ranking now, but i bet it is still up there.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: aitm on February 09, 2019, 04:58:21 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Your problem is that by not believing in reincarnation you put everybody on the same starting line when in reality this starting line started millions years ago and in the meantime the smarter got ahead while the lazy one got behind and that is quite obvious when we see genius in children. 

I see....so of the millions upon millions of babies we get 5 genius's....every decade or so. Yeah.....you got all the genius working for you right now. Must be why you spend so much time here instead of solving the Grand Unification Theory.....lucky us.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on February 10, 2019, 09:58:05 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I see....so of the millions upon millions of babies we get 5 genius's....every decade or so. Yeah.....you got all the genius working for you right now. Must be why you spend so much time here instead of solving the Grand Unification Theory.....lucky us.


Here we are with one more dogma.

According to you there is only one planet where people live and this planet is our planet in which you see only 5 genius.
In other words there are no other planets where genius may live.

How sad Mister.

And atheists suppose to be those open mind that believe in science?

Have you ever play one of those puzzle game in which a particular piece only fit in a particular spot?
That is how the universal system works.
While genius fit in a particular planet where life is more evolved other people with less knowledge and consciousness are bound to live in a different dimension which is more compatible with their mental-spiritual progress.

Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on February 10, 2019, 10:13:59 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That's nice.

The guy who lives three Blocks away from me, in a cartboard box, said something similar.


That is a complain that you should direct to those who promote the capitalist system which by the way my spiritual teacher is against it.
Try to go to Mr. Trump and tell him..........son we had enough of your garbage.



Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on February 10, 2019, 11:28:02 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

That is a complain that you should direct to those who promote the capitalist system which by the way my spiritual teacher is against it.
Try to go to Mr. Trump and tell him..........son we had enough of your garbage.

Western materialists can't imagine that their culture is parochial ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashrama_(stage)

Living in a cardboard box, might be a necessary ashram in life experience.  I am a Vanaprastha myself.

One of the posters here admits to being a Sannyasa.

Being capitalist is appropriate to the earlier Brrahmacharya and Grihastha stages.  It is appropriate for their elders to share what they have stored up with the youngers.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Blackleaf on February 10, 2019, 01:37:14 PM
I like how this introduction thread, a place for saying "hi," has derailed into 33 pages of debate.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on February 10, 2019, 02:20:06 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I like how this introduction thread, a place for saying "hi," has derailed into 33 pages of debate.

Arik's fault.  He had made 10 posts here, but didn't start a new topic in a regular section.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: aitm on February 10, 2019, 02:36:51 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
has derailed into 33 pages of debate.
mighty generous of you to call it a debate rather than having a retard spout complete nonsense and ignore every piece of real evidence and common sense that refutes his prattle. But....I admit some here have engaged in a battle of wit agin half-wit.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on February 10, 2019, 02:46:53 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
mighty generous of you to call it a debate rather than having a retard spout complete nonsense and ignore every piece of real evidence and common sense that refutes his prattle. But....I admit some here have engaged in a battle of wit agin half-wit.

Otha's chess game.  If you aren't winning, overturn the chessboard.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Unbeliever on February 10, 2019, 05:33:57 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I like how this introduction thread, a place for saying "hi," has derailed into 33 pages of debate.

It that what you call this - "debate"?
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on February 10, 2019, 07:45:23 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It that what you call this - "debate"?

One polite adult, many impolite children?
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: trdsf on February 11, 2019, 02:04:58 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
mighty generous of you to call it a debate rather than having a retard spout complete nonsense and ignore every piece of real evidence and common sense that refutes his prattle. But....I admit some here have engaged in a battle of wit agin half-wit.
"Half-wit" might be generous towards (I assume you mean) Arik.  If he/she was twins, they wouldn't manage one full wit.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on February 11, 2019, 08:54:15 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
mighty generous of you to call it a debate rather than having a retard spout complete nonsense and ignore every piece of real evidence and common sense that refutes his prattle. But....I admit some here have engaged in a battle of wit agin halfwit


Real evidence?

Where, when, how?

Please show me this evidence of yours so I can reply to you.
So far I haven't seen a single piece of your evidence.


Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on February 11, 2019, 09:27:08 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I like how this introduction thread, a place for saying "hi," has derailed into 33 pages of debate.


I also like it BL. lol

But I promise you that as soon as I finish my introduction I will start a thread in the proper forum provide of course that the mods don't kick me out before.

(https://smalldog.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/2990_picture_of_a_salesman_getting_kicked_out_of_an_office.png)
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mr.Obvious on February 11, 2019, 09:50:57 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I also like it BL. lol

But I promise you that as soon as I finish my introduction I will start a thread in the proper forum provide of course that the mods don't kick me out before.

(https://smalldog.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/2990_picture_of_a_salesman_getting_kicked_out_of_an_office.png)

I wouldn't worry. You haven't done anything warranting banishment.
I've not read everything you've written, of course.
But from what I've read, I don't think you can be banned.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on February 11, 2019, 01:17:20 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I wouldn't worry. You haven't done anything warranting banishment.
I've not read everything you've written, of course.
But from what I've read, I don't think you can be banned.

Otherwise they would have booted me long ago for rejecting the D-R duopoly.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mike Cl on February 11, 2019, 02:30:37 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I also like it BL. lol

But I promise you that as soon as I finish my introduction I will start a thread in the proper forum provide of course that the mods don't kick me out before.

This board has banned a few, all that I can remember are theists---but, anyway, none were banned for being stupid.  So, even though you have given 'stupid' a bad name, I don't think you will be banned.   Why would you come to a board trying to be banned.  Why not just stay away?
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on February 11, 2019, 06:18:42 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
This board has banned a few, all that I can remember are theists---but, anyway, none were banned for being stupid.  So, even though you have given 'stupid' a bad name, I don't think you will be banned.   Why would you come to a board trying to be banned.  Why not just stay away?

This isn't atheistforums.org ... the people here are different ;-p
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on February 12, 2019, 08:24:48 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Otherwise they would have booted me long ago for rejecting the D-R duopoly.


D-R duopoly?

What is that?
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on February 12, 2019, 08:26:09 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
This isn't atheistforums.org ... the people here are different ;-p


Good to know.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on February 12, 2019, 08:50:27 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
This board has banned a few, all that I can remember are theists---but, anyway, none were banned for being stupid.  So, even though you have given 'stupid' a bad name, I don't think you will be banned.   Why would you come to a board trying to be banned.


Who try to be banned?



Quote
Why not just stay away?


If I go in a yoga forum almost everybody would agree with me so what's the point?
It is in a forum like this in which most people don't agree with me that I can find it very interesting because I have to exercise and train my mind in order to support my beliefs against a strong opposition.

It is this clash that help me to learn how I should put my argument forward in a better way.

No clash = no learning.


Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mike Cl on February 12, 2019, 10:36:20 AM
[quote author=Arik link=topic=13210.msg1245797#msg1245797 date=1549979427



If I go in a yoga forum almost everybody would agree with me so what's the point?
It is in a forum like this in which most people don't agree with me that I can find it very interesting because I have to exercise and train my mind in order to support my beliefs against a strong opposition.

It is this clash that help me to learn how I should put my argument forward in a better way.

No clash = no learning.
[/quote]
From what I've read it is hard for me to think you have a brain.  As for learning you demonstrate nothing that would suggest you are capable of doing that--learn.  For your supposed love of being 'conscious' you seem to be so only in one very narrow band of belief.  Beyond that, you seem to be totally oblivious to anything.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Blackleaf on February 12, 2019, 11:15:32 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

D-R duopoly?

What is that?

Democrat-Republican. Baruch doesn't think there's a difference between the two.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on February 12, 2019, 01:15:50 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Who try to be banned?




If I go in a yoga forum almost everybody would agree with me so what's the point?
It is in a forum like this in which most people don't agree with me that I can find it very interesting because I have to exercise and train my mind in order to support my beliefs against a strong opposition.

It is this clash that help me to learn how I should put my argument forward in a better way.

No clash = no learning.

i could go to a forum I create, where I am almost the only one there (a former member here did that 18 months ago, shortly afterward he apparently died from solipsism ;-(

These people not only made me a better theist, they made me move from monotheism to polytheism.  i need to get back to worshipping my parrot now ...
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on February 12, 2019, 01:17:24 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

D-R duopoly?

What is that?

The US claims to be a two-party polity ... but hasn't been since 1963.  The two parties made a blood brother pact over a certain change in chief executive and are bound by their shared guilt for that, and all the psychopathic shit that came afterward ...
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on February 12, 2019, 01:18:15 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Good to know.

A much larger forum, atheistforums.org sometimes sends their riff-raff here.  But we put quality over quantity ;-)
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on February 12, 2019, 01:19:20 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Democrat-Republican. Baruch doesn't think there's a difference between the two.

My right leg and my left leg aren't the same, but they connect at the groin, where all the interesting stuff happens.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on February 13, 2019, 08:34:30 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
[quote author=Arik link=topic=13210.msg1245797#msg1245797 date=1549979427



If I go in a yoga forum almost everybody would agree with me so what's the point?
It is in a forum like this in which most people don't agree with me that I can find it very interesting because I have to exercise and train my mind in order to support my beliefs against a strong opposition.

It is this clash that help me to learn how I should put my argument forward in a better way.

No clash = no learning.

From what I've read it is hard for me to think you have a brain.  As for learning you demonstrate nothing that would suggest you are capable of doing that--learn.  For your supposed love of being 'conscious' you seem to be so only in one very narrow band of belief.  Beyond that, you seem to be totally oblivious to anything.


Wrong again Mike.

To me it is all a question of priorities.
To you my priorities are not priorities so you come to the conclusion that I waste my time.

We got different beliefs.
You probably think that once you die is all over so to you must be important physical-material things.
To me these things although necessary are not very very important.

To me the life is eternal so it is important to build the future of my consciousness.
This doesn't mean that I neglect physical and material things.
Yoga doesn't neglect life on earth that is why my spiritual teacher gave a practical system of running the economy and the society once the capitalist system collapse and that shouldn't be very far away now.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mike Cl on February 13, 2019, 08:44:57 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Wrong again Mike.

To me it is all a question of priorities.
To you my priorities are not priorities so you come to the conclusion that I waste my time.

We got different beliefs.
You probably think that once you die is all over so to you must be important physical-material things.
To me these things although necessary are not very very important.

To me the life is eternal so it is important to build the future of my consciousness.
This doesn't mean that I neglect physical and material things.
Yoga doesn't neglect life on earth that is why my spiritual teacher gave a practical system of running the economy and the society once the capitalist system collapse and that shouldn't be very far away now.
Doesn't matter what you believe or what I believe, either.  What matters is what 'is'.  Of course you don't neglect physical or material things--to do so would lead to death.  I don't put down yoga at all; just as I don't put down martial arts training.  It is a good form of discipline and is helpful in all phases of life.  I don't worry about what happens after I die; I will die and that is inescapable no matter how many fictions I spin about it.  And your consciousness does not carry over from your death--that belief (as all beliefs are) is a fiction, but one designed to make you feel better.  If that works for you, go for it.  I also agree with your spiritual teacher (spiritual leader=a good gig if you can get it) that what in Merika is called the capitalist system is due for a makeover soon--and it can't happen soon enough.  It seems if you could get rid of your wishful believing that we would see the world in much the same way.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on February 13, 2019, 08:54:45 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Democrat-Republican. Baruch doesn't think there's a difference between the two.


They both follow the capitalist system so the differences are minimum.

They disagree on the wall on the guns laws and few other things but that's all.
All in all they follow the same decrepit system which has no future.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on February 13, 2019, 09:11:19 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Doesn't matter what you believe or what I believe, either.  What matters is what 'is'.  Of course you don't neglect physical or material things--to do so would lead to death.  I don't put down yoga at all; just as I don't put down martial arts training.  It is a good form of discipline and is helpful in all phases of life.  I don't worry about what happens after I die; I will die and that is inescapable no matter how many fictions I spin about it.  And your consciousness does not carry over from your death--that belief (as all beliefs are) is a fiction, but one designed to make you feel better.  If that works for you, go for it.  I also agree with your spiritual teacher (spiritual leader=a good gig if you can get it) that what in Merika is called the capitalist system is due for a makeover soon--and it can't happen soon enough.  It seems if you could get rid of your wishful believing that we would see the world in much the same way.



You ..........don't worry about what happens after you die...........I instead do worry.

To think that the consciousness that we got happen in a mysterious way and one day will vanish is a demented idea.
Life and science tell us that we build what we got and nothing happen by chance but that is your life Mike so do what make sense to you.

Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Blackleaf on February 13, 2019, 12:08:41 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


You ..........don't worry about what happens after you die...........I instead do worry.

To think that the consciousness that we got happen in a mysterious way and one day will vanish is a demented idea.
Life and science tell us that we build what we got and nothing happen by chance but that is your life Mike so do what make sense to you.

You really think that an eternal existence wouldn't be torture, no matter what it's like? Imagine having lived for so long that you've done everything. You've met everyone, you've done all you could ever hope to accomplish, and nothing surprises you any more. You have no more goals, nothing to strive for, you'd be doomed to an eternal existence of boredom.

Reincarnation would be a better option, since you'd essentially be getting a mind wipe between each lifetime, but even that wouldn't be eternal. Our universe is headed towards a state of heat death. One day, there will be no more light in the sky. Eventually, even the blackholes will die, and the universe will have effectively expanded so much that it will be functionally empty. What happens to your consciousness then?
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Unbeliever on February 13, 2019, 01:21:15 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
And your consciousness does not carry over from your death--that belief (as all beliefs are) is a fiction, but one designed to make you feel better.

More likely designed to make money for the yoga teacher. I wonder how much Arik pays for the yoga lessons.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mike Cl on February 13, 2019, 04:57:45 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


You ..........don't worry about what happens after you die...........I instead do worry.

To think that the consciousness that we got happen in a mysterious way and one day will vanish is a demented idea.
Life and science tell us that we build what we got and nothing happen by chance but that is your life Mike so do what make sense to you.
No, I don't worry about what happens when I die.  I have a pretty good idea what does happen, which is to simply rot away--star dust to star dust.  Humans have consciousness not from magical or mysterious ways, but from evolution.  I don't know all the steps that that would take; but for me 'I don't know' does not = god must have done it.  One day humans will have a very good idea of exactly how our consciousness came about and that answer will be supplied by science and not magic or fictional stories or creatures.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Unbeliever on February 13, 2019, 05:02:12 PM
From stardust thou art, unto stardust shalt thou return.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: trdsf on February 13, 2019, 06:15:36 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Reincarnation would be a better option, since you'd essentially be getting a mind wipe between each lifetime, but even that wouldn't be eternal. Our universe is headed towards a state of heat death. One day, there will be no more light in the sky. Eventually, even the blackholes will die, and the universe will have effectively expanded so much that it will be functionally empty. What happens to your consciousness then?
Can you call it reincarnation if you have no way to access a past life?  I don't see any difference between reincarnation with a mind wipe, and two completely different beings.

I think you're referring to the Big Freeze, which is not quite the same as heat death because it's not a thin, homogeneous cloud of photons at the same temperature, it's just space and stray matter riding the eternal expansion forever into the darkness, cooling ever closer to absolute zero.

The other alternative fate is the Big Rip, should the acceleration become fast enough to not only separate galaxy clusters, but galaxies within clusters, then separate the galaxies themselves, ultimately expanding fast enough to tear all matter apart and finally the fabric of spacetime itself.

I'm not entirely sure whether the heat death of the universe remains possible under accelerating expansion.  I'll have to pester an astronomer over that.  :)
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Unbeliever on February 13, 2019, 06:28:24 PM
I don't know what "the fabric of spacetime itself" is, but I'm curious whether the expansion could accelerate enough, eventually, to rip apart the virtual particles, like what happens to them at the event horizon of black holes, such that they'd then become actual, real particles.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on February 13, 2019, 07:01:10 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
More likely designed to make money for the yoga teacher. I wonder how much Arik pays for the yoga lessons.

If he doesn't pay up, maybe the teacher ties him in knots?

A copy of the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali (the scripture in question) can cost less than $20.  That might be a lot to a poor person in India.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Unbeliever on February 13, 2019, 07:02:15 PM
That might be a lot to a poor person anywhere.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on February 13, 2019, 07:03:06 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
From stardust thou art, unto stardust shalt thou return.

That is a song?  Sung by Nat King Cole?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjU6ZjrQulc
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on February 13, 2019, 07:04:15 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Can you call it reincarnation if you have no way to access a past life?  I don't see any difference between reincarnation with a mind wipe, and two completely different beings.

I think you're referring to the Big Freeze, which is not quite the same as heat death because it's not a thin, homogeneous cloud of photons at the same temperature, it's just space and stray matter riding the eternal expansion forever into the darkness, cooling ever closer to absolute zero.

The other alternative fate is the Big Rip, should the acceleration become fast enough to not only separate galaxy clusters, but galaxies within clusters, then separate the galaxies themselves, ultimately expanding fast enough to tear all matter apart and finally the fabric of spacetime itself.

I'm not entirely sure whether the heat death of the universe remains possible under accelerating expansion.  I'll have to pester an astronomer over that.  :)

Pythagoras was the first Western person to claim he remembered past lives.  This was contrary to Greek theology.  He also co-invented modern maths.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on February 13, 2019, 07:05:26 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That might be a lot to a poor person anywhere.

Easy to fix.  Rob the rich, right ... Vladimir Illich?
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Blackleaf on February 13, 2019, 08:05:53 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Can you call it reincarnation if you have no way to access a past life?  I don't see any difference between reincarnation with a mind wipe, and two completely different beings.

I think you're referring to the Big Freeze, which is not quite the same as heat death because it's not a thin, homogeneous cloud of photons at the same temperature, it's just space and stray matter riding the eternal expansion forever into the darkness, cooling ever closer to absolute zero.

The other alternative fate is the Big Rip, should the acceleration become fast enough to not only separate galaxy clusters, but galaxies within clusters, then separate the galaxies themselves, ultimately expanding fast enough to tear all matter apart and finally the fabric of spacetime itself.

I'm not entirely sure whether the heat death of the universe remains possible under accelerating expansion.  I'll have to pester an astronomer over that.  :)

Depends on if this thing called a soul actually exists. It most likely doesn't, but assuming it did, your stream of consciousness could continue between lifetimes, even if your memories didn't. Some people think memories do survive reincarnation, though. It's just that those memories are buried and not easily available to the conscious mind. Supposedly, when the Dalai Lama reincarnates, they find him by presenting children with objects that were important to his past self, along with some random assortment of stuff serving as placebos in a sense. The Dalai Lama's reincarnated self is supposed to be drawn to the objects that are familiar to him. Of course, when you have a ton of kids doing the same test, plus having the confirmation bias at play, that test doesn't really serve as proof of anything, but that's how they justify their beliefs.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Unbeliever on February 13, 2019, 08:10:23 PM
I think that without continuity of memory it could not be considered the "same" person. But it may be more complicated than that.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on February 13, 2019, 11:43:56 PM
If you read how traditionally, they chose the new Dalai Lama or Pachen Lama ... it was basically monks using objects or people from the dead predecessor, and seeing if a child was attracted to them or not.  In that sense, they were testing for continuity of memory.  Being a blood relation was being filtered out.  So not like a monarchy.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mr.Obvious on February 14, 2019, 05:29:22 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Can you call it reincarnation if you have no way to access a past life?  I don't see any difference between reincarnation with a mind wipe, and two completely different beings.

Exactly! Thank you. I Always say that to people when they brought up reïncarnation. What's the point?

And especially karma-influenced reincarnation. What if my dickery makes me a dungbeetle in my next life? So what? If the dung-beetle don't remember the bad stuff I did to earn it in that life, it's just going to go: "Man, I love shit. Dum-dee-dum-dee-do. Rolling a ball of shit I can lay my eggs in. Dum-dee-doo. Life is great."

Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on February 14, 2019, 07:22:12 AM
Karma is impersonal, not personal.  It is like ... a life accumulates dickishness ... or exhausts dickishness ... regardless of memories (which would make it personal).  Like cholesterol.  Western people worry about individual guilt.  Tradition worries about collective shame.  Karma is past all of that.  A variable original sin, that is expiated or not thru further lives, not thru faith in Jesus for example.  For Eastern influenced people, Jesus offers something very similar to Mahayana Buddhism .. instant enlightenment = instant nullification of dickishness or cholesterol.  Theravada Buddhism is closer to the original Hinduism ... it might take many lives to reach enlightenment or moksha.

Pythagoras didn't show any signs of knowing about karma, just reincarnation ... which even Greeks already had, except you definitely couldn't carry memories of self forward.  Other non-Greek people had similar ideas of reincarnation ... Celts for example.  For Celts you simply bounced endlessly between two worlds ... and the nether world was the good one, not this one.  Which is the opposite of the Greek view (Hades).
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on February 14, 2019, 09:19:23 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You really think that an eternal existence wouldn't be torture, no matter what it's like? Imagine having lived for so long that you've done everything. You've met everyone, you've done all you could ever hope to accomplish, and nothing surprises you any more. You have no more goals, nothing to strive for, you'd be doomed to an eternal existence of boredom.


Why are you so negative?
Why anyone would want to end a state of nirvikalpa samadhi?


Quote
Reincarnation would be a better option, since you'd essentially be getting a mind wipe between each lifetime, but even that wouldn't be eternal. Our universe is headed towards a state of heat death. One day, there will be no more light in the sky. Eventually, even the blackholes will die, and the universe will have effectively expanded so much that it will be functionally empty. What happens to your consciousness then?


If the universe would end also God would but that is not possible as God is eternal. (according to yoga)


Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mike Cl on February 14, 2019, 09:21:40 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Karma is impersonal, not personal. 
Change the word 'karma' to universe, and there you have it.  The universe does not give a shit about you--or anything, since the universe is a thing and can't feel--it just is and it just does what it does.  Impersonal. 
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on February 14, 2019, 09:34:04 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
More likely designed to make money for the yoga teacher. I wonder how much Arik pays for the yoga lessons.


I help you to put your wonder in a state of absolute peace.

Some teacher charge $5 for each asanas lesson better known for yoga posture or yoga exercise.
That is to pay for rent, electricity, and other bills.
Other teachers charge nothing and even those who charge would do it for free if you tell them that you got no money.
Meditation instead is absolutely free.

I hope this help you to get rid of your wondering.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on February 14, 2019, 09:54:29 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Change the word 'karma' to universe, and there you have it.  The universe does not give a shit about you--or anything, since the universe is a thing and can't feel--it just is and it just does what it does.  Impersonal.


Universe and karma are two totally different things.

The universe is made of the 5 fundamental factors such as space, air, energy-light, water and matter.
Some people however say that is all matter but that is not important.
In any case this universe has nothing to do with karma so in a way it is impersonal.

Karma instead is a factor that affect our lives.

As in physic it is said that every action must have an equal and opposite reaction also in the consciousness realm the same thing apply.
That doesn't mean that the reaction apply straightaway.

