Atheistforums

Extraordinary Claims => Religion General Discussion => Topic started by: Arik on May 08, 2019, 08:42:34 AM

Title: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on May 08, 2019, 08:42:34 AM
That is funny.

Atheists often point out how many Gods religious people have.
The list goes on and on with no end in sight and that is funny indeed because God is one if of course there is a God so all Gods except one are just the creation of people.

Here however is my point.
People create a myriad of Gods which of course are not real except in their imagination.
Materialists are no exception in creating a myriad of Gods in their imagination.
So criticizing religious people for their thousand Gods while creating a myriad of Gods in their mind is quite hypocritical.

But let us see how people create Gods in their mind.

Today most people are not Atheists or theists.
They are materialists.
They wouldn't care less whether there is God or not.
They only care about material things or objects.

By giving too much importance to these object their mind become more and more attached to them.
Sometime ago I read that a thief stole a smartphone from a girl intent to use it.
This girl try to chase the thief not realizing that she entered the railways ground with an incoming train.
The poor girl died and she died because her smartphone become her God.

Throughout history we have seen many people who died for their God but their God was not made of matter and that make a lot of difference.
Today people suffer and die for a God that is made of matter.
Atheists are no exception.
They also create in their mind an admiration for objects and these objects soon or later become their Gods.

Why on earth choose the very low kind of God hidden in matter which is the low of lowest form of latent consciousness when you can have the very high form of consciousness? 
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Mr.Obvious on May 08, 2019, 09:31:51 AM
I'm à materialist and an atheist.

If you want to give arbitrary definitions to gods, I guess you could call anyone a theist. Hell, if you define changing a person as the death of that individual and the rebirth of another, you could say we are all murderers.
It means nothing, but you could say it.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on May 08, 2019, 10:48:21 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm à materialist and an atheist.

If you want to give arbitrary definitions to gods, I guess you could call anyone a theist.


Very true.
We are all theists but with a very important difference.
By turning an object made of matter into our God we choose the very lowest form of God which does nothing to improve our spiritual evolution and in turn lower our real evolution because matter lie on the very bottom of evolution but by choosing the highest form of God we improve our evolution so the difference is outstanding.


Quote
Hell, if you define changing a person as the death of that individual and the rebirth of another, you could say we are all murderers.
It means nothing, but you could say it.


I am afraid that your pretend analogy doesn't make any sense at all.

Death?
What death MO?
Nobody die.
Nobody ever did and nobody ever will die.
Changes do not means death.
Energy-consciousness is immortal.
Even science say that energy is behind destruction.

Evolution need changes which are only possible through changes in bodies so death of a body doesn't means real death.






Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: aitm on May 08, 2019, 10:51:26 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Why on earth choose the very low kind of God hidden in matter which is the low of lowest form of latent consciousness when you can have the very high form of consciousness? 

short version......why believe in the "god" you made up when you should believe in the one I made up?

oh yeah.....That's funny....only sensible words in the vomitus.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Blackleaf on May 08, 2019, 11:11:30 AM
Stupid word games today, is it? Well, as long as we're muddying the definitions of words to the point of them becoming meaningless... A human is defined as a featherless biped. I present to you, a human being.

(https://www.chickenheavenonearth.com/uploads/4/4/8/2/4482500/featherless-chicken-jalwah-facebook_3.jpg)
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Mr.Obvious on May 08, 2019, 11:13:39 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Very true.
We are all theists but with a very important difference.
By turning an object made of matter into our God we choose the very lowest form of God which does nothing to improve our spiritual evolution and in turn lower our real evolution because matter lie on the very bottom of evolution but by choosing the highest form of God we improve our evolution so the difference is outstanding.



I am afraid that your pretend analogy doesn't make any sense at all.

Death?
What death MO?
Nobody die.
Nobody ever did and nobody ever will die.
Changes do not means death.
Energy-consciousness is immortal.
Even science say that energy is behind destruction.

Evolution need changes which are only possible through changes in bodies so death of a body doesn't means real death.

Exactly. What death is there in my analogy? There is no death unless you choose to define it as such.

What god is it that you speak of? It takes as liberal an interpretation as my version of death.

Meaningless dribble, both of them.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on May 08, 2019, 11:27:58 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Exactly. What death is there in my analogy? There is no death unless you choose to define it as such.

What god is it that you speak of? It takes as liberal an interpretation as my version of death.

Meaningless dribble, both of them.


It is all a question of evolution MO.

Once you understand that evolution goes from point A to point Z so to speak you also understand that matter lie on the very bottom and God at the very top.

It is all made of consciousness which is not express in matter and is fully express at the end when your consciousness reach the very top.
There is no liberal interpretation of how the system works.
It is all very very clear and simple.
Also plants have consciousness and struggle to evolve and so everything else.
Only fools think that lower form of lives will never reach the top of evolution.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on May 08, 2019, 11:29:14 AM
It’s true that I am not an atheist. I worship our Lord and Lizard.

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190508/8892b54eb58498b2816117cf95c7d8ab.jpg)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Mr.Obvious on May 08, 2019, 11:30:22 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

It is all a question of evolution MO.

Once you understand that evolution goes from point A to point Z so to speak you also understand that matter lie on the very bottom and God at the very top.

It is all made of consciousness which is not express in matter and is fully express at the end when your consciousness reach the very top.
There is no liberal interpretation of how the system works.
It is all very very clear and simple.
Also plants have consciousness and struggle to evolve and so everything else.
Only fools think that lower form of lives will never reach the top of evolution.

So do rocks dream of mountains?
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: aitm on May 08, 2019, 01:42:27 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So do rocks dream of mountains?
mine dream of getting off.........................................................................
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Mr.Obvious on May 08, 2019, 02:10:32 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It’s true that I am not an atheist. I worship our Lord and Lizard.

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190508/8892b54eb58498b2816117cf95c7d8ab.jpg)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Your avatar tells me you worship some kinky stuff.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on May 08, 2019, 02:11:44 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Your avatar tells me you worship some kinky stuff.
I’ll have you know that I strongly believe in the separation of Church and Fap.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Mr.Obvious on May 08, 2019, 02:39:20 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I’ll have you know that I strongly believe in the separation of Church and Fap.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Shake hands with the snake, not the serpent.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on May 08, 2019, 05:10:40 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Stupid word games today, is it? Well, as long as we're muddying the definitions of words to the point of them becoming meaningless... A human is defined as a featherless biped. I present to you, a human being.

(https://www.chickenheavenonearth.com/uploads/4/4/8/2/4482500/featherless-chicken-jalwah-facebook_3.jpg)

Looks like Bill Clinton after Hillary cuts him a new one ...
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on May 08, 2019, 05:11:30 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So do rocks dream of mountains?

Mountain to sand grain ... I am your Father, Chip!
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Mr.Obvious on May 08, 2019, 05:14:41 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Mountain to sand grain ... I am your Father, Chip!

(https://media1.tenor.com/images/c7a569e364faec6fdf0102aa12403aaf/tenor.gif?itemid=3471978)
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on May 08, 2019, 05:17:12 PM
Arik ... materialist ideology prevents them from realizing their error, like a sand grain is less irritating after the oyster makes it into a pearl ...

Natural only ... so no supernatural
Material only ... so no immaterial
Impersonal ... so no personality (life is an illusion, consciousness is delusion, meaning is fruitless)
Virtuous ... so no sin
Truth ... so no ideology

That they might be wrong ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhXjcZdk5QQ
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Blackleaf on May 09, 2019, 12:11:18 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Arik ... materialist ideology prevents them from realizing their error, like a sand grain is less irritating after the oyster makes it into a pearl ...

Oh, we have no problem spotting errors in our logic. When those errors are demonstrated to exist, which you've failed to do.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Natural only ... so no supernatural
Material only ... so no immaterial

Again, you sure love your strawmen, don't you? No one denied the existence of immaterial things.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Impersonal ... so no personality (life is an illusion, consciousness is delusion, meaning is fruitless)
Virtuous ... so no sin
Truth ... so no ideology

What the fuck are you talking about?
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on May 09, 2019, 02:13:32 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Oh, we have no problem spotting errors in our logic. When those errors are demonstrated to exist, which you've failed to do.

Again, you sure love your strawmen, don't you? No one denied the existence of immaterial things.

What the fuck are you talking about?

Covering all the bases, for Arik.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on May 09, 2019, 11:22:44 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So do rocks dream of mountains?


Perfect MO.

Here you show your total failing.
Evolution in lower form of life differ from evolution in humans but for those materialists that hang on Darwin theories this fact is really not important and in this way they learn absolutely nothing.

Consciousness is in a latent stage in matter so matter can not possible think until mother nature after millions of years push matter into a stage in which consciousness start to be aware to a certain degree and that is in the plants stage and will develop even more in animals.

Free will which start in humans change everything so humans are not canalized or directed anymore by mother nature as it happens in lower form of life.
Unfortunately free will is not all good because wrong choices come at a price like when someone create in his-her mind admiration and love for objects until these objects become their Gods which in turn lower their awareness in the real God.

In the past many humans worship wooden or stone idols.
These days nothing really change because material object replace those old idols.
The foolishness never die that is why materialists are losers.




(http://en.protothema.gr/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/cars1.jpg)
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on May 09, 2019, 12:08:42 PM
Materialists claim opposite things.  One, that change in inanimate matter isn't evolution.  And that change in animate matter is meaningless.  While claiming that animate and inanimate matter are the same thing.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Mr.Obvious on May 09, 2019, 02:26:16 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

The foolishness never die that is why materialists are losers.

LOL.

I know you are, but what am l?

I think that's about the level of argument we've reduced ourselves to, here.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on May 09, 2019, 03:46:29 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
LOL.

I know you are, but what am l?

I think that's about the level of argument we've reduced ourselves to, here.

Most people would not accept Arik's panpsychism.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Mr.Obvious on May 09, 2019, 04:15:45 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Most people would not accept Arik's panpsychism.

True.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Hydra009 on May 09, 2019, 06:18:46 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Most people would not accept Arik's panpsychism.
Well, he's certainly proving that the link between a mind and a brain is tenuous at best.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Unbeliever on May 09, 2019, 06:29:23 PM
I only have one god - Baruch! :-P
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: aitm on May 09, 2019, 07:39:20 PM
we thought them cheesizts were nuts now we got these new age cheesizt boohdies yammering about as if they have some kinda special insight. Materialists bad....said by those who spend billions on metal crosses, worship medallions wear both and splatter themselves across the floor with their material girl self.

Boring.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Unbeliever on May 09, 2019, 07:52:54 PM
Yeah, materialism is bad - except that the materialistic science has given us literally everything we use in our daily lives.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on May 09, 2019, 07:55:58 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I only have one god - Baruch! :-P

Arithmetically challenged? ;-}  I have billions.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on May 09, 2019, 07:58:08 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yeah, materialism is bad - except that the materialistic science has given us literally everything we use in our daily lives.

Sorry, but science and technology won't save anyone from being a self destructive species.

Yes, you also have fiction, but you are all bigots on fiction (who isn't).  You aren't purely materialistic.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Unbeliever on May 09, 2019, 08:07:31 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Arithmetically challenged? ;-}  I have billions.

Well, that's good, because Trump lost billions! Dollars, that is.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on May 09, 2019, 09:41:25 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
True.


In that case you reject what physical science already said which is that even plants have a degree of consciousness.

Don't you think that it is quite hypocritical to glorify science when goes along with your thinking (very very rarely indeed) and reject it when it goes against?
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on May 10, 2019, 01:10:15 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

In that case you reject what physical science already said which is that even plants have a degree of consciousness.

Don't you think that it is quite hypocritical to glorify science when goes along with your thinking (very very rarely indeed) and reject it when it goes against?

Science here mostly consists in believing in fictional giant sentient robots ;-)
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Mr.Obvious on May 10, 2019, 01:34:23 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

In that case you reject what physical science already said which is that even plants have a degree of consciousness.

Don't you think that it is quite hypocritical to glorify science when goes along with your thinking (very very rarely indeed) and reject it when it goes against?

Regardless of if it is right or not, how many agree with you?
So it is true that most would not accept your panpsychism.
Learn to read and understand replies by other people. It'll help you to reply correctly to them.

I don't deny anything, for that matter. I've just not been interested by your other threads. So any evidence of plants having conscience you already posted is lost on me.
You're welcome to point me in the right direction as I'll admit: that is news to me.
Though I don't see how it would drive me to panpsychism.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Cavebear on May 10, 2019, 02:05:55 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Stupid word games today, is it? Well, as long as we're muddying the definitions of words to the point of them becoming meaningless... A human is defined as a featherless biped. I present to you, a human being.

(https://www.chickenheavenonearth.com/uploads/4/4/8/2/4482500/featherless-chicken-jalwah-facebook_3.jpg)

Humans are differently bipedal.  Birds are bipedal but they tend to hop. Kangaroos are bipedal, but they alternate between pentapedalism (4 legs and a tail) except when they hop.,  Some apes CAN walk bipedal but mostly just stand erect to look around rather than move.

Humans seem to be the only animals that actual walk or run be literally falling forward as they go.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on May 10, 2019, 04:00:08 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Humans are differently bipedal.  Birds are bipedal but they tend to hop. Kangaroos are bipedal, but they alternate between pentapedalism (4 legs and a tail) except when they hop.,  Some apes CAN walk bipedal but mostly just stand erect to look around rather than move.

Humans seem to be the only animals that actual walk or run be literally falling forward as they go.

Kangaroos use their big tail ... so not true bipedalism.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on May 10, 2019, 04:11:48 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Most people would not accept Arik's panpsychism.

There was Idealism (there is no matter, only ideas) in 19th century philosophy.  For contemporary non-supernatural panpsychism that I would lean toward ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCo9fJ9EP_k

Basically he denies epiphenomenalism, eliminationism, Cartesian dualism.

Cartesian Dualism = there are two things, mind and matter, neither of which can influence each other.
Eliminationism = there is no such thing as mind, it is an illusion.  But this is incoherent ... who or what is having the illusion?
Epiphenomenalism = consciousness is a secondary product of the electrical behavior of the brain (consciousness can't effect brain).

And ancient materialism = thoughts are very fine atoms, more like fire than like gas.

Also see Rupert Sheldrake for a holistic view (vs non-reductionist/materialist) ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xt4SvvxTfZY

So there are arguments for panpsychism.  I am pantheist (Spinoza version), because I am theist, but would otherwise agree with panpsychism.  For me there is no opposition between natural and supernatural, between matter and mind.  These are categories of cognitive convenience applied to reality by monkeys.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Cavebear on May 10, 2019, 06:42:50 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Kangaroos use their big tail ... so not true bipedalism.

Only when pentalizing (sp?).  When bipedal, the tail is only a counterweight off-ground.  Pental movement is when they are on all 4 limbs AND use the tail to move as well.  I know I'm getting the term wrong , but I can't find the right term quickly.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on May 10, 2019, 11:31:50 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Regardless of if it is right or not, how many agree with you?
So it is true that most would not accept your panpsychism.
Learn to read and understand replies by other people. It'll help you to reply correctly to them.

I don't deny anything, for that matter. I've just not been interested by your other threads. So any evidence of plants having conscience you already posted is lost on me.
You're welcome to point me in the right direction as I'll admit: that is news to me.
Though I don't see how it would drive me to panpsychism.


Changes do not occur easily.
Most people wait and wait until everybody else is aboard to join and jump on the bandwagon themselves.
This is better known as the sheep attitude or sheep syndrome.

Intelligent people on the other hand do not follow this system.
They search and search until they reach a positive result regardless of what other people think or do.

Most people these days are victim of this sheep attitude while intelligent people are few.
Not only atheists and materialists but even many theists (mostly religious theists) behave in the same way.

The thing however is that intelligent people get there first and fools much later on wasting in this way precious time and that means more and more suffering for themselves.

There are already tons and tons of information about consciousness in lower form of life but most people are just not interested or prefer to see the topic become a normal thing before they agree with it.


https://www.indiatoday.in/education-today/gk-current-affairs/story/jagadish-chandra-bose-plants-life-322594-2016-05-10



Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Mr.Obvious on May 10, 2019, 08:11:53 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Changes do not occur easily.
Most people wait and wait until everybody else is aboard to join and jump on the bandwagon themselves.
This is better known as the sheep attitude or sheep syndrome.

Intelligent people on the other hand do not follow this system.
They search and search until they reach a positive result regardless of what other people think or do.

Most people these days are victim of this sheep attitude while intelligent people are few.
Not only atheists and materialists but even many theists (mostly religious theists) behave in the same way.

The thing however is that intelligent people get there first and fools much later on wasting in this way precious time and that means more and more suffering for themselves.

There are already tons and tons of information about consciousness in lower form of life but most people are just not interested or prefer to see the topic become a normal thing before they agree with it.


https://www.indiatoday.in/education-today/gk-current-affairs/story/jagadish-chandra-bose-plants-life-322594-2016-05-10

After reading your article, I need to ask you:
Did you think any of us denied that a plant dipped in poison would react differently from one planted in a healthy manure?
And while I agree a plant is a living organism, I need to ask you: how does that reaction equate conscience?
 
 And even if it did, let's say for arguments sake that it does, how does that prove that this world is made up of mind instead of matter?
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Unbeliever on May 10, 2019, 08:14:01 PM
Never mind, doesn't matter.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Shiranu on May 10, 2019, 08:44:20 PM
Quote
Throughout history we have seen many people who died for their God but their God was not made of matter and that make a lot of difference.

Why does it make a difference?

Quote
Today people suffer and die for a God that is made of matter.

That is not anything new, that is literally describing life at the most fundamental level. When you boil it all down, all life is is a state of suffering and dying while chasing matter to extend life to it's longest possible extent.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on May 11, 2019, 06:34:20 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Why does it make a difference?

People are motivated by ideas.  So ideas are very important.

Quote
That is not anything new, that is literally describing life at the most fundamental level. When you boil it all down, all life is is a state of suffering and dying while chasing matter to extend life to it's longest possible extent.

Correct.  Are you a vegetarian yet?
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on May 11, 2019, 07:22:33 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Never mind, doesn't matter.

Sense of humor always help.

Good on you.  :grin: :lipsrsealed: :laugh:
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on May 11, 2019, 08:53:10 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
After reading your article, I need to ask you:
Did you think any of us denied that a plant dipped in poison would react differently from one planted in a healthy manure


With his experiment Bose change the notion that the stimuli in plants had to have a chemical nature or cause.
But even today most atheists think that this is the case so to ask me what any of you think I would say.......you guys are still miles and miles away from the truth.


Quote
And while I agree a plant is a living organism, I need to ask you: how does that reaction equate conscience?


Simple MO.
By showing that the reaction of that plant was NOT caused by a chemical reaction or cause Bose proved that plants have consciousness.
Only consciousness is able to show a reaction to pain and affection.

 
Quote
And even if it did, let's say for arguments sake that it does, how does that prove that this world is made up of mind instead of matter?


Energy and consciousness always go hand in hand like the two sides of the same sheet.
Matter is energy which is kept in a latent stage because there is no awareness in the consciousness that is in that matter so the question is not whether the world is made of mind or matter.
It is rather that is made of energy and consciousness.







(https://cdn5.vectorstock.com/i/1000x1000/92/39/transparent-soap-or-water-bubbles-background-vector-14039239.jpg)

Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on May 11, 2019, 09:37:49 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Why does it make a difference?

If you believe in evolution you should know that something lie on the bottom and something else is up towards an higher level of consciousness.
Matter lie on the very bottom of evolution so by siding with the bottom you automatically choose a lower degree of consciousness that is why it is important to side with and higher degree of consciousness such as a spiritual entity.


Quote
That is not anything new, that is literally describing life at the most fundamental level. When you boil it all down, all life is is a state of suffering and dying while chasing matter to extend life to it's longest possible extent.


When we are bound to live within a material-physical situation is not that easy to get out and live outside, outside in a dimension void of suffering but if we act with intelligence we can overcome in part this constrain by planning our life in such a way that there is a balance between physical needs, mental needs and spiritual needs waiting for an auspicable day when our balance is perfect and we accomplished the reason why we exist.

That is not what most of the people do these days.
They are out of balance so their life is a dreadful torture.








(http://www.freakingnews.com/pictures/47500/Donkey-Pulling-a-Heavy-Cart-47611.jpg)
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Simon Moon on May 14, 2019, 02:26:26 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That is funny.

Atheists often point out how many Gods religious people have.
The list goes on and on with no end in sight and that is funny indeed because God is one if of course there is a God so all Gods except one are just the creation of people.

Here however is my point.
People create a myriad of Gods which of course are not real except in their imagination.
Materialists are no exception in creating a myriad of Gods in their imagination.
So criticizing religious people for their thousand Gods while creating a myriad of Gods in their mind is quite hypocritical.

But let us see how people create Gods in their mind.

Today most people are not Atheists or theists.
They are materialists.
They wouldn't care less whether there is God or not.
They only care about material things or objects.

By giving too much importance to these object their mind become more and more attached to them.
Sometime ago I read that a thief stole a smartphone from a girl intent to use it.
This girl try to chase the thief not realizing that she entered the railways ground with an incoming train.
The poor girl died and she died because her smartphone become her God.

Throughout history we have seen many people who died for their God but their God was not made of matter and that make a lot of difference.
Today people suffer and die for a God that is made of matter.
Atheists are no exception.
They also create in their mind an admiration for objects and these objects soon or later become their Gods.

Why on earth choose the very low kind of God hidden in matter which is the low of lowest form of latent consciousness when you can have the very high form of consciousness? 

That is one long and wordy equivocation fallacy you got there.

You can redefine the word 'god' as much as you like, but if the vast majority of people are not defining the word as you are, then you are not communicating anything.

Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Unbeliever on May 14, 2019, 02:38:53 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
When we are bound to live within a material-physical situation is not that easy to get out and live outside, outside in a dimension void of suffering but if we act with intelligence we can overcome in part this constrain by planning our life in such a way that there is a balance between physical needs, mental needs and spiritual needs waiting for an auspicable day when our balance is perfect and we accomplished the reason why we exist.


I don't understand the concept of "spiritual needs." Can you elaborate? What exactly are "spiritual needs"? Are they synonymous with emotional needs?
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: aitm on May 14, 2019, 02:53:15 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't understand the concept of "spiritual needs." Can you elaborate? What exactly are "spiritual needs"? Are they synonymous with emotional needs?
you  get a little woo from over there, and a little woo  for over yonder and a touch of woo right over here and voila...you gots a woo-woo-woo, yooby doo doo.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Unbeliever on May 14, 2019, 03:06:28 PM
Ah, yes, exactly so! With a woo woo here and a woo woo there, here a woo, there a woo, everywhere a woo woo!
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Mr.Obvious on May 14, 2019, 05:40:32 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

With his experiment Bose change the notion that the stimuli in plants had to have a chemical nature or cause.
But even today most atheists think that this is the case so to ask me what any of you think I would say.......you guys are still miles and miles away from the truth.



Simple MO.
By showing that the reaction of that plant was NOT caused by a chemical reaction or cause Bose proved that plants have consciousness.
Only consciousness is able to show a reaction to pain and affection.

 

Energy and consciousness always go hand in hand like the two sides of the same sheet.
Matter is energy which is kept in a latent stage because there is no awareness in the consciousness that is in that matter so the question is not whether the world is made of mind or matter.
It is rather that is made of energy and consciousness.



Bold mine: It's rather a big leap to say that the electric rather than chemical nature of of stimuli-conduction makes a plant conscious.
Even bigger still to leap from that to the sentences I underlined.

Plant perception is a proven thing, but not in your paranormal sense of the word.
You might deemme small-minded, but it seems to me like you're simply overextending the consequences of the electrical excitability of plant cells.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on May 14, 2019, 05:55:26 PM
There are all sorts of chemical and electrical processes in living tissue, including plants.  Even single celled life is amazingly complicated.  We choose to call one tissue of that, for historical reasons ... neural ... and attach sensation and consciousness to that kind of tissue.  But we are the done's drawing the dividing line, same as a national boundary.  The choice is humanistic and pragmatic, not literal.  Hence the openness to at least limited pan-psychism.  None of that requires paranormal speculation.  Paranormal is metaphysical, not physical.  I would contend that we don't even understand, in actual living tissue, what all is happening in the physical.  There are about 100 billion neurons in the human brain.  If you look at the combinatorial influence (at all levels, not just neural synapses) that is 100 billion factorial, an unimaginable large number.  Way more than a googol.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Unbeliever on May 14, 2019, 06:06:46 PM
Apparently, plants even do quantum physics, so they must be pretty smart!


https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-22996054
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on May 14, 2019, 10:44:49 PM
Things happen naturally without thought ... that is how politics works too ;-)
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Draconic Aiur on May 15, 2019, 12:15:24 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Today most people are not Atheists or theists.


What planet are you from?
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Mr.Obvious on May 15, 2019, 01:26:36 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Things happen naturally without thought ... that is how politics works too ;-)

Rhubarb - Nettle
2020
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on May 15, 2019, 10:55:00 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
What planet are you from?

I suppose you must go around with the blinkers on your eyes.

Where I work during the break I see 9 people out of 10 that spend most of their break time checking, sending messages and playing with their smart phone.
If you try to talk about life with them they look at you like if you are an alien that is why I said that most people are materialists that wouldn't care less whether God exist or not.

But in a way they are also theists because material things become their God but it would be better to call them.....worthless theists.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Simon Moon on May 15, 2019, 11:26:28 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Today most people are not Atheists or theists.

I missed this gem on my first reading of the OP.

There are no other choices.

Either one accepts the claim that a god exists as being true. This defines them as a theist.

Or one does not accept that claim as being true. This defines them as an atheist.

This is a binary mental state. There are no other possibilities than the above 2 positions.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on May 15, 2019, 11:28:59 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That is one long and wordy equivocation fallacy you got there.

You can redefine the word 'god' as much as you like, but if the vast majority of people are not defining the word as you are, then you are not communicating anything.


The main reason why I did start this thread was to show the stupidity of those who criticizing theists for creating a myriad of Gods while at the same time they also create a myriad of Gods considering that their materialism is a God in itself with all object of pleasure that it create which are countless.

Now the point is to understand what the word God means.
When someone thinking become attached and fond to something and this attachment become their main attraction then they create a God in their mind so whether a God is real or it is an illusion it doesn't much of a difference in term of saying God but of course it make a lot of difference if it is not an illusion because while the illusion will harm the consciousness the reality does not but of course you may well say that there is no a real God so everything is an illusion or even say that the material reality is real while a real God is an illusion.

The time is also an illusion because when something nice happen the time goes very very fast but when something bad happen the time never goes.

This physical-material so called reality is all a creation of the mind.
A brick in the head can kill you but some martial art professional can brake a brick without any problem so again all this physical-material so called reality can be cancel-override and nullify and that means that if you go behind the illusion you can understand the real reality which of course is not this material one.

So my definition of God is of a God that is behind this illusion.
 






Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: aitm on May 15, 2019, 11:32:24 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

If you try to talk about life with them they look at you like if you are an alien

i.e  people who aren't stupid are not going to sit and listen to your bat shit crazy prattle. And he calls them stupid....oy
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on May 15, 2019, 11:35:25 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I missed this gem on my first reading of the OP.

There are no other choices.

Either one accepts the claim that a god exists as being true. This defines them as a theist.

Or one does not accept that claim as being true. This defines them as an atheist.

This is a binary mental state. There are no other possibilities than the above 2 positions.

Narrow minded of you.  Another possibility that you haven't considered, that the two most popular positions, are both wrong.

Meanwhile all ego boosting by all sides ... I am a genius, no I am a genius ... monkey shines.

Even almost 2000 years ago, Indian Mahayana Buddhists had 4 level logic, not 2 level logic ...

A is right, B is wrong - the usual Western prejudice
A is wrong, B is right - the usual Western prejudice
A is right, B is right - via positiva in theology
A is wrong, B is wrong - via negative in theology

Meanwhile, the advocates of 18th century Enlightenment (Oh, snap, Newton was also a theologian and alchemist) continue to make false dichotomies.  If two things are complementary (as theism/atheism are), then they aren't opposites, they aren't mutually exclusive.  To make them mutually exclusive, you have to make an unconscious, or otherwise un-justified assumption.  This is almost universal in human cogitation, it is so much easier if we prematurely limit the possibilities to two on any question.  Example:

In GB, there is only Conservative or Labor, there are no other choices
In USA, there is only Republican or Democrat, there are no other choices

This hints that the major reason why we make premature or false dichotomies is because ... laziness and appeal to emotion.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on May 16, 2019, 11:34:12 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
i.e  people who aren't stupid are not going to sit and listen to your bat shit crazy prattle. And he calls them stupid....oy


Oh well, only the time will tell who is stupid and who is not.

In yoga according to our desires people reborn getting what they always wish in this life so most of the people who follow a materialist agenda will reborn chasing the same material goods and their consciousness will sink deeper and deeper into the illusion that the material reality is the real McCoy.

As it is true that you sink into the consciousness of what you eat is also true that you sink into the consciousness of what you admire and dream of and that is something very very dangerous indeed because the consciousness hidden in matter is quite low indeed.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on May 16, 2019, 12:04:15 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't understand the concept of "spiritual needs." Can you elaborate? What exactly are "spiritual needs"? Are they synonymous with emotional needs?


When you smoke, drink or take drugs you are looking for peace within and happiness but that is like a mental masturbation.

This urge that come from within tell you to seek this state of being which is not necessary a state of mind but it goes much further than that.
Weak people always try the easy way to achieve this state of being by masturbating their brain with the above substances but intelligent people understand that the feeling of achieving peace and happiness withing must be achieve in a different way.

Nothing really to do with emotions UB.
It is rather a natural call to go behind this false reality in which exist peace and happiness within and this is the real reality.

Even atheists and materialists strive to get in that spiritual dimension although they confuse the reality with the illusion nevertheless the urge to get in that state of being is there and that has nothing to do with body or mind but goes further than that and into the realm of spirituality.
 
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Hydra009 on May 16, 2019, 12:21:19 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Oh well, only the time will tell who is stupid and who is not.
Given your track record here, I doubt you could accurately predict whether or not it stormed yesterday with a newspaper in hand, let alone deliver the grand truth of life, the universe, and everything.

Quote
In yoga according to our desires people reborn getting what they always wish in this life so most of the people who follow a materialist agenda will reborn chasing the same material goods and their consciousness will sink deeper and deeper into the illusion that the material reality is the real McCoy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Cavebear on May 16, 2019, 01:59:57 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
People are motivated by ideas.  So ideas are very important.

Correct.  Are you a vegetarian yet?

