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.