It depend really.
Suppose someone kill several people.
One life wouldn't be enough to pay for it so that person will have to be reborn again and again and killed as many times as he-she killed those people.
But again is not so straightforward because that person may repent and the debt can be paid in a different way.
(according to yoga)



 
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on February 14, 2019, 10:06:42 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Depends on if this thing called a soul actually exists. It most likely doesn't, but assuming it did, your stream of consciousness could continue between lifetimes, even if your memories didn't. Some people think memories do survive reincarnation, though. It's just that those memories are buried and not easily available to the conscious mind. Supposedly, when the Dalai Lama reincarnates, they find him by presenting children with objects that were important to his past self, along with some random assortment of stuff serving as placebos in a sense. The Dalai Lama's reincarnated self is supposed to be drawn to the objects that are familiar to him. Of course, when you have a ton of kids doing the same test, plus having the confirmation bias at play, that test doesn't really serve as proof of anything, but that's how they justify their beliefs.


My teacher did explained why it is not possible to remember past lives.

That would be a terrible burden that would slow down or prevent our progress altogether.
This life is hard enough because we are stuck with our mistakes.
Mistakes that we have done in this life.
If on top of that we would also remember the mistakes of our previous lives then it would be too much to put up with.

Only small children up to the age of 5 or 6 are allowed to remember their previous lives but as they grow over that age the memory of their previous lives goes and that make sense.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on February 14, 2019, 10:22:03 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
No, I don't worry about what happens when I die.  I have a pretty good idea what does happen, which is to simply rot away--star dust to star dust.  Humans have consciousness not from magical or mysterious ways, but from evolution.  I don't know all the steps that that would take; but for me 'I don't know' does not = god must have done it.  One day humans will have a very good idea of exactly how our consciousness came about and that answer will be supplied by science and not magic or fictional stories or creatures.


So you say..........Humans have consciousness not from magical or mysterious ways, but from evolution...........

Whose evolution Mike?
Their own evolution trough many many lives or somebody else evolution?


(https://www.gelighting.com/sites/default/files/styles/bulb_finder_/public/2017-10/light-mobile_0_1_0_2_2_2_0_1_2_7_1_11_7_2_7_3_0_1_4_0_0_0_2.png?itok=ZrcaeJ7I)

Let us see if your answer make any sense.




Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Blackleaf on February 14, 2019, 11:13:39 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Why are you so negative?

I'm not being negative. I'm being realistic. You should try it sometimes.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Why anyone would want to end a state of nirvikalpa samadhi?

I have no idea what you just said, but I don't really care either so...

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If the universe would end also God would but that is not possible as God is eternal. (according to yoga)

That's not evidence. You can't start with a presupposition and use it to justify your preconceived conclusion. The universe is expanding, and there is no reason to think it'll ever slow down or reverse itself. That's just wishful thinking.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mike Cl on February 14, 2019, 11:24:45 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Universe and karma are two totally different things.

The universe is made of the 5 fundamental factors such as space, air, energy-light, water and matter.
Some people however say that is all matter but that is not important.
In any case this universe has nothing to do with karma so in a way it is impersonal.

Karma instead is a factor that affect our lives.

As in physic it is said that every action must have an equal and opposite reaction also in the consciousness realm the same thing apply.
That doesn't mean that the reaction apply straightaway.

It depend really.
Suppose someone kill several people.
One life wouldn't be enough to pay for it so that person will have to be reborn again and again and killed as many times as he-she killed those people.
But again is not so straightforward because that person may repent and the debt can be paid in a different way.
(according to yoga)
A very nice and enjoyable piece of fiction you have going there. 
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mike Cl on February 14, 2019, 11:28:32 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

So you say..........Humans have consciousness not from magical or mysterious ways, but from evolution...........

Whose evolution Mike?
Their own evolution trough many many lives or somebody else evolution?


Let us see if your answer make any sense.
All that you spew is fiction and nonsense.  Yet you want my answer to make sense.  All of my answers have made sense, but you filter all that is said to you thru your lens of fictional nonsense.  Just because you spend your live in a world of fiction and nonsense, don't expect me to understand or want to participate. 
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Unbeliever on February 14, 2019, 01:15:00 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If the universe would end also God would but that is not possible as God is eternal. (according to yoga)

Which God?
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on February 14, 2019, 06:47:41 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm not being negative. I'm being realistic. You should try it sometimes.


You realistic?
Are you serious?
How can you think or doubt that a consciousness that took millions of years to evolve to this human stage can vanish into nothing as the physical death happen?


Quote
I have no idea what you just said, but I don't really care either so...


Nirvikalpa samadhi is a state of total bliss so to think that someone would want to end this supreme feeling doesn't make any sense.


Quote
That's not evidence. You can't start with a presupposition and use it to justify your preconceived conclusion. The universe is expanding, and there is no reason to think it'll ever slow down or reverse itself. That's just wishful thinking.

I am not arguing that the universe is expanding or not.
In fact it make sense that it is expanding as this expansion is driven by an ever expanding spiritual love.
As far as evidence or not you are correct in saying that you do not have any evidence that is why at the end I wrote......according to yoga.
Evidence come with exercising and increase our level of consciousness and that is something that at this stage in time you still haven't done.






Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on February 14, 2019, 06:54:36 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
All that you spew is fiction and nonsense.  Yet you want my answer to make sense.  All of my answers have made sense, but you filter all that is said to you thru your lens of fictional nonsense.  Just because you spend your live in a world of fiction and nonsense, don't expect me to understand or want to participate.


I also can say that your beliefs are fiction and nonsense and that is tons more of nonsense considering that materialist think that what took millions of years to evolve such as the human consciousness will vanish into nothing in this short life of ours.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Blackleaf on February 14, 2019, 06:59:07 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You realistic?
Are you serious?
How can you think or doubt that a consciousness that took millions of years to evolve to this human stage can vanish into nothing as the physical death happen?

Yes, I'm serious. I don't engage in wishful thinking. I have no reason to think consciousness survives the death of the brain, especially when the brain accounts for everything we call "consciousness." Your assertion makes no sense.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Nirvikalpa samadhi is a state of total bliss so to think that someone would want to end this supreme feeling doesn't make any sense.

So basically, you lose your ability to feel but happiness and just become a happy machine. Like being permanently stuck in a drug induced high for all of eternity.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I am not arguing that the universe is expanding or not.
In fact it make sense that it is expanding as this expansion is driven by an ever expanding spiritual love.
As far as evidence or not you are correct in saying that you do not have any evidence that is why at the end I wrote......according to yoga.
Evidence come with exercising and increase our level of consciousness and that is something that at this stage in time you still haven't done.

Actually, I have. I used to be a very devout Christian, and spiritual growth was a high priority for me. Then I realized it was all bullshit.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on February 14, 2019, 07:25:37 PM
Just like an ex-smoker ;-)
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on February 14, 2019, 07:26:18 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yes, I'm serious. I don't engage in wishful thinking. I have no reason to think consciousness survives the death of the brain, especially when the brain accounts for everything we call "consciousness." Your assertion makes no sense.


You must have noticed that when you drive your car for a while it all seem like you and the car are one.
The car respond to your command and that make you feel that the car is you.
That is wrong because the car is not you.
The same thing happen with the relationship that has been build between you and your brain since you born.
This is not only a materialist dogma (false truth) but it goes a lot further because even a lot of non materialists think in the same way and that is very sad indeed.


Quote
So basically, you lose your ability to feel but happiness and just become a happy machine. Like being permanently stuck in a drug induced high for all of eternity.


Not really BL.
We humans are equipped with a limited conscious-mind that obviously can not go over certain limits and that make us thinking that also God must have the same limitations.
We can only be in one place at the time and think at one thing at the time so our physical and mental activity is not multi-directional such as God which can be in a state of bliss and at the same time be in full control of everything. 


Quote
Actually, I have. I used to be a very devout Christian, and spiritual growth was a high priority for me. Then I realized it was all bullshit.

Christianity as it is today is like a drop of water in the ocean as far as being able to increase our consciousness.
The first Christians had a proper system but that is history that is why you got nowhere.
Today Christianity is too corrupted to understand spirituality.
It also depend on the effort that you put.
Most people give it up soon after they started because they find too difficult to go on.
That also apply to all sort of studies and martial arts.





Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on February 14, 2019, 07:33:05 PM
Generally Asians are more woke, than Occidentals, in spite of Occidental chauvinism.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Blackleaf on February 14, 2019, 09:47:59 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You must have noticed that when you drive your car for a while it all seem like you and the car are one.
The car respond to your command and that make you feel that the car is you.
That is wrong because the car is not you.
The same thing happen with the relationship that has been build between you and your brain since you born.
This is not only a materialist dogma (false truth) but it goes a lot further because even a lot of non materialists think in the same way and that is very sad indeed.

For your analogy to work, your consciousness would be uneffected if your brain was knocked out. The driver doesn't stop working if the car is turned off. So why is it if you take a blow to your head, you black out?

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Not really BL.
We humans are equipped with a limited conscious-mind that obviously can not go over certain limits and that make us thinking that also God must have the same limitations.
We can only be in one place at the time and think at one thing at the time so our physical and mental activity is not multi-directional such as God which can be in a state of bliss and at the same time be in full control of everything.

Sounds like a lot of BS.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Christianity as it is today is like a drop of water in the ocean as far as being able to increase our consciousness.
The first Christians had a proper system but that is history that is why you got nowhere.
Today Christianity is too corrupted to understand spirituality.
It also depend on the effort that you put.
Most people give it up soon after they started because they find too difficult to go on.
That also apply to all sort of studies and martial arts.

Ah. The No True Scotsman argument. I figured as much. If effort is what matters, I graduated with my Masters a few years ago, and I think I made two B's my entire college career. All the rest were A's. I put more effort in my spiritual growth than my academic success. Few people put more effort into spirituality than I did, yet I came up empty.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on February 14, 2019, 11:00:27 PM
"Few people put more effort into spirituality than I did, yet I came up empty." .... everybody is different.

But not a knock on you ... "you did it wrong, quality beats quantity" as an encouragement for others.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Plu on February 15, 2019, 06:50:24 AM
Quote
Nirvikalpa samadhi is a state of total bliss so to think that someone would want to end this supreme feeling doesn't make any sense.

In the words of the wise Jim Jefferies:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPYN-hpF1hs&feature=youtu.be&t=78 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPYN-hpF1hs&feature=youtu.be&t=78)
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on February 15, 2019, 07:59:02 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
In the words of the wise Jim Jefferies:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPYN-hpF1hs&feature=youtu.be&t=78 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPYN-hpF1hs&feature=youtu.be&t=78)


This Jeff is a total nut case.
I can understand a bit about his aversion towards religions considering all religious dogmas and non sense but to hate God for no reason is a total different story.
I wouldn't like to be in his shoes when the truth will hit straight in his face.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on February 15, 2019, 08:40:00 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
For your analogy to work, your consciousness would be uneffected if your brain was knocked out. The driver doesn't stop working if the car is turned off. So why is it if you take a blow to your head, you black out?


Simple BL.

Our consciousness is stuck inside the body-brain until physical death occur.
There is no escape unless the person commit suicide.
Anything that happen to our body-mind affect our consciousness because our consciousness rely on the body-brain to work as a driver rely on the vehicle to go somewhere and obviously a blow to our body-brain is felt to our consciousness that is unable to escape that situation.


Quote
Sounds like a lot of BS.


I suppose that anything that doesn't follow your logic is BS.
The problem however is to find out whether your logic is good or is a load of BS.



Quote
Ah. The No True Scotsman argument. I figured as much. If effort is what matters, I graduated with my Masters a few years ago, and I think I made two B's my entire college career. All the rest were A's. I put more effort in my spiritual growth than my academic success. Few people put more effort into spirituality than I did, yet I came up empty.


In most cases it is a lack of sincerity that prevent people from getting there but there may also be other reasons like being in two places at the same time.
Suppose you wish to be with a person and at the same time remember also somebody else.
You can trick this person in pretending that you are sincere but with God is a different story because God can read your mind.
In other words when your physical-material desires are stronger than your desire to reach God that will not work.



Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Plu on February 15, 2019, 08:48:26 AM
Quote
I wouldn't like to be in his shoes when the truth will hit straight in his face.

You might have been in his shoes hundreds of times already, but how would you know? You can't remember your previous lives anyway, right?
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on February 15, 2019, 10:09:12 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You might have been in his shoes hundreds of times already, but how would you know? You can't remember your previous lives anyway, right?


That is 100% true Plu but the fact that I did grow up from that dark stage along my personal evolution means that I don't have to worry anymore unless all of a sudden I decide to behave like a total fool.
Your hero on the other hand is still stuck in that hell.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on February 15, 2019, 12:51:13 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

That is 100% true Plu but the fact that I did grow up from that dark stage along my personal evolution means that I don't have to worry anymore unless all of a sudden I decide to behave like a total fool.
Your hero on the other hand is still stuck in that hell.

In Hinduism/Buddhism there is a lowest hell, a Tartarus ... aka Avici Hell.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avīci

This is why there are scoffers and mockers ... they want to do whatever they want, without negative consequences.  I do to ;-)
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Unbeliever on February 15, 2019, 01:11:58 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Sounds like a lot of BS.

There's probably a good reason for that...
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Plu on February 15, 2019, 01:52:35 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Your hero on the other hand is still stuck in that hell.

I dunno, he seems a lot happier with his life than you do. And he's talking to audiences that actually enjoy listening to him, while you're just being played with because people are bored.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on February 15, 2019, 06:16:06 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I dunno, he seems a lot happier with his life than you do. And he's talking to audiences that actually enjoy listening to him, while you're just being played with because people are bored.

Happy?  As is alcohol, sex, tobacco, gambling, drugs?  Good stuff if you can get it.  Helter Skelter stoners.

Hedonism comes thru ... lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy, pride ... plus acedia and vainglory.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: aitm on February 15, 2019, 08:20:04 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
  But we put quality over quantity ;-)
I feel the need to change my t-shirt to a clean one.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Unbeliever on February 15, 2019, 08:22:17 PM
If it feels good, do it!
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: trdsf on February 16, 2019, 12:51:44 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Depends on if this thing called a soul actually exists. It most likely doesn't, but assuming it did, your stream of consciousness could continue between lifetimes, even if your memories didn't. Some people think memories do survive reincarnation, though. It's just that those memories are buried and not easily available to the conscious mind. Supposedly, when the Dalai Lama reincarnates, they find him by presenting children with objects that were important to his past self, along with some random assortment of stuff serving as placebos in a sense. The Dalai Lama's reincarnated self is supposed to be drawn to the objects that are familiar to him. Of course, when you have a ton of kids doing the same test, plus having the confirmation bias at play, that test doesn't really serve as proof of anything, but that's how they justify their beliefs.
Pretty much.  Eventually, some kid is going to pick the thing you want to be picked, simply as a matter of statistics.  And all that proves is that statistics are statistical in nature.

For the record, no, I don't think there are souls, nor that there is such a thing as reincarnation.  Just oughta clarify that, to be safe.  :)
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on February 16, 2019, 01:05:48 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If it feels good, do it!

Correct.  But we don't all feel good the same way.  Individuality and competition (by individual, by class, by nation) slips in.  Virtue signaling is that ... I am justified in my sins (because materialistic progress).  Its a backward justification that suggests "ends justifies the means".  Karl Marx isn't all that different from John Stewart Mill.  Karl Marx is Utilitarianism plus arithmetic that is forward looking, not just descriptive.  Karl Marx sees a double blind in this, unless you eliminate artificial boundaries of nations and class.  Stalin emphasizes class, Trotsky emphasizes nations ... both to be eliminated.  Karl Marx in the meantime, predicting that the surplus profit would go into finance, rather than to labor.

Quantified utilitarianism ... plus the notion that with progress (automation) in the end, the actual cost to make a product or service tends to zero, and that means at any given population, we need fewer and fewer employees over time.  With capitalism (as opposed to socialism) we have no obligation to take care of the unemployed, in fact, we are rewarded indirectly in producing the army of the unemployed.  The incentive is destructive.  At that point, French Revolution steps in and redistributes ... the capital (of automation) and the benefits of automation are redistributed to the whole society rather than just one class.

The anti-semitic view of course, is that finance is parasitic on the bad aspects of capitalism, and that Jews dominate finance (Rothschilds).  In a classless society, there is no religion as well as no class and no national boundaries.  And that is why, having "no borders" is Marxist.  Similarly the notion of progress is Marxist, if you fairly distribute.  Liberal capitalism respects property ownership, resists revolution.  It ameliorates the army of the unemployed by "bread and circuses".
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on February 16, 2019, 09:34:51 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I dunno, he seems a lot happier with his life than you do. And he's talking to audiences that actually enjoy listening to him, while you're just being played with because people are bored.


It is a question of priority Plu.

While your hero spend a lot of his time try to invent all those BS that he later will recite on stage during his rants I prefer to spend my time practicing yoga.

My priority is to reduce the distance that separate me from the goal of life while the priority of your hero is to enjoy his foolish show of rants and at the end having his level of consciousness reduced instead of having it increased.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on February 16, 2019, 10:01:55 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Correct.  But we don't all feel good the same way.  Individuality and competition (by individual, by class, by nation) slips in.  Virtue signaling is that ... I am justified in my sins (because materialistic progress).  Its a backward justification that suggests "ends justifies the means".  Karl Marx isn't all that different from John Stewart Mill.  Karl Marx is Utilitarianism plus arithmetic that is forward looking, not just descriptive.  Karl Marx sees a double blind in this, unless you eliminate artificial boundaries of nations and class.  Stalin emphasizes class, Trotsky emphasizes nations ... both to be eliminated.  Karl Marx in the meantime, predicting that the surplus profit would go into finance, rather than to labor.

Quantified utilitarianism ... plus the notion that with progress (automation) in the end, the actual cost to make a product or service tends to zero, and that means at any given population, we need fewer and fewer employees over time.  With capitalism (as opposed to socialism) we have no obligation to take care of the unemployed, in fact, we are rewarded indirectly in producing the army of the unemployed.  The incentive is destructive.  At that point, French Revolution steps in and redistributes ... the capital (of automation) and the benefits of automation are redistributed to the whole society rather than just one class.

The anti-semitic view of course, is that finance is parasitic on the bad aspects of capitalism, and that Jews dominate finance (Rothschilds).  In a classless society, there is no religion as well as no class and no national boundaries.  And that is why, having "no borders" is Marxist.  Similarly the notion of progress is Marxist, if you fairly distribute.  Liberal capitalism respects property ownership, resists revolution.  It ameliorates the army of the unemployed by "bread and circuses".


Oh, well if you are in this type of thinking you may like this system that is an alternative to Communism and Capitalism.

https://prout.info/
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on February 16, 2019, 11:07:59 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Oh, well if you are in this type of thinking you may like this system that is an alternative to Communism and Capitalism.

https://prout.info/

Yes, basically the Third world has to find another way.  Being a cat's paw of Russia/China is not good.  Being a cat's paw of US/UK is not good either.  Having all your people move to Europe or the US, removes the human resource.  Local development, one person, one village at a time.  Not thru over-dependence on import/export.  Unfortunately endemic corruption intervenes.  But corruption is blocked by superior spiritual development, not by consumerism.  Ultimately it all comes down to the quality of one's consciousness.  And that is improved thru spiritual practice.  So atheism won't get you far either.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on February 17, 2019, 08:50:58 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yes, basically the Third world has to find another way.  Being a cat's paw of Russia/China is not good.  Being a cat's paw of US/UK is not good either.  Having all your people move to Europe or the US, removes the human resource.  Local development, one person, one village at a time.  Not thru over-dependence on import/export.  Unfortunately endemic corruption intervenes.  But corruption is blocked by superior spiritual development, not by consumerism.  Ultimately it all comes down to the quality of one's consciousness.  And that is improved thru spiritual practice.  So atheism won't get you far either.


Spiritual development doesn't come very easily through reasoning.
It usually come as an absolute necessity when the world seem to collapse around people and that is stupidity but that is how it happen most of the time.

Most people have been so blind that they have let slip down to a dangerous level their morality which in turn gave way to exploitation, hatred, wars, pollution-climate changes and all the rest.

It is only when people realize that we are getting on the road of no return that they are waking up and realize that the materialism that so far they enjoy is ruining our life and the planet of ours but as the old granny said.........BETTER LATE THAN NEVER.

 
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on February 17, 2019, 11:38:07 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Spiritual development doesn't come very easily through reasoning.
It usually come as an absolute necessity when the world seem to collapse around people and that is stupidity but that is how it happen most of the time.

Most people have been so blind that they have let slip down to a dangerous level their morality which in turn gave way to exploitation, hatred, wars, pollution-climate changes and all the rest.

It is only when people realize that we are getting on the road of no return that they are waking up and realize that the materialism that so far they enjoy is ruining our life and the planet of ours but as the old granny said.........BETTER LATE THAN NEVER.

I am a student of Zen.  To be woke you have to abandon reason.  But not empiricism, which is broadly interpreted as the sum of all personal experience (as opposed to public narrative).

Marxism and Capitalism both believe in the myth of progress.  But progress has to be humanistic, not materialistic.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mike Cl on February 17, 2019, 12:26:31 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
  But progress has to be humanistic, not materialistic.
I would suggest that for human progress to be made (and yes, progress is possible) it must be materialistic.  Why?  Because there is nothing else but the material universe.  To base 'knowledge' on anything else is whim and fancy--magic and miracle--there is no 'there' there.  For over 2000 years christianity, for example, has had free reign in the world.  I don't see any progress it has made--in fact, I'd suggest the world is a more dangerous and poorer place because of it (and the other religions of the world).  Their airy-fairy ways; don't use reason only faith for your thoughts and actions--that simply leads to lack of progress and willful ignorance and stupidity. 
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mike Cl on February 17, 2019, 12:28:36 PM
Baruch--I forgot, sorry----key stage left--But Hilary................and Obama!!
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on February 17, 2019, 12:32:09 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I would suggest that for human progress to be made (and yes, progress is possible) it must be materialistic.  Why?  Because there is nothing else but the material universe.  To base 'knowledge' on anything else is whim and fancy--magic and miracle--there is no 'there' there.  For over 2000 years christianity, for example, has had free reign in the world.  I don't see any progress it has made--in fact, I'd suggest the world is a more dangerous and poorer place because of it (and the other religions of the world).  Their airy-fairy ways; don't use reason only faith for your thoughts and actions--that simply leads to lack of progress and willful ignorance and stupidity.

As I pointed out, per-modern Micronesia was happy, and had no iPhones.  Quality over quantity.  If you have work you love (even if it is harvesting coconuts), a family you love and who loves you back, if you have friends who will support you ... does the level of technology, the lifespan, the chatchkas really matter?