No.  I think a totally vegan diet is not sufficient for active humans.  Close is, and 90% of my food is.  But there is a difference between "some" and "none"
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on May 17, 2019, 09:11:44 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Given your track record here, I doubt you could accurately predict whether or not it stormed yesterday with a newspaper in hand, let alone deliver the grand truth of life, the universe, and everything.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question


If you guys persist in thinking that NDEs are hallucinations or lies than that is your problem not mine.
Evidence is there, people are real, accidents and casualties are real and proven and so doctors and hospitals in which these people end up so the witness of thousand of these people that by the way go hand in hand which each other can not be discounted and if you do then it is you that fail not me.

Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on May 17, 2019, 09:17:46 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
No.  I think a totally vegan diet is not sufficient for active humans.  Close is, and 90% of my food is.  But there is a difference between "some" and "none"


It is a myth that a vegan or vegetarian diet is not sufficient for active humans.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZwmluSn_T0
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on May 17, 2019, 10:03:51 AM
One more materialist myth is that the physical-material power is the stronger power.

There are people who can brake bricks with the head and that is a power coming from the mind when you reach the stage in which you know that you can do it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UE9WLnWirk


Above the mental power there is a stronger power but that is something that materialists will learn at a later stage.

Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Draconic Aiur on May 17, 2019, 10:48:26 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I suppose you must go around with the blinkers on your eyes.

Where I work during the break I see 9 people out of 10 that spend most of their break time checking, sending messages and playing with their smart phone.
If you try to talk about life with them they look at you like if you are an alien that is why I said that most people are materialists that wouldn't care less whether God exist or not.

But in a way they are also theists because material things become their God but it would be better to call them.....worthless theists.

Are you related to Baruch? Because you sound like it.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on May 17, 2019, 10:49:13 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
One more materialist myth is that the physical-material power is the stronger power.

There are people who can brake bricks with the head and that is a power coming from the mind when you reach the stage in which you know that you can do it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UE9WLnWirk


Above the mental power there is a stronger power but that is something that materialists will learn at a later stage.

Some things must be seen to be believed.  Other things must be believed to be seen.  A balanced view isn't materialist or idealist.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on May 17, 2019, 11:13:47 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Are you related to Baruch? Because you sound like it.


How can you think of that DA?

Baruch is quite deep in intellectual knowledge.
He may well be a professor in philosophy.
I instead prefer yoga.
Yoga is little intellectuality a more meditation which is internal knowledge but again I do not know Baruch enough to judge him.
Some of the words that he use I had to go looking for the meaning in google because they were new to me.

However there is one word the Baruch may not know.
Let us see if he know where the word cancer come from and his real meaning.
You too guys can try but the rule is that nobody is allow to cheat by looking in the net or any other source of information.

Are you ready?
 
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Unbeliever on May 17, 2019, 01:11:44 PM
Doesn't the word "cancer" mean "crab"?
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Blackleaf on May 17, 2019, 01:42:28 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Doesn't the word "cancer" mean "crab"?

Yup. That's why the sign "Cancer" looks like a crab. Don't know what that's supposed to prove, though. Signs are bullshit.

(https://scontent.fhou1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/59919514_568661673622579_8935695402246602752_n.jpg?_nc_cat=101&_nc_ht=scontent.fhou1-1.fna&oh=8c497d1b2ae3e858617754da67ba8f35&oe=5D755FC2)
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on May 17, 2019, 02:07:59 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Are you related to Baruch? Because you sound like it.

We are both students of S Asian culture, but he may be an actual S Asian.  My range of study covers all (hence the appearance of general philosophy rather than narrow ideology), not just S Asia.  Yoga however, in Asia ... is cross-cultural ... going back to prehistoric Asian shamanism.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on May 17, 2019, 02:13:58 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Doesn't the word "cancer" mean "crab"?

But what does "crab" mean?  Several, but this one is spot on ...

To move sideways or obliquely.  That is a good description of my rhetorical technique.

Earlier I was referring to cancer by analogy with the medical term, an out of control growth.  Humans are very feral in that way.

Again from 4 years ago, my Point of Reference is Kabbalah.  There are three areas of interest in Kabbalah ...

1. Theoretical speculation - both meta-physical and physical (aka Sankhya/Jnana in Hindu culture)

2. Metaphysical practice - magic (metaphysical) (aka Bhakti/Siddhi in Hindu culture, subjective reality)

3. Physical practice - non-magic (physical) (aka Karma, Raja, Hatha in Hindu culture, objective reality)

As a pragmatist, my emphasis is on #3.  Though I am not disinterested in the first two.

The primary problem for anyone focused on a particular system is practice.  Hopefully as a retiree I can devote more time to that.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Mr.Obvious on May 18, 2019, 03:44:47 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
To move sideways or obliquely.  That is a good description of my rhetorical technique.

I actually agree with that. To me, though, it gives of the vibe that you don't want to have a conversation about things but that more often than not, you just want to say a great number of things.

I like you best when you are consistent.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on May 18, 2019, 04:45:56 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I actually agree with that. To me, though, it gives of the vibe that you don't want to have a conversation about things but that more often than not, you just want to say a great number of things.

I like you best when you are consistent.

If I am inflexible, then I am a block head.  By being oblique, I am leaving my own opinion open.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Mr.Obvious on May 18, 2019, 04:52:06 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If I am inflexible, then I am a block head.  By being oblique, I am leaving my own opinion open.

No, sorry, what I feel happens is you say one thing, someone makes an aimed response and you reply with a great number of things half touching on that reply, leasurly. That's just moving out of the way to avoid your opinion coming under a closer microscope for yourself or your conversational partners. That's not keeping it open, that's keeping it from harm's way.

At least, that's how it comes across for me.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on May 18, 2019, 05:56:51 AM
Here is consistency ...

1. There are theists, atheists and in-between
2. It is OK to be any of those
3. Not everyone is OK with those two points, but I am

Is there anything else that needs to be said in the Religion section?
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on May 18, 2019, 09:35:24 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Doesn't the word "cancer" mean "crab"?


That is the easy part UB.

The difficult part is to know the real story behind it which is something that even most doctors do not know.

In the old times people who develop a cancer didn't have any strong pain killer so when the cancer develop to the chronic stage they felt the pain of hell.
They felt like a crab bite and eat their flesh so when they were feeling this they were saying..........I got a crab......and because in Latin the world crab mean cancer obviously they were saying.........I got a cancer.

These days people with cancer can get rid of most of the pain using morphine so obviously they would think of a crab eating their flesh. 

Even the sign of the cancer in the sky look a bit like a crab.


(https://rfclipart.com/image/big/b6-c1-4f/zodiac-sign-cancer-made-of-stars-Download-Royalty-free-Vector-File-EPS-134203.jpg)
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: aitm on May 18, 2019, 12:38:27 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Even the sign of the cancer in the sky look a bit like a crab.

(https://rfclipart.com/image/big/b6-c1-4f/zodiac-sign-cancer-made-of-stars-Download-Royalty-free-Vector-File-EPS-134203.jpg)

ah...not even close to a crab. 5 stars could be anything. Now actually draw a crab around any 5 stars in the sky and voila! A crab. Sheeesh.....looks like a crab...what a nut.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Mr.Obvious on May 18, 2019, 02:10:27 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Here is consistency ...

1. There are theists, atheists and in-between
2. It is OK to be any of those
3. Not everyone is OK with those two points, but I am

Is there anything else that needs to be said in the Religion section?

Brevity helps in concistency, I guess :p

I'm not OK with the first point. But I can't claim you are being inconsistent here.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Mr.Obvious on May 18, 2019, 02:16:38 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
ah...not even close to a crab. 5 stars could be anything. Now actually draw a crab around any 5 stars in the sky and voila! A crab. Sheeesh.....looks like a crab...what a nut.

Looks like a lobster.

Which cancer (zodiac) is in Dutch.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on May 18, 2019, 02:21:13 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Brevity helps in concistency, I guess :p

I'm not OK with the first point. But I can't claim you are being inconsistent here.

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds - Ralph Waldo Emerson

On #1 ... you are denying that there is an intermediate position?  Surely you aren't denying the existence of theists or atheists?

Given that root position, I am poetically free to elaborate, in a context sensitive way.  So I talk Hindu around Hindus etc.  That is versatility, not inconsistency.  Neither are obtuseness ... that is solely my fault.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Mr.Obvious on May 18, 2019, 02:23:25 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds - Ralph Waldo Emerson

On #1 ... you are denying that there is an intermediate position?  Surely you aren't denying the existence of theists or atheists?

Given that root position, I am poetically free to elaborate, in a context sensitive way.  So I talk Hindu around Hindus etc.  That is versatility, not inconsistency.  Neither are obtuseness ... that is solely my fault.

Yes, I don't deny that you are theist nor that I am atheist.
I don't agree there can be an intermediate state.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Blackleaf on May 18, 2019, 03:15:58 PM
If you believe in any gods, you are a theist. If you do not believe in any gods, you're an atheist. What room is there in between? Even if you're unsure and you don't want to take a stance, you still do not believe in gods, which makes you an atheist. If you believe in gods, but don't agree with the definition of the word "god," then you still a theist.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Unbeliever on May 18, 2019, 06:42:16 PM
Here's a nice, strong crab:




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmm9KYvNPPY
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on May 18, 2019, 11:08:39 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yes, I don't deny that you are theist nor that I am atheist.
I don't agree there can be an intermediate state.

Agnosticism doesn't exist?

i am always suspicious of false dichotomy.  Take any two opposites, I will say complements instead.  There is an edge between the head and the tails.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Mr.Obvious on May 19, 2019, 02:07:40 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Agnosticism doesn't exist?

i am always suspicious of false dichotomy.  Take any two opposites, I will say complements instead.  There is an edge between the head and the tails.

Sure it exists, but it's not an intermediate position. It's a stance on a different question all together
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on May 19, 2019, 04:42:05 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Sure it exists, but it's not an intermediate position. It's a stance on a different question all together

And the wags say, I play semantic games.

How about ... two mothers, one baby ... propose to cut the baby in half to be fair?
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Mr.Obvious on May 19, 2019, 04:56:17 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
And the wags say, I play semantic games.

How about ... two mothers, one baby ... propose to cut the baby in half to be fair?

I say you play 1984-games, not semantics.

doublethink
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on May 19, 2019, 05:39:55 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I say you play 1984-games, not semantics.

doublethink

In the Multiverse, consciousness is infinity-think.  I got the gauntlet from Thanos, a nihilist, because his denial of any meaning, made him vulnerable to every used car salesman ;-)
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on May 19, 2019, 09:22:46 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
ah...not even close to a crab. 5 stars could be anything. Now actually draw a crab around any 5 stars in the sky and voila! A crab. Sheeesh.....looks like a crab...what a nut.



To me those stars form a design similar to a crab or maybe a lobster but astronomy is not much part of my knowledge so I really wouldn't know how to judge the sign of the stars in a perfect way.

In the old times people judge which is which so you should direct to them your complain if of course you can have a chat with them.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Simon Moon on May 19, 2019, 01:32:53 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Now the point is to understand what the word God means.
When someone thinking become attached and fond to something and this attachment become their main attraction then they create a God in their mind so whether a God is real or it is an illusion it doesn't much of a difference in term of saying God but of course it make a lot of difference if it is not an illusion because while the illusion will harm the consciousness the reality does not but of course you may well say that there is no a real God so everything is an illusion or even say that the material reality is real while a real God is an illusion.


Then you are using the word 'god' in a very nonstandard way. The vast majority of humanity, would look at you a bit strangely for using the word that way.

So, it seems like you are defining the word to be almost synonymous with 'obsession'. Not sure where that gets any of us?

But even under your strange definition, I still have no gods.

Now, I do understand that there are people that, as you say, "become attached and fond to something and this attachment become their main attraction" to an unhealthy level. So, if that is your definition of 'god', then under your definition, those gods exist.

Congratulations! You were able to define gods in such a bizarre way, that I am not an atheist with regards to your definition. Because, yes, people do become obsessed toward things to an unhealthy level.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Simon Moon on May 19, 2019, 01:43:39 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


To me those stars form a design similar to a crab or maybe a lobster but astronomy is not much part of my knowledge so I really wouldn't know how to judge the sign of the stars in a perfect way.

In the old times people judge which is which so you should direct to them your complain if of course you can have a chat with them.

These stars look like the were desirned to look like a crab or a lobster? Seriously?!


(https://www.zodiacsignastrology.org/wp-content/uploads/cancer-constellation.jpg)

 
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Blackleaf on May 19, 2019, 01:49:12 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Then you are using the word 'god' in a very nonstandard way. The vast majority of humanity, would look at you a bit strangely for using the word that way.

So, it seems like you are defining the word to be almost synonymous with 'obsession'. Not sure where that gets any of us?

But even under your strange definition, I still have no gods.

Now, I do understand that there are people that, as you say, "become attached and fond to something and this attachment become their main attraction" to an unhealthy level. So, if that is your definition of 'god', then under your definition, those gods exist.

Congratulations! You were able to define gods in such a bizarre way, that I am not an atheist with regards to your definition. Because, yes, people do become obsessed toward things to an unhealthy level.

When I was a Christian, this same tactic was used in the church to basically bring everyone down to their level. If there was anything more important than god in your life, that thing was your god. So this also served as a way of shaming people who weren't Christian enough, as well as turn anyone with an interest in anything into a theist.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on May 19, 2019, 01:54:22 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Then you are using the word 'god' in a very nonstandard way. The vast majority of humanity, would look at you a bit strangely for using the word that way.

So, it seems like you are defining the word to be almost synonymous with 'obsession'. Not sure where that gets any of us?

But even under your strange definition, I still have no gods.

Now, I do understand that there are people that, as you say, "become attached and fond to something and this attachment become their main attraction" to an unhealthy level. So, if that is your definition of 'god', then under your definition, those gods exist.

Congratulations! You were able to define gods in such a bizarre way, that I am not an atheist with regards to your definition. Because, yes, people do become obsessed toward things to an unhealthy level.

Non-standard as in non-Western.  We are the master race, after all ;-(
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on May 19, 2019, 01:55:28 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
When I was a Christian, this same tactic was used in the church to basically bring everyone down to their level. If there was anything more important than god in your life, that thing was your god. So this also served as a way of shaming people who weren't Christian enough, as well as turnint anyone with an interest in anything into a theist

Now that you are more mature (as happens to everyone, but not the same way), do you realize if you live long enough, you will look back from the future at your present self, as a kind of idiot now?
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Unbeliever on May 19, 2019, 05:23:41 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Agnosticism doesn't exist?

i am always suspicious of false dichotomy.  Take any two opposites, I will say complements instead.  There is an edge between the head and the tails.
As I'm sure you know, agnosticism is about knowledge (or lack thereof), not belief. So an agnostic person can still either believe or not, depending on their state of willingness to believe, and nothing else. But they can't both believe and not believe at the same time. Unless, of course, they're a Gemini...
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Mike Cl on May 19, 2019, 06:28:23 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
As I'm sure you know, agnosticism is about knowledge (or lack thereof), not belief. So an agnostic person can still either believe or not, depending on their state of willingness to believe, and nothing else. But they can't both believe and not believe at the same time. Unless, of course, they're a Gemini...
...unless you are Baruch.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on May 19, 2019, 09:45:28 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
...unless you are Baruch.

The regulars here are grammar Nazis ;-)  They carefully define words like Humpty Dumpty from Alice in Wonderland.  But I am more of a Cheshire Cat.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on May 19, 2019, 09:46:29 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
As I'm sure you know, agnosticism is about knowledge (or lack thereof), not belief. So an agnostic person can still either believe or not, depending on their state of willingness to believe, and nothing else. But they can't both believe and not believe at the same time. Unless, of course, they're a Gemini...

You are a binary, because you have two separate personalities ... nothing in between, like Sybil?
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Simon Moon on May 19, 2019, 10:02:15 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Non-standard as in non-Western.  We are the master race, after all ;-(

No, nonstandard as in the way the vast majority of humanity, from all over the world, in many cultures, and many religions, define gods.

I can almost guarantee, that the number of Hindus that define gods as an object that one "become attached and fond to something and this attachment become their main attraction" is near zero.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Simon Moon on May 19, 2019, 10:10:16 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are a binary, because you have two separate personalities ... nothing in between, like Sybil?

Please describe a mental state one can be in, with regards to existential claims, besides accepting the claim as being true, or not accepting the claim as being true.

In other words, besides: accepting the claim that a god exists as being true (theist), and not accepting that claim as being true (atheist), what other mental state can one be in with regards to the claim that gods exist?

If one claims that they don't know if gods exist, then that sure seems like they are in the 'not accepting the claim' camp. If one claims that they vacillate between the 2 positions, at least for part of the time, they are in the  'not accepting the claim' camp. Which is still a binary mental state.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Mr.Obvious on May 20, 2019, 01:12:37 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
In the Multiverse, consciousness is infinity-think.  I got the gauntlet from Thanos, a nihilist, because his denial of any meaning, made him vulnerable to every used car salesman ;-)

Haven't seen those films yet. So I don't get that reference.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on May 20, 2019, 01:21:50 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Please describe a mental state one can be in, with regards to existential claims, besides accepting the claim as being true, or not accepting the claim as being true.

In other words, besides: accepting the claim that a god exists as being true (theist), and not accepting that claim as being true (atheist), what other mental state can one be in with regards to the claim that gods exist?

If one claims that they don't know if gods exist, then that sure seems like they are in the 'not accepting the claim' camp. If one claims that they vacillate between the 2 positions, at least for part of the time, they are in the  'not accepting the claim' camp. Which is still a binary mental state.

You don't know me very well.  For me, atheism/theism isn't a matter of logic or epistemology, but of psychology.  Epistemological or historical arguments, for me, are irrelevant.  I don't care if the supernatural objectively exists, or the natural for that matter.  Don't care if Jesus lived as a man or a god objectively.  Objectivity/subjectivity is irrelevant to me.  A false dichotomy.

You might have a subjective experience that you are rational .. I call BS.  You might have a subjective experience that you are empirical ... I call BS.  You might believe that your subjective experience of an objective reality (aka Plato's cave) is true.  Human psychology is not a matter of reality, but of imagination, some of which is entirely convincing, and some of which is just play time.

Example ... if you are Jewish in 1940, and you meet up with a Nazi who wants to kill you ... the logical or empirical status of Nazi ideology is irrelevant.  That is for useless academics to debate.  The problem is ... the Nazi believes it and will act on it!  That is what atheists are afraid of too, as a despised minority.  Argue as a Japanese in Hiroshima, that nuking you is cruel.  Enjoy the ball of fire either way.

Here is where philosophy gets you ...

http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2012-10-09
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on May 20, 2019, 01:22:55 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Haven't seen those films yet. So I don't get that reference.

You didn't miss much, but even the Avengers last movie was better than last two episodes of Game of Thrones ;-(
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on May 20, 2019, 09:14:06 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Then you are using the word 'god' in a very nonstandard way. The vast majority of humanity, would look at you a bit strangely for using the word that way.

So, it seems like you are defining the word to be almost synonymous with 'obsession'. Not sure where that gets any of us?

But even under your strange definition, I still have no gods.

Now, I do understand that there are people that, as you say, "become attached and fond to something and this attachment become their main attraction" to an unhealthy level. So, if that is your definition of 'god', then under your definition, those gods exist.

Congratulations! You were able to define gods in such a bizarre way, that I am not an atheist with regards to your definition. Because, yes, people do become obsessed toward things to an unhealthy level.


If you believe the story about Buddha he sat down under the tree in meditation until he attained enlightenment and that time last seven weeks.
When you are very close to the goal of life you become obsessed.
And he became obsessed to reach this goal.

As far as the goal that you try to reach lead you to spiritual progress the obsession is not a problem.
However it become a big problem when the obsession is towards materials objects and in many cases even towards a physical entity.

The reason is very simple.
While within the material and physical arena the positive always go hand in hand with the negative within the spiritual arena the negative does not exist that is why an obsession in this field is good while in the material-physical arena is bad.





(https://edwardtraversa.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/38686856_1957005651023939_6002018102382952448_o-uai-258x387.jpg)


Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on May 20, 2019, 09:44:37 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
These stars look like the were desirned to look like a crab or a lobster? Seriously?!


(https://www.zodiacsignastrology.org/wp-content/uploads/cancer-constellation.jpg)


Seriously sure.
Sure that you take it too seriously.

You are an intellectual so you try to get the perfection within the mental arena in contrast to the people of the past that were not much intellectual.

Everything to them was so much more simple so they related signs to anything that came in their mind and two lines that extend out a possible body represent the arms of a crab but again if you try to be too squeamish-fussy or picky then you will never get it.



(https://myfitbrain.in/blog_images/1545737666My-child-is-a-fussy-eater-what-should-i-do.jpg)
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Mr.Obvious on May 21, 2019, 05:35:11 PM
Came across this just now.
Reminded me of this thread.

(https://static.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/I-am-the-cartoonist-behind-the-webcomic-Rustled-Jimmies-5a24fa2b692f6-png__880.jpg)
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Cavebear on May 22, 2019, 05:15:57 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yup. That's why the sign "Cancer" looks like a crab. Don't know what that's supposed to prove, though. Signs are bullshit.

(https://scontent.fhou1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/59919514_568661673622579_8935695402246602752_n.jpg?_nc_cat=101&_nc_ht=scontent.fhou1-1.fna&oh=8c497d1b2ae3e858617754da67ba8f35&oe=5D755FC2)

LOVED THAT!
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Cavebear on May 22, 2019, 05:18:48 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
But what does "crab" mean?  Several, but this one is spot on ...

To move sideways or obliquely.  That is a good description of my rhetorical technique.

Earlier I was referring to cancer by analogy with the medical term, an out of control growth.  Humans are very feral in that way.

Again from 4 years ago, my Point of Reference is Kabbalah.  There are three areas of interest in Kabbalah ...

1. Theoretical speculation - both meta-physical and physical (aka Sankhya/Jnana in Hindu culture)

2. Metaphysical practice - magic (metaphysical) (aka Bhakti/Siddhi in Hindu culture, subjective reality)

3. Physical practice - non-magic (physical) (aka Karma, Raja, Hatha in Hindu culture, objective reality)

As a pragmatist, my emphasis is on #3.  Though I am not disinterested in the first two.

The primary problem for anyone focused on a particular system is practice.  Hopefully as a retiree I can devote more time to that.

LOL!  crab in Latin is "cancer".  Nothing more, nothing less.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Cavebear on May 22, 2019, 05:27:08 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You might have a subjective experience that you are rational .. I call BS.  You might have a subjective experience that you are empirical ... I call BS.  You might believe that your subjective experience of an objective reality (aka Plato's cave) is true.  Human psychology is not a matter of reality, but of imagination, some of which is entirely convincing, and some of which is just play time.

Well, one way to test "objective reality" would be to explode a grenade in your face (thinking it was non-real) and then see if you could discuss it afterwards...

Note:  I DO assume no one would be that stupid...
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on May 22, 2019, 07:08:58 AM
Actually, that is an assumption.  And we can't function without assumptions (hence even proper deduction is weak).  It is assumed you are real, that you are alive, that you are conscious .. I agree these are compelling assumptions.  But that doesn't make them true.  You could still be a brain in a jar with artificial stimuli.  Our whole individual personality and whole collective culture is based on "make believe" that is inherited, with mutations, from one generation to the next.  Just like those non-existent lines that divide countries on maps.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: aitm on May 22, 2019, 07:34:12 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
  It is assumed you are real, that you are alive, that you are conscious ..


I must disagree. You can assume you may not be real, but you can't prove it.

By what evidence can be used to suggest one may not be real against all that suggests you are? I would assume that reality would be the default, not the assumption that everything is false.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on May 22, 2019, 11:08:13 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Well, one way to test "objective reality" would be to explode a grenade in your face (thinking it was non-real) and then see if you could discuss it afterwards...

Note:  I DO assume no one would be that stupid...


There are people who can brake bricks with the head and other that can introduce hooks or metal rods through their flesh and feel no pain

https://www.google.com/search?q=hindu+festival+poke+the+flesh&client=firefox-b-d&tbm=isch&tbs=rimg:Cdk5_1ibclj28IjhTPNHx1pMC6BTRJjtxqDR4EiY0kg7bTV-qO7bgueXqNFYZq1Z7yjEcOhtfGHemCV0BECO-geTByCoSCVM80fHWkwLoEamISY4kqhJaKhIJFNEmO3GoNHgREJ3TW_1yTkAEqEgkSJjSSDttNXxHc8xXx9AC9ZyoSCao7tuC55eo0EfO8v6-LE0osKhIJVhmrVnvKMRwRMyKJuH_1tHGYqEgk6G18Yd6YJXREg2osbj6GIESoSCQEQI76B5MHIEf2W0oXC3Zes&tbo=u&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiY5t3JsK_iAhWIvY8KHR4CCyoQ9C96BAgBEBs&biw=1280&bih=686&dpr=1#imgrc=_


and I suppose that if you develop your consciousness to a very high degree you could also overcome a grenade in your face but again all this is not for a week consciousness.

It all depend CB.

Once you reach the stage in which you realize that this universe is a mental projection of someone very very powerful than you also realize that the matter such as a grenade can not harm you at all because what is inferior to you has no power over you.

Obviously to reach this state you got to lift your consciousness to the very top of the human emancipation.

Oh, by the way do not ask me if I would let a grenade explode over me.
I am not God after all. 





Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: aitm on May 22, 2019, 11:42:31 AM
What bull-shit. Humans are only a very small part of the life on this planet but nutjob here thinks they have some special link to some grand wizard that hovers over a 14 billion light year universe.

We evolved from fungi, plant based. Get over your grand illusion that we are all that important to anything but our own existence and to the future of our planet should probably get more involved in saving that as our only place to live.
 
You probably should park your ass in the dark forests and whisper to mushrooms....or at least into the ocean and kneel before the sponges...then you may get the enlightenment you seek, pretty obvious to most but sometimes you need a grenade to the side of the head to get some brain activity going.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Unbeliever on May 22, 2019, 01:16:39 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You could still be a brain in a jar with artificial stimuli.


More likely to be a Boltzmann brain:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kii-s2eDZps
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: aitm on May 22, 2019, 01:54:26 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
  You could still be a brain in a jar with artificial stimuli. 

I keep hearing people suggest this but never with a reason why...or a guess as to why....or even some nutjob Ariklien lunacy as to why....so why?
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on May 22, 2019, 03:36:48 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


I must disagree. You can assume you may not be real, but you can't prove it.

By what evidence can be used to suggest one may not be real against all that suggests you are? I would assume that reality would be the default, not the assumption that everything is false.

Proof only exists in math.  And even in math, proof isn't iron-clad, only relatively so.  Everything else is "demonstration" not "proof".  As people often say here, use the correct word or be considered less ...

To assume that there is only true/false is an assumption (Law of Excluded Middle) is invalid in higher math.  Even invalid in Buddhist logic from 2000 years ago.  It is impossible not to have assumptions.  You are assuming that what you see directly with your eyes etc is real.  But that isn't true (or false).  It is a pragmatic assumption.

I do use the same method, I regard my hand on the end of my arm as real.  Other assumptions, even with proper deduction, that would deny that, are nonsense.  But I understand I have no proof.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on May 22, 2019, 03:45:15 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I keep hearing people suggest this but never with a reason why...or a guess as to why....or even some nutjob Ariklien lunacy as to why....so why?

It is a thought experiment, by psychologists/philosophers.  Similarly the "can't tell a human from a zombie" model of consciousness (thought experiment).  That materially, you could have a zombie with no consciousness, and it would behave indistinguishably from a human.

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

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

Most people are "naive realists" ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naïve_realism
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: aitm on May 22, 2019, 03:58:20 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are assuming that what you see directly with your eyes etc is real.  But that isn't true (or false). 

 I disagree, though really I don't know why I would bother as this topic has plenty of coverage. Until you can show why I should assume that what my eyes see is not true, I am forced to assume it must be true for there can be no other logical assumption that can be made.

To simply say....maybe.... is to simply say maybe, which is no reason to consider the obvious as not true.

If, in actuality,it could be shown that there is reasonable logic to assume that what we see is not true then I will continue to follow the road and not veer off into the woods.

One of the reasons the masses lost interest in philosophy is when it ventured into the realm of the unproven able it suggested it must be assumed as a possibility instead of a mind experiment. Which is all it is, and all it will ever be. A mere thought experiment, with absolutely no possibility of being true.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on May 22, 2019, 04:06:23 PM
It is OK to be a naive realist.  It is what most people are.  Even I use it (but I label the real things differently than you do).  We both agree that your hand is attached to your arm, and my hand is attached to my arm (assuming no amputations).  We can get past assumptions with a Skype call, that would count as at demonstration (not proof).  Usually, being like other people, is somehow unsatisfactory for most of us.

So my realism doesn't equal your realism, because of labels.  But I accept that we are both naive (we are monkeys).

The point for a more sophisticated philosophy?  Maybe no point.  The famous case of "sophists" is they can argue in an Athenian court that the truth is false and the false is true.  Socrates (philosopher - lover of sophistry) claimed to get beyond this limitation, but an Athenian court executed him.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: aitm on May 22, 2019, 08:05:06 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

The point for a more sophisticated philosophy? 

By mimicking the ridiculous claims of religion? Philosophy....though by threat of execution most likely, was forced to grant religious thought equal footing in the world of "knowledge" and thus allowed ignorance a equal chair at the table. We have been unable to pull that chair from them since. But philosophy decided that they too would like a piece of the woo money and all kinds of "spiritual" schools pranced to life to gather the dollars from the ignorant.

Now they invent nonsense and claim that we must grant them respect because even though they cannot prove their spectacular claims....like religion they cannot be disproven.. I do not grant this to religion or whack-a-doo philosophy dressed in fancy words. I have taken a page from religion. I will not accept what you present without evidence. Your claims have no merit without absolute proof. Now of course, what I think means nothing at all to the argument....it only means something to me.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on May 22, 2019, 11:30:52 PM
You are free.  You need not respect anyone or anything.  But don't go too far, otherwise you travel beyond psychopathy into sociopathy.

I choose to sympathize with people, but not their BS ideas.  Their ideas are the raving content of their self/mutual delusion.  My understanding of what is delusion, is more skeptical than your kind.  But not because I am seeking some pure nihilism.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on May 23, 2019, 10:16:30 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
What bull-shit. Humans are only a very small part of the life on this planet but nutjob here thinks they have some special link to some grand wizard that hovers over a 14 billion light year universe.

We evolved from fungi, plant based. Get over your grand illusion that we are all that important to anything but our own existence and to the future of our planet should probably get more involved in saving that as our only place to live.
 
You probably should park your ass in the dark forests and whisper to mushrooms....or at least into the ocean and kneel before the sponges...then you may get the enlightenment you seek, pretty obvious to most but sometimes you need a grenade to the side of the head to get some brain activity going.


Most probably in my past lives I was a dreamer like you but evolution does miracles so now I am here looking at myself in you hundreds years ago.
But don't worry mate because you too will get out that mental stagnation in which you are at the moment.