Notice I am talking psychology, not religion.  But a quote ... “For what profits a man if he gains the whole world but loses his own soul” ... but not a meme-de-jour.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Unbeliever on February 17, 2019, 05:16:58 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I would suggest that for human progress to be made (and yes, progress is possible) it must be materialistic.  Why?  Because there is nothing else but the material universe.  To base 'knowledge' on anything else is whim and fancy--magic and miracle--there is no 'there' there.  For over 2000 years christianity, for example, has had free reign in the world.  I don't see any progress it has made--in fact, I'd suggest the world is a more dangerous and poorer place because of it (and the other religions of the world).  Their airy-fairy ways; don't use reason only faith for your thoughts and actions--that simply leads to lack of progress and willful ignorance and stupidity. 
Faith just means "believe what you're told by the religious leaders of your religion."
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on February 17, 2019, 09:15:10 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Faith just means "believe what you're told by the religious leaders of your religion."

Gullibility just means "believe what you're told by the political leaders of your party".
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: trdsf on February 18, 2019, 05:46:40 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I would suggest that for human progress to be made (and yes, progress is possible) it must be materialistic.  Why?  Because there is nothing else but the material universe.  To base 'knowledge' on anything else is whim and fancy--magic and miracle--there is no 'there' there.  For over 2000 years christianity, for example, has had free reign in the world.  I don't see any progress it has made--in fact, I'd suggest the world is a more dangerous and poorer place because of it (and the other religions of the world).  Their airy-fairy ways; don't use reason only faith for your thoughts and actions--that simply leads to lack of progress and willful ignorance and stupidity.
Pretty much.  There has never been an instance where religion provided a more correct answer to a question about the universe than science did.

Put scientists and engineers together, and you get CERN and the International Space Station.

Put clerics of whatever stripe together, and you not only get fighting between, but within religions.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on February 18, 2019, 06:21:57 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Pretty much.  There has never been an instance where religion provided a more correct answer to a question about the universe than science did.

Put scientists and engineers together, and you get CERN and the International Space Station.

Put clerics of whatever stripe together, and you not only get fighting between, but within religions.

Put science together, get Zyklon B and the atom bomb.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on February 18, 2019, 08:29:55 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Pretty much.  There has never been an instance where religion provided a more correct answer to a question about the universe than science did.


Religions, religions ...................who cares about the self imposed intermediaries between God and the masses.
Nothing to do with God.


Quote
Put scientists and engineers together, and you get CERN and the International Space Station.


Wonder why CERN pay tribute to SHIVA the very first scientist on earth and wonder why CERN is slowly discovering what SHIVA said thousand years ago?


Quote
Put clerics of whatever stripe together, and you not only get fighting between, but within religions.


Religions, religions...........who cares.
Nothing to do with spirituality.

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f8/cd/59/f8cd594e171431a7ff88fde088cd5237.jpg)



Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mike Cl on February 18, 2019, 08:46:07 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Put science together, get Zyklon B and the atom bomb.

I hate it Burach, when you don't finish your thought.  You forgot--but, but......Hilary and Obama.................!!!
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on February 18, 2019, 08:56:36 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I am a student of Zen.  To be woke you have to abandon reason.  But not empiricism, which is broadly interpreted as the sum of all personal experience (as opposed to public narrative).


It really depend where reason come from.
There is a volatile reason that come from physical science and the universal reality and one reason that come from within but in order to understand this reason a person must have build his-her consciousness to an high degree.


Quote
Marxism and Capitalism both believe in the myth of progress.  But progress has to be humanistic, not materialistic.


Yes.
Marxism and Capitalism believe in a very strange idea of progress which has nothing to do with human progress.



Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on February 18, 2019, 09:19:41 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I would suggest that for human progress to be made (and yes, progress is possible) it must be materialistic.  Why?  Because there is nothing else but the material universe.  To base 'knowledge' on anything else is whim and fancy--magic and miracle--there is no 'there' there.  For over 2000 years christianity, for example, has had free reign in the world.  I don't see any progress it has made--in fact, I'd suggest the world is a more dangerous and poorer place because of it (and the other religions of the world).  Their airy-fairy ways; don't use reason only faith for your thoughts and actions--that simply leads to lack of progress and willful ignorance and stupidity.


I suppose it must be very very hard to understand whether the amount of good is more than the amount of bad in favor of religions but after all who cares.

As far as the belief that there is only the material universe this belief is as bad as any of the religious dogmas.
The day you or anyone else will show that the consciousness is made of matter then I will apologize with all those who said that there is nothing else but the material universe.

I am however adamant that that day will never come.



(https://cdn.firstcrycdn.com/2018/03/73195261-H-300x205.jpg)
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Hydra009 on February 18, 2019, 10:49:31 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Spiritual development doesn't come very easily through reasoning.
*eyes roll*  Gee, I wonder why.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Hydra009 on February 18, 2019, 10:55:07 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
As far as the belief that there is only the material universe this belief is as bad as any of the religious dogmas.
The day you or anyone else will show that the consciousness is made of matter then I will apologize with all those who said that there is nothing else but the material universe.
(https://i.imgur.com/RCDz7rp.jpg)
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on February 18, 2019, 11:09:46 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I hate it Burach, when you don't finish your thought.  You forgot--but, but......Hilary and Obama.................!!!

Well, Hillary and Obama had nothing to do with Zyklon B or the atom bomb, except ...

Hillary and Obama were behind the false flag gas attacks in Syria, the revolt in Libya, and the nuclear confrontation in Ukraine ...
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on February 18, 2019, 11:13:42 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

It really depend where reason come from.
There is a volatile reason that come from physical science and the universal reality and one reason that come from within but in order to understand this reason a person must have build his-her consciousness to an high degree.



Yes.
Marxism and Capitalism believe in a very strange idea of progress which has nothing to do with human progress.

Rationality (aka rational numbers only) ... 2+2=4 therefore there is no irrationality!  Pythagoras is G-d.

Empiricism (aka the obvious) ... I drop something and it falls, therefore there are no supernatural phenomena!  Galileo is G-d.

Reality ... rationalists prefer the rational, and ignore the irrational ... empiricists prefer the natural, and ignore the supernatural.  Both engage in cult of personality, particularly all properly degreed academics.  This is what happens when people go to college to be brainwashed.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mike Cl on February 18, 2019, 12:28:16 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I suppose it must be very very hard to understand whether the amount of good is more than the amount of bad in favor of religions but after all who cares.

As far as the belief that there is only the material universe this belief is as bad as any of the religious dogmas.
The day you or anyone else will show that the consciousness is made of matter then I will apologize with all those who said that there is nothing else but the material universe.

I am however adamant that that day will never come.

I can understand why you think you live in a world of wonders and magic.  The wind must drive you crazy, since you can't see it.  And electricity and dog whistles must seem like miracles to you.  Of course infrared light cannot exist for you cannot see it.  Gravity must just boggle what passes for a mind for you. 
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on February 18, 2019, 12:49:09 PM
I still find magnets mind boggling.  As did Einstein as a child.  You have to understand Dirac Equation theory to understand it.  Do you understand the Dirac Equation?
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on February 19, 2019, 10:02:56 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I can understand why you think you live in a world of wonders and magic.  The wind must drive you crazy, since you can't see it.  And electricity and dog whistles must seem like miracles to you.  Of course infrared light cannot exist for you cannot see it.  Gravity must just boggle what passes for a mind for you.


I am afraid Mike that you got a long long way to go before you can understand how all the system works.

Consciousness is one but her awareness depend on the individual progress.
Matter has no awareness but the potential is there and so all other fundamental factor that make up the universe such as space air, light and water and as these factors through the evolution process turn into human consciousness then the awareness in it is reaching a very high degree.

The consciousness get more and more expressed as the evolution advance and less and less as it decrease as in the matter.
Matter is bottled up energy.
Energy and consciousness are but the two sides of the same sheet no matter in which entity is manifested.
In other words it is the opposite of what you believe.
Everything is made of consciousness not of matter because even the matter is made of energy-consciousness.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on February 19, 2019, 10:07:38 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
(https://i.imgur.com/RCDz7rp.jpg)


I suppose you refer to Mike claim when he say that everything is made of matter?
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mike Cl on February 19, 2019, 11:15:34 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I am afraid Mike that you got a long long way to go before you can understand how all the system works.


It's statements like these that makes me glad you have stayed.  I need a good belly-laugh every now and again!!
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on February 19, 2019, 12:45:59 PM
For Arik ... in Kabbalah, the sephirot correspond to chakras, and Hebrew letters connecting the sephirot correspond to nadis.  The network makes up Adam Kadmon ... the template of the spiritually fulfilled human.  Alternatively this is called the Tree of Life.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Unbeliever on February 19, 2019, 01:23:27 PM
I'm not really a full-bore materialist myself, since I believe in the "existence" of an abstract realm that has a different kind of existence than does the material world. Just as one example, the quintillionth digit of pi "exists" even though no human mind knows what it is. It's there in the abstract realm, and can potentially, at least, be discovered by human minds. Everything exists in the abstract realm before it can exist in the physical realm. That's the only metaphysics to which I subscribe. What human brains do is provide a bridge between the abstract and the physical, and can transpose things from one realm to the other.

Roger Penrose discusses this some in The Road to Reality (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_to_Reality).
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on February 19, 2019, 04:43:19 PM
Pi is a special transcendental number.  You can actually directly calculate the nth position directly, without first determining the prior digits.  So yes, we can calculate the quintillionth digit, without having to first calculate the digit just before that.  Like most transcendental number however, the calculation either way (sequential or direct) is very slow to converge.

Plato had nothing on you ;-)
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Cavebear on February 19, 2019, 04:46:23 PM
I love that matter is energy E=MC 2.  Which means M=E/C 2?  And I can't think of what that means...  Its a good thing I had a basic logical office career.

And in my experience, light is cubed being in 3 dimensions (like light from a grow bulb shining on a plant).
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: trdsf on February 19, 2019, 08:12:44 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm not really a full-bore materialist myself, since I believe in the "existence" of an abstract realm that has a different kind of existence than does the material world. Just as one example, the quintillionth digit of pi "exists" even though no human mind knows what it is. It's there in the abstract realm, and can potentially, at least, be discovered by human minds. Everything exists in the abstract realm before it can exist in the physical realm. That's the only metaphysics to which I subscribe. What human brains do is provide a bridge between the abstract and the physical, and can transpose things from one realm to the other.

Roger Penrose discusses this some in The Road to Reality (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_to_Reality).

Interestingly (if you're a math nerd, anyway), the quintillionth digit of π is directly calculable (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailey–Borwein–Plouffe_formula), without going through all the intervening digits.

Score one more for the real world and the people who explore it.  :)
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Unbeliever on February 19, 2019, 08:26:01 PM
Wow, that's awesome! I'll have to look at it some more tomorrow when I have more time.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on February 19, 2019, 09:21:22 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Wow, that's awesome! I'll have to look at it some more tomorrow when I have more time.

A product of transcendental number sequence, which is pseudorandom.  But there are different flavors of pseudorandom.  I assume though, that this property only works if you are doing Pi in decimal digits.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on February 20, 2019, 08:51:55 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It's statements like these that makes me glad you have stayed.  I need a good belly-laugh every now and again!!


I suppose it must be better to have a good belly-laugh than to cry in desperation considering your low level of knowledge regarding basic things.

Have a good day and a good belly-laugh anyway.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on February 20, 2019, 09:34:16 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
For Arik ... in Kabbalah, the sephirot correspond to chakras, and Hebrew letters connecting the sephirot correspond to nadis.  The network makes up Adam Kadmon ... the template of the spiritually fulfilled human.  Alternatively this is called the Tree of Life.


Unfortunately what is left in all these beliefs is only the theory which obviously get people nowhere unless is follow by practice.




(https://images.megapixl.com/5749/57491910.jpg)
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on February 20, 2019, 12:26:11 PM
That is what "woke" people would ask a newcomer back in the day "What is your practice?".  Of course one assumed one was actually following it.

"Practice" here is mostly arts (not bad), sex and maybe substance abuse.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Unbeliever on February 20, 2019, 01:15:52 PM
Practice may get you to Carnegie Hall.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on February 20, 2019, 07:01:49 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Practice may get you to Carnegie Hall.

Talent is required also.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: aitm on February 20, 2019, 07:53:03 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f8/cd/59/f8cd594e171431a7ff88fde088cd5237.jpg)
Quote
Spirituality is a network linking us to the Most High, the universe, and each other
as opposed to suggesting that a Most High links us to menstrual cycles and racism....... meh. My Most High is just as high as your Most High.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Unbeliever on February 20, 2019, 07:58:08 PM
I got most high last night...
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on February 20, 2019, 11:26:50 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I got most high last night...

Demi-god ... with assistance.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on February 20, 2019, 11:27:37 PM
In the West everyone is a profit.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on February 21, 2019, 09:06:38 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That is what "woke" people would ask a newcomer back in the day "What is your practice?".  Of course one assumed one was actually following it.

"Practice" here is mostly arts (not bad), sex and maybe substance abuse.



That is interesting Baruch.

Most materialists are so eager about the concept of Darwin evolution that for them evolution of the consciousness means absolutely nothing so for them evolution is only one way up basically related to body changes.
These folks don't even realize that along with evolution there is also an other phenomenon which we can call Devolution which is the opposite of evolution in the way that instead of going up is going down (descent to a lower or worse state).

Nothing is fixed in this universe so obviously everything move and change such as the awareness in consciousness.
These folks play with something that they do not know and that is quite dangerous indeed.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on February 21, 2019, 10:23:21 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Practice may get you to Carnegie Hall.

It all depend where the head is heading to.


(http://rs270.pbsrc.com/albums/jj111/SailorRiniMoon/angrygirl.gif~c200)
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on February 21, 2019, 12:53:22 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


That is interesting Baruch.

Most materialists are so eager about the concept of Darwin evolution that for them evolution of the consciousness means absolutely nothing so for them evolution is only one way up basically related to body changes.
These folks don't even realize that along with evolution there is also an other phenomenon which we can call Devolution which is the opposite of evolution in the way that instead of going up is going down (descent to a lower or worse state).

Nothing is fixed in this universe so obviously everything move and change such as the awareness in consciousness.
These folks play with something that they do not know and that is quite dangerous indeed.

Materialist evolution ... I have so many mansions, i have lost count (see John McCain).  I have so many employees, I send employees to he market for more employees (Disney Aladdin paraphrase).
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Cavebear on February 22, 2019, 12:05:03 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Practice may get you to Carnegie Hall.

But it won't get you a job.  I'm not being trite.  Skill is one thing and being able to use it is another.  Say you are great at magic tricks, but have no panter.  You'll thrill kids at patrties, but you'll never get on late night shows.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on February 22, 2019, 12:54:17 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
But it won't get you a job.  I'm not being trite.  Skill is one thing and being able to use it is another.  Say you are great at magic tricks, but have no panter.  You'll thrill kids at patrties, but you'll never get on late night shows.

That is raciiiis.  Everyone is equal by fiat; regardless of talent, experience, education, training, opportunity ...
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Cavebear on February 22, 2019, 01:03:46 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That is raciiiis.  Everyone is equal by fiat; regardless of talent, experience, education, training, opportunity ...

Is "raciiiis" some sort of bacteria?  Anyway, I never said everyone was equal.  I said (somewhere in the past) that all people are born equal.  After that, all bets are off the table.  My goal is to rebalance things by adulthood to make up for environments..
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on February 22, 2019, 01:11:06 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Is "raciiiis" some sort of bacteria?  Anyway, I never said everyone was equal.  I said (somewhere in the past) that all people are born equal.  After that, all bets are off the table.  My goal is to rebalance things by adulthood to make up for environments..

Jefferson was a slaving raping POS.  You are not born equal either.  Otherwise the Black Jeffersons would have been embarrassed by their White slaves.  And BTW, I was mostly agreeing with you.  But as knee-jerk radical ...
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Cavebear on February 22, 2019, 04:16:35 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Jefferson was a slaving raping POS.  You are not born equal either.  Otherwise the Black Jeffersons would have been embarrassed by their White slaves.  And BTW, I was mostly agreeing with you.  But as knee-jerk radical ...

Do you realize that you make my point? 
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on February 22, 2019, 06:23:43 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Do you realize that you make my point?

I made your point, first!
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Cavebear on February 22, 2019, 08:01:09 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I made your point, first!

Indeed you did.  Mine.  And I truly thank you for that.  It isn't ever day that someome makes the very point I wish to make before or after I do.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: trdsf on February 23, 2019, 12:39:24 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Practice may get you to Carnegie Hall.
So will the Q subway line.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on February 23, 2019, 09:43:40 AM
Miles and miles of theory and intellectual jargon and still zero practice.

How sad.



(https://exploringyourmind.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/sad-girl-on-a-cliff.jpg)
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on February 23, 2019, 09:57:49 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Miles and miles of theory and intellectual jargon and still zero practice.

How sad.



(https://exploringyourmind.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/sad-girl-on-a-cliff.jpg)

People who live in their head ... Vulcans.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on February 23, 2019, 10:31:02 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
People who live in their head ... Vulcans.


I close my eyes.

I can hear the sound of the universe.
There is life in it.
The sound never stop.
The life never stop.
It is eternal.
It is calling us all.

It was calling millions years ago and will call millions years in the future.

Thanks father.


(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/62/e7/f3/62e7f3bffbed9a72380a12e0a95c6708.jpg)




(https://media.giphy.com/media/3ohhwHbnyqUFUxVWzm/giphy.gif)
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on February 23, 2019, 10:35:10 AM
Materialists are one-dimensional in a multi-dimensional world.  No wonder they surrender so easily, so French of them.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on February 24, 2019, 09:02:03 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Materialists are one-dimensional in a multi-dimensional world.  No wonder they surrender so easily, so French of them.


What a terrible waste (for them of course).

It took millions of years to be lifted into humanity from lower form of lives to this high degree of consciousness and now when they are so close to the goal of life they go blind within and think that life end right here with this physical death.

I just can not believe it.

Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on February 24, 2019, 09:29:55 AM
Excessive individualism.  I am not my own, I am part of humanity, both now and into the distant past.  I am what my ancestors dreams of, I am what my contemporaries hope will support them.  If one is sociopathic, then one doesn't see that.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Unbeliever on February 24, 2019, 05:12:47 PM
If consciousness doesn't need the brain, then why didn't humans have a higher consciousness millions of years ago?
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on February 24, 2019, 06:46:28 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If consciousness doesn't need the brain, then why didn't humans have a higher consciousness millions of years ago?

Time is an illusion.  Even physicists claim this.  See Dr Greene ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZeFTJHLU5A

Newtonian time was created by Newton, to support his physics.  He took this from Medieval time, which supported the daily cycle of prayers (synchronized across Europe).  Heisenberg time was created by Heisenberg, to support his physics.  Ideology may be based on long dead philosophers.  But atheism may be based on long dead physicists ;-)

Another, even better film on this in the physics section ...
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Unbeliever on February 24, 2019, 07:08:43 PM
No, atheism is based on the disbelief in deities, nothing more, nothing less.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on February 24, 2019, 07:21:40 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
No, atheism is based on the disbelief in deities, nothing more, nothing less.

But that seems to be disingenuous ... you believe or disbelieve in a lot more than that.  It is like claiming you only disbelieve in the letter "e".
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mike Cl on February 24, 2019, 08:00:08 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
But that seems to be disingenuous ... you believe or disbelieve in a lot more than that.  It is like claiming you only disbelieve in the letter "e".
that's rich-----you claiming somebody else is disingenuous!!  Hell, you are living on blind faith.  No facts, no reality, nothing but belief and faith.  Your mind is as closed as a steel bear trap.  Yet, you claim others are disingenuous?  You constantly inflate what others say and try to make them appear to say something else.  You belong in Washington.  Trump could use you--you seem to be in line with his 12 lies per day.  You would make a great politician.  And no, I'd not vote for you.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Unbeliever on February 24, 2019, 08:04:59 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
But that seems to be disingenuous ... you believe or disbelieve in a lot more than that.  It is like claiming you only disbelieve in the letter "e".
But disbelieving in the letter "e," or anything else, has nothing to do with my atheism.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on February 24, 2019, 10:21:33 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
that's rich-----you claiming somebody else is disingenuous!!  Hell, you are living on blind faith.  No facts, no reality, nothing but belief and faith.  Your mind is as closed as a steel bear trap.  Yet, you claim others are disingenuous?  You constantly inflate what others say and try to make them appear to say something else.  You belong in Washington.  Trump could use you--you seem to be in line with his 12 lies per day.  You would make a great politician.  And no, I'd not vote for you.

No blind faith.  Not faith at all.  No scripture even.  I see my hand.  I know it is a hand and it is mine.  For the same reasons, I see experience myself, and thru careful semantics of what "demi-god" means ... I also know I am a demi-god.  In spite of 6 decades of neurolinguistic programming to the contrary, by the Enlightenment Central Committee.  I need not adopt the biased semantics of enemies of the people.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on February 24, 2019, 10:23:36 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
But disbelieving in the letter "e," or anything else, has nothing to do with my atheism.

Unbeliever is more than an atheist ... for the same reason there is more than one letter in the alphabet.  In Chinese, with characters, there is more than one character in Chinese, there are several thousand.  Think of characters as concepts.  If Unbeliever only has one concept, and it is a negation ... then he is a maximal nihilist, and it would be impossible for him to post here.  He would be less communicative than a e e cummings poem, which disbelieves in the unwokeness of capitalization.

Nenenenenenene ... meaning repetitive negation of "e".  Knights of Ne.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mike Cl on February 24, 2019, 10:47:38 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
No blind faith.  Not faith at all.  No scripture even.  I see my hand.  I know it is a hand and it is mine.  For the same reasons, I see experience myself, and thru careful semantics of what "demi-god" means ... I also know I am a demi-god.  In spite of 6 decades of neurolinguistic programming to the contrary, by the Enlightenment Central Committee.  I need not adopt the biased semantics of enemies of the people.
I don't know what semantics you subscribe to, but it is NOT semantics to communicate with others but to slur and put down.  You no longer seem to strive to make things more clear but muddier.  You use what you now call humor to humiliate.  You seem to think you have such superior insight into this world and people that you ignore what others are trying to say; you'd rather go for the clever (to you) putdown or try to make others seem stupid compared to you.  Venom--that is the word I attach to you any more.  And Baruch, I feel all that as a personal loss in my computer world.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on February 25, 2019, 12:20:59 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't know what semantics you subscribe to, but it is NOT semantics to communicate with others but to slur and put down.  You no longer seem to strive to make things more clear but muddier.  You use what you now call humor to humiliate.  You seem to think you have such superior insight into this world and people that you ignore what others are trying to say; you'd rather go for the clever (to you) putdown or try to make others seem stupid compared to you.  Venom--that is the word I attach to you any more.  And Baruch, I feel all that as a personal loss in my computer world.

I deny Rousseau and Voltaire.  They were evil men, same as Marx and Lenin.  You may disagree.  Or think that you don't carry forward their French Revolution memes.  It is not insight, it is cult deprogramming.  Enlightenment cult deprogramming.  Which impacts what I see as the American Revolution.  I didn't plan on this happening, it simply happened as part of my maturation.  That is my kind of nihilism perhaps, to unlearn all I have been taught.  However well meaning or deluded my teachers were.  The past isn't what we think it was, and so the present isn't either.  It is undiscovered country, even if not full of Klingons.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on February 25, 2019, 08:29:23 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If consciousness doesn't need the brain, then why didn't humans have a higher consciousness millions of years ago?