The time is a clear indicator that this dimension is but a big illusion because when we are happy the time goes very fast but when we suffer the time takes ages and ages to pass.
If this dimension would be real then it should take the same time to pass as a watch show but in reality it doesn't.

When you believe that we humans have a different origin and that low form of life like mushrooms and sponges from the ocean never improve their status to reach human status and above then you show that you understand evolution as a donkey understand the carrot trick.




(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Q4prlDodH74/TwmWkpb10eI/AAAAAAAAAAw/HkACXe69lUg/s1600/donkey-carrot.gif)
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: aitm on May 23, 2019, 10:35:29 AM
Babbling stupid shit in an attempt to appear enlightened merely shows your bulb is out. Seriously...whatever shit your drinking, you should bottle.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on May 23, 2019, 10:53:40 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Babbling stupid shit in an attempt to appear enlightened merely shows your bulb is out. Seriously...whatever shit your drinking, you should bottle.


You still don't get the fact that Darwin explanation of evolution only related to body changes do you?

How long will it takes to understand the full picture?
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: aitm on May 23, 2019, 12:18:16 PM
I understand the full picture. You seem to think humans are special. They are not.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Unbeliever on May 23, 2019, 01:11:35 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msDcShv_r20
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on May 23, 2019, 01:38:44 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Babbling stupid shit in an attempt to appear enlightened merely shows your bulb is out. Seriously...whatever shit your drinking, you should bottle.

If you are skeptic enough when will you doubt yourself?
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on May 23, 2019, 01:39:43 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I understand the full picture. You seem to think humans are special. They are not.

And people think I am a misanthrope?  I am a humanist/humanitarian.  Unfortunately this is the NYC zoo from Madagascar.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: aitm on May 23, 2019, 02:38:09 PM
I don't hate humanity, most of us understand that if you could reduce DNA to a handful of colored marbles the only difference between us, an oak tree or a cricket is a couple marbles...hence "he's a couple marbles short"....lol, I know... I had too, it was right there.

Anyhoo, we did evolve into splendid creatures.... but many don't want to be associated with "filthy dirty animals", even though we are filthy dirty animals. Our very bodies are walking Queen Mary's to a billion organisms feasting off us and in us. Perhaps the micro world created us to live in. There is far more reason to follow that line of creation than the idea that a grand wizard popping universes into existence and then creating miniature creatures to inhabit a planet and then demand homage and punish them for loving someone or for eating another creature is absurd. Just absurd. And Yo-yo here thinks we can be one with the universe.....oy.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Unbeliever on May 23, 2019, 02:52:12 PM
Well, maybe we can be three with the universe...
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on May 24, 2019, 09:11:43 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't hate humanity, most of us understand that if you could reduce DNA to a handful of colored marbles the only difference between us, an oak tree or a cricket is a couple marbles...hence "he's a couple marbles short"....lol, I know... I had too, it was right there.

Anyhoo, we did evolve into splendid creatures.... but many don't want to be associated with "filthy dirty animals", even though we are filthy dirty animals. Our very bodies are walking Queen Mary's to a billion organisms feasting off us and in us. Perhaps the micro world created us to live in. There is far more reason to follow that line of creation than the idea that a grand wizard popping universes into existence and then creating miniature creatures to inhabit a planet and then demand homage and punish them for loving someone or for eating another creature is absurd. Just absurd. And Yo-yo here thinks we can be one with the universe.....oy.


Once again you show how little you understand evolution.

Humans are not special or lucky for some mysterious unknown reasons but are rather special and lucky because they reach a significant progress in the effort to reach the goal of life so the only difference between humans and low form of life is the line of progress that separate one with the other.

That of course means that everybody and everything will in due time reach the same goal.
A bit like a pupil that just start school and those more advanced in their studies and progress.

Progress is open to anyone so a plant will evolve into animal life, animals into humans and humans will reach the goal of life which is something that atheists still don't know it exist.

Unfortunately atheists are still stuck with the notion that all form of life stay as they are and evolution is only related to changes in physical structure with no way for anyone to evolve through reincarnation.

By thinking in this way they also should think that a pupil that start the first year in their primary class have no chance to progress to year two and so on until they reach the uni.
This form of dogma is as bad as any religious dogma which make them go around with the blinkers in the eyes.   



Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: aitm on May 24, 2019, 11:43:49 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
but are rather special and lucky because they reach a significant progress in the effort to reach the goal of life so the only difference between humans and low form of life is the line of progress that separate one with the other.

I know, in your mind, that makes sense. But your idea that we are where we are because there is an "effort to reach the goal of life" is just babbling arrogance. You have convince yourself...that's just fine and dandy. Your bullshit won't work here. Don't you have some incense to burn and some meditating to do? You sure spend a lot of time here instead of perfecting your OM.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on May 24, 2019, 02:13:09 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I know, in your mind, that makes sense. But your idea that we are where we are because there is an "effort to reach the goal of life" is just babbling arrogance. You have convince yourself...that's just fine and dandy. Your bullshit won't work here. Don't you have some incense to burn and some meditating to do? You sure spend a lot of time here instead of perfecting your OM.

Difference between bottom up and top down explanations.  With bottom up, somehow, we don't know how, the random motions of atoms makes a human, and that human voted for Gary Johnson ;-)  With top down, you start from life, from consciousness, from humanity.  But that is the traditional POV, Arik has a version of the traditional view.  Materialists must, must explain bottom up.  I have yet to hear a bottom up explanation that actually explains the mega-phenomena of human life (materialists reply ... there is no other choice other than the one we miraculously support).  Any argument that goes "we have no other choice than the choice I already made ..." is unconvincing.  And materialists took over the entire Enlightenment mantel ... though at the time, 300 years ago, the definition included top down as well.  Materialism 300 years ago was the minority position among modern thinkers.  The Marxists did the same thing it he 19th century.  200 years ago, there was more than one version of socialism, but by 100 years ago the choice had been narrowed, by propaganda, to Vladimir Lenin.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: aitm on May 24, 2019, 08:11:27 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Difference between bottom up and top down explanations. 

If you could simply....try to make a point, instead of bouncing off walls of a plethora of nothing....perhaps....maybe....we could actually understand what the fuck you are trying to say. I know you THINK you made a point, but the fact is the gibberish that made sense to you, kinda enforces the idea you just make up shit to make yourself look "schmarter". Really, I don't have a clue what your trying to say, and if you think that this is an indication of intellectual level, you need to understand that the goal of an intellectual should be to spread their knowledge, not pontificate to the point where we think your actually ignorant.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on May 24, 2019, 10:02:34 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If you could simply....try to make a point, instead of bouncing off walls of a plethora of nothing....perhaps....maybe....we could actually understand what the fuck you are trying to say. I know you THINK you made a point, but the fact is the gibberish that made sense to you, kinda enforces the idea you just make up shit to make yourself look "schmarter". Really, I don't have a clue what your trying to say, and if you think that this is an indication of intellectual level, you need to understand that the goal of an intellectual should be to spread their knowledge, not pontificate to the point where we think your actually ignorant.

Sorry, but I won't write the Wikipedia for you.  No, I am not smarter.  If you think I am, that is your problem, not mine.  I am not some public intellectual, trying to achieve a greater Marxist utopia.  I will leave that to others.  And yes, I don't know everything, just some things.  So I am ignorant, same as you, but on different things.

That quote was taken out of context.  It might make more sense, in its original context, as a snippet of a dialog.  Quote the entire paragraph ... and refute that.  Otherwise it is just proof-texting.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on May 24, 2019, 10:19:00 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I know, in your mind, that makes sense. But your idea that we are where we are because there is an "effort to reach the goal of life" is just babbling arrogance. You have convince yourself...that's just fine and dandy. Your bullshit won't work here. Don't you have some incense to burn and some meditating to do? You sure spend a lot of time here instead of perfecting your OM.


When will you ever stop contradicting yourself?

Right now you are here in this forum BECAUSE you wish to communicate and that means to learn as well.
Learning means to advance and that is a fact.

Who push you to advance Mister?

Father Christmas or something within?

Stop fooling yourself by living in your little cocoon of materialism because the force from within that keep on telling you go ahead fight very very hard to wake you up and grow you up and if you keep on resisting then you castrate yourself.
We all have our own way to advance.
Baruch aim may be to get more intellectual knowledge, my way is to reduce the distance that separate myself from the goal of life through yoga but your way is the silly possible way and it will take longer and longer to get there but there you will get anyway because there is no other place to go unless you wish to float in this material illusion for the next million years.

 
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: aitm on May 25, 2019, 07:36:18 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
little cocoon of materialism


You really are a f-ing retard. This whole crappy argument of materialism is new age psycho-babble for inferiority complexes you suffer from. You can't afford a nice car or even a real bicycle so you rant and rave that anyone who can is a slave to your ignorant position.

Half the world doesn't even have a goddamn bowl and spoon and if they did it would be considered a treasure. Half the world is poverty stricken but here you are yapping about shit that nobody cares about except people jealous of the success of others and embarrassed by their lack of motivation and prattle on about it as if it is some great and grand idea when the truth is your just a lazy ass dead beat pretending to be some grand master of the mind. No matter how much you try you're not going to get any better sitting on your ass trying to convince people you have some secret knowledge when your just jacking off in the wind.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on May 25, 2019, 08:36:19 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
When will you ever stop contradicting yourself?
He hasn't.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Mike Cl on May 25, 2019, 09:05:57 AM
And he won't.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on May 25, 2019, 09:26:04 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You really are a f-ing retard. This whole crappy argument of materialism is new age psycho-babble for inferiority complexes you suffer from. You can't afford a nice car or even a real bicycle so you rant and rave that anyone who can is a slave to your ignorant position.

Half the world doesn't even have a goddamn bowl and spoon and if they did it would be considered a treasure. Half the world is poverty stricken but here you are yapping about shit that nobody cares about except people jealous of the success of others and embarrassed by their lack of motivation and prattle on about it as if it is some great and grand idea when the truth is your just a lazy ass dead beat pretending to be some grand master of the mind. No matter how much you try you're not going to get any better sitting on your ass trying to convince people you have some secret knowledge when your just jacking off in the wind.


Sure, Mister sure but if you know how things should be then why don't you explain how a person can break bricks with the head?

Materialism is your strong subject isn't it aitm?
A brick is made of very very hard matter but the head is made of weak matter so how a weak type of matter can break hard matter? 
Any chance you can answer this question?




(https://www.pehub.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/answers.jpg)
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on May 25, 2019, 09:41:32 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
He hasn't.


Yes, he has because on one hand he deny that there is progress towards a goal of life but on the other hand he keep on creating progress in his mind by interrelate to other minds here in this forum and possibly in his life outside this forum as well.

Of course he may not see a relation between learning for the sake of learning and learning in order to reach a spiritual goal but that matter very little because all this learning goes right within to enrich his consciousness which again can only lead to a strongest consciousness and that is progress towards a goal of life so even if he is not aware of where this learning end up
he is still contradicting his own consciousness.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on May 25, 2019, 09:52:07 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Yes, he has because on one hand he deny that there is progress towards a goal of life but on the other hand he keep on creating progress in his mind by interrelate to other minds here in this forum and possibly in his life outside this forum as well.
You’re projecting your made up conclusions onto others.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on May 25, 2019, 10:00:35 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You’re projecting your made up conclusions onto others.


Oh, well if you are any good in knowing something about conclusions you and your friends should know how a guy can break dozen and dozen of real bricks with his head.

Let us see if you too can explain how that is possible.  :sad:
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on May 25, 2019, 10:03:17 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You’re projecting your made up conclusions onto others.

That is the consequence of consciousness, and assuming we are the same species.  Are we?
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on May 25, 2019, 10:04:03 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Oh, well if you are any good in knowing something about conclusions you and your friends should know how a guy can brake dozen and dozen of real bricks with his head.

Let us see if you too can explain how that is possible.  :sad:

Reality is more complicated than simple lay POV.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on May 25, 2019, 10:18:28 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That is the consequence of consciousness, and assuming we are the same species.  Are we?


Good point.

A lot of people ignore that the seeds originate from the same tree of life.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on May 25, 2019, 10:29:23 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Reality is more complicated than simple lay POV.


You just remind me when I did learn how to swim.

At one stage I was quite frustrated that I could not float in the water or swim but one day I just jump in the water in a pool where I could not touch the bottom and I realize that I was able to float.
That was the day that I stop clinging to my fears.

When the reality seems far too complicated then is time to stop clinging to our own fears and let go.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on May 25, 2019, 11:07:23 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Oh, well if you are any good in knowing something about conclusions you and your friends should know how a guy can brake dozen and dozen of real bricks with his head.

Let us see if you too can explain how that is possible.  :sad:
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190525/1bd6b85ab9bb8583b00cd63d7e3cb730.jpg)
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Blackleaf on May 25, 2019, 11:13:33 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Oh, well if you are any good in knowing something about conclusions you and your friends should know how a guy can brake dozen and dozen of real bricks with his head.

Let us see if you too can explain how that is possible.  :sad:

First of all, video or it didn't happen. Second, obviously the guy used his brain magic to break the bricks just before his head came into contact with them. Duh.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on May 25, 2019, 07:40:03 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
First of all, video or it didn't happen. Second, obviously the guy used his brain magic to break the bricks just before his head came into contact with them. Duh.


Same people never give up isn't it BL?

Even when the evidence is there and right in front of you you try your very best to fabricate excuses in order to keep your head above the water.

So sad!
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Blackleaf on May 25, 2019, 07:54:02 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Same people never give up isn't it BL?

Even when the evidence is there and right in front of you you try your very best to fabricate excuses in order to keep your head above the water.

So sad!

I see no video, so how is the evidence right on front of me? Since you're so confident in your position, how about you offer us a demonstration?

And I don't give up? That's not true. I gave up trying to talk sense into you a long time ago. Now you've reached chew toy status.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Unbeliever on May 25, 2019, 07:59:43 PM
“Glendower: I can call the spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come, when you do call for them?”

― William Shakespeare, King Henry IV, Part 1
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on May 26, 2019, 01:06:13 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I see no video, so how is the evidence right on front of me? Since you're so confident in your position, how about you offer us a demonstration?

And I don't give up? That's not true. I gave up trying to talk sense into you a long time ago. Now you've reached chew toy status.

Page 5 BL.
Go to page 5 on this thread to see the video.
Thanks.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Blackleaf on May 26, 2019, 01:11:19 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Page 5 BL.
Go to page 5 on this thread to see the video.
Thanks.

Oh. I thought you meant actual bricks, like the kind used for building houses. Instead, it's these thin plates specifically made for breaking. That was a lot less impressive than you made it out to be. Yeah, I'm sure his forehead hurt like hell afterwards, but it's nothing someone with enough determination and masochism couldn't accomplish. This is sad. Next you're going to be referencing the people who punch themselves in the balls as proof of "mental power."

Edit: Not to mention, this is a karate master. You know. A person who trains their physical body, and learns how to use it most efficiently to maximize damage and minimize self-injury. Not a yoga instructor, who spends all day meditating. You'd think the latter would have an easier time doing this, if it were really this brain magic that made it possible.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Cavebear on May 26, 2019, 02:08:43 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

There are people who can brake bricks with the head and other that can introduce hooks or metal rods through their flesh and feel no pain

It all depend CB.

Once you reach the stage in which you realize that this universe is a mental projection of someone very very powerful than you also realize that the matter such as a grenade can not harm you at all because what is inferior to you has no power over you.


Without evidence, I do not consider  "someone very very powerful" in any theistic sense to exist.

Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on May 26, 2019, 02:27:25 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190525/1bd6b85ab9bb8583b00cd63d7e3cb730.jpg)



How on earth can you say that?

Here I clearly show that materialism is a losing option and you say...........WHAT THE HELL DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING..........Are you kidding me? 

Considering that the head is thousand times softer than bricks would come obvious to understand that the guy in question must have apply his mental power to break the bricks.

That clearly means that the mental power is stronger than the pysical-material power therefore materialists that only believe in physical-material power are losers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4TEmFqSxQE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xKOwmuq-Vs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFRHMt4GaTs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHMoT3ogblo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QvyzTzuG5U




Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Cavebear on May 26, 2019, 02:40:11 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


How on earth can you say that?

Here I clearly show that materialism is a losing option and you say...........WHAT THE HELL DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING..........Are you kidding me? 

Considering that the head is thousand times softer than bricks would come obvious to understand that the guy in question must have apply his mental power to break the bricks.

That clearly means that the mental power is stronger than the pysical-material power therefore materialists that only believe in physical-material power are losers.

Since when does breaking a brick with your head make any logical argument?  I can only smile...
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Mr.Obvious on May 26, 2019, 02:49:04 AM
If brains are not the source of conscience, why does even the head bit matter? People brake these with their hands too, don't they? And with al matter of objects.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Cavebear on May 26, 2019, 03:01:08 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If brains are not the source of conscience, why does even the head bit matter? People brake these with their hands too, don't they? And with al matter of objects.

What is this with "brake".  It's "break"!
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on May 26, 2019, 03:08:57 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Oh. I thought you meant actual bricks, like the kind used for building houses. Instead, it's these thin plates specifically made for breaking. That was a lot less impressive than you made it out to be.


Gee, there got to be a big big difference between a house brick and a concrete block.
Thanks for telling me.  :azn:


Quote
Yeah, I'm sure his forehead hurt like hell afterwards


Not at all BL.
As you can see these guys look very well indeed after that.


Quote
but it's nothing someone with enough determination and masochism couldn't accomplish. This is sad. Next you're going to be referencing the people who punch themselves in the balls as proof of "mental power."


Why not BL.
If the mental power is superior to the physical power that need to be said and if the spiritual power is even more powerful than the mental power also that need to be said.
Obviously you guys are not going to believe that Jesus was walking on the water or heal people but again nobody expect that someone deep entrenched in materialism all of a sudden open his-her eyes and learn.


Quote
Edit: Not to mention, this is a karate master. You know. A person who trains their physical body, and learns how to use it most efficiently to maximize damage and minimize self-injury.


You just don't get it BL do you?
Not all those who can break bricks are karate masters as you can also see in my previous post.
It is rather a question to train your mind karate or not karate.


Quote
Not a yoga instructor, who spends all day meditating. You'd think the latter would have an easier time doing this, if it were really this brain magic that made it possible.


You have no idea what you are talking about my friend.

Yoga goes well over the mental power so obviously anyone serious in meditation must have a lot more power than the physical and mental power put together.
The only reason why a serious yogy doesn't show his-her power is because we surrender that power to our guru for some simple reasons.

It is very very dangerous to use that power.
Once you start using it you want more and more and that is energy that leave you beside it would attract a lot of karma and you don't want to get stuck with more and more reincarnation in the effort of getting rid of that karma.
The aim of a serious yogy is to get closer and closer to the source of everything and by using that power you just get farther and farther away from it so obviously you will never see a serious yogy playing up with power.

Only once you reach the apex of human existence you can use that power without any problem and that is what Jesus, Shiva, Krishna and few other were doing.

Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on May 26, 2019, 03:10:46 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
What is this with "brake".  It's "break"!


You are 100% correct.
Thanks for telling us.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on May 26, 2019, 03:19:52 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If brains are not the source of conscience, why does even the head bit matter? People brake these with their hands too, don't they? And with al matter of objects.


Surely the brain is not the source of the conscience but because the consciousness reside in the brain and more exactly in the pineal gland the two in a way become one.
A bit like when you travel in your vehicle so you and the vehicle become one that is why everything matter.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on May 26, 2019, 04:06:07 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Good point.

A lot of people ignore that the seeds originate from the same tree of life.

A good summary of Yoga history ... aka the sum of Indian experience ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92J-JPChaeI
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Cavebear on May 26, 2019, 04:06:52 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are 100% correct.
Thanks for telling us.

The correction was needed.  I was laughing too loud at home about "brakes".

But that makes me wonder.  If the spelling was a non-English-first-language thing, I do apologize.  It wasn't meant as an insult.  I made an assumption that may have been wrong.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on May 26, 2019, 04:09:01 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The correction was needed.  I was laughing too loud at home about "brakes".

But that makes me wonder.  If the spelling was a non-English-first-language thing, I do apologize.  It wasn't meant as an insult.  I made an assumption that may have been wrong.

Not just that, but American spelling isn't the only English ... the English spell differently, and that Indian English is different yet.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Cavebear on May 26, 2019, 04:12:10 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Not just that, but American spelling isn't the only English ... the English spell differently, and that Indian English is different yet.

Do you confuse "breaks" with "brakes?  Just asking.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on May 26, 2019, 04:21:55 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Do you confuse "breaks" with "brakes?  Just asking.

Are you Funk, or Wagnal?  Who made you the grammar Nazi?  There is more than one spelling of words, in World English.  This was potentially the case.  Or a simple error.  Either way, you show what a demi-god you are ;-)
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Mr.Obvious on May 26, 2019, 05:05:17 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
What is this with "brake".  It's "break"!

my bad
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Mr.Obvious on May 26, 2019, 05:28:02 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Surely the brain is not the source of the conscience but because the consciousness reside in the brain and more exactly in the pineal gland the two in a way become one.
A bit like when you travel in your vehicle so you and the vehicle become one that is why everything matter.

But it also resides in the rest of the body? I mean, plants don't have pineal glands. We've already established to dissagree if plants are conscious or not, but you believe they are, don't you?

Also, we've been using 'conscience' where I think we should have been using 'consciousness' for a while now.
Noticed it after Cavebear pointed out the 'Break' 'brake' thingamajig.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Cavebear on May 26, 2019, 06:01:52 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
But it also resides in the rest of the body? I mean, plants don't have pineal glands. We've already established to dissagree if plants are conscious or not, but you believe they are, don't you?

Also, we've been using 'conscience' where I think we should have been using 'consciousness' for a while now.
Noticed it after Cavebear pointed out the 'Break' 'brake' thingamajig.

Conciousness is tricky.  Plants react to insect attacks, and seem to warn other plants.  But in the human sense, no, plants are not concious. as we understand it.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Mr.Obvious on May 26, 2019, 06:19:59 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Conciousness is tricky.  Plants react to insect attacks, and seem to warn other plants.  But in the human sense, no, plants are not concious. as we understand it.

I agree, it's what I also told rikki. Plant perception is a thing, but it is not actual consciousness as we say in day to day meaning.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Cavebear on May 26, 2019, 06:25:20 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I agree, it's what I also told rikki. Plant perception is a thing, but it is not actual consciousness as we say in day to day meaning.

Yes.  And I do try to distinguish between plant and animal conciousness.  But the more I read about plant studies, the more I wonder.  I suspect it is all just a matter of degree.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on May 26, 2019, 07:11:18 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I agree, it's what I also told rikki. Plant perception is a thing, but it is not actual consciousness as we say in day to day meaning.

I could claim the same for most voters ;-)
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Cavebear on May 26, 2019, 07:36:20 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I could claim the same for most voters ;-)

Coming from a Trump supporter, that is quite an emission...
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on May 26, 2019, 10:12:03 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Coming from a Trump supporter, that is quite an emission...

Not a Trump supporter.  Just not an Orange Man Bad psychopath.  There is no such thing as morality.  Therefore all politicians are equally innocent/guilty.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Sal1981 on May 26, 2019, 10:16:28 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Not a Trump supporter.  Just not an Orange Man Bad psychopath.  There is no such thing as morality.  Therefore all politicians are equally innocent/guilty.
You might not suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome, but you have all the hallmarks of a moral relativist.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on May 26, 2019, 10:26:01 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You might not suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome, but you have all the hallmarks of a moral relativist.

Moral nihilist.  A relativist would say ... what I like is more moral than what you like.  Please get it right ;-)  Cavebear is a relativist.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on May 26, 2019, 11:39:22 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


How on earth can you say that?

Here I clearly show that materialism is a losing option and you say...........WHAT THE HELL DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING..........Are you kidding me? 

Considering that the head is thousand times softer than bricks would come obvious to understand that the guy in question must have apply his mental power to break the bricks.

That clearly means that the mental power is stronger than the pysical-material power therefore materialists that only believe in physical-material power are losers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4TEmFqSxQE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xKOwmuq-Vs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFRHMt4GaTs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHMoT3ogblo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QvyzTzuG5U
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190526/5363aa61b7526eea8fb4011b2e307875.jpg)



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on May 26, 2019, 11:59:51 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
But it also resides in the rest of the body? I mean, plants don't have pineal glands. We've already established to dissagree if plants are conscious or not, but you believe they are, don't you?


As the consciousness in an entity get more advanced the need arise for a medium to host or accommodate such a consciousness so animals who have a spinal cord and humans need a place and the pineal gland is such a place.
A plant has got such a tiny consciousness that there is no need for her to create a medium capable to old her tiny consciousness which may reside anywhere in her body.
Awareness in consciousness goes in degree from no awareness in matter to tiny awareness in plants to more awareness in animals until the apex of total awareness is reached when humans merge in God and at that stage consciousness is everywhere so the pineal gland or a body is not needed anymore .


Quote
Also, we've been using 'conscience' where I think we should have been using 'consciousness' for a while now.
Noticed it after Cavebear pointed out the 'Break' 'brake' thingamajig.


Conscience may feel you guilty or happy.
When I am awake I am conscious and my awareness come from my consciousness.
As you can see they may sound differently but at the end they are very very similar to each other.


Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Sal1981 on May 26, 2019, 01:04:41 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Moral nihilist.  A relativist would say ... what I like is more moral than what you like.  Please get it right ;-)  Cavebear is a relativist.
Why nihilist? You don't think there are any moral values?

I don't know what label I qualify for, but I do believe there are moral values; just not any absolute ones. Does that make me a relativist? IDK. I like Sam Harris' explanation of moral values as a landscape. At the bottoms is suffering and the various peaks are wellbeing and happiness. Then you can talk about the extremes of the values in the landscape, and how many dimensions there are.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on May 26, 2019, 02:19:03 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Why nihilist? You don't think there are any moral values?

I don't know what label I qualify for, but I do believe there are moral values; just not any absolute ones. Does that make me a relativist? IDK. I like Sam Harris' explanation of moral values as a landscape. At the bottoms is suffering and the various peaks are wellbeing and happiness. Then you can talk about the extremes of the values in the landscape, and how many dimensions there are.

There are no genuine moral values, among humans.  Not what I want, this is an empirical observation.  People are not bat shit crazy just to be bat shit crazy.  But are situational crazy.  And in the moment, their Id (Forbidden Planet) kicks in with irrational survival of the meanest, like the Bill Murray speech to the NYC mayor in the first Ghostbusters movie.  When people are only potential not actual, they talk shop.  And after the zombie cannibalism is over, then they rationalize.  Just the way we are.

Sam Harris is Buddhist, very beta male.  In a bar fight, he would be the first one killed and eaten (along with any other cucked pacifists).  Lord of the Flies is very real, the Donner Party is very real ... but the blinders don't come off very often.  Every person, as victim, is a child subject to immediate extermination at Auschwitz.  Every person, as a perp, is a Auschwitz camp guard, a baby Hitler.  Every person will sell out their own mother under the right circumstances, am I right Winston Smith?  The rats are hungry for your face!
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Unbeliever on May 26, 2019, 05:18:11 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Oh. I thought you meant actual bricks, like the kind used for building houses. Instead, it's these thin plates specifically made for breaking. That was a lot less impressive than you made it out to be. Yeah, I'm sure his forehead hurt like hell afterwards, but it's nothing someone with enough determination and masochism couldn't accomplish. This is sad. Next you're going to be referencing the people who punch themselves in the balls as proof of "mental power."

Edit: Not to mention, this is a karate master. You know. A person who trains their physical body, and learns how to use it most efficiently to maximize damage and minimize self-injury. Not a yoga instructor, who spends all day meditating. You'd think the latter would have an easier time doing this, if it were really this brain magic that made it possible.

And bricks, as we know, don't hit back.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on May 26, 2019, 05:36:43 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
And bricks, as we know, don't hit back.

What, randomly arranged bricks aren't sentient?
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Unbeliever on May 26, 2019, 05:38:55 PM
Not according to Bolo Yeung.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Sal1981 on May 26, 2019, 05:48:48 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
There are no genuine moral values, among humans.  Not what I want, this is an empirical observation.  People are not bat shit crazy just to be bat shit crazy.  But are situational crazy.  And in the moment, their Id (Forbidden Planet) kicks in with irrational survival of the meanest, like the Bill Murray speech to the NYC mayor in the first Ghostbusters movie.  When people are only potential not actual, they talk shop.  And after the zombie cannibalism is over, then they rationalize.  Just the way we are.
They're not exactly abstract like math or anything. They're tied to humans, obviously. There wouldn't be any ethics without humans to propagate them.

We have morals, because of social cohesion - if you take that away, of course we're gonna act like asocial animals where physical strength and survival ability kicks in. But lest you didn't last notice, we live in a civilization, where we suppress our animalistic instincts to be able to live with each other; I'm sure you already know this.



You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Sam Harris is Buddhist, very beta male.  In a bar fight, he would be the first one killed and eaten (along with any other cucked pacifists).  Lord of the Flies is very real, the Donner Party is very real ... but the blinders don't come off very often.  Every person, as victim, is a child subject to immediate extermination at Auschwitz.  Every person, as a perp, is a Auschwitz camp guard, a baby Hitler.  Every person will sell out their own mother under the right circumstances, am I right Winston Smith?  The rats are hungry for your face!
Yet even animals, social animals for the most part, display moral behavior such as compassion and empathy. It is only when kicked out of fucking society (for humans) and under tough pressure that the basest of behavior becomes evident. Is this any surprise? It's like asking what happens if you take away air, and somehow expect everyone still be able to breathe.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on May 26, 2019, 06:04:49 PM
Optimist! ;-)  A well fed tiger, isn't dangerous.  A starving tiger, is dangerous.  What does that show you about tigers?  Depends on context.

We don't have a common community, we have war of everyone against everyone else ... we are even trying to progressively eliminate marriage and the family.  Collectivism is tribalism, is nationalism ... that is bad?  We are 7 billion individuals, being divided and ruled by George Soros etc. while being collectively monitored via the new Big Brother.  But if collectivism is wrong, then the UN, the EU etc are wrong also.  You won't end war by ending nations and tribes.  Collectivism has real problems, so does individualism.  I would never turn my back on the most dangerous animal in this solar system ... and they are not the Kzinti ...
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Sal1981 on May 26, 2019, 06:10:13 PM
They're not mutually exclusive. You can still retain your individualism while still live collectively. It's only when you're ideologically possessed that collectivism becomes a problem.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on May 26, 2019, 06:13:00 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
They're not mutually exclusive. You can still retain your individualism while still live collectively. It's only when you're ideologically possessed that collectivism becomes a problem.