I can see your problem brother.

It is all about not understanding how the evolution works.
That's all.

For a materialist a stone stay stone for ever, a plant born plant and die plant with no chance to evolve to animal, human and God and so on.
That is not how the system works.
Evolution is all about changes and so devolution which is the opposite of evolution.

Once you understand that everything move and change and with that the awareness in evolution or devolution take place then it will become very very clear how all the system works.
Materialists are still stuck in the stone age thinking that doesn't take into account the changes into consciousness awareness.
Darwin changes are but the external facade which doesn't take into account the internal change and materialists are stuck with this external facade.

A brain is not needed to a stone or a plant but as the awareness in consciousness evolve then a brain is needed and again is not needed anymore as a human evolve into God so everything is needed or not needed as the journey to high evolution speed up, slow down or recede.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on February 25, 2019, 09:09:01 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't know what semantics you subscribe to, but it is NOT semantics to communicate with others but to slur and put down.  You no longer seem to strive to make things more clear but muddier.  You use what you now call humor to humiliate.  You seem to think you have such superior insight into this world and people that you ignore what others are trying to say; you'd rather go for the clever (to you) putdown or try to make others seem stupid compared to you.  Venom--that is the word I attach to you any more.  And Baruch, I feel all that as a personal loss in my computer world.


In ancient times a forum was a physical place or space where ideas and views on a particular issue could be exchanged.
Today the forum is not a physical place or space anymore nevertheless the purpose for it is the same.
If you think that someone post something that doesn't make sense to you you can always fight back with your intellect in order to prove you right.
If you can not do that then you fail.

It is all about a mind clash.
No need to get upset.

(http://www.romanhomes.com/your_roman_vacation/quarters/images/Forum-npn-da-m10-2-23-m3.jpg)

Roman forum.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mike Cl on February 25, 2019, 09:27:30 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I deny Rousseau and Voltaire.  They were evil men, same as Marx and Lenin.  You may disagree.  Or think that you don't carry forward their French Revolution memes.  It is not insight, it is cult deprogramming.  Enlightenment cult deprogramming.  Which impacts what I see as the American Revolution.  I didn't plan on this happening, it simply happened as part of my maturation.  That is my kind of nihilism perhaps, to unlearn all I have been taught.  However well meaning or deluded by teachers were.  The past isn't what we think it was, and so the present isn't either.  It is undiscovered country, even if not full of Klingons.
I agree with all of that (well, maybe not the Rousseau, Voltaire, Marx and Lenin comments).  As a freshman history major I learned that history was not anywhere near what I thought (and was taught) it was/is.  the US Army taught me that about my country/society, as well.  My country is really 'my' country, since I know of it through only my own lens.  Oh, I do read, talk to people and watch the news and such, but what I think of this country is still filtered through my lens.  The same with you.  You no more have your finger on the pulse of the 'real' history than I do.  You have a lens and all is filtered through it--that is simply the human condition.  What I don't understand is your extreme bitterness, both personal and in general.  You strike me as a fan (fanatic) of your favorite sports team whom you feel has betrayed you; or a disciple of a particular man or movement that has disappointed you.  You are simply bitter--and none are more bitter than a betrayed sports fan.  You no longer seem to care about any sort of facts or reasons; only bitterness shows through.  It is not becoming.  It is, for me, deeply disappointing.  I guess I was sort of a 'fan' of yours, but your bitterness and simple craziness has washed that away--not that I expect you to care one iota.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on February 25, 2019, 12:46:12 PM
Bitterness comes with wisdom.  See Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner.  Also Ecclesiastes.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mike Cl on February 25, 2019, 01:02:59 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Bitterness comes with wisdom.  See Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner.  Also Ecclesiastes.
I would suggest the opposite.  One can find whatever one wants to in the bible or the Ancient Mariner.  Be bitter all you want--I guess you enjoy chocking on your own bile.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Unbeliever on February 25, 2019, 01:18:11 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Also Ecclesiastes.
What does Ecclesiastes have to do with bitterness? I don't see bitterness when I read it, only realistic common sense - except for the later-added God parts.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on February 25, 2019, 06:48:54 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I would suggest the opposite.  One can find whatever one wants to in the bible or the Ancient Mariner.  Be bitter all you want--I guess you enjoy chocking on your own bile.

Choking on my bile, not your bile.  That is what independent people do.  Puritans and totalitarians generate mega-bile and make it state policy.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on February 25, 2019, 06:50:24 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
What does Ecclesiastes have to do with bitterness? I don't see bitterness when I read it, only realistic common sense - except for the later-added God parts.

You say tomato and I say tomatoe ;-)  Realistic common sense only to 50+ year old men.  The author calls out to G-d, because he realizes no matter what he does, he is fucked.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Unbeliever on February 25, 2019, 07:14:58 PM
I've read somewhere that the praising-God parts of Ecclesiastes were interpolated, but I haven't yet found a reference. I'll keep looking, though.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on February 25, 2019, 07:29:16 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I've read somewhere that the praising-God parts of Ecclesiastes were interpolated, but I haven't yet found a reference. I'll keep looking, though.

All the books of the Bible were written by Jewish men high on hashish.  What interpolation could you find?
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Unbeliever on February 25, 2019, 07:37:25 PM
I was so stoned when I was a teenager that I gave a whole new meaning to "high school."
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on February 26, 2019, 12:09:53 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I was so stoned when I was a teenager that I gave a whole new meaning to "high school."

OK, here is the reference you were seeking.  In rabbinic theology, they build a "fence around the Torah".

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-fence-around-the-Torah

In other words, to give additional guarantees that a violation isn't committed (by man or G-d).  This had to do with warning signs and fences that help to prevent inadvertent violation of the sanctity of the Temple in Herodian times.  But also, it could be used to refer to interpretation that is designed to protect G-d's reputation.  Hence the invention of the Devil in the Book of Job (the only place in orthodox Jewish scripture where the devil is mentioned) so that G-d doesn't have to take responsibility for what happens to Job.  In other words, to deal with the theodicy problem (why is there evil).

I specifically disagree with this, I see no reason to protect G-d's reputation in theory or in fact, in theology or in scripture.  Apostle Paul for instance dealt with this by simply saying like at the end of the Book of Job, that G-d is mysterious, all-powerful and you should SFTU.  St Augustine dealt with people with too many questions from the congregation with "G-d devised Hell to deal with people like that".  In other words, pagans, heretics and skeptics should be excommunicated from synagogue or church, for being annoying.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Cavebear on February 26, 2019, 08:54:30 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So will the Q subway line.

I can't help but recall Charlie and The MTA...
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mike Cl on February 26, 2019, 09:01:22 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I can't help but recall Charlie and The MTA...
Isn't he riding the streets of Boston forever.............................?
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Cavebear on February 26, 2019, 09:14:17 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Isn't he riding the streets of Boston forever.............................?

OK, you asked for it...

https://www.google.com/search?nlpd391lnw=1&st=ds&u_ip=100.15.37.215&obt9bpdyed=1&q=charli+and+the+mta

The lyrics...

"Well, let me tell you of the story of a man named Charlie
On a tragic and fateful day
He put ten cents in his pocket, kissed his wife and family
Went to ride on the MTA
Well, did he ever return?
No he never returned and his fate is still unlearned (what a pity)
He may ride forever 'neath the streets of Boston
He's the man who never returned
Charlie handed in his dime at the Kendall Square station
And he changed for Jamaica Plain
When he got there the conductor told him, "one more nickel"
Charlie couldn't get off of that train!
But did he ever return?
No he never returned and his fate is still unlearned (poor old Charlie)
He may ride forever 'neath the streets of Boston
He's the man who never returned
Now, all night long Charlie rides through the station
Crying, "what will become of me?
How can I afford to see my sister in Chelsea
Or my cousin in Roxbury?"
But did he ever return?
No he never returned and his fate is still unlearned (shame and scandal)
He may ride forever 'neath the streets of Boston
He's the man who never returned
Charlie's wife goes down to the Scollay Square station
Every day at quarter past two
And through the open window she hands Charlie a sandwich
As the train comes rumbling through!
But did he ever return?
No he never returned and his fate is still unlearned (he may ride forever)
He may ride forever 'neath the streets of Boston
He's the man who never returned
Pick it Davey
Kinda hurts my figers
Now, you citizens of Boston, don't you think it's a scandal
How the people have to pay and pay?
Fight the fare increase, vote for George O'Brian
Get poor Charlie off the MTA!
Or else he'll never return
No he'll never return and his fate is still unlearned (just like Paul Revere)
He may ride forever 'neath the streets of Boston
He's the man who never returned
He's the man who never returned
He's the man who never returned
Et tu, Charlie?"
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mike Cl on February 26, 2019, 10:38:51 AM
Ah, yes--'neath the streets........................
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on February 26, 2019, 12:50:34 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Isn't he riding the streets of Boston forever.............................?

Dilbert's father never returned from the food court at the Mall, because he was at an all-you-can-eat ... and he never got full .. he simply changed that to his place of residence ;-)
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Unbeliever on February 26, 2019, 01:19:31 PM
I used to have a buddy who'd go to an all-you-can-eat buffet and eat all he could - then go to the restroom and throw it all up so he could go back and eat all he could a second time. He though he wasn't getting his money's worth otherwise.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Unbeliever on February 26, 2019, 01:20:15 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
OK, here is the reference you were seeking.  In rabbinic theology, they build a "fence around the Torah".

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-fence-around-the-Torah

In other words, to give additional guarantees that a violation isn't committed (by man or G-d).  This had to do with warning signs and fences that help to prevent inadvertent violation of the sanctity of the Temple in Herodian times.  But also, it could be used to refer to interpretation that is designed to protect G-d's reputation.  Hence the invention of the Devil in the Book of Job (the only place in orthodox Jewish scripture where the devil is mentioned) so that G-d doesn't have to take responsibility for what happens to Job.  In other words, to deal with the theodicy problem (why is there evil).

I specifically disagree with this, I see no reason to protect G-d's reputation in theory or in fact, in theology or in scripture.  Apostle Paul for instance dealt with this by simply saying like at the end of the Book of Job, that G-d is mysterious, all-powerful and you should SFTU.  St Augustine dealt with people with too many questions from the congregation with "G-d devised Hell to deal with people like that".  In other words, pagans, heretics and skeptics should be excommunicated from synagogue or church, for being annoying.

The book of Job can be summed up with 3 words: might makes right.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on February 26, 2019, 06:36:34 PM
With G-d, you bet your sweet bippy - Laugh In

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UMr469p3Mg
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Unbeliever on February 26, 2019, 06:55:23 PM
Oh, good! I always wondered what a bippy was - now I know!
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: trdsf on February 27, 2019, 01:43:01 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If consciousness doesn't need the brain, then why didn't humans have a higher consciousness millions of years ago?
For that matter, if consciousness doesn't need a brain, why bother with biological evolution in the first place?
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on February 27, 2019, 06:11:21 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
For that matter, if consciousness doesn't need a brain, why bother with biological evolution in the first place?

If radio doesn't need a receiver/transmitter, why bother with developed devices?  There are natural radio waves, that aren't human caused.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on February 27, 2019, 07:25:35 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
For that matter, if consciousness doesn't need a brain, why bother with biological evolution in the first place?


Next time I see Darwin around I will make sure that he will explain to everybody that small form of life such as plants and animals are guided by mother nature or what we know as instinct so plants do not need a brain and animals only need a simple brain and the brain get more and more complex as lower form of lives turn into humans.

Brain or not brain consciousness is there anyway because even plants that do not have a brain react under good or bad conditions.

I will scold Darwin for not explaining that in the first place.
I promise.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on February 27, 2019, 12:47:35 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Next time I see Darwin around I will make sure that he will explain to everybody that small form of life such as plants and animals are guided by mother nature or what we know as instinct so plants do not need a brain and animals only need a simple brain and the brain get more and more complex as lower form of lives turn into humans.

Brain or not brain consciousness is there anyway because even plants that do not have a brain react under good or bad conditions.

I will scold Darwin for not explaining that in the first place.
I promise.

Plants do react, with means other than neurons.  But animals are speciesist when it comes to the nearly defenseless plant kingdom.  Liberate plants now, plant a giant Venus Fly Trap today.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on February 28, 2019, 09:06:33 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Plants do react, with means other than neurons.  But animals are speciesist when it comes to the nearly defenseless plant kingdom.  Liberate plants now, plant a giant Venus Fly Trap today.


I am quite puzzled by the materialists way of thinking.

On one hand they pretend to be the real believers in evolution but in reality they have no clue as the evolution works.
For them individual evolution come to an end with the physical death.
Consciousness also die when the body die.

No goal to be achieved, nothing and the consciousness that we have come thanks to previous generation.

Gee, that belief is as bad as any religious belief in which good things pop up in a mysterious way for free.

Just incredible.

I never seen anyone who give something for free.
Even pedos give candies to kids for a reason.
 
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on February 28, 2019, 09:26:22 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I am quite puzzled by the materialists way of thinking.

On one hand they pretend to be the real believers in evolution but in reality they have no clue as the evolution works.
For them individual evolution come to an end with the physical death.
Consciousness also die when the body die.

No goal to be achieved, nothing and the consciousness that we have come thanks to previous generation.

Gee, that belief is as bad as any religious belief in which good things pop up in a mysterious way for free.

Just incredible.

I never seen anyone who give something for free.
Even pedos give candies to kids for a reason.

Materialism is a part of reductionism.  Reductionism is "over simplification".  So we resort to this often, given that we can't deal with real complexity.  So in that POV, evolution is limited to material concerns ... better and better combinations of atoms, according to some mysterious criteria that says that this combination of atoms is better than that combination of atoms.  Atomic bigotry perhaps?  Darwinian evolution only applied to biology, only at the species level, and only for those types with dimorphic sex.  There is something more general than Darwinian evolution, which is "development".  Even individuals do this, not just species.  That is what you are referring to.  I think development is happening all the time, is unavoidable.  But like death and decay, it can't be called progressive or regressive.  The idea of progress is incredibly bigoted ... usually of the European type of 100 years ago.  Communism is developed out of European capitalism ... and also assumes progress.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on March 01, 2019, 04:03:11 AM
A musical summary of Arik's position and mine, even though we differ in some ways ...

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

The rest of you aren't cool.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Cavebear on March 01, 2019, 08:38:15 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I am quite puzzled by the materialists way of thinking.

On one hand they pretend to be the real believers in evolution but in reality they have no clue as the evolution works.
For them individual evolution come to an end with the physical death.
Consciousness also die when the body die.

No goal to be achieved, nothing and the consciousness that we have come thanks to previous generation.

Gee, that belief is as bad as any religious belief in which good things pop up in a mysterious way for free.

Just incredible.

I never seen anyone who give something for free.
Even pedos give candies to kids for a reason.

OK, first, "atheism" and "materialism" are not the same.

Second, evolution isn't a "belief" any more than "gravity" is.  It is merely the best factual understanding of who existence works.

Third, "evolution" ends when the cessation of sexual reproduction even if you live past that.

Fourth, there is no "goal"or direction to existence.  All continuing species are genetically successful at perpetuating themselves (viruses to trees to humans) but there is no intent or goal involved.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Cavebear on March 01, 2019, 08:42:03 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I used to have a buddy who'd go to an all-you-can-eat buffet and eat all he could - then go to the restroom and throw it all up so he could go back and eat all he could a second time. He though he wasn't getting his money's worth otherwise.

Very Romanly orgiastic  of him.  But quite frankly, throwing up is more unpleasant to me than eating again...  I'll stick with what I eat the first time.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on March 01, 2019, 08:54:43 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Materialism is a part of reductionism.  Reductionism is "over simplification".  So we resort to this often, given that we can't deal with real complexity.  So in that POV, evolution is limited to material concerns ... better and better combinations of atoms, according to some mysterious criteria that says that this combination of atoms is better than that combination of atoms.  Atomic bigotry perhaps?  Darwinian evolution only applied to biology, only at the species level, and only for those types with dimorphic sex.  There is something more general than Darwinian evolution, which is "development".  Even individuals do this, not just species.  That is what you are referring to.  I think development is happening all the time, is unavoidable.  But like death and decay, it can't be called progressive or regressive.  The idea of progress is incredibly bigoted ... usually of the European type of 100 years ago.  Communism is developed out of European capitalism ... and also assumes progress.


Let me see one of your point where you say.................development is happening all the time, is unavoidable..........

It really depend Baruch.

It happen in plants and animals that follow the instinct guided by mother nature but as soon as these lower form of life merge into humanity the free will pop up therefore with development come also the opposite that cause the loss of what people already had.

As far as system in power I can see that a cycle is always followed.
When the exploitation of the dominant class become unbearable then the next system take over.
From the capitalistic exploitation the masses revolt but this revolt is quickly stolen by the warriors class (military) to be follow by the intellectual class (clergy) and again by the new capitalists in a never ending cycle so to call it progress may be a bit of a speculation as the old mistakes are repeated again and again. 
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on March 01, 2019, 09:17:45 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
OK, first, "atheism" and "materialism" are not the same.


Let me see.

In atheism there is no any non material entity so what is left is none but matter, isn't it mate?
Unless of course you may indicate to me that beside matter there is something else other than God.


Quote
Second, evolution isn't a "belief" any more than "gravity" is.  It is merely the best factual understanding of who existence works.


Time and time again I have seen (read) atheists that when arguing with religious people that believe in creation say that they believe in evolution so where the non believe suppose to be?



Quote
Third, "evolution" ends when the cessation of sexual reproduction even if you live past that.


If you put it as physical evolution then I can tell you that this kind of evolution end a lot early than that.
According to science physical evolution end around 33 because after that people stop growing but of course that is your personal understanding of evolution that has got nothing to do with real evolution of the consciousness which is miles and miles more important than physical sort of evolution.


Quote
Fourth, there is no "goal"or direction to existence.  All continuing species are genetically successful at perpetuating themselves (viruses to trees to humans) but there is no intent or goal involved.



Again.
Tanks for your personal belief which obviously is not supported by any evidence.
In fact there is evidence on the contrary.
Just read thousand of NDEs and you will see that your personal belief has no place in the reality.

https://www.nderf.org/Archives/exceptional.html


Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Cavebear on March 01, 2019, 09:43:47 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Let me see.

In atheism there is no any non material entity so what is left is none but matter, isn't it mate?
Unless of course you may indicate to me that beside matter there is something else other than God.



Time and time again I have seen (read) atheists that when arguing with religious people that believe in creation say that they believe in evolution so where the non believe suppose to be?




If you put it as physical evolution then I can tell you that this kind of evolution end a lot early than that.
According to science physical evolution end around 33 because after that people stop growing but of course that is your personal understanding of evolution that has got nothing to do with real evolution of the consciousness which is miles and miles more important than physical sort of evolution.




Again.
Tanks for your personal belief which obviously is not supported by any evidence.
In fact there is evidence on the contrary.
Just read thousand of NDEs and you will see that your personal belief has no place in the reality.

https://www.nderf.org/Archives/exceptional.html

"In atheism there is no any non material entity so what is left is none but matter".  That is a triple negative, so I won't even bother about that.

If you have seen atheists say that they "believe" in evolution they were either careless in description or you more likely were intuiting it. inaccurately.  Evolution is not a "belief".  It is a fact.

Religion versus evolution is not a logically equal debate between two valid arguments.  There is no equivalency here.  Evolution is factual, religion is a belief.

You posted "If you put it as physical evolution then I can tell you that this kind of evolution end a lot early than that.
According to science physical evolution end around 33 because after that people stop growing but of course that is your personal understanding of evolution that has got nothing to do with real evolution of the consciousness which is miles and miles more important than physical sort of evolution."

That makes no sense whatsoever... 

Cavebear





Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on March 01, 2019, 10:04:25 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
"In atheism there is no any non material entity so what is left is none but matter".  That is a triple negative, so I won't even bother about that.

If you have seen atheists say that they "believe" in evolution they were either careless in description or you more likely were intuiting it. inaccurately.  Evolution is not a "belief".  It is a fact.

Religion versus evolution is not a logically equal debate between two valid arguments.  There is no equivalency here.  Evolution is factual, religion is a belief.

You posted "If you put it as physical evolution then I can tell you that this kind of evolution end a lot early than that.
According to science physical evolution end around 33 because after that people stop growing but of course that is your personal understanding of evolution that has got nothing to do with real evolution of the consciousness which is miles and miles more important than physical sort of evolution."

That makes no sense whatsoever... 

Cavebear


I suppose nothing that I say make sense to you CB but don't you worry, one day it will.

I also went through most of those fantasies in the past but I did change when I realized that I was not getting anywhere.

Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Cavebear on March 01, 2019, 10:44:03 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I suppose nothing that I say make sense to you CB but don't you worry, one day it will.

I also went through most of those fantasies in the past but I did change when I realized that I was not getting anywhere.

I will certainly agree that nothing you are saying HERE makes any sense
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on March 01, 2019, 12:58:13 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Let me see one of your point where you say.................development is happening all the time, is unavoidable..........

It really depend Baruch.

It happen in plants and animals that follow the instinct guided by mother nature but as soon as these lower form of life merge into humanity the free will pop up therefore with development come also the opposite that cause the loss of what people already had.

As far as system in power I can see that a cycle is always followed.
When the exploitation of the dominant class become unbearable then the next system take over.
From the capitalistic exploitation the masses revolt but this revolt is quickly stolen by the warriors class (military) to be follow by the intellectual class (clergy) and again by the new capitalists in a never ending cycle so to call it progress may be a bit of a speculation as the old mistakes are repeated again and again.

Development isn't necessarily what people call improvement.  A cheese left out will grow mold and rot.  As it should.  But that isn't an improvement for the cheese seller.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on March 01, 2019, 01:00:47 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I suppose nothing that I say make sense to you CB but don't you worry, one day it will.

I also went through most of those fantasies in the past but I did change when I realized that I was not getting anywhere.

For materialists, ideas aren't non-material.  They are as material as the ink on paper.  But I think this view is entirely inadequate.  Ideas also exist in spoken words and in thoughts.  More than one medium can host them.  Moreover, they are from living things .. non-living have no ideas.  So the problem is .. what is life?
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mike Cl on March 01, 2019, 01:17:44 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
For materialists, ideas aren't non-material.  They are as material as the ink on paper.  But I think this view is entirely inadequate.  Ideas also exist in spoken words and in thoughts.  More than one medium can host them.  Moreover, they are from living things .. non-living have no ideas.  So the problem is .. what is life?
there is only nature--no such thing as supernatural or unnatural.  There is only material--so such thing as unmaterial.  Ideas are not visible yet we know they come from our material brains.  Which come from nature.  Humans are limited in their senses.  Other animals are also limited in their senses, yet they can sense different things than humans can.  (dog whistles, infrared and a host of other things, for example)  Simply because we cannot see infrared does not make them unnatural.  All that is, is natural.  Unnatural is simply fantasy or fairy tale stuff---wishful thinking. 