People are possessed by Satan ... really repossessed, because of unplayable debt ;-(  Mutual exclusion (false view) is the modus operandi for ideology.

I like Groucho Marx ... that any group that would have me as  a member, I don't want to be a member.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Unbeliever on May 26, 2019, 06:34:46 PM
Here's a guy with a really hard head - but not quite hard enough! :-P


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9uYttWZx4Q
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on May 26, 2019, 08:55:41 PM
This is why I never took "Use your head" literally ;-)
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Cavebear on May 26, 2019, 09:25:27 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
There is no such thing as morality.

I agree in the sense that morals are religious.  I care more about ethics, which are not.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on May 26, 2019, 09:59:06 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I agree in the sense that morals are religious.  I care more about ethics, which are not.

Correct again.  But X-ethics is an oxymoron, like military justice.  Really just means fairness ... everyone starts with the same number of poker cards, from a random deck.  Then the merit system of play/bluff cuts in.  That only works in ... poker.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Cavebear on May 26, 2019, 10:39:53 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Correct again.  But X-ethics is an oxymoron, like military justice.  Really just means fairness ... everyone starts with the same number of poker cards, from a random deck.  Then the merit system of play/bluff cuts in.  That only works in ... poker.

"X-ethics"?  Well, of course that makes no sense, since you just made up the term.  And "military justice" is real, being about having true peers judge their own. 
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on May 26, 2019, 11:56:06 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
"X-ethics"?  Well, of course that makes no sense, since you just made up the term.  And "military justice" is real, being about having true peers judge their own.

Sorry, but I condemn ethics as virtue signaling hypocrisy.  I consider all human behavior to be risible hypocrisy.  Life isn't fair.  If you don't like it, contact someone from the Dr Kavorkian society.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on May 27, 2019, 10:03:45 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Here's a guy with a really hard head - but not quite hard enough! :-P


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9uYttWZx4Q


That is very funny UB.
Unfortunately the guy didn't know that the strength must come from the mind not from the body or head.
He will learn eventually (one day).







(https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/1*YZyHx8ZittvvirTTlwffxQ.gif)
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on May 27, 2019, 10:35:31 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
A good summary of Yoga history ... aka the sum of Indian experience ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92J-JPChaeI


A lot of interesting things in that video however there is something very important missing and that is the fact that yoga must be dynamic in nature rather than rely on old ways of practicing.

Humans change all the time therefore what was correct hundreds or thousand years ago is not good anymore.
There got to be a sort of UP TO DATE system in place which only a guru can give.

Take acupuncture.
When it started maybe few thousand years ago the human nervous system was a bit different from what we have today so that system of acupuncture was quite efficient but today is less and less effective.
The mantra in yoga must also change because our glands have gone through some changes in the meantime and that is a point missing in that video.
 
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Mike Cl on May 27, 2019, 11:25:05 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

A lot of interesting things in that video however there is something very important missing and that is the fact that yoga must be dynamic in nature rather than rely on old ways of practicing.

Humans change all the time therefore what was correct hundreds or thousand years ago is not good anymore.
There got to be a sort of UP TO DATE system in place which only a guru can give.

Take acupuncture.
When it started maybe few thousand years ago the human nervous system was a bit different from what we have today so that system of acupuncture was quite efficient but today is less and less effective.
The mantra in yoga must also change because our glands have gone through some changes in the meantime and that is a point missing in that video.
 
What a crock of crap.  You have been full of shit from the moment you posted on this site and you remain one today.  You are consistent; idiot you are and idiot you shall remain.  You make pronouncements and expect us to take that for evidence of some kind; and really, it is evidence of a sort--the sort that proves you are simply a driveling idiot; and you are consistent in that.  At least you do serve a purpose--if I forget what a driveling idiot writes like, all I have to do is read any of your posts.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: aitm on May 27, 2019, 06:18:44 PM
first of all nitwit. The skull is NOT 1000 times weaker than a concrete block. Second you don 't present a single video of a real concrete block. You have videos of cheap cement slabs maybe 1-1/2" thick with little spacers between them. Anyone over the age of 5 can most likely break one of these. Also be smarter than wood okay.....they are not breaking a 1x12 length wise they are breaking a 1x12 width wise...for god sake boy I can drop a glass of water on a 1x12 and break it in half.  Are you stupid? Do you not understand the simplicity of wood grain or real concrete? Are you that fucking stupid?

For fuck sake moron I grew up in construction, I can break a 1" concrete slab just by sitting on it. Any normal sized human can break a 1x12 across the grain....god boy do you not understand simple physics? You are the most ignorant naive fuck ever, If Jim Jones was still alive you would think he was a god.

Post a video of a guy breaking a REAL concrete block with his head. Post a video of a person breaking a real piece of lumber against the grain...like a 1x4 that is merely 24" inches long against the grain. Good luck. Color me impressed with a real concrete block.

Not that it matters too much, materialism is far more successful and impressive to human development than your bullshit panty waist moronic piff. At least with materialism you have something tangible, real, beneficial, and monetary...all you have is you talking to a wall in grammies basement thinking you are doing to win a interview with some imaginary pussified puffcake that can't even guarantee an available burger at a McDonalds.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: SoldierofFortune on May 27, 2019, 07:17:17 PM
Why there have to be one God? Maybe they are a council of Gods who created the earth and living creatures on it...

You have no knowledge; but you have ideas...on what you don't have knowledge...

I think the closest philosophy that supports the scientific thought is, materialism... And materialism is an atheistic philosophy...
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on May 28, 2019, 12:14:32 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Why there have to be one God? Maybe they are a council of Gods who created the earth and living creatures on it...

You have no knowledge; but you have ideas...on what you don't have knowledge...

I think the closest philosophy that supports the scientific thought is, materialism... And materialism is an atheistic philosophy...

The OT clearly indicates god(s) ... thus you are to selectively worship only one.  Later interpretation reduced the other gods to non-entities.  Then the NT messed things up again (Hellenistic Jews) ... with ambiguity regarding the relationship within what would later be called a "trinity".
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on May 28, 2019, 05:37:54 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
first of all nitwit. The skull is NOT 1000 times weaker than a concrete block. Second you don 't present a single video of a real concrete block. You have videos of cheap cement slabs maybe 1-1/2" thick with little spacers between them. Anyone over the age of 5 can most likely break one of these. Also be smarter than wood okay.....they are not breaking a 1x12 length wise they are breaking a 1x12 width wise...for god sake boy I can drop a glass of water on a 1x12 and break it in half.  Are you stupid? Do you not understand the simplicity of wood grain or real concrete? Are you that fucking stupid?

For fuck sake moron I grew up in construction, I can break a 1" concrete slab just by sitting on it. Any normal sized human can break a 1x12 across the grain....god boy do you not understand simple physics? You are the most ignorant naive fuck ever, If Jim Jones was still alive you would think he was a god.

Post a video of a guy breaking a REAL concrete block with his head. Post a video of a person breaking a real piece of lumber against the grain...like a 1x4 that is merely 24" inches long against the grain. Good luck. Color me impressed with a real concrete block.

Not that it matters too much, materialism is far more successful and impressive to human development than your bullshit panty waist moronic piff. At least with materialism you have something tangible, real, beneficial, and monetary...all you have is you talking to a wall in grammies basement thinking you are doing to win a interview with some imaginary pussified puffcake that can't even guarantee an available burger at a McDonalds.



I suppose that some materialists must be dreaming that when they die they may carry with them all their money and material things that they own now?

What a joke considering that you can only carry with you your consciousness as already proven by thousand of NDEs and if your consciousness is full of materialistic ideas then you are in a real mess but of course all this will turn into reality later on for people like you.

In the meantime you still haven't explained how is possible that after breaking dozen of thick concrete blocks the people do not show any sign of injury on their head.
And what about during the Indus festival where there is no sign of injury once the metal rods are taken away from their bodies.

I have seen that.
You on the contrary haven't so what are you babble about things that you do not know?
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on May 28, 2019, 07:07:45 AM
They want to become disembodied AI software in a constantly upgraded computer
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: aitm on May 28, 2019, 01:10:54 PM


blah blah....
 materialists must be dreaming   blah blah
if your consciousness is full of materialistic ideas   blah blah...er...what? LOLOLOL...blah blah

blah blah....steel rods...oh my...


meanwhile...still no real proof.  blah blah blah..
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Unbeliever on May 28, 2019, 01:26:18 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I think the closest philosophy that supports the scientific thought is, materialism... And materialism is an atheistic philosophy...


Yeah, the world of science uses something called metodological naturalism (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Methodological_naturalism), and, considering its success down through the centuries, I don't think the world of science is about to replace it with woo.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Unbeliever on May 28, 2019, 01:31:42 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

What a joke considering that you can only carry with you your consciousness as already proven by thousand of NDEs and if your consciousness is full of materialistic ideas then you are in a real mess but of course all this will turn into reality later on for people like you.

Have you ever noticed that there's an "N" in NDE? It stands for "near" and means that the person having the experience did not die,  but only nearly so. So NDE's prove nothing at all about any sort of life or conciousness after death.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Blackleaf on May 28, 2019, 02:16:12 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Have you ever noticed that there's an "N" in NDE? It stands for "near" and means that the person having the experience did not die,  but only nearly so. So NDE's prove nothing at all about any sort of life or conciousness after death.

This has already been pointed out to him, as well as the evidence that the brain is still very much active during NDE's. Some people just refuse to change their minds when the facts are presented to them.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Mike Cl on May 28, 2019, 02:22:15 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
This has already been pointed out to him, as well as the evidence that the brain is still very much active during NDE's. Some people just refuse to change their minds when the facts are presented to them.
This guy doesn't know facts from fancy--much like trump; facts simply do not matter, especially when they interfere with is beliefs.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Unbeliever on May 28, 2019, 02:28:19 PM
Maybe he's just a fan of those "alternative facts."
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on May 28, 2019, 08:15:28 PM
Watch out for scientism it isn't science.  Scientism says that everything is science.  That I was conducting a post-graduate science experiment in Athens in 1983, when I drank too much Retsina, and had to crawl to the toilet to throw up.  That would be "mad science" not science.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: aitm on May 28, 2019, 08:22:17 PM
There is nothing "wrong" with "materialism". Materialism is not a swear word or disparaging one, materialism is the one thing that most all humans have and enjoy. It is the very thing that gives life LIFE. It's all fine and dandy if Arik wants to live under a blue tarp in the woods eating grass and acorns and thinking, "hey, I have connected with the great one and when I die, I will be rewarded handsomely-----with all the shit he supposedly frowns on now. But fear not friends, owning shit is great. Having shit is great, having money is great, having more money is ever greater. Don't listen to this layabout lazy fuck who won't work long enough to buy his own sandwich...he is out in the street begging for your money.

Embrace our lives...enjoy it. I do.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on May 28, 2019, 08:26:55 PM
Nothing wrong with theist either.  Just words.  Nothing wrong with Nazi, communist, cannibal etc.  Words can't hurt you, right?
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: aitm on May 29, 2019, 10:13:21 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Nothing wrong with theist either.  Just words.  Nothing wrong with Nazi, communist, cannibal etc.  Words can't hurt you, right?

Common saying.....but apparently all lies.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on May 29, 2019, 07:19:04 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
This has already been pointed out to him, as well as the evidence that the brain is still very much active during NDE's. Some people just refuse to change their minds when the facts are presented to them.


What a load o'crap.

Where suppose to be the evidence that the brain is still very much active during NDEs?

Show that to me BL and I mean real evidence not just guessing.

In the meantime I show to you some real evidence that the brain is totally off.


For practical purposes outside the world of academic debate, three clinical tests commonly determine brain death. First, a standard electroencephalogram, or EEG, measures brain-wave activity. A "flat" EEG denotes non-function of the cerebral cortex - the outer shell of the cerebrum. Second, auditory evoked potentials, similar to those [clicks] elicited by the ear speakers in Pam's surgery, measure brain-stem viability. Absence of these potentials indicates non-function of the brain stem. And third, documentation of no blood flow to the brain is a marker for a generalized absence of brain function.

 

But during "standstill", Pam's brain was found "dead" by all three clinical tests - her electroencephalogram was silent, her brain-stem response was absent, and no blood flowed through her brain. Interestingly, while in this state, she encountered the "deepest" NDE of all Atlanta Study participants.

 

Some scientists theorize that NDEs are produced by brain chemistry. But, Dr. Peter Fenwick, a neuropsychiatrist and the leading authority in Britain concerning NDEs, believes that these theories fall far short of the facts. In the documentary, "Into the Unknown: Strange But True," Dr. Fenwick describes the state of the brain during an NDE:

"The brain isn't functioning. It's not there. It's destroyed. It's abnormal. But, yet, it can produce these very clear experiences ... an unconscious state is when the brain ceases to function. For example, if you faint, you fall to the floor, you don't know what's happening and the brain isn't working. The memory systems are particularly sensitive to unconsciousness. So, you won't remember anything. But, yet, after one of these experiences [an NDE], you come out with clear, lucid memories ... This is a real puzzle for science. I have not yet seen any good scientific explanation which can explain that fact."



https://www.near-death.com/science/evidence/people-have-ndes-while-brain-dead.html

Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: aitm on May 29, 2019, 08:26:07 PM
TL:DR....shit happens when you kinda temporarily die....ish. Shit be happening we don't understand yet so we don't want to just randomly make up stuff....

Arik: THERE IS A CONNECTION TWIXT HUMANS AND THE UNY-VERSE THAT HAS BEEN PROVEN BY THE UNDEAD DEAD.....GOD DID IT BUT GOD IS NOT THE GOD YOU SEE BUT HE IS THE GOD OF THE UNY-VERSE AND ALSO THE GOD OF THE BIBLE BUT NOT THE GOD OF THE ...ER.......YEAH.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Blackleaf on May 29, 2019, 09:54:47 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

What a load o'crap.

Where suppose to be the evidence that the brain is still very much active during NDEs?

Show that to me BL and I mean real evidence not just guessing.

Do scientific journals by neuroscientists studying the brain during and around NDE's count as "evidence" to you? Of course not. Clearly, it's the people with the degrees who are guessing, not the meditating manbuns. You're a fucking idiot. Here. Google Scholar (https://scholar.google.com/). If you're interested in undumbing yourself, learn how to use it. I'm not doing the work for a willful moron.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
In the meantime I show to you some real evidence that the brain is totally off.

Oh yes. Your sources are totally accurate, up-to-date with what experts currently know, and are trustworthy, coming from true authorities on the subject. Since I know you have the intelligence of a pet rock, let me spell this out for you. I'm being sarcastic right now, and you can go fuck yourself.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Hydra009 on May 29, 2019, 10:51:01 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
When it started maybe few thousand years ago the human nervous system was a bit different from what we have today so that system of acupuncture was quite efficient but today is less and less effective.
(http://www.quickmeme.com/img/dd/ddd25bdcc9b156390f5fdd78d98aec49528bd4996a0d9f71005a3c06d8d8ab93.jpg)

Acupuncture was first documented at around 100 BC.  A little over 2000 years ago.

Any evidence to support this?  Or just more of the same?  (Bullshit claim after bullshit claim)
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Blackleaf on May 29, 2019, 11:08:56 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
(http://www.quickmeme.com/img/dd/ddd25bdcc9b156390f5fdd78d98aec49528bd4996a0d9f71005a3c06d8d8ab93.jpg)

Acupuncture was first documented at around 100 BC.  A little over 2000 years ago.

Any evidence to support this?  Or just more of the same?  (Bullshit claim after bullshit claim)

Arik is starting to remind me of Spirit Science on YouTube. If you don't know who I'm talking about, here's a video about him. (I don't want to give Spirit Science's channel any views.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nazSov2_gvg
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on May 30, 2019, 12:36:06 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Common saying.....but apparently all lies.

You didn't get my irony.  Words hurt a lot, even cause genocide.  Words are among the greatest and oldest WMD we humans have.

There is New Age stuff, and genuine Indian stuff.  Not saying which is which.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on May 30, 2019, 10:23:13 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


Acupuncture was first documented at around 100 BC.  A little over 2000 years ago.

Any evidence to support this?  Or just more of the same?  (Bullshit claim after bullshit claim)



Gee, what a big deal Hydra...................


2000 years aren't ...................what I said about few thousand years?
So where is the big deal?

However there is something that you ignore and that is that human progress follow the same system as an avalanche.
In the early stages it goes so so slow that we can hardly see it moving but as it take speed it goes faster and faster.
Human civilization follow the same system.
For almost a million years there was hardly any progress but about 15000 years ago things start moving and now the speed of progress is going very fast so humans that stayed almost the same for such a long time now even in 20 years time they are going through a huge change.

Our bodies and nervous system must cope with different task and that in turn bring a lot of changes in us humans.
Just 50 years ago most people used their body to perform task while today automatism replace humans so muscles are not needed so much and this involve changes in our bodies and mind that is why what worked in the past can not work so much these days.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on May 30, 2019, 10:39:34 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
TL:DR....shit happens when you kinda temporarily die....ish. Shit be happening we don't understand yet so we don't want to just randomly make up stuff....

Arik: THERE IS A CONNECTION TWIXT HUMANS AND THE UNY-VERSE THAT HAS BEEN PROVEN BY THE UNDEAD DEAD.....GOD DID IT BUT GOD IS NOT THE GOD YOU SEE BUT HE IS THE GOD OF THE UNY-VERSE AND ALSO THE GOD OF THE BIBLE BUT NOT THE GOD OF THE ...ER.......YEAH.


Oh, well why you guys didn't tell me in the first place that you are not interested in evidence?

First you ask me for evidence that the brain is not dead during an NDE.
After when I bring evidence you say..........blah....blah.....blah....... and then change argument by talking this nonsense as above.

Make up your mind?

(https://images.middletonstours.co.uk/tbsimages/overview/670x295_mysterysign.jpeg)
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on May 30, 2019, 10:55:49 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/BgMpr4z.jpg)
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on May 30, 2019, 11:12:18 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Do scientific journals by neuroscientists studying the brain during and around NDE's count as "evidence" to you? Of course not. Clearly, it's the people with the degrees who are guessing, not the meditating manbuns. You're a fucking idiot. Here. Google Scholar (https://scholar.google.com/). If you're interested in undumbing yourself, learn how to use it. I'm not doing the work for a willful moron.

Oh yes. Your sources are totally accurate, up-to-date with what experts currently know, and are trustworthy, coming from true authorities on the subject. Since I know you have the intelligence of a pet rock, let me spell this out for you. I'm being sarcastic right now, and you can go fuck yourself.


The evidence hurt BL, isn't?
Or maybe not if you sweep it under the carpet.



Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on May 30, 2019, 11:22:03 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Arik is starting to remind me of Spirit Science on YouTube. If you don't know who I'm talking about, here's a video about him. (I don't want to give Spirit Science's channel any views.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nazSov2_gvg


A cult is nothing else but a set of people with a set of practices.
What make a cult good or bad is all related to good or bad practices so to denigrate the word cult without first understanding what this cult is all about denote an high level of stupidity.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Hydra009 on May 30, 2019, 12:14:02 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
However there is something that you ignore and that is that human progress follow the same system as an avalanche.
In the early stages it goes so so slow that we can hardly see it moving but as it take speed it goes faster and faster.
Human civilization follow the same system.
For almost a million years there was hardly any progress but about 15000 years ago things start moving and now the speed of progress is going very fast so humans that stayed almost the same for such a long time now even in 20 years time they are going through a huge change.
The claim was about anatomical change, not technological change.  Only an idiot would find your doubling-down on bullshit (once again sans evidence) convincing.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Hydra009 on May 30, 2019, 12:18:47 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Arik is starting to remind me of Spirit Science on YouTube. If you don't know who I'm talking about, here's a video about him. (I don't want to give Spirit Science's channel any views.)
He really does.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDx1Kh2iU6o

All of his arguments rely entirely on the audience wanting to believe his claims and therefore accepting everything without skepticism.  This works great on friendly audiences but collapses spectacularly with skeptical audiences.  Perhaps no one informed him of this or perhaps he thinks his sheer charisma *laughs* will carry the day.  Either way, it's foolish and mildly insulting.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Hydra009 on May 30, 2019, 12:42:19 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

A cult is nothing else but a set of people with a set of practices.
What make a cult good or bad is all related to good or bad practices so to denigrate the word cult without first understanding what this cult is all about denote an high level of stupidity.
A cult is a religion without mainstream acceptance.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Unbeliever on May 30, 2019, 01:14:01 PM
Yeah, the only difference between a cult and a mainstream religion is the size of its voting block.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Blackleaf on May 30, 2019, 03:01:23 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
A cult is a religion without mainstream acceptance.

Eh. There are different ways of defining the word "cult." Most of the time, people just use it as a derogatory term about a collective of people who believe the same. Christians, for example, tend to think every religion other than theirs is a cult. Mormonism is a cult, Islam is a cult, etc. Then there's the B.I.T.E. model, which I think is acceptable. Personally, I just define cults as religious groups that try to isolate its members and/or cause serious physical, emotional, or monetary harm through its mandates. I actually wouldn't consider Spirit Science a cult, but just an idiot.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on May 30, 2019, 04:22:21 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
A cult is a religion without mainstream acceptance.

How many Hindus? (rhetorical)
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Hydra009 on May 30, 2019, 05:17:06 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Personally, I just define cults as religious groups that try to isolate its members and/or cause serious physical, emotional, or monetary harm through its mandates.
If you want to be super technical about it, a cult is just a new religious movement.

You seem to be using the term in the general sense, which is akin to a destructive or socially harmful cult.  That's fine, that's how most people use the term, but it's kind of a messy, subjective, derogatory term (hence the technical one)

My issue with the general definition is that even some major religions would be considered cults since they exhibit this behavior to a certain extent (do not yoke yourself with unbelievers, blessed be the marytr, blessed are those that tithe, etc).

Of course, these ideas no longer have quite the traction they once had, but they're still very much part of the underlying message.  It seems strange to give them a pass and condemn their pallette-swapped cousins as cultists for pretty much the same sort of thing.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on May 30, 2019, 11:37:31 PM
In academic circles I think, they use "cultus" for the non-pejorative meaning (sub sect or new sect).  Cult retaining the pejorative meaning.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Cavebear on May 30, 2019, 11:57:34 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
What a crock of crap.  You have been full of shit from the moment you posted on this site and you remain one today.  You are consistent; idiot you are and idiot you shall remain.  You make pronouncements and expect us to take that for evidence of some kind; and really, it is evidence of a sort--the sort that proves you are simply a driveling idiot; and you are consistent in that.  At least you do serve a purpose--if I forget what a driveling idiot writes like, all I have to do is read any of your posts.

Don't beat around the bush, man, speak your mind.  Seriously, I agree completely.  That was a real diaper-load from Arik.  I am constantly amazed that some people can continue to believe in such medieval ideas.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on May 31, 2019, 12:05:02 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Don't beat around the bush, man, speak your mind.  Seriously, I agree completely.  That was a real diaper-load from Arik.  I am constantly amazed that some people can continue to believe in such medieval ideas.

In GB they have Jedi as a recognized religion.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Cavebear on May 31, 2019, 02:01:34 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
In GB they have Jedi as a recognized religion.

Anyone can start a religion.  All you need is a good speaker and a hook.  And a collection plate.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on May 31, 2019, 09:37:06 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The claim was about anatomical change, not technological change.  Only an idiot would find your doubling-down on bullshit (once again sans evidence) convincing.


You don't seem to get it Hydra, do you?

There is always a strong connection between anatomical changes and technological changes.

Anatomical changes are due to an higher level of consciousness and this consciousness evolve due to more challenges which in turn create more technology.

It is all connected but you wouldn't see any connection.
How sad.
 
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on May 31, 2019, 09:59:33 AM
What is all this garbage about cults that suppose to be only part and parcel of some religious group of fanatics?

Where is written that this is the case?
A cult is a believe in something, in some practices that are followed by a set of people.

All you do guys is making up a lot of guessing a lot of stories and nothing else because not all those who follow some practices are following bad practices.

That is very bizarre of you because you suppose to be open mind people but in reality you generalize a lot and that show how close minded you are. 


Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on May 31, 2019, 10:15:30 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Anyone can start a religion.  All you need is a good speaker and a hook.  And a collection plate.

So what is stopping you?  ;-}
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on May 31, 2019, 10:21:38 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
He really does.



All of his arguments rely entirely on the audience wanting to believe his claims and therefore accepting everything without skepticism.  This works great on friendly audiences but collapses spectacularly with skeptical audiences.  Perhaps no one informed him of this or perhaps he thinks his sheer charisma *laughs* will carry the day.  Either way, it's foolish and mildly insulting.



Nothing really to do with SKEPTICAL audiences Hydra.

It has to do instead with audiences that sweep under the carpet the evidence and then they say that there is no evidence.

Dr. Peter Fenwick is a neuropsychiatrist in Britain not any BS chap so if you reject his knowledge and at the same time you do not bring any material to contradict him then you show how erroneous and false you are.












Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on May 31, 2019, 10:23:24 AM
Any evidence that contradicts one's religion or lack of it, politics or lack of it, is dismissed by all humans.  We seek affirmation of our prejudices, not the truth.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Cavebear on May 31, 2019, 10:25:21 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So what is stopping you?  ;-}

What makes you think I haven't?  I'm retired an the collection plate is a welcome addition.

Never heard of "The Our Lady Of Perpetual Misery Hollowed Be My Name" church?
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Cavebear on May 31, 2019, 10:32:40 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


Nothing really to do with SKEPTICAL audiences Hydra.

It has to do instead with audiences that sweep under the carpet the evidence and then they say that there is no evidence.

Dr. Peter Fenwick is a neuropsychiatrist in Britain not any BS chap so if you reject his knowledge and at the same time you do not bring any material to contradict him then you show how erroneous and false you are.

According to the British "The Telgraph" (of which I know nothing) Dr Fenwick bases his "new model of dying" on reports of death bed visions, such as visitations by deceased relatives, and spooky coincidences, such as clocks stopping when someone dies.

Just mentioning that...
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on May 31, 2019, 10:50:57 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
All you do guys is making up a lot of guessing a lot of stories and nothing else because not all those who follow some practices are following bad practices.
Pot hello Kettle.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Cavebear on May 31, 2019, 10:57:46 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Pot hello Kettle.

I love the idea that many religions are like too many pots calling too many kettles black...
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on May 31, 2019, 11:17:46 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
According to the British "The Telgraph" (of which I know nothing) Dr Fenwick bases his "new model of dying" on reports of death bed visions, such as visitations by deceased relatives, and spooky coincidences, such as clocks stopping when someone dies.

Just mentioning that...


Why don't you bring some link to that stuff so I can see the whole story.

Just mentioning that...
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Cavebear on May 31, 2019, 11:44:13 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Why don't you bring some link to that stuff so I can see the whole story.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1528150/Festival-attacked-over-paranormal-nonsense.html (ftp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1528150/Festival-attacked-over-paranormal-nonsense.html)

I messed up the quote trying to post a quote.   But the link is there as requested.  Sorry...
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on June 01, 2019, 05:42:19 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1528150/Festival-attacked-over-paranormal-nonsense.html (ftp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1528150/Festival-attacked-over-paranormal-nonsense.html)

I messed up the quote trying to post a quote.   But the link is there as requested.  Sorry...


Nothing really special in that link except for atheists that are still stuck to the notion that everything must follow a material outcome.

If Fenwick would be an idiot then nobody would contact him to talk and explain how things works but important institution contact him quite regularly so there has got to be a reason.

Here below you can see his credentials.



Peter Fenwick, M.D., F.R.C.Psych., is Senior Lecturer at the Institute of Psychiatry, Kings College, London, and associated with the Mental Health Group at the University of Southampton. He is also Consultant Neuropsychiatrist at the Maudsley Hospital and at the John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford, and holds a visiting professorship in Japan, where he spends three months of the year in advanced neuropsychiatric research.


https://iands.org/research/nde-research/important-research-articles/42-dr-peter-fenwick-md-science-and-spirituality.html




Just mentioning that...
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on June 01, 2019, 10:28:11 AM
These people don't believe in psychology, because it doesn't give them the confirmation bias they crave … same with philosophy.  It isn't just theology they have a problem with.

Materialist have an answer for everything …

Who won the world series … atoms … one answer fits all ;-)

But there is variation in inhumanism …

Materialist - I am atoms, same as a rock.

Naturalist - I am an animal, usually herbivore.

Humanist - I am more than material, more than animal, I am special (Materialist and Naturalist groan … noooo … humans are just rocks or cows)

Hindus should adopt inhumanists as pets … they make great sacred cows ;-)
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: aitm on June 01, 2019, 10:58:26 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Here below you can see his credentials.


My sister-in-law has a Doctorate in Social Sciences and has worked in Hospice care for 30 years.....she thinks a carpenter is a person who lays carpet.


Just saying....
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: aitm on June 01, 2019, 11:01:09 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
These people don't believe in psychology, because it doesn't give them the confirmation bias they crave … same with philosophy.  It isn't just theology they have a problem with.

Materialist have an answer for everything …

Who won the world series … atoms … one answer fits all ;-)

But there is variation in inhumanism …

Materialist - I am atoms, same as a rock.

Naturalist - I am an animal, usually herbivore.

Humanist - I am more than material, more than animal, I am special (Materialist and Naturalist groan … noooo … humans are just rocks or cows)

Hindus should adopt inhumanists as pets … they make great sacred cows ;-)

You forgot the last one:

religionists- I am the product of a spectacular god a god that has existed forever that knows everything before it ever existed and how it will react and how all life forms act even though they never existed prior to his inventing them, I am get to go to a special place when I die and spend eternity splayed on the floor singing his praises and worshiping him for ever and ever....amen.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Blackleaf on June 01, 2019, 12:34:58 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
These people don't believe in psychology, because it doesn't give them the confirmation bias they crave …

You're misusuing the term "confirmation bias." Confirmation bias is when you notice every example that is consistent with your belief, and ignore every example that contradicts it. Like when you notice every red light that stops you, forget when they don't stop you, and conclude that red lights are out to get you.

So then...how many times have you seen a soul? Oh, you haven't? That's funny. I haven't seen a single soul in my life either. Then we can't be guilty of confirmation bias, now can we? You two, on the other hand, have zero evidence for any of your claims, but are convinced of them regardless. The bias is yours. Stop trying to drag us down to your level.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on June 01, 2019, 06:20:30 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You forgot the last one:

religionists- I am the product of a spectacular god a god that has existed forever that knows everything before it ever existed and how it will react and how all life forms act even though they never existed prior to his inventing them, I am get to go to a special place when I die and spend eternity splayed on the floor singing his praises and worshiping him for ever and ever....amen.

There are irreligious humanists, and religious humanists.  I am not picky.

Arrogance isn't limited to theists.  All monkeys are arrogant.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on June 01, 2019, 06:22:40 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You're misusuing the term "confirmation bias." Confirmation bias is when you notice every example that is consistent with your belief, and ignore every example that contradicts it. Like when you notice every red light that stops you, forget when they don't stop you, and conclude that red lights are out to get you.

So then...how many times have you seen a soul? Oh, you haven't? That's funny. I haven't seen a single soul in my life either. Then we can't be guilty of confirmation bias, now can we? You two, on the other hand, have zero evidence for any of your claims, but are convinced of them regardless. The bias is yours. Stop trying to drag us down to your level.

How many times have you seen a mind?  This is why in Behaviorism dogma, they assumed there was no mind.

People select evidence according to their emotional commitments … whether verses from the Bible or Das Capital.

And yes, we all ignore contradictory evidence, that Is where we say … that isn't valid evidence.  We have to protect our precious egos.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Blackleaf on June 02, 2019, 12:09:09 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
How many times have you seen a mind?  This is why in Behaviorism dogma, they assumed there was no mind.

People select evidence according to their emotional commitments … whether verses from the Bible or Das Capital.

And yes, we all ignore contradictory evidence, that Is where we say … that isn't valid evidence.  We have to protect our precious egos.

Unlike the soul, the mind can be observed through science. So again, what evidence have we been ignoring? Or are you just committing a false equivalence fallacy? We know the answer. The question is will you admit it?
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on June 02, 2019, 09:55:09 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Unlike the soul, the mind can be observed through science. So again, what evidence have we been ignoring? Or are you just committing a false equivalence fallacy? We know the answer. The question is will you admit it?


That is bizarre BL.

Atheists glorify physical science but science is not something that lie there for all to see with a click of a button.
Science take time and I would say long long time to unravel all his secrets to serious scholars
So much evidences that is still to unravel will be unravel at a later stage beside physical science is not the correct type of science to unravel what lie behind the physical-material aspect of life such as the soul.

One reason why physical science is called such is because it study the physical aspect of what is there not what exist along with the physical aspect such as the soul.

I suppose atheists never ponder this simple point, isn't it BL?

Beside you have to consider that until few thousand years ago people live in caves and their main objective in life was to find food to eat rather than worry about physical science.
Occasionally they rather think about spirituality but they didn't yet come to the point in which they really understand real spirituality that is why they worship idols made of wood.

Only recently in the history of human evolution man (men & women) got interested in physical science and so far we know only a little of what is there that is why most of what is there is still hidden to us.
On the other hand real spirituality started as soon as people started ponder about real questions such as......who are we....why are we here...where are we going to.........and after sometime they understood what evolution and the scope of life is but I suppose for atheists will take a bit longer to understand and that is very very bizarre to see that people who lived few thousand years ago beat you in that task. Lol  :grin:
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on June 02, 2019, 10:15:09 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
How many times have you seen a mind?  This is why in Behaviorism dogma, they assumed there was no mind.

People select evidence according to their emotional commitments … whether verses from the Bible or Das Capital.

And yes, we all ignore contradictory evidence, that Is where we say … that isn't valid evidence.  We have to protect our precious egos.


Our friend BL still doesn't know that at this stage in time physical science still doesn't know whether the consciousness is a product of the brain or it is totally separate and is not a product of the brain.

With this sort of knowledge BL tell us that he is better qualify to know so many other things about brain, mind, consciousness and soul.

How sad!

Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on June 02, 2019, 10:19:19 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Our friend BL still doesn't know that at this stage in time physical science still doesn't know whether the consciousness is a product of the brain or it is totally separate and is not a product of the brain.

With this sort of knowledge BL tell us that he is better qualify to know so many other things about brain, mind, consciousness and soul.

How sad!

Empirical science is hybrid.  It is both outside you (in observation and experiment) and inside you (perception).  What a lay person sees and what a scientist sees, isn't the same, because one has a much more refined perception.  Usually engineers for instance, see a Newtonian world, even though that isn't strictly what it is.  The first person to see reality this new way, in a new consciousness, was probably Archimedes.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on June 02, 2019, 10:22:26 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Unlike the soul, the mind can be observed through science. So again, what evidence have we been ignoring? Or are you just committing a false equivalence fallacy? We know the answer. The question is will you admit it?

You are equivocating.  You cannot see the mind or hear it.  The mind is a model, a construct that helps us understand ourselves and each other.  The hand, that I can see and feel.  Science says … we can see all sorts of invisible things.  And you can see with PET for instance, activity in the brain.  But that isn't your mind, that is just a physiological thing … that we choose to associate with mental activity.  It isn't the mental activity itself.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on June 02, 2019, 10:33:23 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You forgot the last one:

religionists- I am the product of a spectacular god a god that has existed forever that knows everything before it ever existed and how it will react and how all life forms act even though they never existed prior to his inventing them, I am get to go to a special place when I die and spend eternity splayed on the floor singing his praises and worshiping him for ever and ever....amen


That may well be the attitude of a lot of religious people which I do not agree to but in your post there is something that attract my attention and that is when you say................... I am get to go to a special place when I die and spend eternity splayed on the floor singing his praises and worshiping him for ever and ever....amen

According to my beliefs the system doesn't really work like that.
A drop of water when she finally reach the ocean it become the ocean so at the same time when we reach the cosmic entity we become same same as the cosmic entity.
Why then should we worship ourselves?

(https://www.nuviewnutrition.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/ah-ha-moment-clipart-emoji-with-light-bulb.jpg)
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Blackleaf on June 02, 2019, 12:06:09 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are equivocating.  You cannot see the mind or hear it.  The mind is a model, a construct that helps us understand ourselves and each other.  The hand, that I can see and feel.  Science says … we can see all sorts of invisible things.  And you can see with PET for instance, activity in the brain.  But that isn't your mind, that is just a physiological thing … that we choose to associate with mental activity.  It isn't the mental activity itself.

It is mental activity. And until you provide evidence of your proposition, the brain as the source of the mind will remain the scientific (read: "true") position. You don't get to just ignore evidence when convenient and assert your own claims without evidence.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on June 02, 2019, 08:23:04 PM
Anyway, after I perused this thread, I decided to look up some figures about the strength of bone compared to concrete and other ceramics. Here's what I found:

Bone: ~170 MPa (compression), ~104 MPa (tension), ~53 MPa (shear)
Concrete (<1yr): ~6.895 MPa (compression), ~1.379 MPa (tension) —no data for shear—

So this notion that the skull is "thousands" of times softer than rock or concrete or ceramic is total bollocks. If anything, it's stronger than un-reinforced concrete. Also, bone is a natural composite material, hydroxylapatite in a collagen matrix, which means that it tends to be tougher than expected. Bone is not the weak, flabby material that Arik characterizes it as; it's been honed through a half billion years of evolution to be strong, rugged and tough, able to hold up to the insults of life.

Also, all those demonstrations are breaking bricks on easymode. The way they were arranged basically gave every engineering advantage to the breakers. If those were solid blocks of stone the same thickness, or made of hardened steel which is actually legitimately strong in that application, I might be impressed.

PS, yeah, I'm back, for a bit.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on June 02, 2019, 09:13:33 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It is mental activity. And until you provide evidence of your proposition, the brain as the source of the mind will remain the scientific (read: "true") position. You don't get to just ignore evidence when convenient and assert your own claims without evidence.

Yadayada ... and my dreams are views of eternity, disprove that.  Until then, you evidence for atoms is null and void.  In fact, the electron probability cloud goes out to infinity.  In repetitive solids, they overlap, hence conductivity.  Where does one atom end and another begin?  Why was "atomos" aka uncuttable ... cleverly extended once the atom was split?  Because scientists are ... rhetorical.

And yes, I am convinced you have no mind, just random atom movements, same as my hot tea.  My tea is sentient too!  I reject any evidence you care to bring up, because ... same reason you reject mine.

Just kibitzing ... some people survive a fall of 30 stories, but not uninjured ...

http://mentalfloss.com/article/63088/how-far-can-you-fall-and-still-survive

There is difference between static compressive strength, static tensile strength, and the dynamic versions of those.  And luck ;-)
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on June 03, 2019, 09:31:06 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Anyway, after I perused this thread, I decided to look up some figures about the strength of bone compared to concrete and other ceramics. Here's what I found:

Bone: ~170 MPa (compression), ~104 MPa (tension), ~53 MPa (shear)
Concrete (<1yr): ~6.895 MPa (compression), ~1.379 MPa (tension) —no data for shear—

So this notion that the skull is "thousands" of times softer than rock or concrete or ceramic is total bollocks. If anything, it's stronger than un-reinforced concrete. Also, bone is a natural composite material, hydroxylapatite in a collagen matrix, which means that it tends to be tougher than expected. Bone is not the weak, flabby material that Arik characterizes it as; it's been honed through a half billion years of evolution to be strong, rugged and tough, able to hold up to the insults of life.

Also, all those demonstrations are breaking bricks on easymode. The way they were arranged basically gave every engineering advantage to the breakers. If those were solid blocks of stone the same thickness, or made of hardened steel which is actually legitimately strong in that application, I might be impressed.

PS, yeah, I'm back, for a bit.


I see..............so I suppose that anyone can break those materials by using only their bones or skull and the power of the mind is not necessary.
Is that so?

If you are so expert in the matter than I suppose you know why these people do not show a single scratch on their head and what about those guys that insert metal hooks through their flesh and at the end of the festival when they remove those metal hooks the hole close as nothing happen leaving no trace of blood or injuries.

How do you explain that?
Do you really think you can explain that with your compression, tension and shear logic?


https://newsfeeds.media/hindu-devotees-force-skewers-through-their-flesh-to-satisfy-the-god-shiva/
 





Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on June 03, 2019, 09:51:48 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It is mental activity. And until you provide evidence of your proposition, the brain as the source of the mind will remain the scientific (read: "true") position. You don't get to just ignore evidence when convenient and assert your own claims without evidence.


Oh, I see..........

Here we got an other expert in the mind-brain issue.

Let us see where is this scientific position that give evidence that the consciousness is a product of the brain.

PS. I am prepared to wait for this evidence but only until Christmas.  :cool:


Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Hydra009 on June 03, 2019, 11:45:47 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You don't seem to get it Hydra, do you?

There is always a strong connection between anatomical changes and technological changes.
In that case, I eagerly await a hand capable of using a N64 controller properly.

(https://ci.memecdn.com/7251633.jpg)
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Blackleaf on June 03, 2019, 12:49:34 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Oh, I see..........

Here we got an other expert in the mind-brain issue.

Let us see where is this scientific position that give evidence that the consciousness is a product of the brain.

PS. I am prepared to wait for this evidence but only until Christmas.  :cool:

The evidence has been presented to you several times. Your inability to understand it doesn't mean the evidence isn't there. It just means that you're an idiot.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Blackleaf on June 03, 2019, 12:53:52 PM
Arik logic:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lu5_5Od7WY

You can't argue with such sound logic!
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Hydra009 on June 03, 2019, 01:00:31 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You can't argue with such sound logic!
I'm convinced the conclusions are randomly selected and any arguments in defense of it are where the real thinking happens, such as it is.

"3+3=5!"
"No it doesn't"
"Yes, it does, you're just closed off to the evidence that 3+3=5 in your 6-centric worldview."
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Sal1981 on June 03, 2019, 02:43:11 PM
God of the Gaps as per mind/brain dualism.

We have good evidence that the brain is the center of the mind, that they're in fact the same qualia. The story of Phineas Gage, amongst others, tell us as much. Not to mention run-of-the-mill brain surgery where brain surgeons have to know where the vital centers of the brain are located and use an electrode to map it during surgery. In fact, you can map, for instance, the motor functions of the body unto the brain.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=map+of+the+brain
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on June 03, 2019, 02:58:48 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
God of the Gaps as per mind/brain dualism.

We have good evidence that the brain is the center of the mind, that they're in fact the same qualia. The story of Phineas Gage, amongst others, tell us as much. Not to mention run-of-the-mill brain surgery where brain surgeons have to know where the vital centers of the brain are located and use an electrode to map it during surgery. In fact, you can map, for instance, the motor functions of the body unto the brain.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=map+of+the+brain

The brain is the center of the nervous system.  Qualia question is hard, and unresolved aka mind  But I thought you people didn't do philosophy?  The brain is like a radio.  It isn't the radio program, but it is where the radio program manifests in a more physical form. Imagine that it is both a transmitter and receiver .. it gets a mixture of pickup from its own signals, as well as those outside.   And the action/reaction part is wired up to the peripheral nervous system.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Sal1981 on June 03, 2019, 03:06:20 PM
To stretch that radio analogy further, there a different configurations of the brain (i.e. plasticity) which means different memories, different perspectives, etc. from other brains.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on June 03, 2019, 03:08:53 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
To stretch that radio analogy further, there a different configurations of the brain (i.e. plasticity) which means different memories, different perspectives, etc. from other brains.

Now going too far, I am not claiming the brain/nervous system is man-made as in un-natural.  It took a long time, over countless generations, to make it.

Normally you wouldn't want feedback, the radio transmitter feeding back into its own receiver ... but that might explain how broken people are.  Ever have an audio-visual system screech?
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Unbeliever on June 03, 2019, 03:28:13 PM
I think consciousness is just the brain perceiving parts of itself. Maybe the inner dialogue we experience is just communication between Wernicke's and Boca's areas. The current drive to map the brain will teach us a lot about how these things happen, but we will always have more questions.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on June 03, 2019, 05:24:02 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I see..............so I suppose that anyone can break those materials by using only their bones or skull and the power of the mind is not necessary.
Is that so?
I have seen no evidence that the feats you describe require any sort of "power of the mind" beyond mere discipline.

Quote
If you are so expert in the matter than I suppose you know why these people do not show a single scratch on their head
For the same reason I can hit a table and not acquire a scratch, really. There's a reason why the medical term for a scratch is "abrasion."

Quote
and what about those guys that insert metal hooks through their flesh and at the end of the festival when they remove those metal hooks the hole close as nothing happen leaving no trace of blood or injuries.
What makes you think that they get away with no blood or injuries? There is certainly a traceable hole, and if you think otherwise, you need to provide evidence that the hole simply disappears. I have no need to explain what is not evident. (No, a sensationalist newspaper article does not cut it. You need a medical examination.) As to why there's no blood (assuming there is), well, if you poke the same spot multiple times, the body is going to stop bothering healing it up completely and just scar a hole over, like your ear piercings.

Quote
How do you explain that?
Do you really think you can explain that with your compression, tension and shear logic?
Yes. You have yet to give evidence of anything that is genuinely inexplicable. I don't think you know well enough how nature works to say anything is supernatural.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on June 03, 2019, 06:47:57 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I think consciousness is just the brain perceiving parts of itself. Maybe the inner dialogue we experience is just communication between Wernicke's and Boca's areas. The current drive to map the brain will teach us a lot about how these things happen, but we will always have more questions.

Correct.  Feedback has to be part of it.  Otherwise you wouldn't be conscious of self, by definition.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Cavebear on June 04, 2019, 01:54:10 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Nothing really special in that link except for atheists that are still stuck to the notion that everything must follow a material outcome.

If Fenwick would be an idiot then nobody would contact him to talk and explain how things works but important institution contact him quite regularly so there has got to be a reason.

Here below you can see his credentials.
Peter Fenwick, M.D., F.R.C.Psych., is Senior Lecturer at the Institute of Psychiatry, Kings College, London, and associated with the Mental Health Group at the University of Southampton. He is also Consultant Neuropsychiatrist at the Maudsley Hospital and at the John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford, and holds a visiting professorship in Japan, where he spends three months of the year in advanced neuropsychiatric research.

Just mentioning that...
Just noting that he still depends on "reports of death bed visions, such as visitations by deceased relatives, and spooky coincidences, such as clocks stopping when someone dies".

His list of credentials does not change that.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on June 04, 2019, 09:35:47 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
In that case, I eagerly await a hand capable of using a N64 controller properly.

(https://ci.memecdn.com/7251633.jpg)


A hand?

That is a primitive way of doing.
If you will be alive maybe in 30-40 years time those machines will be controlled by the mind.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on June 04, 2019, 09:51:32 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Just noting that he still depends on "reports of death bed visions, such as visitations by deceased relatives, and spooky coincidences, such as clocks stopping when someone dies".

His list of credentials does not change that.


That article in that paper make a very short comment about what the journalist think he understood about Dr. Fenwick or maybe this journalist made up a story, who knows?
I would like to see and read what really Dr. Fenwick said in the proper context.
Only after that is possible to make a comment.

Remember however that there is a huge difference between a vision that may be caused by an hallucination and a real experience as an NDE.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on June 04, 2019, 10:11:59 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I think consciousness is just the brain perceiving parts of itself. Maybe the inner dialogue we experience is just communication between Wernicke's and Boca's areas. The current drive to map the brain will teach us a lot about how these things happen, but we will always have more questions.


How can something made of matter perceive part of itself?

That is absurd.
It would be like to say that a vehicle made of matter is able to perceive part of itself.
The consciousness is the only entity able to perceive itself same same as the driver of the vehicle is the only entity able to perceive himself.

One day you too will be able to differentiate between an abstract entity such as the consciousness and the brain which is made of matter that is only there to serve the boss-consciousness.



(https://i.pinimg.com/474x/a4/5d/1b/a45d1bbcfb4ae5a9e1a750f69f275984--we-the-people-human-condition.jpg)
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on June 04, 2019, 10:50:57 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I have seen no evidence that the feats you describe require any sort of "power of the mind" beyond mere discipline.
For the same reason I can hit a table and not acquire a scratch, really. There's a reason why the medical term for a scratch is "abrasion."
What makes you think that they get away with no blood or injuries? There is certainly a traceable hole, and if you think otherwise, you need to provide evidence that the hole simply disappears. I have no need to explain what is not evident. (No, a sensationalist newspaper article does not cut it. You need a medical examination.) As to why there's no blood (assuming there is), well, if you poke the same spot multiple times, the body is going to stop bothering healing it up completely and just scar a hole over, like your ear piercings.
Yes. You have yet to give evidence of anything that is genuinely inexplicable. I don't think you know well enough how nature works to say anything is supernatural.


If I wouldn't have seen with my eyes many years ago in Penang I wouldn't have believed that as soon as the hooks are removed the hole close by itself in seconds.


Apart from feeling no pain, no blood is shed and no scars will remain.

http://scribol.com/anthropology-and-history/cultures/ouch-extreme-body-piercing/


I am curious to know if any devotee has been hospitalized or seriously wounded due to this practice. Upon asking this I am answered with a very clear ‘no’. Devotees are able to obtain a trance-like state in which they feel no pain, not bleed from their wounds and leave no scars. I am amazed at their spiritual strength. The ability to control the body is achievable, but to control the mind to remain on a single focus is a far more difficult task and takes practice. Yet, despite this barrier I witnessed young children participating in Vel Kavadi, disregarding the pain of having your flesh flagellated by imploring the help of Lord Murugan.

https://snapshotfromsomewhere.com/2019/02/27/thaipusam/
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on June 04, 2019, 11:05:33 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The evidence has been presented to you several times. Your inability to understand it doesn't mean the evidence isn't there. It just means that you're an idiot.



The evidence has been presented to you several times.....................oh, yeah, is that so BL.........WHEN, WHEN BL? Please show that to me so I can believe that.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Mike Cl on June 04, 2019, 12:06:25 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


 Please show that to me so I can believe that.
You are a good little theist, aren't you.  You live in a little world in which only beliefs exist.  Facts don't matter, so why even bother considering them.  And you don't.  You are a vapid little creature with no desire to think--that is way beyond what you are capable of, so why try????  As the typical little theist if you believe it it is so.  Typical.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: aitm on June 04, 2019, 12:24:33 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Remember however that there is a huge difference between a vision that may be caused by an hallucination and a real experience as an NDE.

"Real experience"? Right. I had a dream when I was a little boy of flying over the house and fields next to the house and over the AuSable river. Never flew before, even in a plane at the time yet the mind was able to generate real accurate views of everything from above looking down without ever actually flying. The mind is capable of producing any thing it wants. Whether we want it too or not. I know your in love and all breathless over your yoga-ish and Indian mysticism but.....meh.  When they start stopping floods or typhoons or even a runaway elephant call me.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Unbeliever on June 04, 2019, 01:16:27 PM
Yeah, you'd think those yogis could do more than stage magic tricks.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on June 04, 2019, 02:09:59 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yeah, you'd think those yogis could do more than stage magic tricks.

They can, per physiological studies.  But anything that isn't an iPhone is magic.  Or is an iPhone quite magical?  I find it to be magical.  Any sufficiently advanced technical means of suicide is indistinguishable from magic.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on June 04, 2019, 02:11:25 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
"Real experience"? Right. I had a dream when I was a little boy of flying over the house and fields next to the house and over the AuSable river. Never flew before, even in a plane at the time yet the mind was able to generate real accurate views of everything from above looking down without ever actually flying. The mind is capable of producing any thing it wants. Whether we want it too or not. I know your in love and all breathless over your yoga-ish and Indian mysticism but.....meh.  When they start stopping floods or typhoons or even a runaway elephant call me.

That was a real experience.  But different from an awake experience of flying in a passenger airplane.  But you only accept what confirms your rationalization (same as all other people).  Arik has different experiences, is of a different culture.  Therefore just a colonial subject to the Progressive Empire (authoritarianism by the Middle Class).
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on June 04, 2019, 02:13:32 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

A hand?

That is a primitive way of doing.
If you will be alive maybe in 30-40 years time those machines will be controlled by the mind.

Biofeedback devices already exist.  But they aren't user friendly, same as speech-to-text ... you have to train the system to each particular user ... and that requires work, and the point of technology is to make us all gods who don't work for a living, while our android sex slaves toil away ;-)
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on June 04, 2019, 02:15:31 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


The evidence has been presented to you several times.....................oh, yeah, is that so BL.........WHEN, WHEN BL? Please show that to me so I can believe that.

All Westerners have Rudyard Kipling syndrome.  You aren't a European intelligentsia ... so you need to be colonized for your own good.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on June 04, 2019, 02:16:47 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are a good little theist, aren't you.  You live in a little world in which only beliefs exist.  Facts don't matter, so why even bother considering them.  And you don't.  You are a vapid little creature with no desire to think--that is way beyond what you are capable of, so why try????  As the typical little theist if you believe it it is so.  Typical.

There is a dialectic between imagination and experience.  Imagination itself being a part of experience.  Literalists don't believe in the imagination, except for video games where they can pretend to the omipotence of pagan gods.

Some things have to be believed, to be seen.  Some things have to be seen, to be believed.  But not all believed things are seen.  And not all seen things, are believed.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: aitm on June 04, 2019, 04:18:25 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That was a real experience.

I think it would be characterized as a real dream, not a real experience. But them philosopher types like to insert qualifications into everything.

" was it a dream? the experience of the dream was real....ergo"....

oy
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on June 04, 2019, 05:31:41 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

If I wouldn't have seen with my eyes many years ago in Penang I wouldn't have believed that as soon as the hooks are removed the hole close by itself in seconds.
Did the wound actually close and heal, or did it seem to close with no apparent wound? Were you allowed to try to force apart the sides of the wound to make sure?

Quote
Apart from feeling no pain, no blood is shed and no scars will remain.

http://scribol.com/anthropology-and-history/cultures/ouch-extreme-body-piercing/


I am curious to know if any devotee has been hospitalized or seriously wounded due to this practice. Upon asking this I am answered with a very clear ‘no’. Devotees are able to obtain a trance-like state in which they feel no pain, not bleed from their wounds and leave no scars.

Yeah, and a hypodermic needle doesn't bleed nor leaves any scars either. Are they mystical? The way a wound is caused and the way it is handled has a great effect on whether it bleeds and whether or not it will heal up without scars. Certain wounds may even appear to be completely gone in seconds, because collagen is sticky, and as such long, shallow intrusions into the skin's outer layers tend to get pressed shut and seem to vanish.

I can speak from personal experience that you can be punctured in certain parts of your skin and not bleed much. Subcutaneous cuts and punctures particularly never did any more than ooze for me. Furthermore, it's not like none of these gurus or whatever they are have never done this before, and as such, have not worked out technique that allows them to poke themselves in such a way to cause themselves little to no bleeding, and have conditioned their skin and refined their technique such that the wound springs shut and leaves no apparent hole.

As to pain, you don't know that any of these gurus experienced no pain, rather than distancing themselves from that pain such that it doesn't affect their outward behavior. And of course, pain exists in the mind anyway, so even if they were able to poke themselves and feel no pain, it's not that remarkable. It does speak to the discipline and technique of these gurus to do such amazing feats, but again nothing outside the realm of physical possibility.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Unbeliever on June 04, 2019, 07:25:25 PM
When someone has dementia or Alzheimer's disease, do they have it because their consciousness has declined, or has their consciousness declined because they have dementia or Alzheimer's?
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on June 04, 2019, 08:41:38 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
When someone had dementia or Alzheimer's disease, do they have it because their consciousness has declined, or has their consciousness declined because they have dementia or Alzheimer's?

Doctors have lists of symptoms.  And sometimes the symptoms are unambiguous.  But even then, we have official diagnosis as to the cause of symptoms.  But that doesn't make it true, just current medical convention.  Like the story of cholesterol, we now know there are two kinds, one good and one bad.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on June 05, 2019, 12:23:12 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are a good little theist, aren't you.  You live in a little world in which only beliefs exist.  Facts don't matter, so why even bother considering them.  And you don't.  You are a vapid little creature with no desire to think--that is way beyond what you are capable of, so why try????  As the typical little theist if you believe it it is so.  Typical.


You are mistaken once again my friend.

Yoga does give facts as you go along but physical science does only give today facts not what lies ahead.
What was good yesterday is not good anymore today and what is good today will be cast in the rubbish bin of history tomorrow and this is a fact MC that is why intelligent people should only take this material dimension as a temporary thing not as a permanent reality because within this dimension there is not a permanent reality.

Years ago didn't you cast in the rubbish bin your box monitor in order to get the new flat monitor that right now you are watching?
Eh, but wait a moment mate.
What about the new model that just came out?
Aren't you think about that?


(https://silentsparksff.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/cropped-header-v41.jpg)
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on June 05, 2019, 12:33:27 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
When someone had dementia or Alzheimer's disease, do they have it because their consciousness has declined, or has their consciousness declined because they have dementia or Alzheimer's?


One or both options are possible.

When a vehicle (and the brain is a vehicle) doesn't perform well (for different reasons) also the driver which is stuck inside has to put up with a vehicle that doesn't go properly and also when the driver is not well his driving can not be proper so in both cases the situation is not the best but it is even worse when both vehicle and driver are in a bad situation.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Mike Cl on June 05, 2019, 08:51:19 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are mistaken once again my friend.

Yoga does give facts as you go along but physical science does only give today facts not what lies ahead.
What was good yesterday is not good anymore today and what is good today will be cast in the rubbish bin of history tomorrow and this is a fact MC that is why intelligent people should only take this material dimension as a temporary thing not as a permanent reality because within this dimension there is not a permanent reality.

Years ago didn't you cast in the rubbish bin your box monitor in order to get the new flat monitor that right now you are watching?
Eh, but wait a moment mate.
What about the new model that just came out?
Aren't you think about that?


(https://silentsparksff.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/cropped-header-v41.jpg)
As usual--gibberish.  More than half the time I have to guess at what it is you are talking about.  Well, I used to have to guess--don't bother any more for you do just ramble on.  What is clear is that you haven't met a fact yet that you don't ignore.  Your life is just one airy-fairy idea after another--you life in your little fairyland world and believe it to be all there is.  A brain stunted, not nearly as conscious as he believes he is, idiot.  But that IS the universe of the theist--right Baruch?!
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on June 05, 2019, 09:49:18 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
As usual--gibberish.  More than half the time I have to guess at what it is you are talking about.  Well, I used to have to guess--don't bother any more for you do just ramble on.  What is clear is that you haven't met a fact yet that you don't ignore.  Your life is just one airy-fairy idea after another--you life in your little fairyland world and believe it to be all there is.  A brain stunted, not nearly as conscious as he believes he is, idiot.  But that IS the universe of the theist--right Baruch?!


This is the real gibberish CL.

We live in a dimension that is moving and changing all the time and you talk of facts and reality.

Facts and reality are of permanent nature so obviously you can not have them in this material changing dimension.
Only dreamers think otherwise.

 

Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on June 05, 2019, 09:59:17 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I think it would be characterized as a real dream, not a real experience. But them philosopher types like to insert qualifications into everything.

" was it a dream? the experience of the dream was real....ergo"....

oy

Awake = bullshit
Dream = more bullshit

So when I am typing this, it isn't asleep, so it is bullshit
When I am in a dream, I don't do typing, maybe I fly, so it is more bullshit

Since "experience" is no longer politically correct ... lets ban all words that are hard for the liberals to understand

I would ask you druggies out there ... when you are high, is that "more awake" ... LSD people say so.  Would seem raw majority here would be anti-drug ... so no alcohol etc because you want to be as real as possible.  Also imagination is evil, need to have no imagination.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: aitm on June 05, 2019, 10:07:48 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

So when I am typing this, it isn't asleep, so it is bullshit


Finally.....
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on June 05, 2019, 10:15:25 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Did the wound actually close and heal, or did it seem to close with no apparent wound? Were you allowed to try to force apart the sides of the wound to make sure?

Yeah, and a hypodermic needle doesn't bleed nor leaves any scars either. Are they mystical? The way a wound is caused and the way it is handled has a great effect on whether it bleeds and whether or not it will heal up without scars. Certain wounds may even appear to be completely gone in seconds, because collagen is sticky, and as such long, shallow intrusions into the skin's outer layers tend to get pressed shut and seem to vanish.

I can speak from personal experience that you can be punctured in certain parts of your skin and not bleed much. Subcutaneous cuts and punctures particularly never did any more than ooze for me. Furthermore, it's not like none of these gurus or whatever they are have never done this before, and as such, have not worked out technique that allows them to poke themselves in such a way to cause themselves little to no bleeding, and have conditioned their skin and refined their technique such that the wound springs shut and leaves no apparent hole.

As to pain, you don't know that any of these gurus experienced no pain, rather than distancing themselves from that pain such that it doesn't affect their outward behavior. And of course, pain exists in the mind anyway, so even if they were able to poke themselves and feel no pain, it's not that remarkable. It does speak to the discipline and technique of these gurus to do such amazing feats, but again nothing outside the realm of physical possibility.


I guess that the only way for you to believe is to be present and attend one of these festival like I did.

Once you will see with your very eyes you will change not only your mind but that will also help you to give up your atheists beliefs because these events can only happen when the mind is focus on God and they go a lot further than breaking slabs of concrete where only a strong mind is needed.




Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: aitm on June 05, 2019, 11:19:25 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
when the mind is focus on God

I must have missed your previous enlightened readings......exactly which god allows all this super power....the fat one or the one with 8 arms?
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Mike Cl on June 05, 2019, 11:31:05 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login



We live in a dimension that is moving and changing all the time and you talk of facts and reality.