What is life?  I has not been defined precisely yet.  Is fire alive?  Are virus'?  Big debate.  But because I cannot define it I do know that I am alive and I know what my purpose is.  As Joseph Campbell suggested--the purpose of life is life.  And that is why life can be found in almost every layer of this planet--in ice, in boiling water and chemicals, in places where we did not even know there were places in days gone past. 
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Cavebear on March 01, 2019, 01:24:06 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
As Joseph Campbell suggested--the purpose of life is life. 

One of the few things he ever said that made much sense...
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on March 01, 2019, 01:25:15 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
there is only nature--no such thing as supernatural or unnatural.  There is only material--so such thing as unmaterial.  Ideas are not visible yet we know they come from our material brains.  Which come from nature.  Humans are limited in their senses.  Other animals are also limited in their senses, yet they can sense different things than humans can.  (dog whistles, infrared and a host of other things, for example)  Simply because we cannot see infrared does not make them unnatural.  All that is, is natural.  Unnatural is simply fantasy or fairy tale stuff---wishful thinking. 

What is life?  I has not been defined precisely yet.  Is fire alive?  Are virus'?  Big debate.  But because I cannot define it I do know that I am alive and I know what my purpose is.  As Joseph Campbell suggested--the purpose of life is life.  And that is why life can be found in almost every layer of this planet--in ice, in boiling water and chemicals, in places where we did not even know there were places in days gone past.

There is only beef jerky.  Anyone says different, they are jerky ;-)
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on March 01, 2019, 01:26:12 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
One of the few things he ever said that made much sense...

But rocks and atheists have no life.  At least, I don't invite them to parties ...
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mike Cl on March 01, 2019, 01:46:08 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
One of the few things he ever said that made much sense...
He  said more than that.  I liked his view of the meaning of myth for societies--he did not regard them as being supernatural but were simply stories to pass wisdom along.  He also said that to be happy one must follow your bliss.  He did not say what that was, for each of us has to figure that out.  He said to find it and then follow it.  He even indicated to not worry about how you would make your living for if you really do follow your bliss that will happen.  I don't see Campbell as a pusher for god.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Cavebear on March 01, 2019, 05:33:14 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
He  said more than that.  I liked his view of the meaning of myth for societies--he did not regard them as being supernatural but were simply stories to pass wisdom along.  He also said that to be happy one must follow your bliss.  He did not say what that was, for each of us has to figure that out.  He said to find it and then follow it.  He even indicated to not worry about how you would make your living for if you really do follow your bliss that will happen.  I don't see Campbell as a pusher for god.

You have to listen to Campbell carefully.  I think he gets rather over-excited in combining various myths and cultural beliefs. Don't get me wrong; he has some interesting ideas.  But he lacks specificity, and details are not his "thing". 

I'll admit that his personality sets me off a bit.  But even when I just read him, I don't find a lot of rigorous thought there.  Enthusiastic thought, to be sure and we need that sometimes.  But not much I would consider "scientific".
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on March 01, 2019, 05:58:15 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You have to listen to Campbell carefully.  I think he gets rather over-excited in combining various myths and cultural beliefs. Don't get me wrong; he has some interesting ideas.  But he lacks specificity, and details are not his "thing". 

I'll admit that his personality sets me off a bit.  But even when I just read him, I don't find a lot of rigorous thought there.  Enthusiastic thought, to be sure and we need that sometimes.  But not much I would consider "scientific".

Campbell wrote a lot.  Was mostly interested Native Americans.  His psychology came from Jung, same as Jordan Peterson.

There isn't much people here would call scientific.  Ohm's law.  Arithmetic.  Arik is using a Medieval definition of science, still current in S Asian culture.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mike Cl on March 01, 2019, 06:48:31 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You have to listen to Campbell carefully.  I think he gets rather over-excited in combining various myths and cultural beliefs. Don't get me wrong; he has some interesting ideas.  But he lacks specificity, and details are not his "thing". 

I'll admit that his personality sets me off a bit.  But even when I just read him, I don't find a lot of rigorous thought there.  Enthusiastic thought, to be sure and we need that sometimes.  But not much I would consider "scientific".
Yeah, he was lacking in the scientific area.  But I read him for his cultural insights, not science.  The purpose of life is life is not scientific.  Nor is his insistence of following one's bliss.  But I still understood what he was driving at and I agree with him.  So, you see, I did not go to him for science.  But his two philosophical statements makes sense to me, so I remember them.  They sort of match the type of board game I like--simple rules (like chess), but great depth when trying to play it.  So, Campbell still has a place on my bookshelf.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on March 01, 2019, 11:15:43 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Campbell wrote a lot.  Was mostly interested Native Americans.  His psychology came from Jung, same as Jordan Peterson.

There isn't much people here would call scientific.  Ohm's law.  Arithmetic.  Arik is using a Medieval definition of science, still current in S Asian culture.


If I look in some dictionaries for the meaning of the word "science" it usually say that the science is knowledge about the universe or the natural world.

That I find a very very simplistic answer.
Why knowledge must be confined to the universe and what on earth it means to the natural world?
What the natural world suppose to be?

Again and again I see that this natural world according to strange beliefs is confined to this universe made of matter.
What about the natural world that is not made of matter?

Where is the evidence that there is not a dimension that is not made of matter?

I really do not bother too much whether my idea of science come from here or there.
What is important to me is whether science deliver the goods or not in whichever way a person is interested into.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on March 02, 2019, 09:08:17 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
there is only nature--no such thing as supernatural or unnatural.  There is only material--so such thing as unmaterial.  Ideas are not visible yet we know they come from our material brains.  Which come from nature.  Humans are limited in their senses.  Other animals are also limited in their senses, yet they can sense different things than humans can.  (dog whistles, infrared and a host of other things, for example)  Simply because we cannot see infrared does not make them unnatural.  All that is, is natural.  Unnatural is simply fantasy or fairy tale stuff---wishful thinking. 

What is life?  I has not been defined precisely yet.  Is fire alive?  Are virus'?  Big debate.  But because I cannot define it I do know that I am alive and I know what my purpose is.  As Joseph Campbell suggested--the purpose of life is life.  And that is why life can be found in almost every layer of this planet--in ice, in boiling water and chemicals, in places where we did not even know there were places in days gone past.


I suppose that you must have solid evidence that ideas ...........come from our material brains..........

Ok, let us see this evidence.

(https://pics.me.me/surely-a-will-come-i-just-have-to-wait-patiently-14013252.png)
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mike Cl on March 02, 2019, 09:37:01 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I suppose that you must have solid evidence that ideas ...........come from our material brains..........

Ok, let us see this evidence.

(https://pics.me.me/surely-a-will-come-i-just-have-to-wait-patiently-14013252.png)
You are not only stupid, you like to roll in it like a rat rolling in shit.  Unless your 'evidence' is made up of only wishful and fanciful thinking, you won't consider it. 

I really would like to know how you got that picture of me waiting for a response from you with any evidence at all that your beliefs are more than that--beliefs!  But I'm sure that my old bones will be just dust before you attempt to supply any such evidence.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on March 02, 2019, 09:51:22 AM
Ha, that picture is just a computer user who failed to allow a push of the latest OS/app patch from Communist Microsoft or Nazi Apple.  Don't cooperate, and we will strangle your access speed ... there is no Net Neutrality!
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on March 02, 2019, 10:11:43 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not only stupid, you like to roll in it like a rat rolling in shit.  Unless your 'evidence' is made up of only wishful and fanciful thinking, you won't consider it. 

I really would like to know how you got that picture of me waiting for a response from you with any evidence at all that your beliefs are more than that--beliefs!  But I'm sure that my old bones will be just dust before you attempt to supply any such evidence.


I do apologize for the picture but eh, how many times atheists ask theists for evidence after all?

Wouldn't be fair that also atheists stop asking for evidence for a moment and instead start producing their own evidence for their own beliefs?
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on March 02, 2019, 01:21:08 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I do apologize for the picture but eh, how many times atheists ask theists for evidence after all?

Wouldn't be fair that also atheists stop asking for evidence for a moment and instead start producing their own evidence for their own beliefs?

The biggest gambit in the evidence business isn't what evidence you produce, but what evidence you ignore.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: aitm on March 02, 2019, 01:58:26 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I close my eyes.

I can hear the sound of the universe.

We call it imagination.....but hey..whatever bloviates your nads man.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: aitm on March 02, 2019, 02:02:01 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login



For a materialist a stone stay stone for ever, a plant born plant and die plant with no chance to evolve to animal, human and God and so on.
That is not how the system works.
Evolution is all about changes and so devolution which is the opposite of evolution.

Once you understand that ......

Hoo-boy....being lectured by someone who says evolution is kinda proven false by miniature gods. K
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on March 02, 2019, 04:56:13 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
We call it imagination.....but hey..whatever bloviates your nads man.

Nihilist artists hate ... imagination?
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on March 03, 2019, 01:19:18 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Hoo-boy....being lectured by someone who says evolution is kinda proven false by miniature gods. K


Actually I never said that Darwin evolution is wrong.

I instead said that Darwin evolution is related to physical changes due mainly to survival.

The chap only studied external changes or body changes and that is quite ok. for me.

What I do not agree is not about Darwin work.
What I do not agree instead is the way that materialists believe in Darwin evolution as it is all there is to know considering that Darwin for his own personal reasons did not studied how consciousness affect changes which I reckon that these changes are much more important than external changes.

While external changes in lower form of life are trigger by mother nature external changes in humans are trigger by consciousness.
That is a big problem for materialists that only care about external changes and neglect what is most important.   
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on March 03, 2019, 07:59:15 AM
An analogy that applies to anything in anthropology.  There is a difference between those who study chess playing, and those who play chess.  Intellectuals fit the first category.  So what is the difference in quality of insight, that is obtained from the first group vs second group?  I fit into the second group.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: aitm on March 03, 2019, 08:15:30 AM
"gather around the table children, I am Pastor Arik, today we are going to witness Gods power. Here is a candle and we are going to sit here and pray  and ask God to make the candle flicker.......now everyone pray and watch closely..................

...............


...............


okay, it's a bit hot in here, Ima gonna open up this window a little......

...............



........... HEY DID YOU SEE IT FLICKER? THAT IS THE POWER OF PRAYER AND THE POWER OF GOD.......let's all pray.....
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on March 03, 2019, 09:03:37 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
An analogy that applies to anything in anthropology.  There is a difference between those who study chess playing, and those who play chess.  Intellectuals fit the first category.  So what is the difference in quality of insight, that is obtained from the first group vs second group?  I fit into the second group.


Surprise, surprise Baruch because also my spiritual teacher did make a similar example.

Two chaps walk and walk in search of something that would put an end to their trouble.
After sometime they see a mango tree full of ripe and beautiful mangoes.

One chap start looking and analyze the tree and his branches and his leaves and the number of the fruit in it while the other chap start straight away to pick up the mangoes and eat them.

Now you tell me........who is the smarter and more intelligent?
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on March 03, 2019, 10:04:09 AM
Intellectuals have their uses.  Just like lawyers and doctors.  Because of social cachet, many people want to join the professional class, but someone has to pick the mangoes.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on March 03, 2019, 10:15:32 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
"gather around the table children, I am Pastor Arik, today we are going to witness Gods power. Here is a candle and we are going to sit here and pray  and ask God to make the candle flicker.......now everyone pray and watch closely..................

...............


...............


okay, it's a bit hot in here, Ima gonna open up this window a little......

...............



........... HEY DID YOU SEE IT FLICKER? THAT IS THE POWER OF PRAYER AND THE POWER OF GOD.......let's all pray.....


Not at all mate.

Brother Arik does not ask God for any material things.

To ask God for material things would be like a son that ask his father for food and that would be ridiculous and a mockery.
Only religions ask God for material things.
I have nothing to do with religions.

I only pray God to be closer to him and that's all I ask but that is more a wish than a prayer. 



Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mike Cl on March 03, 2019, 12:44:38 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Two chaps walk and walk in search of something that would put an end to their trouble.
After sometime they see a mango tree full of ripe and beautiful mangoes.

One chap start looking and analyze the tree and his branches and his leaves and the number of the fruit in it while the other chap start straight away to pick up the mangoes and eat them.

Now you tell me........who is the smarter and more intelligent?
Depends upon the situation.  If neither had seen nor heard of a mango tree was nor what it's fruit was like, the smartest one was the analyzer.  It could be a deadly tree to eat from.  So, the guy digging in right off the bat would be taking a chance that he could die. 
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on March 03, 2019, 01:12:55 PM
Specious reasoning ... I can prove, with bad axioms and good deduction, that Socrates is a merman.  The intellectual can help us articulate some things, that are hard for us to articulate.  But he won't harvest any mangoes.  That is for the people outside the ivory tower.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Unbeliever on March 03, 2019, 05:19:11 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I can prove, with bad axioms and good deduction, that Socrates is a merman.

You can? OK, let's see you do that.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mike Cl on March 03, 2019, 05:56:51 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
  The intellectual can help us articulate some things, that are hard for us to articulate.  But he won't harvest any mangoes.  That is for the people outside the ivory tower.
Bullshit!!  And you really do seem to have a corner on bullshit lately.  The intellectuals of this country can not only articulate some things (which is very important, btw) but can also get down and dirty with any typical worker.  They may not harvest the mangoes now, but very well could have worked doing that earlier earlier.  And they will help figure out how to harvest them faster and better and how to improve the crop generally.  Historically, the intellectual has taken a beating in this country.  And they still are.  You are the type of person Trump and his ilk of know-nothings, that put intellectual and intellect down.  You seem to revel in those who are ignorant and proud of it, and seem to find that a virtue.  You wallow in your fictional god and seem to think that that is a good thing.  Your brand of ignorance and intellectual hating is repugnant at best and destructive at worst. 
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Unbeliever on March 03, 2019, 06:17:42 PM
Now Mike, try not to get too worked up over Baruch's bullshit, you know he's only trying to push our buttons, and when he sees that he's done that he only gets worse.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on March 03, 2019, 06:28:52 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You can? OK, let's see you do that.

Athenians are mer-people
Socrates an Athenian man
Therefore ... Socrates is a mer-man.

But the first axiom is not true.

Reasoning involves both good deduction, but also good axioms.

Where do we have the best example?  Euclid's Axioms.  It had a few holes, that took 2200 years to complete patch.  But almost all the rest of human reasoning is a sieve of specious reasoning.

Intellectuals = Plato ... Greek mother fuckers for 2400 years ... sophisticates aka Sophists.  The ancients were reasonable to exile or execute such enemies.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Unbeliever on March 03, 2019, 06:34:31 PM
Uh, those aren't axioms, they're premises - there's a difference. That first one is called the major premise, I promise.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on March 03, 2019, 07:02:16 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Uh, those aren't axioms, they're premises - there's a difference. That first one is called the major premise, I promise.

Yes, two promises, one conclusion.  But If I feel strong, then my axiom is your BS, and vice versa.  That is why philosophy/theology gets us nowhere.  As it is, the Euclidean Axiom that two points define a straight line ... turns out to be false (because there are unstated assumptions behind it).  This wasn't clarified until 1899 (it wasn't just a problem with the Parallel Postulate).

https://www.storyofmathematics.com/20th_hilbert.html  His work in geometry is briefly noted.

A lovely web site all in all.  Hilbert's modified Euclidean Geometry is consistent in a way that Arithmetic is not (per Godel theorems).  DH EG is complete (all well formed formulas can be proven true or false within the system) ... which is not possible with Arithmetic.  There are valid arithmetical statements that can't be derived from any finite list of axioms.

Of course regular logical debate (say in a court room) has more to do with Socrates than with Euclid.  And pretty much falls apart (without the addition of empirical physical evidence), because only math pretends to be rigorous.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Cavebear on March 03, 2019, 11:59:38 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Not at all mate.

Brother Arik does not ask God for any material things.

To ask God for material things would be like a son that ask his father for food and that would be ridiculous and a mockery.
Only religions ask God for material things.
I have nothing to do with religions.

I only pray God to be closer to him and that's all I ask but that is more a wish than a prayer.

I acknowledge Arik's view that he prays to his particular deity in complete purity of hope that he will reside by the Great One in some sort of afterlife.  I have no doubt that he believes it.  But people buy lottery tickets, wager in casinos, and bet on sports events, too.  And I suspect Arik's hopes are less likely than the others.

Many people engage in irrational beliefs (religion, lotteries, gambling).  He isn't the first, and he won't be the last.  What saddens me is that someday, when he is old and dying, he will still believe that failed superstition, whereas he COULD have had a full realistic life free of such nonsense. 

Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on March 04, 2019, 05:14:49 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Depends upon the situation.  If neither had seen nor heard of a mango tree was nor what it's fruit was like, the smartest one was the analyzer.  It could be a deadly tree to eat from.  So, the guy digging in right off the bat would be taking a chance that he could die.


Well, in this case both may die but with a difference.

The one who eat mangoes die with the full stomach but the intellectual that doesn't eat will starve to death.

Much better to die quickly by poison that die slow by starving so once again the smarter is the one who eat mangoes and the fool is the one who slowly starve in agony.

(https://www.booktopia.com.au/http_coversbooktopiacomau/600/9789769615403/i-am-smart-after-all-.jpg)
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Cavebear on March 04, 2019, 06:48:33 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Well, in this case both may die but with a difference.

The one who eat mangoes die with the full stomach but the intellectual that doesn't eat will starve to death.

Much better to die quickly by poison that die slow by starving so once again the smarter is the one who eat mangoes and the fool is the one who slowly starve in agony.

(https://www.booktopia.com.au/http_coversbooktopiacomau/600/9789769615403/i-am-smart-after-all-.jpg)

That may qualify as the weirdest justification for a bad argument I have EVER heard in my life...
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mike Cl on March 04, 2019, 10:30:09 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Well, in this case both may die but with a difference.

The one who eat mangoes die with the full stomach but the intellectual that doesn't eat will starve to death.

Much better to die quickly by poison that die slow by starving so once again the smarter is the one who eat mangoes and the fool is the one who slowly starve in agony.

(https://www.booktopia.com.au/http_coversbooktopiacomau/600/9789769615403/i-am-smart-after-all-.jpg)
You constantly prove that reasoning is not your strong suit--or any suit at all in your case.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on March 04, 2019, 12:40:49 PM
He was trying to bring it down to y'all's level ... but as pseudo-intellectuals you don't get it.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Unbeliever on March 04, 2019, 01:17:27 PM
Well, as Lo Pan said, we are not brought upon this world to get it.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Unbeliever on March 04, 2019, 04:43:12 PM
Arik's "facts" are based on nothing except his total conviction that they're true.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on March 04, 2019, 07:03:31 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Arik's "facts" are based on nothing except his total conviction that they're true.

Same as yours or mine.  Ego maniacs are like that.  Arik isn't egoless.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on March 04, 2019, 07:04:46 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Well, as Lo Pan said, we are not brought upon this world to get it.

Then why listen to false claims of those who tell you what you want to hear?
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on March 05, 2019, 05:36:00 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Same as yours or mine.  Ego maniacs are like that.  Arik isn't egoless.


That is true.

I still got a bit of ego but again that is one of the reason why I do practice yoga so one day I may be 100% free of ego.

On the other hand most people do absolutely nothing so their ego instead of going down goes up.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on March 06, 2019, 08:07:54 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Arik's "facts" are based on nothing except his total conviction that they're true.


Let us see if you are fair and impartial by criticize also your little mates when they say something that is not backed by evidence.

Let us see Mike's statement when he says that........... ideas come from our material brains.......

Have you ever criticize Mike for coming up with this statement that is 100% void of evidence?





 
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Unbeliever on March 06, 2019, 01:19:46 PM
The evidence is in your own head, all you have to do is think a bit and you'll know it.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on March 06, 2019, 07:33:34 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The evidence is in your own head, all you have to do is think a bit and you'll know it.

If it wasn't in your head, to begin with, how did it get written down?  Oija spirit perhaps?  If the head is inherently corrupt, what will you do?
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on March 06, 2019, 08:18:54 PM
Materialism is necessary, but a distraction from what is more real ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJ205esn7qE

Agon - ancient Greek for contest ... and where "agony" comes from.  Such is life.  It is a contest, which you detest, which you cannot avoid.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Cavebear on March 07, 2019, 01:37:39 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

That is true.

I still got a bit of ego but again that is one of the reason why I do practice yoga so one day I may be 100% free of ego.

Then you need to do more yoga...
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Cavebear on March 07, 2019, 01:42:19 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The evidence is in your own head, all you have to do is think a bit and you'll know it.

The problem is that faith-based thinkers never gain anything by factual learning and stay in their original spots.  If faith-based thinking still ruled, we would be in septic-filled cities, burning innocent people as witches, and thinking the universe revolved around us.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on March 07, 2019, 02:22:19 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Then you need to do more yoga...

Actually correct.  But don't get yourself tied in knots over it ;-)
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on March 07, 2019, 02:23:44 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The problem is that faith-based thinkers never gain anything by factual learning and stay in their original spots.  If faith-based thinking still ruled, we would be in septic-filled cities, burning innocent people as witches, and thinking the universe revolved around us.
[/quote

The facts are irrelevant, unless you are the sanitary engineer taking care of all the free crap the public flushes.

We are in primitive cities, in most places.  You may not be privileged to live in one however, check your White privilege.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on March 07, 2019, 04:26:19 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The evidence is in your own head, all you have to do is think a bit and you'll know it.


That is correct mate.

Consciousness is in my head that is why I know that ideas do not come from the material brain.

(https://images.theconversation.com/files/218314/original/file-20180509-34021-1t9q8r0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=926&fit=clip)
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on March 07, 2019, 04:38:55 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The problem is that faith-based thinkers never gain anything by factual learning and stay in their original spots.  If faith-based thinking still ruled, we would be in septic-filled cities, burning innocent people as witches, and thinking the universe revolved around us.


Gee, I really like your comment CB.

Fortunately I have nothing to do with them.
I always said that the best knowledge come from within and that is the knowledge that I tap into from my consciousness through yoga practices.

Faith believers usually are religious people that believe in a paradise for them or materialists that think that the universe pop up as per magic and need no one to run it which in this case is also faith in magic.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Cavebear on March 07, 2019, 06:02:23 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Gee, I really like your comment CB.

Fortunately I have nothing to do with them.
I always said that the best knowledge come from within and that is the knowledge that I tap into from my consciousness through yoga practices.

Faith believers usually are religious people that believe in a paradise for them or materialists that think that the universe pop up as per magic and need no one to run it which in this case is also faith in magic.

Well, now that IS interesting.  Faith believers tend to think that their beliefs come to them from within (as faith rather than fact), though I will say they consider the SOURCE of their beliefs are certainly some sort of outside deity.  And YOU are saying that your source of belief comes from within you via your consciousness and no where else.