Yeah, I do.  To bad you don't.  Drivel on idiot!
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on June 05, 2019, 01:20:26 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Finally.....

The wokeness of the sleeper ... Hinduism is illustrative ...

It always comes down to ... theist has experiences (not necessarily quantitative experimental science) and this is denied by the atheist.  The theist thinks they are a demi-god (as image of god/Deva).  Atheist has experiences (not necessarily quantitative experimental science) and this is denied by the theist.  The atheist thinks they are a anti-demi-god (as image of anti-god/Asura).  The obvious difference is that the atheist doesn't realize their own irony.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on June 05, 2019, 01:21:05 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I guess that the only way for you to believe is to be present and attend one of these festival like I did.

Once you will see with your very eyes you will change not only your mind but that will also help you to give up your atheists beliefs because these events can only happen when the mind is focus on God and they go a lot further than breaking slabs of concrete where only a strong mind is needed.

Those certain in their closed mindedness .. avoid new experiences.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on June 05, 2019, 01:22:59 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yeah, I do.  To bad you don't.  Drivel on idiot!

Relative vs absolute.  I see that as a moot point.  But common to philosophical types.  For some, only the absolute is real, in which case space-time isn't.  But I would have a hard time agreeing to that, so I don't.  The relative is just as real as the absolute.  Not sure any monkey has ever grasped anything that is absolute anyway.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Mike Cl on June 05, 2019, 01:55:55 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Relative vs absolute.  I see that as a moot point.  But common to philosophical types.  For some, only the absolute is real, in which case space-time isn't.  But I would have a hard time agreeing to that, so I don't.  The relative is just as real as the absolute.  Not sure any monkey has ever grasped anything that is absolute anyway.
Airk is not about relative vs absolute.  For him, and most theists, there is only absolute.  He is absolutely sure his is correct--and only he (and fellow travelers) are correct.  He does not want to be bothered to think only flap is lips and produce inane stupidity.  That's his call; he can do as he wishes.  So, drivel on.........................
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: aitm on June 05, 2019, 03:23:18 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The atheist thinks they are a anti-demi-god (as image of anti-god/Asura).  The obvious difference is that the atheist doesn't realize their own irony.

okay...I kinda think we are successful animals....pretty much that. All that god/anti-god is from people who believe that we are special and created by something even "specialer".
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Unbeliever on June 05, 2019, 03:36:51 PM
Yeah, isn't that special...


;-P
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on June 05, 2019, 03:39:33 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
okay...I kinda think we are successful animals....pretty much that. All that god/anti-god is from people who believe that we are special and created by something even "specialer".

Yes, I agree, you aren't special (rhetorical).  I am special, in an ordinary way.  Cynic much?
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on June 05, 2019, 03:40:16 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yeah, isn't that special...


;-P

Exactly.  Everyone is uniquely special.  Otherwise there would only be one person in history.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on June 05, 2019, 05:13:36 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I guess that the only way for you to believe is to be present and attend one of these festival like I did.
I would need to be more than merely "present" at the festival. I would need to be able to examine the 'woundless' gurus afterward to fully verify what you say, because just looking ain't enough.

Or you could produce an actual medical examination of one of these gurus post ritual (instead of something some dude present reported without close examination or expertise on the matter) to verify what you say is really medically impossible. I would also throw in a stage magician, too, to preclude actual trickery.

I don't claim any camera trickery, so I don't think I need to see any more. I would need to perform some actual experiments, like stick a blunt dowel into any spot they claim had had a wound but disappeared... but somehow I doubt it. If that were the case, there would already be literature about it.

Quote
Once you will see with your very eyes you will change not only your mind but that will also help you to give up your atheists beliefs because these events can only happen when the mind is focus on God and they go a lot further than breaking slabs of concrete where only a strong mind is needed.
Because I know I can be fooled, I know that sometimes just seeing it —even in person— is not enough. It is the height of arrogance to think that you can't be fooled by a skilled practicioner or con men. Indeed, it is the people who think that they can't be fooled who turn out to be the most gullible.

So far, you have described NOTHING that requires that I go to the supernatural of any flavor. Just a few pages back we had You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login tell you, straight to your face, that concrete ain't the super-material that you're implying, because he grew up in construction and knew how easily it can break. It can fail suprisingly easy, if you use the (in)correct loading. That's why working in concrete is a skill and it's something you call a professional to handle; you can fuck it up such that a concrete slab you poured will fail if you look at it cross-eyed. Even if it's properly and fully cured, certain shapes will still break very easily with the wrong loading. If I were to try to break concrete without the help of any mental power, I would go about it EXACTLY as those martial artists have done.

Like I said before, you have to know well enough how nature works to say anything is supernatural. So far, you given no indication of expertise, just credulity.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Unbeliever on June 05, 2019, 05:19:17 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I would also throw in a stage magician, too, to preclude actual trickery.

Yeah, James Randy comes to mind. I wonder if he still debunks con artists?
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on June 05, 2019, 05:59:28 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yeah, James Randy comes to mind. I wonder if he still debunks con artists?

James Randi is 90 now.  Better find another.

Dogbert is a god-like consultant ... but he isn't the Trashman

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hB-OaWQIS2k

Proof that Randi is actually a cartoon ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZkfNc6TEAQ

another two-dimensional Ranti (that also shows multiple universe theory is real) ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otWtofvQExs
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on June 05, 2019, 06:25:10 PM
How three-dimensional divine beings create a two-dimensional universe ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Xa3imjfMUA

That is the picture of the incarnate voice of Alice ...

This also includes a clip of "I don't believe in Todd" ... which shows that most people here are alter-egos of Catbert.

Since this video is actually fro 20 years ago it is now old enough to be holy scripture ;-)

The end shows the truth about NDE ... we are all in NDE right now ;-))
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Mike Cl on June 05, 2019, 06:58:54 PM
Skeptic Magazine comes to mind.  They used to offer a million dollar reward for anybody who could prove anything supernatural.  Have not paid out yet.  When I go to Barns and Noble, that is the first publication I snag (with a current baseball publication) to read with my coffee.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Unbeliever on June 05, 2019, 07:09:11 PM
Scientists are easier to fool than most people would think, that's why stage magicians are better at debunking supernatural claims.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YToyylAvlJ0
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on June 05, 2019, 11:56:47 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Skeptic Magazine comes to mind.  They used to offer a million dollar reward for anybody who could prove anything supernatural.  Have not paid out yet.  When I go to Barns and Noble, that is the first publication I snag (with a current baseball publication) to read with my coffee.

I am skeptical you actually do that ;-)
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on June 05, 2019, 11:57:22 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Scientists are easier to fool than most people would think, that's why stage magicians are better at debunking supernatural claims.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YToyylAvlJ0

Must be true.  I love good stage magicians (not literally).
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Cavebear on June 06, 2019, 01:57:26 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

A hand?

That is a primitive way of doing.
If you will be alive maybe in 30-40 years time those machines will be controlled by the mind.

I might tend to agree with you on that.  But I'm still waiting for my flying car and speech-dictated email...  And my fuel-cell car for that matter.  And I (probably) don't have 30 years to wait.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on June 06, 2019, 09:08:38 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I might tend to agree with you on that.  But I'm still waiting for my flying car and speech-dictated email...  And my fuel-cell car for that matter.  And I (probably) don't have 30 years to wait.


You don't have to worry about that mate.

When you will reborn you will find yourself in a more advanced technology dimension but don't forget that from now on you will have to be a good boy eh. :cheesy:
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Cavebear on June 06, 2019, 09:20:29 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You don't have to worry about that mate.

When you will reborn you will find yourself in a more advanced technology dimension but don't forget that from now on you will have to be a good boy eh. :cheesy:

Thank you for the kind thoughts.  Utter absurdity, of course, but surely well-meant.

I don't expect to be "reborn" and I don't expect any "afterlife".  Those who do are probably going to be disappointed, but then, they wouldn't know they were, being utterly dead, would they?
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on June 06, 2019, 10:14:33 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Airk is not about relative vs absolute.  For him, and most theists, there is only absolute.  He is absolutely sure his is correct--and only he (and fellow travelers) are correct.  He does not want to be bothered to think only flap is lips and produce inane stupidity.  That's his call; he can do as he wishes.  So, drivel on.........................



Wrong again CL.

I never said that I do not believe in the relative.
You say things that I never said and that is not very nice of you.

To me God is the absolute truth, and the universe is also truth, but relative.

Relative of what?
Suppose you create in your mind a vision.
That vision is part of you but is relative because your vision is not the real you.

That is why this created universe is relative and God is the absolute truth.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on June 06, 2019, 10:28:03 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Thank you for the kind thoughts.  Utter absurdity, of course, but surely well-meant.

I don't expect to be "reborn" and I don't expect any "afterlife".  Those who do are probably going to be disappointed, but then, they wouldn't know they were, being utterly dead, would they?


What about if it is you that will be disappointed?

But no, you will not be disappointed because as you die (leave your body) you will understand that the real reality is behind death but again soon after you will be reborn into an other atheist and you will forget that reality for one more time until the day that you will surrender to the real reality.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Mike Cl on June 06, 2019, 10:55:07 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


Wrong again CL.

I never said that I do not believe in the relative.
You say things that I never said and that is not very nice of you.

To me God is the absolute truth, and the universe is also truth, but relative.

Relative of what?








Suppose you create in your mind a vision.
That vision is part of you but is relative because your vision is not the real you.

That is why this created universe is relative and God is the absolute truth.
Like I said---drivel on, oh willfully stupid one. 
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on June 08, 2019, 02:03:02 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Like I said---drivel on, oh willfully stupid one.



(https://i.pinimg.com/474x/a4/5d/1b/a45d1bbcfb4ae5a9e1a750f69f275984--we-the-people-human-condition.jpg)


I am so so sorry that you are not interested in evolution but again if you think that evolution stop when it reach man then you will have to delay once again the day in which you will get out your cocoon of fantasy by keeping on worshipping your many materialists Gods.

Sad indeed Mike.



(https://breakupwallpapers.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/A-Guy-Setting-Sadlly-Breakup-Wallpapers-For-Boys-In-HD-4K-Quality-Image-Free-Download-200x200.jpg)


Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on June 08, 2019, 05:12:10 AM
Assuming reincarnation, I see people getting what they deserve.  Can't say that is a bad thing.  If some people are reincarnated as discontinued Atari video game cartridges (1980s), then OK by me.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Mike Cl on June 08, 2019, 09:16:33 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


(https://i.pinimg.com/474x/a4/5d/1b/a45d1bbcfb4ae5a9e1a750f69f275984--we-the-people-human-condition.jpg)


I am so so sorry that you are not interested in evolution but again if you think that evolution stop when it reach man then you will have to delay once again the day in which you will get out your cocoon of fantasy by keeping on worshipping your many materialists Gods.

Sad indeed Mike.



(https://breakupwallpapers.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/A-Guy-Setting-Sadlly-Breakup-Wallpapers-For-Boys-In-HD-4K-Quality-Image-Free-Download-200x200.jpg)
You do like to drivel all over yourself, don't you--you must go thru tons of Depends since you are always driveling all over yourself. 

You simply have no idea what evolution is nor how it functions.  And you have no idea what what the word 'worship' means.  In fact, language and accuracy seems to throw you for a loop.  As Mr. Gump (a mental giant compared to you) says--'Stupid is as stupid does'.............and you do stupid always and constantly. 
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on June 08, 2019, 09:27:58 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Assuming reincarnation, I see people getting what they deserve.  Can't say that is a bad thing.  If some people are reincarnated as discontinued Atari video game cartridges (1980s), then OK by me.


My belief is a little bit different Baruch.

I do not like or dislike to see people in trouble due to their own bad karma.
As far as they are repented or in need of help I am always ready to help.
It is when I see angry-swearing people that do not get the fact that they suffer for a reason that make me stay away from them and let them sort out their own problems.

Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on June 08, 2019, 09:56:56 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You do like to drivel all over yourself, don't you--you must go thru tons of Depends since you are always driveling all over yourself. 

You simply have no idea what evolution is nor how it functions.  And you have no idea what what the word 'worship' means.  In fact, language and accuracy seems to throw you for a loop.  As Mr. Gump (a mental giant compared to you) says--'Stupid is as stupid does'.............and you do stupid always and constantly.


You got it wrong once again Mike.

Evolution is NOT an exclusive property directed to biological changes but his meaning cover an infinity of things.

Rocket science has evolved.
Medical science has evolved.
All different sciences have evolved and so on so the word evolution can not be confined to biological changes.
In fact the word evolution is related to the gradual development of something.
The forms of written languages undergo constant evolution and so all the rest.

In one dictionary I read....development, advancement, growth, rise, progress, progression, expansion, extension, unfolding and more that is why you got it wrong.

But again the most important form of evolution is the progress that is made within because that is the only progress that you can keep with you once you leave your body.

As far as the word worship here you are wrong again.
Different people worship different things so this word is not and can not be associated with worship only a deity because many people turn their material object of worship into their God.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Mike Cl on June 08, 2019, 10:27:48 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You got it wrong once again Mike.

Evolution is NOT an exclusive property directed to biological changes but his meaning cover an infinity of things.

Rocket science has evolved.
Medical science has evolved.
All different sciences have evolved and so on so the word evolution can not be confined to biological changes.
In fact the word evolution is related to the gradual development of something.
The forms of written languages undergo constant evolution and so all the rest.

In one dictionary I read....development, advancement, growth, rise, progress, progression, expansion, extension, unfolding and more that is why you got it wrong.

But again the most important form of evolution is the progress that is made within because that is the only progress that you can keep with you once you leave your body.

As far as the word worship here you are wrong again.
Different people worship different things so this word is not and can not be associated with worship only a deity because many people turn their material object of worship into their God.

 :grin: :grin: You are so willfully ignorant and stupid that you do provide some comic relief-- :cheesy: :cheer:
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on June 08, 2019, 10:56:34 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

My belief is a little bit different Baruch.

I do not like or dislike to see people in trouble due to their own bad karma.
As far as they are repented or in need of help I am always ready to help.
It is when I see angry-swearing people that do not get the fact that they suffer for a reason that make me stay away from them and let them sort out their own problems.

My hope is that everyone will be successful and happy, but experience teaches me to expect disappointment.  Yes, my hope is self contradictory, given the win/lose relationship between people ;-(

My fear is that retribution is great, that many reincarnations as Atheistforums commentators will be required of one and all, a fate worse than Avichi hell ;-)

But my rhetoric can be as biting as a great white shark.  I have a broad smile, but lots of teeth.  People insist on partisan selfishness.  And hostility when they don't get what they want or when they want. ;-p
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on June 08, 2019, 11:02:06 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
:grin: :grin: You are so willfully ignorant and stupid that you do provide some comic relief-- :cheesy: :cheer:


There is a huge difference between my clear explanation of definitions and meanings of words and your constant confusion and your use of degrading and demeaning words in order to try to keep your credibility alive.

Any independent jury would find you loser no matter what.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Hydra009 on June 08, 2019, 11:22:09 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You don't have to worry about that mate.

When you will reborn you will find yourself in a more advanced technology dimension but don't forget that from now on you will have to be a good boy eh. :cheesy:
Dibs on the Clockwork Nirvana of Mechanus.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on June 08, 2019, 01:00:57 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Dibs on the Clockwork Nirvana of Mechanus.

Don't forget your windup key ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uQTVTH5qdw
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: aitm on June 08, 2019, 05:37:55 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
As far as they are repented or in need of help I am always ready to help.

ah so your fat or 8 limbed god is a prick after all. Gotta repent. Yeah.....yer a bubble all right.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on June 08, 2019, 05:58:47 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
ah so your fat or 8 limbed god is a prick after all. Gotta repent. Yeah.....yer a bubble all right.

Per Mahayana Buddhism, one can't actually help.  You have to do it yourself.  But I am not sure how it is in Hinduism (Yoga).

There is positive and negative theology (Pelagius controversy in early Christianity and Daoism in China).

It isn't repentance that magically changes things.  The repentance us evidence of an internal change.  And that change could be ... that you have removed yourself as an obstacle to your own progress.  If G-d is responsible for everything, then G-d is necessary for this success or failure.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on June 08, 2019, 06:00:38 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Rocket science has evolved.
Medical science has evolved.
All different sciences have evolved and so on so the word evolution can not be confined to biological changes.
In fact the word evolution is related to the gradual development of something.
The forms of written languages undergo constant evolution and so all the rest.

In one dictionary I read....development, advancement, growth, rise, progress, progression, expansion, extension, unfolding and more that is why you got it wrong.

But again the most important form of evolution is the progress that is made within because that is the only progress that you can keep with you once you leave your body.
Dearheart, the thinking that people have mind powers, souls and whatnot is somewhere where we've already been. To return to that thinking is going backwards, downwards down that train of steps in that cartoon you like showing. No, the future steps in our evolution is not going to be towards mind powers in the way you're thinking of them. When it's going to happen, it's going to be granting the powers of the mind through mind/machine interfaces augmenting our bodies with purpose-built machines, and granting immortality by making us actually immortal. People have tried your woo approach, and it doesn't work. When people try hard-nosed scientific investigation, it works and extremely well. I know where I'm putting my money.

Quote
As far as the word worship here you are wrong again.
Different people worship different things so this word is not and can not be associated with worship only a deity because many people turn their material object of worship into their God.
You call it "worship" because it's the only way you can understand our zeal for it. It is so unlike worship of gods it is not even in the same category. There is no ritual we perform towards materialism to affirm our faiths, no creed we follow, no silly hats we wear, it's just a deep understanding of what we're talking about, and the fact that it actually makes sense of the world we see is the amazing part. There's simply no room for your woo. Science and the hard-nosed investigation and critical scrutiny of ideas is what has given us the wonders of the cosmological perspective, the understanding of the world of the very small, and the keys to the universe.

In short, we are so zealous, not because we don't understand the designs of entities unknown but assumed, but because we do understand to a substantial degree the entities we have verified and investigated.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
There is a huge difference between my clear explanation of definitions and meanings of words and your constant confusion and your use of degrading and demeaning words in order to try to keep your credibility alive.

Any independent jury would find you loser no matter what.
Every cluless moron says the exact same thing: "You're confused; I'm talking sense; all people who are woke will agree with me." It gets old after a while.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: aitm on June 08, 2019, 09:17:41 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
quoting some stuff

Bull shit is still bull shit even when it is painted.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on June 09, 2019, 02:55:03 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Bull shit is still bull shit even when it is painted.

If one can't do anything else for the world, one can at least provide fertilizer.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: aitm on June 09, 2019, 07:44:33 AM
Helps if properly labeled.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on June 09, 2019, 10:17:25 AM
Labeling ... is where polytheism excels ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mL-kf6JZJss
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Cavebear on June 09, 2019, 10:22:42 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

There is a huge difference between my clear explanation of definitions and meanings of words and your constant confusion and your use of degrading and demeaning words in order to try to keep your credibility alive.

Any independent jury would find you loser no matter what.

Arik, you so completely misunderstand "evolution".  It is NOT a basic learning process like science is, and as you seem to think.  Evolution is more correctly called "Natural Selection".  And, as such, it merely means that among any multitude of organisms, from the simplest to the most complex, some individual ones will be very slightly different and more able to succeed in the conditions in which they live. 

It doesn't matter if it is the smallest microbe slightly more able to ingest or utilize the nutrients around it, a bird who's beak is EVER SO SLIGHTLY better at getting at flower seeds, or a more complex creature with a slight change in vision that allows it to identify  riper fruits than it's group members.  The point is that small changes add up over time and give a tiny advantage to one ability over another. 

And whatever level, those tiny advantages gradually result in improved reproduction rates that slowly among those with the slightly better skill at anything (because they eat "just a little better" or jump "just a little faster" or whatever is an advantage).  If those individuals produce 1,000 offspring and the ones without that advantage produce 999, eventually that advantage will be widespread and universal. 

Think of 100s of generations and do the simple math.

Religion has nothing to do with it.  Natural Selection does not engage religion in any way.  And Natural Selection IS "evolution".
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on June 09, 2019, 11:33:28 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Dearheart, the thinking that people have mind powers, souls and whatnot is somewhere where we've already been. To return to that thinking is going backwards, downwards down that train of steps in that cartoon you like showing. No, the future steps in our evolution is not going to be towards mind powers in the way you're thinking of them. When it's going to happen, it's going to be granting the powers of the mind through mind/machine interfaces augmenting our bodies with purpose-built machines, and granting immortality by making us actually immortal. People have tried your woo approach, and it doesn't work. When people try hard-nosed scientific investigation, it works and extremely well. I know where I'm putting my money.


You forget one important thing my friend and that is that humans are not only made of body.

You can do all the scientific investigation that you wish but that will not give you peace of mind and permanent happiness that is why by relying on that you will never be able fulfill the most human aspiration and longing.


Quote
You call it "worship" because it's the only way you can understand our zeal for it. It is so unlike worship of gods it is not even in the same category. There is no ritual we perform towards materialism to affirm our faiths, no creed we follow, no silly hats we wear, it's just a deep understanding of what we're talking about, and the fact that it actually makes sense of the world we see is the amazing part. There's simply no room for your woo. Science and the hard-nosed investigation and critical scrutiny of ideas is what has given us the wonders of the cosmological perspective, the understanding of the world of the very small, and the keys to the universe.


You can become the most expert in physical science but once again this science is unable to satisfy the human desire and longing for peace of mind and total bliss.



Quote
In short, we are so zealous, not because we don't understand the designs of entities unknown but assumed, but because we do understand to a substantial degree the entities we have verified and investigated.
Every cluless moron says the exact same thing: "You're confused; I'm talking sense; all people who are woke will agree with me." It gets old after a while.


The day you will have finish to investigate everything within this material dimension you still will be billions of miles away from any solution for the simple reason that what your subconscious wish does not belong in this material dimension.

All the best anyway.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Cavebear on June 09, 2019, 12:11:44 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You forget one important thing my friend and that is that humans are not only made of body.

You can do all the scientific investigation that you wish but that will not give you peace of mind and permanent happiness that is why by relying on that you will never be able fulfill the most human aspiration and longing.

You can become the most expert in physical science but once again this science is unable to satisfy the human desire and longing for peace of mind and total bliss.

The day you will have finish to investigate everything within this material dimension you still will be billions of miles away from any solution for the simple reason that what your subconscious wish does not belong in this material dimension.

All the best anyway.

Your assumption that we humans are not made of body is the basis of the failure of your understanding of reality.  There is a clear line of evidence that humans are just one of a long string on animals from the simplest to the most complex.    We are animals just as an octopus or microbe is.   We live in a physical existence and die in it.  We do not have a god-given soul any more than my cat does, my aquarium fish, or the hog that was killed to provide the bacon I ate this morning.

We humans are just the currently most self-aware creatures but also just animals.  And you really can't STAND that, can you? 

Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on June 09, 2019, 01:55:21 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Your assumption that we humans are not made of body is the basis of the failure of your understanding of reality.  There is a clear line of evidence that humans are just one of a long string on animals from the simplest to the most complex.    We are animals just as an octopus or microbe is.   We live in a physical existence and die in it.  We do not have a god-given soul any more than my cat does, my aquarium fish, or the hog that was killed to provide the bacon I ate this morning.

We humans are just the currently most self-aware creatures but also just animals.  And you really can't STAND that, can you?

The notion you have that a functioning radio has no program, just electronics ... maybe why you don't hear many songs ;-)
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on June 09, 2019, 06:00:14 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You forget one important thing my friend and that is that humans are not only made of body.
Mere assertion. Claiming things does not make them true.

Quote
You can do all the scientific investigation that you wish but that will not give you peace of mind and permanent happiness that is why by relying on that you will never be able fulfill the most human aspiration and longing.
Says you. I find it very fun finding things out. I devour books on science the same way I would eat candy. Why? Because it's intently fascinating. It's thrilling to see everything you have learned fit together into a coherent whole.

Actually, no. I don't even need a reason to find it fascinating. I just do.

You don't get to say what my aspirations are or what I long for. Only I get to do that.

Quote
You can become the most expert in physical science but once again this science is unable to satisfy the human desire and longing for peace of mind and total bliss.
You have obviously not talked to any scientist, ever, because if you did, and you get them to teach you about a subject they are currently investigating, they will enthusiastically talk your ear off about what they have discovered and how it fits into the overall picture. To do scientific investigation is the scientists' bliss. Even if they're wrong, they delight in finding out they're wrong.

You have no place telling ANYONE what their desire is, or what they long for, or how they find peace of mind or bliss. You are not them; they are not you; and scientists are not the gurus sitting on the mountains contemplating their navels.

Quote
The day you will have finish to investigate everything within this material dimension you still will be billions of miles away from any solution for the simple reason that what your subconscious wish does not belong in this material dimension.
You have no idea how my subconsious works any more than I do. You do not know what makes me tick. Don't presume to speak for my unconsious, you presumptuous prick.

Quote
All the best anyway.
That is a lie. You want me to follow slavishly in your belief that I'm somehow incomplete without spirituality, and the reason why you do this is because you are such an ignoramus about the material world, that you must invent the immaterial to be one of greater worth that you can lord over us. Sorry, chump, who's to say that your immaterial world is worth more than the material one, even if I were to grant that it exists? You can't. So stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Cavebear on June 09, 2019, 06:07:02 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Mere assertion. Claiming things does not make them true.
Says you. I find it very fun finding things out. I devour books on science the same way I would eat candy. Why? Because it's intently fascinating. It's thrilling to see everything you have learned fit together into a coherent whole.

Actually, no. I don't even need a reason to find it fascinating. I just do.

You don't get to say what my aspirations are or what I long for. Only I get to do that.
You have obviously not talked to any scientist, ever, because if you did, and you get them to teach you about a subject they are currently investigating, they will enthusiastically talk your ear off about what they have discovered and how it fits into the overall picture. To do scientific investigation is the scientists' bliss. Even if they're wrong, they delight in finding out they're wrong.

You have no place telling ANYONE what their desire is, or what they long for, or how they find peace of mind or bliss. You are not them; they are not you; and scientists are not the gurus sitting on the mountains contemplating their navels.
You have no idea how my subconsious works any more than I do. You do not know what makes me tick. Don't presume to speak for my unconsious, you presumptuous prick.
That is a lie. You want me to follow slavishly in your belief that I'm somehow incomplete without spirituality, and the reason why you do this is because you are such an ignoramus about the material world, that you must invent the immaterial to be one of greater worth that you can lord over us. Sorry, chump, who's to say that your immaterial world is worth more than the material one, even if I were to grant that it exists? You can't. So stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

Oh don't hold it in, be direct.  ;)
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on June 10, 2019, 08:04:44 AM
Anyone posting here ... "mere assertion".  All claimed evidence/proof ... not original, copied from Wikipedia etc.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on June 10, 2019, 09:35:48 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Mere assertion. Claiming things does not make them true.
Says you. I find it very fun finding things out. I devour books on science the same way I would eat candy. Why? Because it's intently fascinating. It's thrilling to see everything you have learned fit together into a coherent whole.

Actually, no. I don't even need a reason to find it fascinating. I just do.

You don't get to say what my aspirations are or what I long for. Only I get to do that.
You have obviously not talked to any scientist, ever, because if you did, and you get them to teach you about a subject they are currently investigating, they will enthusiastically talk your ear off about what they have discovered and how it fits into the overall picture. To do scientific investigation is the scientists' bliss. Even if they're wrong, they delight in finding out they're wrong.

You have no place telling ANYONE what their desire is, or what they long for, or how they find peace of mind or bliss. You are not them; they are not you; and scientists are not the gurus sitting on the mountains contemplating their navels.
You have no idea how my subconsious works any more than I do. You do not know what makes me tick. Don't presume to speak for my unconsious, you presumptuous prick.
That is a lie. You want me to follow slavishly in your belief that I'm somehow incomplete without spirituality, and the reason why you do this is because you are such an ignoramus about the material world, that you must invent the immaterial to be one of greater worth that you can lord over us. Sorry, chump, who's to say that your immaterial world is worth more than the material one, even if I were to grant that it exists? You can't. So stick that in your pipe and smoke it.


I find very interesting when you say that I do not know what your desires, your aspirations and your subconscious means to you.

The things is that we all come from the same place and sooner or later we will all go back in the same place so obviously what my subconscious tell me is the same same for your subconscious.
The only difference is that we all have different degree of awareness and that is why not everybody can yet get the clear message from their subconscious mind due to the fact that the mind is stuck in the material dream.   

Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on June 10, 2019, 09:37:23 AM
Lack of self reflection is common among the autistic.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on June 10, 2019, 10:15:16 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Your assumption that we humans are not made of body is the basis of the failure of your understanding of reality.  There is a clear line of evidence that humans are just one of a long string on animals from the simplest to the most complex.    We are animals just as an octopus or microbe is.   We live in a physical existence and die in it.  We do not have a god-given soul any more than my cat does, my aquarium fish, or the hog that was killed to provide the bacon I ate this morning.

We humans are just the currently most self-aware creatures but also just animals.  And you really can't STAND that, can you?


Wrong CB.

You can not read properly my post.
I didn't say that we humans are not made of body.
I instead said that we humans are not made only of body.

Can you see the difference CB?

But let me explain in details what I meant.
Suppose a cart or a buckboard is pulled by 3 horses.
Now suppose that only one of the 3 animals is strong while the other two are weak or very weak.


(https://media.arkansasonline.com/img/photos/2015/09/05/72643946_chuckwagon5_ORIG.JPG)



In this case the cart can not go straight but if all 3 animals are strong then the cart will go straight and fast right?


(https://media.arkansasonline.com/img/photos/2016/09/03/resized_250499-chuckwagon-championships-02_84-21735_t800.JPG?90232451fbcadccc64a17de7521d859a8f88077d)


Now suppose that we humans are made of 3 elements which are BODY-BRAIN, OUTER MIND or the mind that you are aware of and INNER MIND or the subconscious mind.

It is in the human nature to have a balance among these 3 elements if we want to follow our human nature.
Of course you can say that you still have plenty of balance in your life without the need to follow anything but the fact that we all try to improve our life simply means that there is something else other than the physical-material dimension.

Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: aitm on June 10, 2019, 12:39:59 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
the clear message from their subconscious mind due to the fact that the mind is stuck in the material dream.   

More bull-shit. Pull a string out of your ass and call it a forklift. Simply making shit up as always for you types of people that think that material and immaterial must be separate instead of operating hand in hand with providing the vessel they both need to survive in a safer, easier and more enjoyable environment. You're wrong Arik. Our sub-conscious thrives and wants the material. The two work together for the mutual benefit. You are trying to separate the two and because you don't have the abilities or wherewithall to go out and GET the material....therefore you try to convince those who are successful that you are somehow better than they are because ...you ...know ....you... will ...never ...be.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Hydra009 on June 10, 2019, 12:49:38 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Now suppose that we humans are made of 3 elements which are BODY-BRAIN, OUTER MIND or the mind that you are aware of and INNER MIND or the subconscious mind.
*cough* (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question)

I could suppose that roads are made out of candy and water towers are filled with milk chocolate, but that wouldn't make it so.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: aitm on June 10, 2019, 02:02:06 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

now suppose that we humans are made of 3 elements which are BODY-BRAIN, OUTER MIND or the mind that you are aware of and INNER MIND or the subconscious mind.


but what about the penis brain? ARIK!! WHAT ABOUT THE PENIS BRAIN? WHAT HAPPENS TO IT?
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on June 10, 2019, 06:29:39 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I find very interesting when you say that I do not know what your desires, your aspirations and your subconscious means to you.

The things is that we all come from the same place and sooner or later we will all go back in the same place so obviously what my subconscious tell me is the same same for your subconscious.
I don't "come from" the same place you did, out my mom's vagina. Are we siblings? No, because my only brother and sibling is not a mealy-mouthed woo-pusher like you. Even if this subconscious mind bullshit is true, I didn't go through the same experiences as you did. My makeup and my influences are not the same as yours. No false equivalence for you.

Quote
The only difference is that we all have different degree of awareness and that is why not everybody can yet get the clear message from their subconscious mind due to the fact that the mind is stuck in the material dream.   
And again, mere assertions. Again, you presume to know my subconscious mind better than I do, when even a psychotherapist I would be going to for years wouldn't be so bold. No, you don't get to do that no matter how many times you repeat the same drivel.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on June 11, 2019, 11:08:30 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't "come from" the same place you did, out my mom's vagina. Are we siblings? No, because my only brother and sibling is not a mealy-mouthed woo-pusher like you. Even if this subconscious mind bullshit is true, I didn't go through the same experiences as you did. My makeup and my influences are not the same as yours. No false equivalence for you.
And again, mere assertions. Again, you presume to know my subconscious mind better than I do, when even a psychotherapist I would be going to for years wouldn't be so bold. No, you don't get to do that no matter how many times you repeat the same drivel.



Oh, well if you know everything then I suppose you also know where our consciousness come from.

(One tip for you mate)
The consciousness was part of the baby before the baby came out from your mum vagina.

One more thing Haku.
An old saying goes..........ALL ROAD LEAD TO ROME........
Obviously not everybody follow the same route to get to this place but that is totally irrelevant in the context that everybody sooner or later will get there.
But the point is...........WHY EVERYBODY WILL GET THERE?

Simple Haku.
Everybody is looking for peace of mind and permanent happiness.
Now considering that within this FINITE universe there is absolutely nothing permanent the permanent must be elsewhere right, so it doesn't really matter if right now your objectives are different from mine because sooner or later you too will understand where this ROME is located.  :wink:
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on June 11, 2019, 11:23:12 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
More bull-shit. Pull a string out of your ass and call it a forklift. Simply making shit up as always for you types of people that think that material and immaterial must be separate instead of operating hand in hand with providing the vessel they both need to survive in a safer, easier and more enjoyable environment. You're wrong Arik. Our sub-conscious thrives and wants the material. The two work together for the mutual benefit. You are trying to separate the two and because you don't have the abilities or wherewithall to go out and GET the material....therefore you try to convince those who are successful that you are somehow better than they are because ...you ...know ....you... will ...never ...be.


More daydream aitm?

Wrong again because not only I never said that there should only be the subconscious but my previous post clearly indicate that I believe in a balance among physical-material and the various strata of the mind.

Your continuous insistence that I reject the material side is but a callous way to denigrate or perhaps you can't even read my posts properly which would be as bad as to denigrate.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on June 11, 2019, 05:49:16 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Oh, well if you know everything then I suppose you also know where our consciousness come from.
Oh, come off it. It doesn't "come from" anywhere. It's a process; it started. You can control and mess with it with drugs. If you damage the brain, you damage the consciousness. And there is nowhere it "goes" when you die. It just stops.

This is what neuroscience tells us. There's nothing woo about it. Consciousness isn't a material thing because it isn't a thing at all. It isn't an immaterial, woo thing again because it isn't a thing at all. It's a category error to classify it as a thing that "comes from" somewhere upon birth and then "goes" somewhere upon death, because it's what the brain does, and when the brain stops doing what it's doing, consciousness ends as surely as your material life does.

Quote
Everybody is looking for peace of mind and permanent happiness.
The error is thinking that there's only one way to find either, or either is possible.

Quote
Now considering that within this FINITE universe there is absolutely nothing permanent the permanent must be elsewhere right,
Non sequitor. The permanent may be nonexistent and/or unachievable by any means available to us.

Quote
so it doesn't really matter if right now your objectives are different from mine because sooner or later you too will understand where this ROME is located.  :wink:
Your analogy is flawed. Unlike the afterlife, we know that Rome is a real place. People have been there and back. There is no such assurance from the afterlife. Death looks to every means available to us to be the end and oblivion, with nothing in the hereafter for us, and as such this life is the only life we get. I'm not going to squander my only assured life for empty promises of the hereafter.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Cavebear on June 11, 2019, 09:59:27 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

More daydream aitm?

Wrong again because not only I never said that there should only be the subconscious but my previous post clearly indicate that I believe in a balance among physical-material and the various strata of the mind.

Your continuous insistence that I reject the material side is but a callous way to denigrate or perhaps you can't even read my posts properly which would be as bad as to denigrate.
'

I had a few Supervisors who created facts from nothing and justified it saying they just knew they were right, so making up facts to support the ideas was justified.  We analysts referred to them as "rectal extractions".  And to be quite honest (here and then) we always let our fellow analysts in the other offices which "facts" were true and which were not.  The Supervisors never quite understood how the other offices knew which facts to refute.  Sometimes there were several offices involved which made it a bit circular.

The Fellowship Of The Ring... 
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on June 12, 2019, 03:11:38 AM
So, scarred for life then?  Can you get a job as a pirate?
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Cavebear on June 12, 2019, 06:21:49 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So, scarred for life then?  Can you get a job as a pirate?

Nah, I became a Democrat for lack of a better party.  The Supervisors were all Republicans,  and since they all lied so casually, I didn't want to be one of them.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on June 12, 2019, 11:16:15 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
'

I had a few Supervisors who created facts from nothing and justified it saying they just knew they were right, so making up facts to support the ideas was justified.  We analysts referred to them as "rectal extractions".  And to be quite honest (here and then) we always let our fellow analysts in the other offices which "facts" were true and which were not.  The Supervisors never quite understood how the other offices knew which facts to refute.  Sometimes there were several offices involved which made it a bit circular.

The Fellowship Of The Ring...


Oh, well if you like to talk about FACTS then I mention a small list of atheists facts.

1) When we die is all over.
2) The consciousness is a product of the brain.
3) We never lived before and we will never live again.
4) There is no need for a God to create or run the universe.
5) Religion and spirituality is the same thing.
6) Jesus never existed.
7) NDEs are all hallucinations and lies.
8) The progress of the consciousness has nothing to do with evolution.
9) Physical science is the real McCoy.
10) The power of the mind is not important in breaking slabs of concrete.

Shell I continue CB?








Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on June 12, 2019, 11:35:56 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Nah, I became a Democrat for lack of a better party.  The Supervisors were all Republicans,  and since they all lied so casually, I didn't want to be one of them.

Management requires deception.  Only technicians can pretend that honesty and process are all that are required.

Materialists are narrow in their perception of what could be real.  The world is material, but much more.  I don't agree with progress, with teleology, with purposeful evolution.  In that way I disagree with Arik.  There are random changes only.  Except with entropy, it is one step forward and two steps back.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on June 12, 2019, 11:47:51 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Oh, come off it. It doesn't "come from" anywhere. It's a process; it started. You can control and mess with it with drugs. If you damage the brain, you damage the consciousness. And there is nowhere it "goes" when you die. It just stops.


So your guessing suppose to be taken as facts?
Are you serious Haku?

The only thing that make sense in your post is that drugs damage the consciousness but all the rest is pure and simple guess which has zero value.



Quote
This is what neuroscience tells us.

Some people that study neuroscience are guessing while other do not speculate because so far there is zero evidence to conclude anything however NDEs are leaving no doubt that life is behind destruction.



Quote
There's nothing woo about it. Consciousness isn't a material thing because it isn't a thing at all. It isn't an immaterial, woo thing again because it isn't a thing at all.


Even a zombie need a bit of consciousness to move around so this consciousness must be something.
No consciousness no life Haku.
As simple as this.



Quote
It's a category error to classify it as a thing that "comes from" somewhere upon birth and then "goes" somewhere upon death, because it's what the brain does, and when the brain stops doing what it's doing, consciousness ends as surely as your material life does.


Sorry Haku but that is a load of garbage.

If it is true that when the brain stop also the consciousness stop then we can say that when the vehicle is dead also the driver die.

Do you realize the nonsense you are talking?



Quote
The error is thinking that there's only one way to find either, or either is possible.
Non sequitor. The permanent may be nonexistent and/or unachievable by any means available to us.
Your analogy is flawed. Unlike the afterlife, we know that Rome is a real place. People have been there and back. There is no such assurance from the afterlife. Death looks to every means available to us to be the end and oblivion, with nothing in the hereafter for us, and as such this life is the only life we get. I'm not going to squander my only assured life for empty promises of the hereafter.



It is bizarre how atheists always say that they do not believe in magic but eh, is not magic to believe that we never build the consciousness that we got?
Do you really believe that you are lucky to have the consciousness that you have?
If atheists believe in science then why they believe in magic?
Since when science say that something come from nothing?
Who suppose to have build the consciousness that you got other than you?

Get real brother and don't waste your time chasing illusions.






(https://www.exploratorium.edu/sites/default/files/styles/banner_image/public/feature_slides/illusions.jpg?itok=jdRXG1ap)
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Mike Cl on June 12, 2019, 11:56:21 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Oh, well if you like to talk about FACTS then I mention a small list of atheists facts.

1) When we die is all over.
2) The consciousness is a product of the brain.
3) We never lived before and we will never live again.
4) There is no need for a God to create or run the universe.
5) Religion and spirituality is the same thing.
6) Jesus never existed.
7) NDEs are all hallucinations and lies.
8) The progress of the consciousness has nothing to do with evolution.
9) Physical science is the real McCoy.
10) The power of the mind is not important in breaking slabs of concrete.

Shell I continue CB?
Not CB, but will comment anyway.  Decent list, but not quite right. 
#5--No, not for me.  Religion always has a hierarchy which leads to destruction and evil.  Spiritually is a personal thing and is not always unproductive for either the person or society.  For example, I have a good friend who meditates daily and says he is searching and getting in touch with his 'higher' being.  He claims his spirituality makes him a better person and I don't argue with that. 
#7 NDE's are not lies, even if they are hallucinations. Optical illusions are not lies but just how our brain interprets what it 'sees'.
#8--Since our consciousness is a function or our brain, as our brain changes (and evolves), our consciousness will as well.

The rest I agree with.  And please continue if you wish.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: aitm on June 12, 2019, 12:14:27 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Oh, well if you like to talk about FACTS then I mention a small list of atheists facts.

1) When we die is all over.
2) The consciousness is a product of the brain.
3) We never lived before and we will never live again.
4) There is no need for a God to create or run the universe.
5) Religion and spirituality is the same thing.
6) Jesus never existed.
7) NDEs are all hallucinations and lies.
8) The progress of the consciousness has nothing to do with evolution.
9) Physical science is the real McCoy.
10) The power of the mind is not important in breaking slabs of concrete.


Well, finally posting something that is not bullshit. I wouldn't say we consider all of the facts..but until we get something from a reputable source telling us otherwise with some backup.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on June 12, 2019, 04:37:12 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Well, finally posting something that is not bullshit. I wouldn't say we consider all of the facts..but until we get something from a reputable source telling us otherwise with some backup.

Alas, there are no reputable sources ... push come to shove.  Human beings are deplorables.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on June 12, 2019, 11:59:41 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So your guessing suppose to be taken as facts?
Are you serious Haku?

The only thing that make sense in your post is that drugs damage the consciousness but all the rest is pure and simple guess which has zero value.
Bullshit. This isn't just "my guess." This is the body of neuroscience. Specific aspects of consciousness are indeed linked to particular areas of the brain, for instance. Damage your Brocha's area, you will not be able to form or even comprehend sentences, and at best pick out words and try to deduce their meaning; damage your Wernicke's area, and you will start babbling gramatical nonsense. Split the brain down the corpus colosum and you will have two distinct personalities in one body — one "consciousness" has become two, and it's certainly not a de neuvo consciousness either. There is no conservation of consciousness. It shows every indication that it is something that the brain does.

Quote
Some people that study neuroscience are guessing while other do not speculate because so far there is zero evidence to conclude anything however NDEs are leaving no doubt that life is behind destruction.
NDE do not demonstrate that they are anything other than the brain's attempt to reconstruct what was happening after the fact. We've tested NDE, and they fail to show that they are anything supernatural. Yes, these patients describe what they think might have happened during their revival, but they all utterly fail to notice the rather incongruitous and obvious playing card laid atop a shelf in plain view of a supposed soul.

It's like, everyone's seen TV dramas of a patient being revived on an operating table, and everyone expects to be floating above the scene in their NDE, and that's what they experience, but they don't expect to see playing cards in emergency rooms, and so they don't experience it. Funny thing if NDE's are actually out-of-bodies, huh?

While consciousness in neuroscience is still being studied, that does not mean that we can't say anything about it. We have plenty to say, and the notion that it is a woo thing that "comes from" somewhere and "goes" somewhere is completely unfounded and shows every indication that it is wrong. Your notion that "neuroscience is guessing" on the broad category of what consciousness is (thing vs process) is simply wrong.

Quote
Even a zombie need a bit of consciousness to move around so this consciousness must be something.
No consciousness no life Haku.
As simple as this.
First off, zombies are fiction. Fiiictiooon. They don't exist the way you think of them. At best, real zombies are still fully alive but brain-damaged people. I have no need to explain what is not evident.
And then there's the fact that there are the brain-dead. People with silent brain matter and well-correlated to having no detectable consciousness, yet are still alive in every other sense. If you can call a meat vegetable "alive." Their organs may even be donated to other people who need them, and will live perfectly happily in them but for immune system rejection issues.

Quote
Sorry Haku but that is a load of garbage.
You calling something garbage does not make it so.

Quote
If it is true that when the brain stop also the consciousness stop then we can say that when the vehicle is dead also the driver die.
Bad analogies are still bad. There is no driver, no homunculus in the brain. Nobody has demonstrated that a consciousness can exist apart from a functioning brain. No, NDE are not examples of this. Again, we've tested them and they show no signs of them being other than reconstructions after the fact. It is a mere experience, not a reality.

Quote
Do you realize the nonsense you are talking?
[Irony meter exploded.]

Quote
It is bizarre how atheists always say that they do not believe in magic but eh, is not magic to believe that we never build the consciousness that we got?
Do you really believe that you are lucky to have the consciousness that you have?
If atheists believe in science then why they believe in magic?
Since when science say that something come from nothing?
Who suppose to have build the consciousness that you got other than you?
You have not demonstrated that anything we believe is "magic." Believing that some aspect of yourself exists beyond the expiration of your body, with no evidence to indicate that such a thing exists, and that it has properties that is seen in no other entity in this universe (you think that the consciousness is the only permanent thing in this universe), is to you less magical than believing that such things are horse-hooey. Sorry, your woo is still, at the end, woo.

Quote
Get real brother and don't waste your time chasing illusions.
Gaslighting, pure and simple. Dude, this reality right here that I'm sitting in is the one I have to deal with. You promise me that your woo is more important than the reality that I can readily verify. You promise me that I will achieve peace of mind and permanent happiness with your woo. And if you're wrong and all I get is an empty box... I have no course for redress. In any other context, such a promise would be rightly regarded as a con, so I'm calling it as I see it.

If there is an afterlife, then its gravy on an already fulfilling life. If there isn't, then I still have my fulfilling life. Either way, I still come out ahead of you.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Hydra009 on June 13, 2019, 12:33:37 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
1) When we die is all over.
2) The consciousness is a product of the brain.
3) We never lived before and we will never live again.
4) There is no need for a God to create or run the universe.
Did you mean to be sarcastic or did you actually express a fairly ground worldview without duress or external aid?
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on June 13, 2019, 02:18:26 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Did you mean to be sarcastic or did you actually express a fairly ground worldview without duress or external aid?

Yes/no, he was sarcastic, but some Eastern beliefs are non-theistic.  I don't think Arik is a theist.  He is a non-theistic yogi.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Mike Cl on June 13, 2019, 08:37:51 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yes/no, he was sarcastic, but some Eastern beliefs are non-theistic.  I don't think Arik is a theist.  He is a non-theistic yogi.
Actually, Airk is a Yogi Bear and coming to us straight from Jellystone Park.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on June 13, 2019, 09:39:52 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Actually, Airk is a Yogi Bear and coming to us straight from Jellystone Park.

Shh!  BooBoo the Ranger is coming!
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Unbeliever on June 13, 2019, 01:20:27 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Actually, Airk is a Yogi Bear and coming to us straight from Jellystone Park.
Except that Yogi is smarter than the average bear, and I don't think Arik fits that description. Or maybe Yogi only believes he's smarter than the average bear, in which case Arik fits better.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Mr.Obvious on June 13, 2019, 06:36:00 PM
Yogi was a talking bear. But, saying things, as shown in this thread for instance, is not a sign of intelligence. If he had an ounce of intelligence, he would've used that ability to become stinking rich, allowing him to get all of the picknick baskets he wanted.
Instead, he chose to sit and shit in the woods.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Unbeliever on June 13, 2019, 06:41:55 PM
Do bears shit in the woods?
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on June 14, 2019, 08:58:29 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Management requires deception.  Only technicians can pretend that honesty and process are all that are required.

Materialists are narrow in their perception of what could be real.  The world is material, but much more.  I don't agree with progress, with teleology, with purposeful evolution.  In that way I disagree with Arik.  There are random changes only.  Except with entropy, it is one step forward and two steps back.



When you say......... I don't agree with progress, with teleology, with purposeful evolution..........can you please go a bit further and give some examples.

Thanks. 
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on June 14, 2019, 09:22:10 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Not CB, but will comment anyway.  Decent list, but not quite right. 
#5--No, not for me.  Religion always has a hierarchy which leads to destruction and evil.  Spiritually is a personal thing and is not always unproductive for either the person or society.  For example, I have a good friend who meditates daily and says he is searching and getting in touch with his 'higher' being.  He claims his spirituality makes him a better person and I don't argue with that.


Oh, well at least there is something that you like.
Congratulation mate.



(https://image.shutterstock.com/image-photo/happy-businessmen-pat-on-shoulder-450w-1020928852.jpg)



Quote
#7 NDE's are not lies, even if they are hallucinations. Optical illusions are not lies but just how our brain interprets what it 'sees'.


Now you talk nonsense Mike.
How on earth can a brain off as declared by doctors be able to interpret anything?



Quote
#8--Since our consciousness is a function or our brain, as our brain changes (and evolves), our consciousness will as well.



More nonsense Mike.
Who told you that the consciousness is a function of the brain?
Would you say that the driver is a function of the vehicle?

Can't you ponder a bit more before you come up with this nonsense?



Quote
The rest I agree with.  And please continue if you wish.


Very sad Mike, very sad indeed.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on June 14, 2019, 09:32:17 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Well, finally posting something that is not bullshit. I wouldn't say we consider all of the facts..but until we get something from a reputable source telling us otherwise with some backup.




I have to ask you a big big favor aitm.

I am talking about these atheists facts.

Would you be so kind to bring some evidence about them.

You see aitm I did put down these facts a bit too fast but I did forget to produce any evidence about them.
I am sure you can help with that considering also that you agree with them.

Thanks mate.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on June 14, 2019, 10:09:07 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


When you say......... I don't agree with progress, with teleology, with purposeful evolution..........can you please go a bit further and give some examples.

Thanks.

Subject of sentence.  You believe in progress, teleology, purposeful evolution.  In that sense, you are closer to the regular posters than close to me.  Which is fine.  You differ from the regular posters in your metaphysics.  Which is fine too.  They see teleology from a materialist POV, you see it from a spiritualist POV.  In that sense, we are closer to each other, than to the regular posters.  Because our metaphysics agrees.

Venn diagram ... I am the set that partially covers set A and set B.  A natural bridge drug.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on June 14, 2019, 10:24:53 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Bullshit. This isn't just "my guess." This is the body of neuroscience. Specific aspects of consciousness are indeed linked to particular areas of the brain, for instance. Damage your Brocha's area, you will not be able to form or even comprehend sentences, and at best pick out words and try to deduce their meaning; damage your Wernicke's area, and you will start babbling gramatical nonsense. Split the brain down the corpus colosum and you will have two distinct personalities in one body — one "consciousness" has become two, and it's certainly not a de neuvo consciousness either. There is no conservation of consciousness. It shows every indication that it is something that the brain does.



What a nonsense Haku.........

Neuroscience as you can see here below study the nervous system not the consciousness and because the consciousness is no part of the nervous system obviously your point is faulty.


Neuroscience is the scientific study of the nervous system. It is a multidisciplinary branch of biology that combines physiology, anatomy, molecular biology, developmental biology, cytology, mathematical modeling and psychology to understand the fundamental and emergent properties of neurons and neural circuits. Wikipedia


Quote
NDE do not demonstrate that they are anything other than the brain's attempt to reconstruct what was happening after the fact. We've tested NDE, and they fail to show that they are anything supernatural. Yes, these patients describe what they think might have happened during their revival


You fail on this point same same as our friend Mike so I repeat what I said to him to you.
How on earth can a brain which has been declared off and dead be able to reconstruct anything?
You too should ponder a bit more before you come up with this nonsense. 



Quote
but they all utterly fail to notice the rather incongruitous and obvious playing card laid atop a shelf in plain view of a supposed soul.

It's like, everyone's seen TV dramas of a patient being revived on an operating table, and everyone expects to be floating above the scene in their NDE, and that's what they experience, but they don't expect to see playing cards in emergency rooms, and so they don't experience it. Funny thing if NDE's are actually out-of-bodies, huh?



This is a terrible failing Haku.

NDEs are given for a reason which is to learn and to use this learning in order to improve the life of those people so obviously God wouldn't engage in playing games such as that.
God doesn't give the tips to find the gold because this is not a treasure hunt.
That is also why God doesn't show to you and make you believe in Him.
He is just not part of the universal game.
You got to find Him without using any tricks.



Quote
While consciousness in neuroscience is still being studied,



Consciousness is NOT part of neuroscience.
Put that in your mind Haku.



Quote
that does not mean that we can't say anything about it. We have plenty to say, and the notion that it is a woo thing that "comes from" somewhere and "goes" somewhere is completely unfounded and shows every indication that it is wrong. Your notion that "neuroscience is guessing" on the broad category of what consciousness is (thing vs process) is simply wrong.



I send the woo back to the sender. LOL



Quote
First off, zombies are fiction. Fiiictiooon. They don't exist the way you think of them. At best, real zombies are still fully alive but brain-damaged people. I have no need to explain what is not evident.
And then there's the fact that there are the brain-dead. People with silent brain matter and well-correlated to having no detectable consciousness, yet are still alive in every other sense. If you can call a meat vegetable "alive." Their organs may even be donated to other people who need them, and will live perfectly happily in them but for immune system rejection issues.



I do not believe in zombies.
Mine was a way to say that even a total idiot need a tiny bit of consciousness to live or be alive.



Quote
You calling something garbage does not make it so.



True.



Quote
Bad analogies are still bad. There is no driver, no homunculus in the brain. Nobody has demonstrated that a consciousness can exist apart from a functioning brain. No, NDE are not examples of this. Again, we've tested them and they show no signs of them being other than reconstructions after the fact. It is a mere experience, not a reality.



I am afraid Haku that NDEs are the perfect example of that.
Everything make sense and show evidence.
The real patient, the real casualty situation, the real hospital, the real doctors and nurses and a real experience that is clear, sharp and remembered even after years and years.
On the other hand hallucination are forgotten after a very short time and their vision is all blurry.



Quote
[Irony meter exploded.]
You have not demonstrated that anything we believe is "magic." Believing that some aspect of yourself exists beyond the expiration of your body, with no evidence to indicate that such a thing exists, and that it has properties that is seen in no other entity in this universe (you think that the consciousness is the only permanent thing in this universe), is to you less magical than believing that such things are horse-hooey. Sorry, your woo is still, at the end, woo.



Most of the atheists beliefs are build on magic not on reality.
The evidence is not there and by the way they also go against the very science that atheists rely to.
See my 10 points in previous post and see if you can come up with any evidence in anyone of them.  :wink:



Quote
Gaslighting, pure and simple. Dude, this reality right here that I'm sitting in is the one I have to deal with. You promise me that your woo is more important than the reality that I can readily verify. You promise me that I will achieve peace of mind and permanent happiness with your woo. And if you're wrong and all I get is an empty box... I have no course for redress. In any other context, such a promise would be rightly regarded as a con, so I'm calling it as I see it.

If there is an afterlife, then its gravy on an already fulfilling life. If there isn't, then I still have my fulfilling life. Either way, I still come out ahead of you.



You make the whole situation a bit too complicated.
You don't have to believe in anything as you start your journey.
All you have to believe is to believe in yourself.
Step by step you improve your life and what is needed for climbing to the next step will unfold automatically.




Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on June 14, 2019, 11:20:07 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Did you mean to be sarcastic or did you actually express a fairly ground worldview without duress or external aid?


Sarcastic but without any bad feeling after all we share this universe.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Mike Cl on June 14, 2019, 12:17:16 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Very sad Mike, very sad indeed.
Yes, Arik,  sad is indeed, one way to take all of your posts.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on June 14, 2019, 09:23:59 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
What a nonsense Haku.........

Neuroscience as you can see here below study the nervous system not the consciousness and because the consciousness is no part of the nervous system obviously your point is faulty.
Mere assertion. Your stating that consciousness is not part of the nervous system does not make it true.

Quote
Neuroscience is the scientific study of the nervous system. It is a multidisciplinary branch of biology that combines physiology, anatomy, molecular biology, developmental biology, cytology, mathematical modeling and psychology to understand the fundamental and emergent properties of neurons and neural circuits. Wikipedia
I see nowhere where Wikipedia claims consciousness is not part of the nervous system.

Quote
You fail on this point same same as our friend Mike so I repeat what I said to him to you.
How on earth can a brain which has been declared off and dead be able to reconstruct anything?
You too should ponder a bit more before you come up with this nonsense. 
You really are a dumbass, aren't you? It's called a NEAR DEATH experience because you experience after being near death and come back from the brink. At no point are you actually dead. Even if you are declared dead, that doesn't make you actually dead, because many cells remain alive hours after clinical death.

It's called a NEAR death experience because the people who experience aren't actually dead!

Maybe you should ponder this before you open your big trap.

Quote
This is a terrible failing Haku.

NDEs are given for a reason which is to learn and to use this learning in order to improve the life of those people so obviously God wouldn't engage in playing games such as that.
God doesn't give the tips to find the gold because this is not a treasure hunt.
That is also why God doesn't show to you and make you believe in Him.
He is just not part of the universal game.
You got to find Him without using any tricks.
Nonsense. All God is doing is playing games by being this fucking evasive. People experiencing NDEs never give testimony out of line from what they expect to find in such experiences. When tested, they never are able to gain any genuinely unexplained knowledge that would prove the are actually sensing something beyond the norm, like those hidden playing cards. Should they have been reliably been seeing those playing cards, even if God has to point out that the playing card is important and they should memorize it, then that would be interesting and something to talk about. But they don't. All we get is pap testimony of things beyond that could just as easily be imagination.

NDEs have never shown themselves to be a reliable source of verifiable knowledge, and until they are, I don't see why anyone would or should trust them any more than any other story that people tell.

Also, a God that is unwilling to be verified by any means obviously values gullibility above critical thinking, and that is a God I cannot respect.

Quote
Consciousness is NOT part of neuroscience.
Put that in your mind Haku.
Mere repetition does not make it any more true than the first time you said it. We even have a field of neuroscience dedicated to the study of the link between consciousness and neurology, cognitive neuroscience. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_neuroscience)


Cognitive neuroscience is the scientific field that is concerned with the study of the biological processes and aspects that underlie cognition,[1] with a specific focus on the neural connections in the brain which are involved in mental processes. It addresses the questions of how cognitive activities are affected or controlled by neural circuits in the brain. Cognitive neuroscience is a branch of both neuroscience and psychology, overlapping with disciplines such as behavioral neuroscience, cognitive psychology, physiological psychology and affective neuroscience.[2] Cognitive neuroscience relies upon theories in cognitive science coupled with evidence from neurobiology, and computational modeling.[2]


So, this notion that cognition (including consciousness) is "NOT part of neuroscience," is just you speaking out of your ass again.

Quote
I send the woo back to the sender. LOL
Yeah, yeah. Calling that "woo" does not make it so.

Quote
I do not believe in zombies.
Mine was a way to say that even a total idiot need a tiny bit of consciousness to live or be alive.
Prove it, then. Prove that you are not a philosophical zombie, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie) who is so detailed that it even "thinks" (in whatever facsimile of thinking it's able to perform) that it is conscious. Prove that people are actual conscious beings instead of intricately programmed facsimiles that have been given false experiences and thoughts and the mere illusion of consciousness. Prove that you have actual consciousness instead of the convincing illusion of it, and you might be getting somewhere. Otherwise, you're up the creek.

And keep in mind, people are quite easily fooled into believing that bots on the internet are real people, at least for a while, and those things are quite simple in their action.

Quote
I am afraid Haku that NDEs are the perfect example of that.
Everything make sense and show evidence.
The real patient, the real casualty situation, the real hospital, the real doctors and nurses and a real experience that is clear, sharp and remembered even after years and years.
On the other hand hallucination are forgotten after a very short time and their vision is all blurry.
And yet they never seem to see those playing cards, do they? God never gives them the hint that maybe they should, as part of that "clear, sharp and remembered even after years and years" experiences, be remembering the card and its suit and value, to give some indication... ANY indication... that they're actually remembering a real experience and not just reconstructing one.

And before you point out the clearness and sharpness again, you seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that a reconstructed memory is shoddy and distorted. Not so. Each and every memory you recall is, at that moment, reconstructed from whatever pieces the brain pulls together. We know this because not only do we have brain scans that show this in action, we know that "clear memories" can be filled with inaccuracies no matter how clear and sharp they seem, because if you compare such a recalled memory over time, it changes! Especially if the memory is recalled often. What happened to these "experience that are clear, sharp and remembered years later," Arik? If the story changes, then at most one of the different versions is accurate, if any of them.