So you are claiming to be an atheist?  Which would be all fine and good, but I can't help thinking that you are ALSO claiming some sort of higher consciousness through the power of your own mind beyond that of ordinary mortals.  Do I have that right?

You are an atheist denying all outside powers?  Yet you also suggest that atheists are "materialists that think that the universe pop up as per magic and need no one to run it which in this case is also faith in magic" which certainly suggests you think there is a POWER of SOME sort that created the universe, and atheists don't think THAT.

Sounds like trying to have your deity cake and eat it too, betwixt and between...  And I suspect you don't exactly think THAT either (consciously), though it seems apparent in your post.

So which is it?  Was the universe created by "any sort of intelligence" or not.  Can't really have it both ways.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on March 07, 2019, 06:58:12 AM
There is more to Heaven and Earth than Southern Baptists and their opponents.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on March 07, 2019, 07:45:44 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Well, now that IS interesting.  Faith believers tend to think that their beliefs come to them from within (as faith rather than fact), though I will say they consider the SOURCE of their beliefs are certainly some sort of outside deity.  And YOU are saying that your source of belief comes from within you via your consciousness and no where else.

So you are claiming to be an atheist?  Which would be all fine and good, but I can't help thinking that you are ALSO claiming some sort of higher consciousness through the power of your own mind beyond that of ordinary mortals.  Do I have that right?

You are an atheist denying all outside powers?  Yet you also suggest that atheists are "materialists that think that the universe pop up as per magic and need no one to run it which in this case is also faith in magic" which certainly suggests you think there is a POWER of SOME sort that created the universe, and atheists don't think THAT.

Sounds like trying to have your deity cake and eat it too, betwixt and between...  And I suspect you don't exactly think THAT either (consciously), though it seems apparent in your post.

So which is it?  Was the universe created by "any sort of intelligence" or not.  Can't really have it both ways.


I do appreciate your inquisitiveness which by the way is also one way to reach some conclusion.

Unfortunately this time you failed to reach any conclusion but you should try again and again until you succeed.

Anyway let me explain why you failed.
In yoga God is real but unlike many religions is within rather than externally.
That means that you are God.
Like a seed that once it sprout (so to speak) will turn into the same tree from which it originated from also the individual consciousness will one day turn into the same entity from which it originate from and that is God.

Individual mortals also come from the same entity so no one is inferior or superior to anyone else.
The only difference however is that many people haven't yet reach the stage in which they are interested in this topic and other people such as religious people think that God is external to them so they are wasting their precious time chasing a fantasy.

To me God is everywhere and is everything but to find Him you got to look within and the consciousness is the seed that one day will show you the real YOU.
Who in reality you are.

Obviously God created the universe which is his way to spread the seeds of consciousness that one day through the process of evolution will go back to the source.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Cavebear on March 07, 2019, 08:24:08 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I do appreciate your inquisitiveness which by the way is also one way to reach some conclusion.

Unfortunately this time you failed to reach any conclusion but you should try again and again until you succeed.

Anyway let me explain why you failed.
In yoga God is real but unlike many religions is within rather than externally.
That means that you are God.
Like a seed that once it sprout (so to speak) will turn into the same tree from which it originated from also the individual consciousness will one day turn into the same entity from which it originate from and that is God.

Individual mortals also come from the same entity so no one is inferior or superior to anyone else.
The only difference however is that many people haven't yet reach the stage in which they are interested in this topic and other people such as religious people think that God is external to them so they are wasting their precious time chasing a fantasy.

To me God is everywhere and is everything but to find Him you got to look within and the consciousness is the seed that one day will show you the real YOU.
Who in reality you are.

Obviously God created the universe which is his way to spread the seeds of consciousness that one day through the process of evolution will go back to the source.

Well, I suppose we could argue until we are both dust, but the important thing (to me) was you established with your own words that you are not an atheist ("To me God is everywhere and is everything but to find Him you got to look within") and you even capitalized "him" (showing that you are not only just another theist but also a gender-superiorist).  Logically, a deity would be an "it", not needing a gender.

This pretty much ends all curiosity I had about you.  You are a theist (thinking you are different from others, but not so in any way other than details that do not matter to me) and even a typical "god is male" which makes no sense whatsoever except in your imagining). 

Thank you for the clarity of your superstitious beliefs.  Too many theists beat around the bush here and try to hide it.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on March 07, 2019, 09:34:26 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Well, I suppose we could argue until we are both dust, but the important thing (to me) was you established with your own words that you are not an atheist ("To me God is everywhere and is everything but to find Him you got to look within") and you even capitalized "him" (showing that you are not only just another theist but also a gender-superiorist).  Logically, a deity would be an "it", not needing a gender.

This pretty much ends all curiosity I had about you.  You are a theist (thinking you are different from others, but not so in any way other than details that do not matter to me) and even a typical "god is male" which makes no sense whatsoever except in your imagining). 

Thank you for the clarity of your superstitious beliefs.  Too many theists beat around the bush here and try to hide it.


I though I made quite clear in some previous post that God has no gender but to refer to this entity has an IT which I would use to describe something like animals or object doesn't present much respect for something so so high that is why I have no choice but say Him.
Even if you read thousand of NDEs you will find that they refer as Him even if they explain that God does not have a gender but is pure sublime consciousness.

The same thing happen when we say men to say both men and women.
The problem is that we humans not being able to describe this power in simple words have no choice but to say Him.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Cavebear on March 07, 2019, 10:05:47 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I though I made quite clear in some previous post that God has no gender but to refer to this entity has an IT which I would use to describe something like animals or object doesn't present much respect for something so so high that is why I have no choice but say Him.
Even if you read thousand of NDEs you will find that they refer as Him even if they explain that God does not have a gender but is pure sublime consciousness.

The same thing happen when we say men to say both men and women.
The problem is that we humans not being able to describe this power in simple words have no choice but to say Him.

So "Him," reflects respect to an omnipresent genderless Being, but "It" doesn't?  You make me smile...

I assume by NDE, you mean Near Death Experiences (and whether you do or don't, it is a good habit to the use the full term the first time for the benefit of readers who don't know your codes).  Be that as it may, the experiences of people who are seriously drugged or near death (with at LEAST temporarily diminished mental capacities) is not going to be a benchmark for me.  I mean seriously, you are depending on people who are "non compos mentos" as your evidence of the gender of a deity?

Spare me the opportunity for humor...

"The same thing happen when we say men to say both men and women."  I try not to.  I may fail sometimes, but never casually or deliberately.

"The problem is that we humans not being able to describe this power in simple words have no choice but to say Him."  Try saying "it" and see how that fits.  Logically, it should.  Or try saying "Her" and expand your "consciousness". LOL!  I would object to that just as much, but I would give you credit for TRYING to think.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Unbeliever on March 07, 2019, 01:38:22 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Sounds like trying to have your deity cake and eat it too,

That's what the Eucharist is for - so they can have their deity and eat it too.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Cavebear on March 07, 2019, 04:56:35 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That's what the Eucharist is for - so they can have their deity and eat it too.

"This is my body you eat and blood you drink"

WTF!?!  SPEW...
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Unbeliever on March 07, 2019, 05:13:08 PM
Yeah, religious cannibalism.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on March 07, 2019, 06:09:45 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That's what the Eucharist is for - so they can have their deity and eat it too.

I prefer to eat women thank you very much ;-)
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Unbeliever on March 07, 2019, 06:11:21 PM
OK, but you should ask them first...
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on March 07, 2019, 06:31:57 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
OK, but you should ask them first...

Gentlemen who are too timid, don't get seconds, sometimes not even firsts.  I know how that was until I reached 30.  I know all about being a beta male.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Unbeliever on March 07, 2019, 07:32:39 PM

We have become, through reason and the scientific method, the eyes and mind of the planet. The observations of science are the eyes of the rational mind. Through scientific observation, using tools never before available with which to see, we can now see both the big picture and the small picture, the macrocosm and the microcosm, where previously we could only partially observe even the mesocosm.

We will likely never be able to claim omniscience, so there will always be gaps in our knowledge - but filling those gaps with "God" is to define "God" as "ignorance". Since neither "I", nor "we", can know everything, then, if God is ignorance, I'd have to admit to a belief in God. But that's a far cry from the all-powerful being of the Bible, which certainly does not exist. And, if God is ignorance, then it's the job of science to kill God, or at least to grind away at it, by eliminating as much ignorance as possible, reducing the number of gaps available for God to hide in. If seeing is believing, then seeing what isn't real can only lead to false beliefs about the world and existence. False beliefs are not conducive to behaviour commensurate with survival.

The Earth has been blind for billions years, but now, thanks so science and reason, it can see - not only itself, it can see the universal home in which it resides. Earth was blind, but now it sees!

Not only can the Earth see itself and the universe, but, since the Earth's minds were engendered by the universe, we are the universe looking at itself.

Organized religion and the right wing political machine want to keep the planet blind, choosing to see only a fantasy worldview, and doing its utmost to force that self-delusion down everyone's throats. We must not let the theocrats put out the eyes of reason, we must continue looking as deeply and as far into the nature of reality as possible. Reason is not the best tool for interpreting what we see, through scientific observation - it is the only tool.

The Earth has been exploring, since its birth, as many of the myriad ways as it could manage of being alive. Now that it has awakened and become aware of itself and its circumstances in the universe, the Earth can attempt to find the least-hostile path through space/time - the path to abundant life.

The Earth has long been considered as Mother, but it is an Egg as well.

If an eagle egg dies before it hatches, it will never become an eagle.

If Earth, as Egg, dies before it can hatch, what is it that will never be become?
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Unbeliever on March 07, 2019, 07:39:46 PM
I've long considered myself to be a nihilist. I don't believe the universe, or anything in it, has any extrinsic, objective meaning. Life itself my have intrinsic meaning, though, and only that meaning that we provide can give the universe meaning.

Many have wondered what is the meaning of life, and what meaning life can have in a universe without God. This is the wrong question. It assumes that meaning can only be passed from God (or the universe) to us. The correct question is: What meaning could God, if it exists, or the universe, possibly have without life? Before God created the universe, he could have had no meaning at all, given that he was the sole existent. Without something other than himself to relate to, God could have had no meaning at all. Even after the universe was created, God would still have lacked all meaning, until mind arose.

And in a universe without God, such as we find ourselves in, the universe also derives its meaning from us, not vice versa. before the advent of life, especially sentient life, the universe could have had no meaning at all. It is we that provide meaning and purpose to the universe, by allowing the universe to observe itself, to understand itself, although imperfectly, as yet. And because we have meaning for ourselves, that meaning is transferred to the universe that engendered us.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on March 07, 2019, 08:41:20 PM
Being who you are ... whatever that may be ... isn't the problem.  That is what individuality is all about.  And why I oppose collectivism that goes beyond necessary social comity.

Are you an atheist?  I don't care.  That is the basis for what toleration I can manifest.  Same thing with being gay.  I don't care.  If you think that you are not alive, not conscious, or not human ... I still don't care.  I find it a curious form of delusion however.  Atheist or theist, neither look like delusion to me.  Gay or straight, neither look like delusion to me.  But there are manias ... that look like manias to me ;-)  There is a difference between variance and deviation.

I simply accept human diversity, and eschew any notion of utopia, that conveniently looks like a social insect hive based on me.  I support humanism, such monkey-business as we are all familiar with.  Some people don't think they are human, or find being a random collection of atoms to be ... exciting.  But such are manias.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mr.Obvious on March 08, 2019, 04:51:23 AM
I concidered myself nihilist, until i discovered absurdism, which i think i fit more into.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on March 08, 2019, 05:52:56 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I concidered myself nihilist, until i discovered absurdism, which i think i fit more into.

You Dischordian you ;-)
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on March 08, 2019, 08:21:31 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I've long considered myself to be a nihilist. I don't believe the universe, or anything in it, has any extrinsic, objective meaning. Life itself my have intrinsic meaning, though, and only that meaning that we provide can give the universe meaning.

Many have wondered what is the meaning of life, and what meaning life can have in a universe without God. This is the wrong question. It assumes that meaning can only be passed from God (or the universe) to us. The correct question is: What meaning could God, if it exists, or the universe, possibly have without life? Before God created the universe, he could have had no meaning at all, given that he was the sole existent. Without something other than himself to relate to, God could have had no meaning at all. Even after the universe was created, God would still have lacked all meaning, until mind arose.

And in a universe without God, such as we find ourselves in, the universe also derives its meaning from us, not vice versa. before the advent of life, especially sentient life, the universe could have had no meaning at all. It is we that provide meaning and purpose to the universe, by allowing the universe to observe itself, to understand itself, although imperfectly, as yet. And because we have meaning for ourselves, that meaning is transferred to the universe that engendered us.


Guessing after guessing after guessing in a never ending trying in order to establish a theory that make sense.

All uselessly.

Obviously you start with the wrong foot by thinking that within a material universe you can find any answer.
The same goes for our mate Mike when he says that ...........ideas come from our material brains.......

It would be like saying that it is the vehicle and not the driver that decide where to go.
Absurd.
How can pure matter void of any awareness be able to think and act?

Atheists just don't get it.
Even the science that materialists glorify all the time does not back any of the materialists ideas.
None at all.

Since when science say that the consciousness is a product of the brain or that consciousness life end with the physical death?

Don't you think is time to get real?




(https://www.realmccoyslondon.com/us/static/frontend/RealMccoys/default/en_GB/assets/img/svg/logo.svg)
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on March 08, 2019, 01:05:36 PM
The first mistake is thinking one can never be mistaken.  The second mistake is realizing one is mistaken, and not moving forward from there.  Many people here are over 50 years old, we have a hard time losing our leopard spots.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: trdsf on March 09, 2019, 12:09:17 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
"The problem is that we humans not being able to describe this power in simple words have no choice but to say Him."  Try saying "it" and see how that fits.  Logically, it should.  Or try saying "Her" and expand your "consciousness". LOL!  I would object to that just as much, but I would give you credit for TRYING to think.
Or 'Them'.  I used to drive the Campus Crusaders up the metaphorical wall when I'd point out to them that referring to their god only as 'he' was putting a human limitation on that which was by their own definition supposed to be beyond limitation, and that therefore it was equally valid to use 'she', 'it', and 'they'.  Only one of them ever had the logical consistency to agree.  And after a couple encounters like that, they started leaving me alone...
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on March 09, 2019, 12:35:32 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Or 'Them'.  I used to drive the Campus Crusaders up the metaphorical wall when I'd point out to them that referring to their god only as 'he' was putting a human limitation on that which was by their own definition supposed to be beyond limitation, and that therefore it was equally valid to use 'she', 'it', and 'they'.  Only one of them ever had the logical consistency to agree.  And after a couple encounters like that, they started leaving me alone...

Correct ... mono, binary and plurality are just POV.  They aren't the ultimate ... hence my return to polytheism, as a useful gambit.  Because sometimes monotheism is unintelligible.  We don't all share the same "cognitive ease" ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cebFWOlx848
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on March 09, 2019, 08:05:22 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The first mistake is thinking one can never be mistaken.  The second mistake is realizing one is mistaken, and not moving forward from there.  Many people here are over 50 years old, we have a hard time losing our leopard spots.


Yes, but I also suppose that to admit that we are mistaken would show our failure in life and that is hard to digest.






(https://agileleanlife.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/FailureInLife.jpg)


But not all is lost...........in fact.....................




(http://www.quotehd.com/imagequotes/authors1/winston-churchill-quote-success-is-going-from-failure-to-failure-witho.jpg)
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on March 09, 2019, 08:23:26 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Or 'Them'.  I used to drive the Campus Crusaders up the metaphorical wall when I'd point out to them that referring to their god only as 'he' was putting a human limitation on that which was by their own definition supposed to be beyond limitation, and that therefore it was equally valid to use 'she', 'it', and 'they'.  Only one of them ever had the logical consistency to agree.  And after a couple encounters like that, they started leaving me alone...


Obviously these people that did not know what to answer must have been quite good in their faith but very poor in their understanding of how the system works.

It is because God is beyond limitation that we humans find difficult to describe such an entity and that is not a failure in any way but to admit that we humans still have some way to climb before we will be able to understand everything so to say HIM is quite honest.

It is quite natural that we humans have limitations otherwise we would be like God.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mike Cl on March 09, 2019, 10:00:07 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


It is quite natural that we humans have limitations otherwise we would be like God.
Or Bugs Bunny or Pecos Bill or fairies or the Easter Bunny or .........................any other fiction.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on March 09, 2019, 11:15:12 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Or Bugs Bunny or Pecos Bill or fairies or the Easter Bunny or .........................any other fiction.


Ok. Mike.......let me see your signature.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent,
Is he able but not willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able or willing?
Then why call him god?


It seems that in your statement free will doesn't exist and kids that grow up should be controlled by their father.

Do you really like as an adult to be controlled by your father?
So why you expect God to control his adult creatures?
Don't you know that only low form of life such as plants and animals follow mother nature instinct while men (men and women) are not?
Can you see that you are a total contradiction?

Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mike Cl on March 09, 2019, 12:19:38 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Ok. Mike.......let me see your signature.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent,
Is he able but not willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able or willing?
Then why call him god?


It seems that in your statement free will doesn't exist and kids that grow up should be controlled by their father.

Do you really like as an adult to be controlled by your father?
So why you expect God to control his adult creatures?
Don't you know that only low form of life such as plants and animals follow mother nature instinct while men (men and women) are not?
Can you see that you are a total contradiction?
How you got whatever it is you are rambling on about out of my signature, is beyond me.  What my signature does is simply point out what a contradiction the concept of god really is.  Your comments on my signature makes no sense at all.  I really don't know what your point is nor how free will and being controlled by my father comes in.  Your communication and grammar skills are nonexistent.  But then, as a theist babble is your language.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on March 09, 2019, 02:29:31 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
How you got whatever it is you are rambling on about out of my signature, is beyond me.  What my signature does is simply point out what a contradiction the concept of god really is.  Your comments on my signature makes no sense at all.  I really don't know what your point is nor how free will and being controlled by my father comes in.  Your communication and grammar skills are nonexistent.  But then, as a theist babble is your language.

Contradiction isn't a problem if you are a nihilist (Unbeliever) or absurdist (Mr Obvious).  Or an irrationalist (Baruch).

“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.” - Emerson
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on March 09, 2019, 02:30:53 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Or Bugs Bunny or Pecos Bill or fairies or the Easter Bunny or .........................any other fiction.

Being a Democrat or a Republican or an American or a Frenchman ... these are fictions that the many ascribe to, but majority doesn't make it true.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mike Cl on March 09, 2019, 06:30:17 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Contradiction isn't a problem if you are a nihilist (Unbeliever) or absurdist (Mr Obvious).  Or an irrationalist (Baruch).

“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.” - Emerson
Yes, "A foolish consistency" would be a problem.  But it is less of a problem than a foolish inconsistency.  Or a foolish fiction.  Or a foolish belief (there is no other kind of belief is there) in a god is a problem.  " With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do."  What bullshit.  A truly great person (there are no souls) is nothing but consistent! 

"Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' --You are describing Trump here, for he changes what he has said from day to day, if not hour to hour.  Your hero's are a pretty crappy bunch--truly mean in most aspects of their lives.  Sort of like your fictional god.

"................and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.” - Emerson"  There are no 'spirits'.  If that quote is accurate, why then did Emerson write to be understood?  Like all the quotes you tried to feed to me, they are actually bullshit designed to allow a 'leader' to do as they please.  To be misunderstood is easy.  To be understood and to be consistent is not easy and something to be striven for.  Your supplied drivel is stuff of theists.  To be a theist is to be be inconsistent and unreal, and so, to claim that god is so profound that he/she/it will be misunderstood is the crap the small minds of theists want  us to buy into.  Your beastly, inconsistent, cruel and fictional god; something your mind made up and you want to fob off on the rest of us is just that.  It is more a reflection of you than anything else.   
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mike Cl on March 09, 2019, 06:32:10 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Being a Democrat or a Republican or an American or a Frenchman ... these are fictions that the many ascribe to, but majority doesn't make it true.
That is exactly the same for your, or any other, fictional god.  Because the majority of human kind believes in one god or another does not make it so. 
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on March 09, 2019, 10:45:24 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That is exactly the same for your, or any other, fictional god.  Because the majority of human kind believes in one god or another does not make it so.

I will stop "believing" when you do it first.  You are not American, not Democrat, not male, not human etc.  those are all figments of the human imagination.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on March 10, 2019, 10:43:50 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
How you got whatever it is you are rambling on about out of my signature, is beyond me.  What my signature does is simply point out what a contradiction the concept of god really is.  Your comments on my signature makes no sense at all.  I really don't know what your point is nor how free will and being controlled by my father comes in.  Your communication and grammar skills are nonexistent.  But then, as a theist babble is your language.


You work out in your mind that the concept of God is a contradiction and that idea to me has zero value that is why I did explained to you in simple words why.
It is the free will used in the wrong way by humans that generate all evil so nothing to do with God.

On one hand you know quite well that evil is generate by humans and on the other hand you ask why God doesn't stop it.
Don't you know that in nature we have both the positive and negative or yin and yang?

Would you like only the positive Mike?
Would you like a machine to print money so you don't have to work anymore.
Would you like total health and well being and never get sick or old?

Why God would create the universe with only the positive?
Well Mike I leave to you to work that out.
I am sure that one day you will work that out.

Good luck.




(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61ORHFtl-KL._SX425_.jpg)


Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Cavebear on March 14, 2019, 04:51:53 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I will stop "believing" when you do it first.  You are not American, not Democrat, not male, not human etc.  those are all figments of the human imagination.

Well, as all theists do, you mistake thoughts for "beliefs".  The real problem that theists have is that they can't QUITE comprehend the difference between ideas they have that are supported only by belief and those that are supported by facts.

I can't really help you about that.  It's the difference between HOPING a deity exists and Measuring how planets orbit around the sun.  The is not real and the other is.  That's really all there is to it.  But some people just can't see the difference.  Still, that is THEIR problem, not mine.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on March 14, 2019, 08:59:11 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Well, as all theists do, you mistake thoughts for "beliefs".  The real problem that theists have is that they can't QUITE comprehend the difference between ideas they have that are supported only by belief and those that are supported by facts.

I can't really help you about that.  It's the difference between HOPING a deity exists and Measuring how planets orbit around the sun.  The is not real and the other is.  That's really all there is to it.  But some people just can't see the difference.  Still, that is THEIR problem, not mine.


All theists do?

Are you sure that all theists do?

I believe in what I can be very very sure about not on something that some people tell me as facts.

Your problem CB like most materialists people do is that you come to the conclusion that something is real only when your physical senses can ascertain the so called facts in this way.
Unfortunately for you CB there is an other reality which doesn't need sight, touch, smell, hearing or taste.

Isn't a fact your love for someone is real?
Love is not physical yet you believe in it as a fact, isn't the case CB?
But again materialists put a barrier between what is physical and what is not?
Why?

Consciousness also is not physical and that is a fact but again for materialists that is part of the physical brain.

That way of judging is bankrupt CB.

Science never said that love or consciousness are material things yet materialists always claim that science back their beliefs.

Evolution thought in this materialistic way can only lead to devolution.
Unfortunately for people who only believe in what they can perceive with their physical senses.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Cavebear on March 14, 2019, 10:09:30 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

All theists do?

Are you sure that all theists do?

I believe in what I can be very very sure about not on something that some people tell me as facts.

Your problem CB like most materialists people do is that you come to the conclusion that something is real only when your physical senses can ascertain the so called facts in this way.
Unfortunately for you CB there is an other reality which doesn't need sight, touch, smell, hearing or taste.

Isn't a fact your love for someone is real?
Love is not physical yet you believe in it as a fact, isn't the case CB?
But again materialists put a barrier between what is physical and what is not?
Why?

Consciousness also is not physical and that is a fact but again for materialists that is part of the physical brain.

That way of judging is bankrupt CB.

Science never said that love or consciousness are material things yet materialists always claim that science back their beliefs.

Evolution thought in this materialistic way can only lead to devolution.
Unfortunately for people who only believe in what they can perceive with their physical senses.

First, I'm not "CB" to you.  Or "Cavey".  I grant my friends the right to that (reluctantly, sometimes).  You are not one of them.

Second, as a theist, you are not guided by evidence/facts/information or any other word you think of that is opposition to what basically drives your mind.  Which is unsupported thoughts, superstitions, magical thoughts, imaginings, dreams, etc.  In other words, "faith".  I have no use for that, and no respect for it either.  I think superstitious-thinking people are a bit nuts and probably their brains were wrong-wired at an early age by the influence of older nuts.

Third, I suspect that half the craziness in the world from the earliest times to today is due to such superstitious thinking (the other half is just plain mean greedy thinking).

Now, let me address your statements...

"Isn't a fact your love for someone is real?"

Yes it is and there are reasons.  I grow to understand that person, find value in how they think, and agree with them because they generally agree with my understanding of the universe.  I would not love, or even spend much time with, someone who did not.

"Consciousness also is not physical and that is a fact but again for materialists that is part of the physical brain"

We do not (yet) understand consciousness but it is a product of the brain, and the brain is a bodily organ.  It is material.

"Evolution thought in this materialistic way can only lead to devolution"

That makes no sense, of course.  There is no "devolution".  Even species that seem to revert to previous forms are merely newly-evolving to changing conditions.  Would you like to give an example of "devolution"? 

You said that "Science never said that love or consciousness are material things yet materialists always claim that science back their beliefs"

Some thoughts about that:

1.  The first part is correct.  Science never said that love or consciousness are material things.  But that is completely irrelevant. 

2.  But science does not back "beliefs".  Scientists (and other logical beings) do not make that claim.  Faith-believers do, however. 

What you can't seem to get past is that rational thinkers are NOT LIKE YOU!

I hope that is sufficient to help you understand what a non-faith-believer THINKS...
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mr.Obvious on March 14, 2019, 10:34:20 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You mind if I call you 'Cave'? It's a force of habit of mine to find nicknames to people's online nicknames and call 'em by that.
But if you prefer, I will strive to call you Cavebear.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Cavebear on March 14, 2019, 11:00:45 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You mind if I call you 'Cave'? It's a force of habit of mine to find nicknames to people's online nicknames and call 'em by that.
But if you prefer, I will strive to call you Cavebear.

OK, a short story here.  I met a friend in college and his stated name on the door was "Jeffrey".  I don't know why I called him "Jeff".  20 years later, someone called him "Jeff" and he very pointedly said "Its "Jeffrey", only HE (pointing to me) can call me "Jeff".  I never realized that.  And I never called him "Jeff" again, out of respect.  For all I know, he missed me calling him "Jeff".  But that was how he generally wanted the world to call him, and I obliged.

So,  I can't control what anyone calls me here.  But I AM "Cavebear".  I do not think of myself as "CB", "Cavey", "CBear" or anything else.  I am "Cavebear" after the 'Clan of the Cave Bear' books by Jean Auel...

I am not upset in any way, nicknames are generally meant well.  But since you ask, it's "Cavebear".

Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on March 14, 2019, 11:05:59 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
First, I'm not "CB" to you.  Or "Cavey".  I grant my friends the right to that (reluctantly, sometimes).  You are not one of them.

I never intended to call you CB for disrespect but only because I try to save time so I tend to reduce people name with A B C letters.
That's all.


Quote
Second, as a theist, you are not guided by evidence/facts/information or any other word you think of that is opposition to what basically drives your mind.  Which is unsupported thoughts, superstitions, magical thoughts, imaginings, dreams, etc.  In other words, "faith".  I have no use for that, and no respect for it either.  I think superstitious-thinking people are a bit nuts and probably their brains were wrong-wired at an early age by the influence of older nuts.


That is not as the evolution works.
The more you are able to penetrate the inner self the more you understand how the system works.
The same goes for anything in life.
The more you study the more you know things but of course to you all this means nothing considering that for you the role of consciousness means nothing and evolution is only related to physical changes.


Quote
Third, I suspect that half the craziness in the world from the earliest times to today is due to such superstitious thinking (the other half is just plain mean greedy thinking).

Once again you generalize as if all the people would be the same.


Quote
Now, let me address your statements...

"Isn't a fact your love for someone is real?"

Yes it is and there are reasons.  I grow to understand that person, find value in how they think, and agree with them because they generally agree with my understanding of the universe.  I would not love, or even spend much time with, someone who did not.


So if you agree that love is real then why there should be a difference between physical-mental love and spiritual love?
Isn't love something able to penetrate the core of your consciousness in either situations?


Quote
"Consciousness also is not physical and that is a fact but again for materialists that is part of the physical brain"

Quote
We do not (yet) understand consciousness but it is a product of the brain, and the brain is a bodily organ.  It is material.


Stop there Mister.

One time you talk and talk about so called theists fantasies about something that is void of evidence.
The next time you come down with statements which are 100% void of any evidence like the story that the consciousness is a product of the brain.
Are you serious?
 

Quote
"Evolution thought in this materialistic way can only lead to devolution"

Quote
That makes no sense, of course.  There is no "devolution".  Even species that seem to revert to previous forms are merely newly-evolving to changing conditions.  Would you like to give an example of "devolution"?


I am not talking about low form of life such as plants and animals which are driven by mother nature or instinct.
There can not be devolution there but there is devolution and evolution in humans which is due to human free will.
This is well documented in thousand of NDEs and it make sense because without justice nothing would work.

https://www.nderf.org/Archives/exceptional.html


Quote
You said that "Science never said that love or consciousness are material things yet materialists always claim that science back their beliefs"

Some thoughts about that:

1.  The first part is correct.  Science never said that love or consciousness are material things.  But that is completely irrelevant. 

2.  But science does not back "beliefs".  Scientists (and other logical beings) do not make that claim.  Faith-believers do, however. 

What you can't seem to get past is that rational thinkers are NOT LIKE YOU!

I hope that is sufficient to help you understand what a non-faith-believer THINKS...


Anyone who believe that the consciousness is a product of the brain or that with the physical death is all over is also a faith-believer which means YOU are a faith believer as much as any religious person.



Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Mr.Obvious on March 14, 2019, 11:16:47 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
OK, a short story here.  I met a friend in college and his stated name on the door was "Jeffrey".  I don't know why I called him "Jeff".  20 years later, someone called him "Jeff" and he very pointedly said "Its "Jeffrey", only HE (pointing to me) can call me "Jeff".  I never realized that.  And I never called him "Jeff" again, out of respect.  For all I know, he missed me calling him "Jeff".  But that was how he generally wanted the world to call him, and I obliged.

So,  I can't control what anyone calls me here.  But I AM "Cavebear".  I do not think of myself as "CB", "Cavey", "CBear" or anything else.  I am "Cavebear" after the 'Clan of the Cave Bear' books by Jean Auel...

I am not upset in any way, nicknames are generally meant well.  But since you ask, it's "Cavebear".

Then Cavebear it is.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Hydra009 on March 14, 2019, 11:43:13 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Anyone who believe that the consciousness is a product of the brain or that with the physical death is all over is also a faith-believer which means YOU are a faith believer as much as any religious person.
Faith-addled people are fond of telling other people that 1) there's nothing wrong with being religious 2) non-religious people are actually religious in a bizarre attempt at a put-down.

Cognitive dissonance, much?
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Cavebear on March 14, 2019, 12:11:00 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I never intended to call you CB for disrespect but only because I try to save time so I tend to reduce people name with A B C letters.
That's all.

"NO PROB"

Other than that, you don't seem to understand logic at all...

*SIGH*  Talking to non-factual people is like arguing with children about dessert...

OK look, evolution is probably my favorite subject as a concept.  It is probably one of the most brilliant thought-concepts of all time .  So, to start, you are unlikely to be able to tell me "that's not as the evolution works " (and I will allow "how" because sometimes I don't type worth a damn, either).

Your several statements after that made no sense at all...

That is not as the evolution works.
The more you are able to penetrate the inner self the more you understand how the system works.
The same goes for anything in life.
The more you study the more you know things but of course to you all this means nothing considering that for you the role of consciousness means nothing and evolution is only related to physical changes.



Once again you generalize as if all the people would be the same.

No, I generalize only about the superstitious faith-oriented people here.  You ARE a majority in most places, but shrinking...

So if you agree that love is real then why there should be a difference between physical-mental love and spiritual love?
Isn't love something able to penetrate the core of your consciousness in either situations?


Because there are actual people I love, not an imaginary "Being-In-The-Sky"...

"One time you talk and talk about so called theists fantasies about something that is void of evidence.
The next time you come down with statements which are 100% void of any evidence like the story that the consciousness is a product of the brain.  "Are you serious?


Yes.  Jab a screwdriver in a brain and stir it around and see if the Creature functions.  QED.  [Note to any readers, I am NOT suggesting this]. 
 
I am not talking about low form of life such as plants and animals which are driven by mother nature or instinct.
There can not be devolution there but there is devolution and evolution in humans which is due to human free will.
This is well documented in thousand of NDEs and it make sense because without justice nothing would work.


Give any specific example...

Anyone who believe that the consciousness is a product of the brain or that with the physical death is all over is also a faith-believer which means YOU are a faith believer as much as any religious person.

A very old and boring claim.  Faith-believers just LOVE to try to make factual people the same as them to get that argument about facts and evidence off the table.  It's a trick Trump tries daily.  It doesn't impress me.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on March 14, 2019, 01:19:13 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Faith-addled people are fond of telling other people that 1) there's nothing wrong with being religious 2) non-religious people are actually religious in a bizarre attempt at a put-down.

Cognitive dissonance, much?

Monkeys throw poo.  Who knew?
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Unbeliever on March 14, 2019, 01:50:01 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Unfortunately for you CB there is an other reality which doesn't need sight, touch, smell, hearing or taste.

Yeah, it's called the Twilight Zone.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Hydra009 on March 14, 2019, 02:03:07 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Unfortunately for you CB there is an other reality which doesn't need sight, touch, smell, hearing or taste.
Oh, and how do you know that?  Did someone die and go to heaven and then tell a story about what they saw?   :angel:
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Unbeliever on March 14, 2019, 02:03:17 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Anyone who believe that the consciousness is a product of the brain or that with the physical death is all over is also a faith-believer which means YOU are a faith believer as much as any religious person.

There's a big difference between "believing" something and accepting something as a "working hypothesis" until further evidence/information is available. To believe something is to fully accept that it is true, now and forever, whereas a working hypothesis can, and should, be altered by new knowledge.

You haven't yet brought us any new knowledge, only assertions that you cannot back up with evidence. Assertions that cannot be backed up with evidence are only as good as the paper they're written on, since counter-assertions can also be made, and there's no way to differentiate between the two to see which is actually true.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on March 14, 2019, 06:49:48 PM
I have a working hypothesis.  Humans are not an intelligent species.  And as such are disqualified from judging themselves as intelligent.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Unbeliever on March 14, 2019, 06:53:30 PM
That, though, does include yourself, does it not?
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on March 14, 2019, 07:22:19 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That, though, does include yourself, does it not?

Yes, all the egomaniacs who post here, naturally assume I am an egomaniac too.  But some poo tossers are more equal than others.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on March 17, 2019, 10:30:07 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I never intended to call you CB for disrespect but only because I try to save time so I tend to reduce people name with A B C letters.
That's all.

"NO PROB"

Other than that, you don't seem to understand logic at all...

*SIGH*  Talking to non-factual people is like arguing with children about dessert...


You got to be alert all the time Mister because logic within a universal system that move and change all the time may mean absolutely nothing.
Real logic to me only apply to a system that is 100% fixed and that if exist as I do believe it does is not this always changeable  universe.
Fools try to hold a grip to something that move all the time but that is impossible to hold to for long time.
Nature always win.


Quote
OK look, evolution is probably my favorite subject as a concept.  It is probably one of the most brilliant thought-concepts of all time .  So, to start, you are unlikely to be able to tell me "that's not as the evolution works " (and I will allow "how" because sometimes I don't type worth a damn, either).


Materialists are not very good observers.
They rely on the physical-material aspect of the creation to try to understand something but what make-trigger the changes in people are not these factors but the consciousness.
That is easily observed in people who follow certain things in life.
You may see people with thirst for material things that look totally different from people who look for scientific knowledge or people who look for drugs or people who look for spiritual knowledge.
After sometime that people follow something in life their body-mind change in order to build a parallelism between their bodies and their consciousness that is why it is the consciousness-mind that trigger changes in the body.
Obviously people who do not understand how the consciousness works can not even understand how the evolution works.


Quote
Your several statements after that made no sense at all...

That is not as the evolution works.
The more you are able to penetrate the inner self the more you understand how the system works.
The same goes for anything in life.
The more you study the more you know things but of course to you all this means nothing considering that for you the role of consciousness means nothing and evolution is only related to physical changes.


How on earth can you understand how evolution works if you don't even understand that it is the consciousness that trigger changes?


Once again you generalize as if all the people would be the same.

Quote
No, I generalize only about the superstitious faith-oriented people here.  You ARE a majority in most places, but shrinking...


Fail once again because yoga is 99% practice and it is through practice that you come to know the reality.
Religious people and materialists on the other hand rely on faith.


So if you agree that love is real then why there should be a difference between physical-mental love and spiritual love?
Isn't love something able to penetrate the core of your consciousness in either situations?


Quote
Because there are actual people I love, not an imaginary "Being-In-The-Sky"...


The good you feel within can not be imaginary.
The good feeling is something that people conquer through sacrifice.
Nothing fall from the sky as a miracle that is why what you got is real.
You may believe in miracle and that is fantasy that you create in your brain.
I do not.
As far as the good feeling penetrate your inner soul that is real regardless whether is physical, mental or spiritual.


"One time you talk and talk about so called theists fantasies about something that is void of evidence.
The next time you come down with statements which are 100% void of any evidence like the story that the consciousness is a product of the brain.  "Are you serious?


Quote
Yes.  Jab a screwdriver in a brain and stir it around and see if the Creature functions.  QED.  [Note to any readers, I am NOT suggesting this]. 


You can well do the experiment with a car in which there is a driver inside and you would produce the same result.
As far as the car is smashed and the driver is stuck inside you will find that nothing will work anymore.
We are stuck inside a body until physical life is there that is why we feel the pain when the body in which we live in is sick.
That however has absolutely nothing to do with whether the consciousness is a product of the brain.
If you thing so then you should also believe that the driver is a product of the car.

 
I am not talking about low form of life such as plants and animals which are driven by mother nature or instinct.
There can not be devolution there but there is devolution and evolution in humans which is due to human free will.
This is well documented in thousand of NDEs and it make sense because without justice nothing would work.


Quote
Give any specific example...


There is plenty to read about the subject in the thousand of NDEs experiences.
Real people, real incidents, real death, real hospitals and real witnesses but you can also see in people who born with great skills which they could not learn from anyone considering their young age.
Obviously these people developed these skills in previous lives and as there is one way up (evolution) there is also a way down (devolution).


Anyone who believe that the consciousness is a product of the brain or that with the physical death is all over is also a faith-believer which means YOU are a faith believer as much as any religious person.

Quote
A very old and boring claim.  Faith-believers just LOVE to try to make factual people the same as them to get that argument about facts and evidence off the table.  It's a trick Trump tries daily.  It doesn't impress me.


As far as you come up with unproven claims as you do you go hand in hand with those people that you are so eager to criticize.



Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on March 17, 2019, 10:36:14 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Oh, and how do you know that?  Did someone die and go to heaven and then tell a story about what they saw?   :angel:


Yes, there are indeed Hydra.

Just take sometime to read these experiences from real people who came back to tell us.

https://www.nderf.org/Archives/exceptional.html
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on March 17, 2019, 10:45:41 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
There's a big difference between "believing" something and accepting something as a "working hypothesis" until further evidence/information is available. To believe something is to fully accept that it is true, now and forever, whereas a working hypothesis can, and should, be altered by new knowledge.

You haven't yet brought us any new knowledge, only assertions that you cannot back up with evidence. Assertions that cannot be backed up with evidence are only as good as the paper they're written on, since counter-assertions can also be made, and there's no way to differentiate between the two to see which is actually true.


Excuse me mate but is not me that made those assertions which you are referring to.
You should ask the guy who did and ask him for evidence.
Why you take on me?

I can only answer about the assertions that I did made not about other people assertions.
If you are more specific and tell me what I did assert then I may answer to you.



Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Unbeliever on March 17, 2019, 05:13:27 PM
Just not worth the time, "mate."
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Unbeliever on March 17, 2019, 05:57:11 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6u0VBqNBQ8
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Unbeliever on March 17, 2019, 06:00:54 PM
Also, there's this, that I read about 35 years ago:

THE ORIGIN OF CONSCIOUSNESS IN THE BREAK DOWN OF THE BICAMERAL MIND (http://s-f-walker.org.uk/pubsebooks/pdfs/Julian_Jaynes_The_Origin_of_Consciousness.pdf) - PDF


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgnMyF-o0sQ

Overview of Julian Jaynes's Theory (http://www.julianjaynes.org/julian-jaynes-theory-overview.php)


This is just one theory about consciousness, but it's a very interesting one.

Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on March 17, 2019, 06:40:32 PM
I think, bicameral mind, came about as an idea, because of schizophrenia.  The idea is that early man was naturally schizoid, and only later development (when art started?) did we achieve a single mind, rather than two minds in one head (as post-lobotomy).  Marvin Minskly, AI pioneer, says consciousness is the "consensus" of multiple sub-routines (personalities).

Owen Barfield is a name I did't know, but I did know his friends, C S Lewis and J R Tolkien.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owen_Barfield

An anti-reductionist, Arik and I would probably fall into that category.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antireductionism

Karl Popper, wo I also knew, and admire ... was also anti-reductionist.  Thales and Pythagoras were the first Greek reductionists.  Though this also happened in India with the Charvaka.  Buddha however was an anti-reductionist.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on March 18, 2019, 05:14:06 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Just not worth the time, "mate."


No problem brother.

The day will surely come when you will find plenty of time to dedicate to what you will judge as the most important thing in life.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on March 18, 2019, 05:21:15 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6u0VBqNBQ8


Some interesting theories, some neutral and obvious and some that don't make any sense.

What I find absurd is the fact that the author doesn't distinguish between evolution in lower form of life which are driven mainly by survival and evolution in higher form of life such as in human life which is not necessary driven by survival.

Tomorrow I will see your next video.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on March 18, 2019, 01:00:12 PM
Maslow, just sayin' ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs

Most of the world don't have First World problems.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on March 19, 2019, 09:20:04 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Maslow, just sayin' ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs

Most of the world don't have First World problems.


Maslow had a lot of theories but in his later years he changed his mind to a certain degree because he understood that the desire to reach the infinite in humans is one of the most important desire if not the most important at all.

This goes hand in hand with yoga philosophy which say that humans will never be satisfied unless they reach the infinity and this is not possible to achieve in the material-physical arena where everything is of finite nature.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on March 19, 2019, 09:45:43 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Also, there's this, that I read about 35 years ago:

THE ORIGIN OF CONSCIOUSNESS IN THE BREAK DOWN OF THE BICAMERAL MIND (http://s-f-walker.org.uk/pubsebooks/pdfs/Julian_Jaynes_The_Origin_of_Consciousness.pdf) - PDF


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgnMyF-o0sQ

Overview of Julian Jaynes's Theory (http://www.julianjaynes.org/julian-jaynes-theory-overview.php)


This is just one theory about consciousness, but it's a very interesting one.



Theories, theories and more theories.

At the end without any practice the consciousness does not move a single inch in her journey towards perfection.
What a waste!

It is like to study to learn the road rules in order to get a license but never actually drive a vehicle.
What's the point?

Intellectuals and materialists just don't get it.
Consciousness is there in order to grow in power and that need exercise as every other thing in life.
If you want to become a doctor you also need both the study and a lot of practice otherwise nothing is achieved.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on March 19, 2019, 01:11:24 PM
Some people only kvetch others only kibitz.  Like the old guys in the Sesame St balcony.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on March 20, 2019, 06:18:10 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Some people only kvetch others only kibitz.  Like the old guys in the Sesame St balcony.


I just find difficult to believe Baruch.

After some million of years in individual evolution from matter to cells or whatever was the first form of life and up to plants, animal to when they finally reach the human stage now they pretend that their consciousness pop up in some mysterious way and their life and evolution end all of a sudden with their physical death without having to reach any goal or destination.

Just when they are close to the arrival or finishing line they just say...........who cares.......
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on March 20, 2019, 07:14:29 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I just find difficult to believe Baruch.

After some million of years in individual evolution from matter to cells or whatever was the first form of life and up to plants, animal to when they finally reach the human stage now they pretend that their consciousness pop up in some mysterious way and their life and evolution end all of a sudden with their physical death without having to reach any goal or destination.

Just when they are close to the arrival or finishing line they just say...........who cares.......

1st World disassociation of personality.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on March 22, 2019, 08:01:01 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
1st World disassociation of personality.


What is most bizarre in all this is that these guys are still totally convinced that science back them up when in reality science contradict them all the way.

Energy can not be destroyed but of course for them energy and consciousness are two different things.
Just incredible.

(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-EkmrH1MSeJE/WBGR0e75yEI/AAAAAAAAF9g/l-zskJQdQv02pw3ExXOEoD6-JljvFkPvQCLcB/s1600/Bob-works-out-7.gif)
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on March 22, 2019, 07:15:52 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

What is most bizarre in all this is that these guys are still totally convinced that science back them up when in reality science contradict them all the way.

Energy can not be destroyed but of course for them energy and consciousness are two different things.
Just incredible.

(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-EkmrH1MSeJE/WBGR0e75yEI/AAAAAAAAF9g/l-zskJQdQv02pw3ExXOEoD6-JljvFkPvQCLcB/s1600/Bob-works-out-7.gif)

Physicalism: chess is made up of a board and two sets of pieces
Consciousness: a particular sequence of arrangement of pieces produced by two opposing players

But, but ... it is still made up of the board and the pieces ... So!

The position of the pieces is the result of pseudo-random movements ... tell that to Bobby Fischer and Boris Spassky!  The pseudo-random part is only ... not all arrangements of pieces can be arrived at by legal play ... the pieces' movements are limited by rules, by the obstruction of your own pieces, by the obstruction of the opponents pieces and by the taking of pieces off the board during play.  Moreover aside from all of that, that only describes all legal arrangements.  It doesn't explain the sequence of play.  The sequence of play is also determined by the strategies of the opposing players, which is dynamic during the game.  The missing element in physicalism is the will, the senses, the living presence of the players.

Reductionism is useful in some circumstances, but it is self limiting, it isn't a panacea.  No mental process is.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Blackleaf on March 23, 2019, 12:48:45 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

What is most bizarre in all this is that these guys are still totally convinced that science back them up when in reality science contradict them all the way.

Energy can not be destroyed but of course for them energy and consciousness are two different things.
Just incredible.

(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-EkmrH1MSeJE/WBGR0e75yEI/AAAAAAAAF9g/l-zskJQdQv02pw3ExXOEoD6-JljvFkPvQCLcB/s1600/Bob-works-out-7.gif)

Energy can't be destroyed, but it can change forms. What you're proposing by saying that the consciousness must survive the death of of the brain is like saying the image on a TV screen must continue to exist after you break it. That's not how reality works. Also, if you want to claim that the soul is a physical thing made of actual energy, then that means it can be observed and measured. So...show us where this soul energy is and accept your Nobel Peace Prize.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on March 23, 2019, 04:13:28 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Energy can't be destroyed, but it can change forms. What you're proposing by saying that the consciousness must survive the death of of the brain is like saying the image on a TV screen must continue to exist after you break it. That's not how reality works. Also, if you want to claim that the soul is a physical thing made of actual energy, then that means it can be observed and measured. So...show us where this soul energy is and accept your Nobel Peace Prize.

Energy is the carrier.  As the plastic is the carrier of the chess pieces.  But plastic isn't the content of the chess pieces, that is the symbolic information represented by their shapes.  A pawn is not a queen.  Abstractly, consciousness is a physically embodied form of information.  Actual randomness, has zero information and maximum entropy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfffy12uQ7g

Some have tried to used this in physics, that information is fundamental, not mass-energy, not space-time.

A side point ... the utopianism of communism (and progressivism in general) is belief in a self-licking ice-cream cone.  Namely a perfect engine (per Carnot) ... a perfect steam engine in the case of Marx's time.  The idea is prevalent in capitalism and communism, that with progress, while there isn't a free lunch yet, with technical progress, there will be a free lunch any day now.  Marx wasn't competent at physics.  All we have is predation, if you want more food energy to keep your body engine going, you have to either grow food, or steal it from farmers.  Capitalism grows food.  Communism steals it.

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

A simple heat engine that is easy to understand.  Why isn't it perfectly efficient?  Because it can't be completely isolated from its surroundings.  Even if put into the vacuum of space, it is losing energy (and gaining entropy) by infrared radiation leaving it (because it has a temperature).  Well then, we can improve by lowering the temperature, thus lowing the infrared radiation loss, right?  No dice.  This is why you can't get to absolute zero temperature.  Even empty space isn't at absolute zero, because of the quantum flux of the naked vacuum, which can also be measured ... the Casimir Effect.  That is why you can't have a perpetual motion machine.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on March 23, 2019, 11:09:01 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Energy can't be destroyed, but it can change forms. What you're proposing by saying that the consciousness must survive the death of of the brain is like saying the image on a TV screen must continue to exist after you break it. That's not how reality works. Also, if you want to claim that the soul is a physical thing made of actual energy, then that means it can be observed and measured. So...show us where this soul energy is and accept your Nobel Peace Prize.


Your problem BL is that you do not know how evolution works along with materialists so you make a hell of a confusion.

But let us see your comment.

1) You say...............Energy can't be destroyed, but it can change forms......................

Who ever said that energy doesn't change?
Not me BL.

Obviously as consciousness that by the way is also energy gain in awareness through the evolution process she (rather than it) is bound to change form.
If that wouldn't be the case then matter would stay matter, plants stay plants and so animals and human stay what they are and of course matter wouldn't turn in anything else in the first place.

Have you ever seem a creeper moving and moving in search of something?
That is all about evolution of the consciousness.
That consciousness is not happy to stay were she is.
Exactly the same as animals and humans.
There is a force that tell to those consciousness.............GO AHEAD......GO AHEAD......... so the awareness increase in a never end effort to go higher and higher.


2) You say.............. What you're proposing by saying that the consciousness must survive the death of of the brain is like saying the image on a TV screen must continue to exist after you break it. That's not how reality works......................


More confusion BL.
Evolution of the consciousness is not the same in everyone and everything so your idea that you can compare a human consciousness with one that is millions times less evolved such as an image doesn't make much sense at all however is also true that if one manage to exist also the other must manage to exist but with a difference BL.
While an evolved consciousness such as the one of a human present a more complex level of awareness and therefore is likely to keep her form the other is in a latent stage of awareness so her form is almost impossible for us human to identify once she change but again according to my beliefs even a human consciousness due to her bad karma can turn into something less evolved such as matter, plant or animal.


3) You say..........Also, if you want to claim that the soul is a physical thing made of actual energy, then that means it can be observed and measured. So...show us where this soul energy is and accept your Nobel Peace Prize..........

Once again you pop up with remarks that I never claimed.

Who ever said that the soul is something physical?
Not me BL.
I instead said that energy and consciousness are but the two sides of the same sheet so one can not exist without the other.

And who said that energy can be observed?
To do that you must be a very very advanced human being very similar to God.
Normal people can not observe energy.
They however can measure energy with some instruments.
Most people who had a real NDE could do that once outside their bodies but most people can not.


Title: Re: Hi
Post by: trdsf on March 23, 2019, 08:33:48 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Energy can't be destroyed, but it can change forms. What you're proposing by saying that the consciousness must survive the death of of the brain is like saying the image on a TV screen must continue to exist after you break it. That's not how reality works. Also, if you want to claim that the soul is a physical thing made of actual energy, then that means it can be observed and measured. So...show us where this soul energy is and accept your Nobel Peace Prize.
Or Physics, or the Physiology or Medicine prize.  Or all three at the same time.

Fortunately, we live in a world where data overrides assertion.  Otherwise, I should have a Nobel for asserting that there are other alien intelligences in this galaxy — and with a damn sight better reasoning and rationale than this magical soul balderdash.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on March 23, 2019, 09:12:40 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Or Physics, or the Physiology or Medicine prize.  Or all three at the same time.

Fortunately, we live in a world where data overrides assertion.  Otherwise, I should have a Nobel for asserting that there are other alien intelligences in this galaxy — and with a damn sight better reasoning and rationale than this magical soul balderdash.

But your assertion is no more valid than his, simply of a different conclusion.  My post above gave facts.  People here only select the one's they agree with, like a Bible thumper.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on March 24, 2019, 10:30:31 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
But your assertion is no more valid than his, simply of a different conclusion.  My post above gave facts.  People here only select the one's they agree with, like a Bible thumper.



The guy is convinced that today data is the real data.

He doesn't realize that in this universe everything move and change so obviously what was true yesterday is cast in the rubbish bin of history today and tomorrow a new data will pop up deceiving the gullible into believing that this new data is the ultimate truth.

Materialists are stuck in material reality but that reality is not even close to the real reality so they keep on searching in the wrong place for the ultimate reality saying..................we still do not know but surely science will find out.........

Surely science can give a correct answer.
The problem however is that we also need the proper science which by the way is not what they think it is because physical science is called physical for a reason.

The real truth is outside the physical arena but materialists still ignore this important factor by burying their head on the sand.

(http://blog.core-ed.org/files/2018/01/head-in-sand.jpg)
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on March 24, 2019, 10:37:10 AM
Sometime searching can produce results however although these results may be interesting they may not be all positive.

(https://i.imgur.com/R1eeO.jpg)
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Unbeliever on March 24, 2019, 05:26:05 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The real truth is outside the physical arena

And exactly how is it that you know this?
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on March 24, 2019, 10:10:34 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
And exactly how is it that you know this?

How do you know it is not?  Dividing things into physical and non-physical is convention ... like what side of the road you drive on.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Cavebear on March 24, 2019, 10:46:52 PM
Truth is evidence that can be shown to others by means of shared information or logical discussion.

Faith is unsupported by evidence, and depends on a superiority of trust over evidence.

Theism is faith-based.  There is no evidence for it in any factual basis.

Isn't it strange that all faith-based ideas have NO evidential basis?  Wouldn't you think that, at some time, a fact would have SLIPPED in somewhere?

I do not pay attention to anything not fact-based...

Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on March 25, 2019, 01:00:25 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Truth is evidence that can be shown to others by means of shared information or logical discussion.

Faith is unsupported by evidence, and depends on a superiority of trust over evidence.

Theism is faith-based.  There is no evidence for it in any factual basis.

Isn't it strange that all faith-based ideas have NO evidential basis?  Wouldn't you think that, at some time, a fact would have SLIPPED in somewhere?

I do not pay attention to anything not fact-based...

Only if you are triggered left wing professors working on the public dole ;-)
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on March 25, 2019, 10:56:43 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
And exactly how is it that you know this?


Simple UB.

Humans are never satisfied with the limited.

You had a fully function box monitor, didn't you but as soon as you saw the new flat monitor in the shop you discarded the old box and got the flat screen one.
But this is not the end because as soon as a new model with come out you will do the same with the one you got now.
Everybody does that and they do because human thirst can only be satisfied with the unlimited but the unlimited can not exist within the physical-material arena.

From here every smart person will conclude that it is only outside this material universe that the unlimited exist as already proven by anyone engaged seriously in spirituality and by thousand of those who had an NDE which came back to describe the ultimate reality where the infinite is the only way able to put an end to human thirst for the unlimited and the search for peace of mind.

So obviously the truth is nowhere to be found within the material dimension because in this dimension everything is of limited nature.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on March 25, 2019, 11:23:13 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Truth is evidence that can be shown to others by means of shared information or logical discussion.


Ok. if you put it in this way then you should be able to show me that within your soul really exist a very deep love for your lover.

Can you do that?


Quote
Faith is unsupported by evidence, and depends on a superiority of trust over evidence.


A lot of faith it is build on unsupported evidence but again some faith it is build on facts so I wouldn't come out with these UNSUPPORTED claims.


Quote
Theism is faith-based.  There is no evidence for it in any factual basis.


Once again you come out with unsupported evidence.
Although many theists base all the trust in faith other do not.
I base my belief in something that works like yoga.


Quote
Isn't it strange that all faith-based ideas have NO evidential basis?  Wouldn't you think that, at some time, a fact would have SLIPPED in somewhere?


There are a lot of facts but most people are too blind to understand anything beside not all reality can be demonstrated to other people as I just show you in your first question.


Quote
I do not pay attention to anything not fact-based...


Sure, it is a fact that your love for someone is real but at the same time it is impossible for you to present any evidence to other that what is inside your soul is real.

How on earth can you expect that other people demonstrate to you that their love for God is real?

Who told you that all facts should be demonstrable to be real?




Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Unbeliever on March 25, 2019, 01:13:30 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Simple UB.

Humans are never satisfied with the limited.

You had a fully function box monitor, didn't you but as soon as you saw the new flat monitor in the shop you discarded the old box and got the flat screen one.
But this is not the end because as soon as a new model with come out you will do the same with the one you got now.
Everybody does that and they do because human thirst can only be satisfied with the unlimited but the unlimited can not exist within the physical-material arena.

From here every smart person will conclude that it is only outside this material universe that the unlimited exist as already proven by anyone engaged seriously in spirituality and by thousand of those who had an NDE which came back to describe the ultimate reality where the infinite is the only way able to put an end to human thirst for the unlimited and the search for peace of mind.

So obviously the truth is nowhere to be found within the material dimension because in this dimension everything is of limited nature.
But what about those of us, like me, who aren't very smart?
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Blackleaf on March 25, 2019, 04:54:59 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Your problem BL is that you do not know how evolution works along with materialists so you make a hell of a confusion.

But let us see your comment.

1) You say...............Energy can't be destroyed, but it can change forms......................

Who ever said that energy doesn't change?
Not me BL.

Obviously as consciousness that by the way is also energy gain in awareness through the evolution process she (rather than it) is bound to change form.
If that wouldn't be the case then matter would stay matter, plants stay plants and so animals and human stay what they are and of course matter wouldn't turn in anything else in the first place.

Have you ever seem a creeper moving and moving in search of something?
That is all about evolution of the consciousness.
That consciousness is not happy to stay were she is.
Exactly the same as animals and humans.
There is a force that tell to those consciousness.............GO AHEAD......GO AHEAD......... so the awareness increase in a never end effort to go higher and higher.


2) You say.............. What you're proposing by saying that the consciousness must survive the death of of the brain is like saying the image on a TV screen must continue to exist after you break it. That's not how reality works......................


More confusion BL.
Evolution of the consciousness is not the same in everyone and everything so your idea that you can compare a human consciousness with one that is millions times less evolved such as an image doesn't make much sense at all however is also true that if one manage to exist also the other must manage to exist but with a difference BL.
While an evolved consciousness such as the one of a human present a more complex level of awareness and therefore is likely to keep her form the other is in a latent stage of awareness so her form is almost impossible for us human to identify once she change but again according to my beliefs even a human consciousness due to her bad karma can turn into something less evolved such as matter, plant or animal.


3) You say..........Also, if you want to claim that the soul is a physical thing made of actual energy, then that means it can be observed and measured. So...show us where this soul energy is and accept your Nobel Peace Prize..........

Once again you pop up with remarks that I never claimed.

Who ever said that the soul is something physical?
Not me BL.
I instead said that energy and consciousness are but the two sides of the same sheet so one can not exist without the other.

And who said that energy can be observed?
To do that you must be a very very advanced human being very similar to God.
Normal people can not observe energy.
They however can measure energy with some instruments.
Most people who had a real NDE could do that once outside their bodies but most people can not.

Uh, no. You're the one who's demonstrated multiple times a fundamental lack of understanding of how evolution works. And nowhere in this word salad did you address any of my questions. Energy can be observed. Energy takes many forms, depending on how deep you go. Protons, quarks, waves, all these things are types of energy, and can be observed. Heck, even the dark matter and dark energy can be observed to some extent, despite being invisible, tasteless, etc. So again...where is this soul energy you keep asserting must exist? And if this soul energy does exist, what makes it unique in the universe for having no half-life, no expiration date if you will? Even if I granted that this soul energy exists, why should I believe that it would forever remain soul energy?

As for your lesson in evolution, here is how consciousness works. Animals didn't evolve a bigger quantity of invisible soul energy to become more aware. They evolved bigger and more efficient brains. Ever heard of the "reptilian brain?" There's a reason we call it that. Reptile brains basically contain the bare essentials for survival. Mammals, however, have additional structures on top of the reptilian brain, which grant us several advantages such as the ability for introspection, or to develop emotional attachments. In other words, what you're attributing to some invisible energy that somehow survives death, is explained by brain structures.

Your ignorance for how the brain works is not justification for making shit up. If I could travel back in time and grab an ancient Roman and show them my TV, how do you think they would explain it? Most likely, they would resort to the supernatural to explain the television. You are like that hypothetical ancient Roman.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: trdsf on March 25, 2019, 06:02:53 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Your ignorance for how the brain works is not justification for making shit up. If I could travel back in time and grab an ancient Roman and show them my TV, how do you think they would explain it? Most likely, they would resort to the supernatural to explain the television. You are like that hypothetical ancient Roman.
Except, of course, that there's a chance the ancient Roman could understand a rational explanation.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Blackleaf on March 25, 2019, 06:19:42 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Except, of course, that there's a chance the ancient Roman could understand a rational explanation.

Possibly? I expect it'd be hard to explain the idea of a million tiny mirrors creating an image based on a signal that transfers wirelessly from a station playing a recording that was captured with a device called a camera that collects light in its lens. Reminds me of a book I read in college once about a researcher who lived among a tribe living in the jungle. All those people knew was the jungle. When one of the tribesmen traveled with the researcher to the mountains, he asked, "What is that white stuff?" The researcher replied, "It's snow." "What's snow?" "It's frozen water." The tribesman just gave this suspicious look and said, "You're a liar."
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: trdsf on March 25, 2019, 08:04:35 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Possibly? I expect it'd be hard to explain the idea of a million tiny mirrors creating an image based on a signal that transfers wirelessly from a station playing a recording that was captured with a device called a camera that collects light in its lens. Reminds me of a book I read in college once about a researcher who lived among a tribe living in the jungle. All those people knew was the jungle. When one of the tribesmen traveled with the researcher to the mountains, he asked, "What is that white stuff?" The researcher replied, "It's snow." "What's snow?" "It's frozen water." The tribesman just gave this suspicious look and said, "You're a liar."
I never said it was a large chance... ;)
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Unbeliever on March 25, 2019, 08:28:36 PM
In the multiverse, anything with a non-zero chance of happening must happen.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on March 26, 2019, 12:33:02 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Except, of course, that there's a chance the ancient Roman could understand a rational explanation.

And then promptly conquer and enslave you ;-(
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on March 26, 2019, 12:34:13 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
In the multiverse, anything with a non-zero chance of happening must happen.

If you like your multiverse, you can keep your multiverse - Bizzaro Obama
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on March 26, 2019, 05:54:19 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
But what about those of us, like me, who aren't very smart?


People before to become smart are non smart (deep philosophy lol)

Everybody go through that stage UB so if I am in you I wouldn't really worry that much.
The important thing however is to wake up and grow up once you understand that you are not smart.

Simple.


(http://abcdvdz.com/image/cache/data/demo/4/smart-guy-51260ce141e48[1]-700x700-700x700.png)
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Arik on March 26, 2019, 06:14:10 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Uh, no. You're the one who's demonstrated multiple times a fundamental lack of understanding of how evolution works. And nowhere in this word salad did you address any of my questions. Energy can be observed. Energy takes many forms, depending on how deep you go. Protons, quarks, waves, all these things are types of energy, and can be observed. Heck, even the dark matter and dark energy can be observed to some extent, despite being invisible, tasteless, etc. So again...where is this soul energy you keep asserting must exist? And if this soul energy does exist, what makes it unique in the universe for having no half-life, no expiration date if you will? Even if I granted that this soul energy exists, why should I believe that it would forever remain soul energy?

As for your lesson in evolution, here is how consciousness works. Animals didn't evolve a bigger quantity of invisible soul energy to become more aware. They evolved bigger and more efficient brains. Ever heard of the "reptilian brain?" There's a reason we call it that. Reptile brains basically contain the bare essentials for survival. Mammals, however, have additional structures on top of the reptilian brain, which grant us several advantages such as the ability for introspection, or to develop emotional attachments. In other words, what you're attributing to some invisible energy that somehow survives death, is explained by brain structures.

Your ignorance for how the brain works is not justification for making shit up. If I could travel back in time and grab an ancient Roman and show them my TV, how do you think they would explain it? Most likely, they would resort to the supernatural to explain the television. You are like that hypothetical ancient Roman.


Well, well, well BL.

If you insist that energy can be observed than why not.

A stone is made of energy, a plant too and animals and humans are also made of energy along with everything that exist including the universe and the elements that made it so in a way we can see energy but that is not what we are talking about BL.

Evolution turn rudimental forms of energy into more evolved form of energy and as this happen then this new form of energy become more and more subtle and difficult for human to perceive and understand and it is here that I am talking about.

In the past the saints were represented in paintings with an aura on the head around the pineal gland.
The meaning was that his-her consciousness was so evolved that the aura become resplendent.
You wouldn't be able to perceived whether a person aura is positive or negative or see the energy around it.

In fact you wouldn't even know what the aura is or as the evolution works in individuals so I don't really understand what you trying to say.

(https://www.elevationfloat.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Thinking-of-floating-but-not-sure-if-it%E2%80%99s-for-you.jpg)
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on March 26, 2019, 06:25:38 AM
Being a genius is hard ... being humble is even harder ;-)
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Blackleaf on March 26, 2019, 09:43:15 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Well, well, well BL.

If you insist that energy can be observed than why not.

A stone is made of energy, a plant too and animals and humans are also made of energy along with everything that exist including the universe and the elements that made it so in a way we can see energy but that is not what we are talking about BL.

Evolution turn rudimental forms of energy into more evolved form of energy and as this happen then this new form of energy become more and more subtle and difficult for human to perceive and understand and it is here that I am talking about.

In the past the saints were represented in paintings with an aura on the head around the pineal gland.
The meaning was that his-her consciousness was so evolved that the aura become resplendent.
You wouldn't be able to perceived whether a person aura is positive or negative or see the energy around it.

In fact you wouldn't even know what the aura is or as the evolution works in individuals so I don't really understand what you trying to say.

(https://www.elevationfloat.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Thinking-of-floating-but-not-sure-if-it%E2%80%99s-for-you.jpg)

The fuck are you talking about? The "saints" were given a halo around their heads because a story about Moses had the character come down the mountain with some of God's light radiating off of his face, as if being around God for an extended amount of time was contagious. They had to hide Moses' face because they couldn't look directly at him.

Nowhere in the Bible is the pineal gland mentioned. You're making shit up. The idea of the pineal gland being the intermediary between the body and the soul was a cop out a philosopher named Descartes came up with. He didn't know what the function of the pineal gland was, and he didn't understand how the "soul" worked, so he claimed that the pineal gland was the "principal seat of the soul and the place in which all our thoughts are formed." Wrong! We understand now that the pineal gland governs sleep patterns. The idea that that tiny little structure of the brain is wholly responsible for 100% of our thoughts is laughable. And you're referencing him? Just goes to show how ignorant you are, I guess.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Baruch on March 26, 2019, 01:04:37 PM
Americans only know America, nothing outside, and sometimes nothing outside of New Jersey ;-)
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Unbeliever on March 26, 2019, 01:12:17 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Being a genius is hard ... being humble is even harder ;-)
Yeah, as the song says, it's hard to be humble when you're perfect in every way. LOL
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: SoldierofFortune on March 26, 2019, 03:48:14 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

People before to become smart are non smart (deep philosophy lol)

Everybody go through that stage UB so if I am in you I wouldn't really worry that much.
The important thing however is to wake up and grow up once you understand that you are not smart.

Simple.


(http://abcdvdz.com/image/cache/data/demo/4/smart-guy-51260ce141e48[1]-700x700-700x700.png)

There is one thing i know, that is that know nothing...
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Unbeliever on March 26, 2019, 04:00:59 PM
I guess you don't watch FUX Gnus, or you'd know less than nothing! LOL
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Unbeliever on March 26, 2019, 04:37:12 PM
Here's someone that should know what he's talking about:


Quote
Professor of Cognitive and Computational Neuroscience Anil Seth looks at the neuroscience of consciousness and how our biology gives rise to the unique experience of being you.

Anil provides an insight i