Again, until NDEs are validated as a source of real knowledge, I don't see why anyone should take them seriously. A God that is playing games with sending cryptic messages via ALMOST dead people taking about the hereafter (that they never experienced) brought back from the brink instead of first confirming that such a channel can be trusted is a God OBVIOUSLY uninterested in our welfare.

Quote
Most of the atheists beliefs are build on magic not on reality.
The evidence is not there and by the way they also go against the very science that atheists rely to.
See my 10 points in previous post and see if you can come up with any evidence in anyone of them.  :wink:

Okay:

ARIK: 1) When we die is all over.

Evidence: The glaring lack of verifiable evidence that the above is anything but this case, even from a God that SHOULD know what kind of evidence would convince us. When there's a lack of evidence in exactly the places where they should be expected, that is evidence against.

ARIK: 2) The consciousness is a product of the brain.

Evidence: The intimate relation between damage to the brain and damage to the consciousness. Again, a consciousness that is supposedly permanent should be able to weather such damage without consequence, but when we study brain damaged people, these faculties betray every sign of being completely gone instead of simply having no outlet. When we temporarily silence these regions with transcranial stimulation, patients describe their experience as such. For temporary aphasics (no language), they describe themselves after the fact that during the period of time they were simply unable to comprehend words even in their thoughts.

ARIK: 3) We never lived before and we will never live again.

Obvious deduction from 1 and 2, with the caveat that this holds as long as the universe does not satisfy the conditions of Poincare's recursion theorem.

ARIK: 4) There is no need for a God to create or run the universe.

Evidence: The complete inability for theists to explain why God can exist in the first place if the universe needs a God to create it. The attempts all boil down to special pleading. If God may exist without a cause, there is no real compelling reason why a unverse couldn't exist without a cause as well. Occam's razor slices off the unnecessary premise (God).

ARIK: 5) Religion and spirituality is the same thing.

CORRECTION: Not a position held by us. I just consider them equally bogus on account that they rely on exactly the same types of evidence for brodly similar claims.

ARIK: 6) Jesus never existed.

If he wasn't a mangod, it wouldn't matter one whit if he existed or not — the feats attributed to him are obvious fairy tales and cannot be verified, and again, God would know exactly what kind of evidence it would need to really rigiourously verify such claims. I'm on the side that Jesus is a historicized mythical figure, but that's another story.

ARIK: 7) NDEs are all hallucinations and lies.

CORRECTION: Not necessarily. They're experiences, but not necessarily of the things that they think they are.

Evidence: Again, not one of these NDE people caught on that there was a playing card on those top shelves, and a God didn't see fit to point out the card to those people and say, "See that playing card? Memorize it! It'll be important later!" Again, it looks exactly like people are reconstructing memories after the fact, rather than a genuine real phenomenon. Reconstruction of memories does not require any knowledge of things we don't know about; supernatural woo does. Occam's razor deletes the woo in favor of reconstruction.

ARIK: 8) The progress of the consciousness has nothing to do with evolution.

We don't call the change of a consciousness with time "evolution." People learn, think, imagine, and grow. But it's not an evolution as you think of it.

ARIK: 9) Physical science is the real McCoy.

Evidence: All theories of woo fall flat on their face. They don't work. Physical science, grounded completely in materialistic thinking, works a charm. This is exactly the distribution of success and failure that you expect if physical science is all there is.

ARIK: 10) The power of the mind is not important in breaking slabs of concrete.

Evidence: All martial artists who are able to break concrete are able to do so after conditioning their bodies, not spindly little gurus who eschew their bodies. There's a mental component, as one's natural inclination is to not bash their hands, feet, and head against hard rock-like substances, but discipline is as far as it goes. Furthermore, every mechanical advantage is given to the martial artist. And finally, actual calculations indicate that breaking the blocks of concrete actually seen broken is well within the capability of the human body if its well-trained. This is exactly what we would expect to see if the breaking of concrete is a physical phenomenon, rather than a mental one.

Quote
You make the whole situation a bit too complicated.
You don't have to believe in anything as you start your journey.
All you have to believe is to believe in yourself.
Step by step you improve your life and what is needed for climbing to the next step will unfold automatically.
I do belive in myself, but I don't believe you. You have said nothing in your drivel that has the ring of truth to it. I believe in my ability to understand and grasp even a little bit how the world actually works, and I've worked to gain the knowledge necessary to understand it, and I have been rewarded with a less shallow than average understanding. You see humans breaking concrete and think, "WOW! That's obviously impossible physically for a human, so it MUST be mental powers!" whereas I think, "Huh, that's cool, and seems to be impossible! But is that really beyond human capability? Let's see... WOW! Human bodies are more capable than I first thought!"

In short, I see in you nothing more than nonsense masquerading as knowledge. Find a way to VERIFY anything you say with a means equal to your claims, and you might have a case. Until then, it's just a snake-oil salesman trying to sell me cure-all.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Cavebear on June 15, 2019, 06:07:29 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Oh, well if you like to talk about FACTS then I mention a small list of atheists facts.

1) When we die is all over.
2) The consciousness is a product of the brain.
3) We never lived before and we will never live again.
4) There is no need for a God to create or run the universe.
5) Religion and spirituality is the same thing.
6) Jesus never existed.
7) NDEs are all hallucinations and lies.
8) The progress of the consciousness has nothing to do with evolution.
9) Physical science is the real McCoy.
10) The power of the mind is not important in breaking slabs of concrete.

Shell I continue CB?

Seems basically right.  I'm not sure I would call #7 NDEs "lies" as the people who suffer that truly believe their experiences are true.  Lies are deliberate falsehoods.  And I'm not sure what you mean by #8 or #10
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Cavebear on June 15, 2019, 06:11:05 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
with purposeful evolution.

No evolutionists say that evolution is "purposeful".  Would you like to discuss that further? 
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on June 15, 2019, 07:01:56 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
No evolutionists say that evolution is "purposeful".  Would you like to discuss that further?

Purpose ... comes from Aristotle.  Aristotle is pre-modern.  Aristotle had this idea .. it is the purpose of the acorn, to make an oak tree, or is it the purpose of the oak tree to make an acorn?  For Aristotle, cause/effect worked backwards to us.  The acorn of the future, calls the oak tree of today into being.  That is teleology/purpose to Aristotle.  In current scientific method, there is no purpose to anything.  Example.

You have an ice-cream cone, with ice-cream in it.  The ice-cream is a hard cold ball, it doesn't fill the whole cone.  As the ice-cream warms up, it starts to melt, it becomes soft, and starts adjusting to gravity and the shape of the cone.  Eventually, before melting completely, the ice-cream fills the cone from the bottom up, without gaps.  Its shape is that of the cone, not a sphere.

So I ask you, did the ice-cream have a purpose in mind?  It reacted to its environment, and took on the least-energetic posture.  It is lazy, as all things are.  Like slumping in your chair.  But without life, without mind.  The simplest things always respond to their immediate environment.  And like a "break" of the balls on a billiard table, the cue ball hits the triangle of balls, and they go every which way

Explanation moves from present to future, not future to the past.  Ancient people saw time the opposite to what we see.  A man looks into the past, not into the future (if you are ancient man).    The past can be seen, the future cannot.  Modern man is opposite, he turns his back on the past, and looks forward into the future.  And repeats every mistake.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Cavebear on June 15, 2019, 08:45:34 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Purpose ... comes from Aristotle.  Aristotle is pre-modern.  Aristotle had this idea .. it is the purpose of the acorn, to make an oak tree, or is it the purpose of the oak tree to make an acorn?  For Aristotle, cause/effect worked backwards to us.  The acorn of the future, calls the oak tree of today into being.  That is teleology/purpose to Aristotle.  In current scientific method, there is no purpose to anything.  Example.

You have an ice-cream cone, with ice-cream in it.  The ice-cream is a hard cold ball, it doesn't fill the whole cone.  As the ice-cream warms up, it starts to melt, it becomes soft, and starts adjusting to gravity and the shape of the cone.  Eventually, before melting completely, the ice-cream fills the cone from the bottom up, without gaps.  Its shape is that of the cone, not a sphere.

So I ask you, did the ice-cream have a purpose in mind?  It reacted to its environment, and took on the least-energetic posture.  It is lazy, as all things are.  Like slumping in your chair.  But without life, without mind.  The simplest things always respond to their immediate environment.  And like a "break" of the balls on a billiard table, the cue ball hits the triangle of balls, and they go every which way

Explanation moves from present to future, not future to the past.  Ancient people saw time the opposite to what we see.  A man looks into the past, not into the future (if you are ancient man).    The past can be seen, the future cannot.  Modern man is opposite, he turns his back on the past, and looks forward into the future.  And repeats every mistake.

OK, I have a pack of cigs and a glass of wine, let's talk...

First, let me say that the concept of "purpose" was an important idea. Given that most of the Greeks and others thought the world was pretty random an poly-deitically-controlled, that was a serious thought.

But second, let's agree that an acorn or an oak tree doesn't have a "purpose" in the sense that intent is involved.  Purpose does imply, well, "purpose".  Nothing has purpose without intent and intent requires thought and plan.  So your oak tree can't actually have "purpose".

Third, your ice cream cone is only about viscous liquid responding to temperature and gravity, so there is no purpose in that.

Fourth, you mention ancient people only looking to the past.  While they certainly did think of the past (as we also do at times), that says nothing about "purpose" or their whole way of thinking.  Did some people in places around the world build terraces for future farming by thinking only of the past?  Of course not. 

I would even say they mummified or otherwise maintained their ancestors to get advice for their future.  Humans always think to the future.  They have to.  They need to worry about next year crops and children, not the past harvests and births. 

And "purpose"?  Its the egg not the chicken.  The egg always comes first.  It's because the genetics demand the first of anything is the result of 2 parents mating who "aren't quite the egg". 

Have a good day...



 

Purpose doesn't "come from" Aristotle. He might have recognized its existence, but it didn't come from him.   

Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on June 15, 2019, 09:19:20 AM
I mostly agree.  But regarding views of the past, by ancients ... they had this "fate" and "curse" thing going.  So the future wasn't a nice thing.  I was providing a context, wasn't saying the past caused the present (in their view), that is in fact the modern view.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Cavebear on June 15, 2019, 10:05:27 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I mostly agree.  But regarding views of the past, by ancients ... they had this "fate" and "curse" thing going.  So the future wasn't a nice thing.  I was providing a context, wasn't saying the past caused the present (in their view), that is in fact the modern view.

You didn't answer a single thing in my post. 
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on June 15, 2019, 10:07:35 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Mere assertion. Your stating that consciousness is not part of the nervous system does not make it true.
I see nowhere where Wikipedia claims consciousness is not part of the nervous system.



Uh, uh, now is getting a bit too long.
If I can't finish to reply to all question tonight it will be tomorrow.

But now let me answer the first question.
The answer is very very simple.
The nervous system is made of matter but the consciousness is an abstract entity.
Normal people do not need much time to understand this simple point so obviously the two need two separate study to understand this point that is why neuroscience that study the nervous system is not able to understand something that is abstract in nature.
An engineer that build the vehicle obviously is not interested in understanding much about a driver that is why you fail once again.


Quote
You really are a dumbass, aren't you? It's called a NEAR DEATH experience because you experience after being near death and come back from the brink. At no point are you actually dead. Even if you are declared dead, that doesn't make you actually dead, because many cells remain alive hours after clinical death.

It's called a NEAR death experience because the people who experience aren't actually dead!



Is not by calling me with names that you will be able to score any points.
If you want to score any point in front of an impartial jury you will have to come up with something that make sense which is something that so far you have failed to do.

And now to answer your question.
Death to me and to all who had a real NDE is when the consciousness leave the body regardless whether the nerve cells are not dead yet. According to medical science however a person is dead when the heart stop and doesn't send any more blood-oxygen into the brain.
To some other is when the brain cells are all dead.
To me the word NDE is not correct.
The one who invented the word should have call it TDE (temporary death experience) but that is not a big deal anyway.
In most cases the brain cells die within about 3 minutes after the blood-oxygen stop flowing but in some rare cases they last up to ten minutes so after that time the death is real death.
The funny thing Haku is that most of the real NDEs last well over 10 minutes which means that the body and the brain cells are  totally lifeless that is why all your excuses to prove that the person is not real dead are all a bunch of nonsense.
FAIL AGAIN HAKU.



Quote
Maybe you should ponder this before you open your big trap.
Nonsense. All God is doing is playing games by being this fucking evasive. People experiencing NDEs never give testimony out of line from what they expect to find in such experiences. When tested, they never are able to gain any genuinely unexplained knowledge that would prove the are actually sensing something beyond the norm, like those hidden playing cards. Should they have been reliably been seeing those playing cards, even if God has to point out that the playing card is important and they should memorize it, then that would be interesting and something to talk about. But they don't. All we get is pap testimony of things beyond that could just as easily be imagination.



Fail again Haku.


There are several cases in which these people who had a real NDE saw what was happening in the hospital while they were out their bodies.
In one case the person saw a nurse that drop a baby which fracture some bones.
The nurse in fear of getting in trouble did not report the incident.
Once the person who had this NDE came back into his body he reported what happen to the doctors that could find the baby and fix the fracture.
In many other cases the NDE person describe what happen in the casualty room while his body was dead.
Doctors and nurses could not believe how a suppose dead person could see and describe all this.

Evidence is there Haku but of course this evidence would shred in pieces all atheists beliefs that is why atheists cling to the idea that NDEs are all rubbish.



Quote
NDEs have never shown themselves to be a reliable source of verifiable knowledge, and until they are, I don't see why anyone would or should trust them any more than any other story that people tell.

Also, a God that is unwilling to be verified by any means obviously values gullibility above critical thinking, and that is a God I cannot respect.
Mere repetition does not make it any more true than the first time you said it.



Free will is there for all to be free to believe or not believe.
Why God would give the free will and then open the eyes of those who are not genuinely interested in Him?



Quote
We even have a field of neuroscience dedicated to the study of the link between consciousness and neurology, cognitive neuroscience. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_neuroscience)


Sure Haku.

We also have the engineer that create the vehicle that try to study how the drivers would react to the vehicle but how far do you think that study would go considering that the engineer is manly expert in building the vehicle?

Ponder again Haku.
 
(https://www.freeiconspng.com/uploads/idea-icon-14.png)

Quote

Cognitive neuroscience is the scientific field that is concerned with the study of the biological processes and aspects that underlie cognition,[1] with a specific focus on the neural connections in the brain which are involved in mental processes. It addresses the questions of how cognitive activities are affected or controlled by neural circuits in the brain. Cognitive neuroscience is a branch of both neuroscience and psychology, overlapping with disciplines such as behavioral neuroscience, cognitive psychology, physiological psychology and affective neuroscience.[2] Cognitive neuroscience relies upon theories in cognitive science coupled with evidence from neurobiology, and computational modeling.[2]

Quote
So, this notion that cognition (including consciousness) is "NOT part of neuroscience," is just you speaking out of your ass again.
Yeah, yeah. Calling that "woo" does not make it so.
Prove it, then. Prove that you are not a philosophical zombie, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie) who is so detailed that it even "thinks" (in whatever facsimile of thinking it's able to perform) that it is conscious. Prove that people are actual conscious beings instead of intricately programmed facsimiles that have been given false experiences and thoughts and the mere illusion of consciousness. Prove that you have actual consciousness instead of the convincing illusion of it, and you might be getting somewhere. Otherwise, you're up the creek.

And keep in mind, people are quite easily fooled into believing that bots on the internet are real people, at least for a while, and those things are quite simple in their action.
And yet they never seem to see those playing cards, do they? God never gives them the hint that maybe they should, as part of that "clear, sharp and remembered even after years and years" experiences, be remembering the card and its suit and value, to give some indication... ANY indication... that they're actually remembering a real experience and not just reconstructing one.


Just answered that point. (see above)



More in the next post
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Cavebear on June 15, 2019, 10:16:58 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

More in the next post

Oh, I can't wait.  Please stay up and entertain me more...  Please?
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on June 15, 2019, 10:50:38 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Quote
And keep in mind, people are quite easily fooled into believing that bots on the internet are real people, at least for a while, and those things are quite simple in their action.
And yet they never seem to see those playing cards, do they? God never gives them the hint that maybe they should, as part of that "clear, sharp and remembered even after years and years" experiences, be remembering the card and its suit and value, to give some indication... ANY indication... that they're actually remembering a real experience and not just reconstructing one.

And before you point out the clearness and sharpness again, you seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that a reconstructed memory is shoddy and distorted. Not so. Each and every memory you recall is, at that moment, reconstructed from whatever pieces the brain pulls together. We know this because not only do we have brain scans that show this in action, we know that "clear memories" can be filled with inaccuracies no matter how clear and sharp they seem, because if you compare such a recalled memory over time, it changes! Especially if the memory is recalled often. What happened to these "experience that are clear, sharp and remembered years later," Arik? If the story changes, then at most one of the different versions is accurate, if any of them.

Again, until NDEs are validated as a source of real knowledge, I don't see why anyone should take them seriously. A God that is playing games with sending cryptic messages via ALMOST dead people taking about the hereafter (that they never experienced) brought back from the brink instead of first confirming that such a channel can be trusted is a God OBVIOUSLY uninterested in our welfare.

Okay:



Who told you that God suppose to give hints or experiences only to dead people under the NDEs?
Meditation is one of the best way to experience God and I am fully aware of that but there are many other ways to experience God.
Unfortunately most materialists think that if something is true they should be able to experience it in a material-physical way.
These people don't get the fact that not everything come under the physical-material dimension.
 


Quote
ARIK: 1) When we die is all over.

Evidence: The glaring lack of verifiable evidence that the above is anything but this case, even from a God that SHOULD know what kind of evidence would convince us. When there's a lack of evidence in exactly the places where they should be expected, that is evidence against.


Fail again Haku.
There is evidence that the high degree of consciousness is due to a lot of hard work through the evolution process.
Nothing pop up as per magic.
Only fools believe in magic that is why we lived before in order to climb the ladder of evolution which again means that we lived before and we will live again until we reach the very top of evolution.



Quote
ARIK: 2) The consciousness is a product of the brain.

Evidence: The intimate relation between damage to the brain and damage to the consciousness. Again, a consciousness that is supposedly permanent should be able to weather such damage without consequence, but when we study brain damaged people, these faculties betray every sign of being completely gone instead of simply having no outlet. When we temporarily silence these regions with transcranial stimulation, patients describe their experience as such. For temporary aphasics (no language), they describe themselves after the fact that during the period of time they were simply unable to comprehend words even in their thoughts.



That is very very silly of you Haku.

Just imagine when people are involved in a vehicle incident.
Obviously the driver get hurt so his consciousness can not work properly as before but this doesn't mean that the driver is part and parcel of the car.

(https://www.freeiconspng.com/uploads/idea-icon-14.png)



Quote
ARIK: 3) We never lived before and we will never live again.

Obvious deduction from 1 and 2, with the caveat that this holds as long as the universe does not satisfy the conditions of Poincare's recursion theorem.



Meaningless answer.



Quote
ARIK: 4) There is no need for a God to create or run the universe.

Evidence: The complete inability for theists to explain why God can exist in the first place if the universe needs a God to create it. The attempts all boil down to special pleading. If God may exist without a cause, there is no real compelling reason why a unverse couldn't exist without a cause as well. Occam's razor slices off the unnecessary premise (God).



The universe is also a body and a body need to be fed all the time.

The entropy theory go against this principle and other theories are not applicable so obviously someone is there all the time to feed this universe with energy and whatever is needed to be alive and well.



Quote
ARIK: 5) Religion and spirituality is the same thing.

CORRECTION: Not a position held by us. I just consider them equally bogus on account that they rely on exactly the same types of evidence for brodly similar claims.



Actually I saw several times in different forums that atheists think that both of them are the same thing when in reality the difference is astronomic.
In most cases the only thing that yoga share with religions is that God is real.






Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on June 15, 2019, 10:52:59 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Oh, I can't wait.  Please stay up and entertain me more...  Please?


Don't say that again or I will charge you for reading my posts eh!  :cheesy:
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Cavebear on June 15, 2019, 11:01:36 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Don't say that again or I will charge you for reading my posts eh!  :cheesy:

A penny per 1,000 words would be an overcharge. 

Look, to my mind, you are simply one more in a long line of crazed theists who come and go here, and I really don't care a tinker's dam about you and your opinions.  I have little use or respect for for theists.  Personally, I consider you all to be a blot on the page.

Have a nice day...
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on June 15, 2019, 11:20:24 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
ARIK: 6) Jesus never existed.

If he wasn't a mangod, it wouldn't matter one whit if he existed or not — the feats attributed to him are obvious fairy tales and cannot be verified, and again, God would know exactly what kind of evidence it would need to really rigiourously verify such claims. I'm on the side that Jesus is a historicized mythical figure, but that's another story.



Usually the history is mainly written by the winner and Jesus did not fight for the winner so obviously not much evidence is there for Jesus.
But again the free will make sure that people shell not be given easy evidence that God exist.



Quote
ARIK: 7) NDEs are all hallucinations and lies.

CORRECTION: Not necessarily. They're experiences, but not necessarily of the things that they think they are.

Evidence: Again, not one of these NDE people caught on that there was a playing card on those top shelves, and a God didn't see fit to point out the card to those people and say, "See that playing card? Memorize it! It'll be important later!" Again, it looks exactly like people are reconstructing memories after the fact, rather than a genuine real phenomenon. Reconstruction of memories does not require any knowledge of things we don't know about; supernatural woo does. Occam's razor deletes the woo in favor of reconstruction.



I already answer this question in previous posts.
Read them.

And if you want to know better about the NDEs go in this site.


https://www.nderf.org/Archives/exceptional.html



Quote
ARIK: 8) The progress of the consciousness has nothing to do with evolution.

We don't call the change of a consciousness with time "evolution." People learn, think, imagine, and grow. But it's not an evolution as you think of it.



Evolution of the consciousness is all about getting more awareness of who you are and your relationship with the whole and this evolution of the consciousness is billion more important that the physical evolution.



Quote
ARIK: 9) Physical science is the real McCoy.

Evidence: All theories of woo fall flat on their face. They don't work. Physical science, grounded completely in materialistic thinking, works a charm. This is exactly the distribution of success and failure that you expect if physical science is all there is.



Physical science is only good for physical survival but man is after a lot more than that and this is something that you will find out when you will get tired of getting nowhere by relying on this material-physical dimension.



Quote
ARIK: 10) The power of the mind is not important in breaking slabs of concrete.

Evidence: All martial artists who are able to break concrete are able to do so after conditioning their bodies, not spindly little gurus who eschew their bodies. There's a mental component, as one's natural inclination is to not bash their hands, feet, and head against hard rock-like substances, but discipline is as far as it goes. Furthermore, every mechanical advantage is given to the martial artist. And finally, actual calculations indicate that breaking the blocks of concrete actually seen broken is well within the capability of the human body if its well-trained. This is exactly what we would expect to see if the breaking of concrete is a physical phenomenon, rather than a mental one.
I do belive in myself, but I don't believe you. You have said nothing in your drivel that has the ring of truth to it. I believe in my ability to understand and grasp even a little bit how the world actually works, and I've worked to gain the knowledge necessary to understand it, and I have been rewarded with a less shallow than average understanding. You see humans breaking concrete and think, "WOW! That's obviously impossible physically for a human, so it MUST be mental powers!" whereas I think, "Huh, that's cool, and seems to be impossible! But is that really beyond human capability? Let's see... WOW! Human bodies are more capable than I first thought!"

In short, I see in you nothing more than nonsense masquerading as knowledge. Find a way to VERIFY anything you say with a means equal to your claims, and you might have a case. Until then, it's just a snake-oil salesman trying to sell me cure-all.



If you think that mental power is not necessary then let us go a bit further and see if you can poke in your flesh metal hooks without feeling any pain.

Do you think you can do that?  :wink:



Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Cavebear on June 15, 2019, 11:48:45 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

If you think that mental power is not necessary then let us go a bit further and see if you can poke in your flesh metal hooks without feeling any pain.

Do you think you can do that?  :wink:

Crazy people can do things like that.

But sometimes rational people can do that too.  My grampa took us fishing at a bridge and I noticed he seemed to be struggling with something.  I went over to check and he had a hook in his thumb.  He had been standing there trying to wiggle the barbed hook out of his thumb so as not to disturb our fishing.  I tried to tell him to stop doing that.

Dad finally noticed and got us all on the way to an ER.  I told him what had to happen.  The barbed hook would have to be pushed though and the barb cut off so the remainder could be slid back out.  It was only logical solution.

Grampa and Dad said they wouldn't do THAT!  It was too brutal.

But that was exactly what the ER guys did after a shot in his thumb.

No one ever thinks I am right about stuff like that but I always am.  It's EXTREMELY annoying sometimes. 

In your case Arik, I think I can confidently say that some people like you can do hooks, cruxifictions, etc just by sheer will.  Because you are obsessed.  Normal people aren't. 

What amazes me is that you think it proves something.  It does, but probably not what you think.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: aitm on June 15, 2019, 06:21:45 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Would you be so kind to bring some evidence about them.

Son, you have been responded to by people who have letters behind their names...people who have far more knowledge of science than I and most certainly you, and you just wave your hand as if they know nothing...meaning in short you are simply a troll and a liar or simply a copy pasta idiot. In either case, I...and many of those who could easily boast academic credentials but don't need to in their own home... have grown tired of you. We have given you your due...given you a place to stand and vomit....given you time to consider....given you time..period.  Your time is up. We have grown tired of your wallowing in nonsense. So I give you your last couple hours. I am off to quaff a few with some friends and loved ones.....using my  delightful material earning to do so. When I come back...unless someone beats me to it. I think it is time for you to move on. Have a the less than happy life you so yearn for. I, on the other hand, knowing what is and what has been supposed, choose that what is and will enjoy what it is. Good bye.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on June 15, 2019, 08:07:32 PM
Worshipper of idols?  Sounds like paganism to me.  Magic letters?  Sounds like Salem Mass.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on June 15, 2019, 09:57:14 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The nervous system is made of matter but the consciousness is an abstract entity.
You are merely ASSERTING that consciousness is an entity at all, let alone an abstract one. Consciousness is a process, because a consciousness that does not engage in cognition is not a consciousness, but unconsciousness. By analogy, the running of a car cannot exist without a car, yet it is as much an "abstract entity" as consciousness.

Quote
Normal people do not need much time to understand this simple point so obviously the two need two separate study to understand this point that is why neuroscience that study the nervous system is not able to understand something that is abstract in nature.
Most people aren't very intelligent, and that's the difference. I've been telling you for about THREE POSTS now that I do not accept your assertion that consciousness is an abstract entity or thing. It doesn't matter how much you repeat that ASSERTION, until you get around to proving that consciousness IS an entity, I and neuroscience in general still have good reason to think that the consciousness is what the brain does. And what the brain does is absolutely the perview of neuroscience.

It doesn't matter if you say neurologists don't study consciousness. They absolutely do.

Quote
An engineer that build the vehicle obviously is not interested in understanding much about a driver that is why you fail once again.
Once again, I do no submit to your ASSERTION that consciousness is like the driver of a brain car. If you've seen Bay's Transformers, think Barricade — the Decepticon police cruiser. The "driver" you see "operating" Barricade is not the driver, but a hologram projected by Barricade to help in its disguise. Barricade is moving himself.

Consciousness is similar. Consciousness is not in any way analogous to the driver of the car, but more analogous to Barricade's driver hologram: the "driver" appears to be in control, but it's actually the car in control of the "driver." The consciousness appears to be in control of the brain, but the brain is fully in control and projecting the illusion of a consciousness as a controlling entity.

Quote
Is not by calling me with names that you will be able to score any points.
If you want to score any point in front of an impartial jury you will have to come up with something that make sense which is something that so far you have failed to do.
We are not in court. I'll call you whatever I want. Someone who cannot understand simple english has no right to tell me that anything I've said doesn't "make sense."

Quote
And now to answer your question.
Death to me and to all who had a real NDE is when the consciousness leave the body regardless whether the nerve cells are not dead yet.
I don't care about your definition. You cannot prove that your consciousness "went anywhere," any more than my consciousness "goes anywhere" when I dream of Narnia.

Quote
According to medical science however a person is dead when the heart stop and doesn't send any more blood-oxygen into the brain.
To some other is when the brain cells are all dead.
There is no "to some, to others" nonsense. They are different types of death that someone can go through. Clinical death (heart stopping) is more properly called cardiac arrest, and it is recoverable. There's a distinct correleation between the brain dying and the person never recovering consciousness.

Quote
To me the word NDE is not correct.
Too bad. People who verifiably go through NDEs always have quite intact brains. People whose brains are verifiably destroyed, don't have any verifiable NDE experiences.

Quote
In most cases the brain cells die within about 3 minutes after the blood-oxygen stop flowing but in some rare cases they last up to ten minutes so after that time the death is real death.
The funny thing Haku is that most of the real NDEs last well over 10 minutes which means that the body and the brain cells are  totally lifeless that is why all your excuses to prove that the person is not real dead are all a bunch of nonsense.
FAIL AGAIN HAKU.
No, YOU fail. When these people wake up and convey their experiences, are their brains silent and dead? No? Then their episode was obviously reversible. Remember that the ten minutes cited here is an empirical observation. It's the point where you start seeing progressive brain damage when you restore blood flow and revive the person. As the apoxia continues, the brain will deteriorate to the point where you can restore blood flow but the patient never exhibits brain function. THAT's brain death. If he's restored from apoxia and recovers some function, he's not brain dead, by definition.

So, you have not established that a brain is ever "totally lifeless." Dormant and in extremis? Yes. Dead? By definition, no.

Furthermore, even if you restore blood flow, it can take hours, even days, to regain consciousness. This is where you get NDEs lasting well over 10 minutes. Blood flow is restored, but the patient doesn't regain consciousness immediately like turning on a light. The brain is definitely working, albeit in a disorganized way, and only when that organizaion is restored is consciousness restored along with it.

So, no, you have not demonstrated that NDEs are anything other than what I say they are.

Quote
There are several cases in which these people who had a real NDE saw what was happening in the hospital while they were out their bodies.
Again, mere assertion. These same people tend to have access to what happened during their episode by ordinary means. People talk. The hospital ER is not a controlled environment where you can FORCE people not to gab about the episode. In fact, talking to a comatose patient is encouraged not only under the theory that the best treatment for a disabled brain is stimulation, but also good therapy for friends and family.

This is definitely a channel by which a patient can assimilate information without woo, in addition to people gabbing after the patient has regained consciousness. The flow of information to the patient is not under any sort of control, and uncontrolled conditions make for poor data. Too poor to support an extraordinary claim like OOB experiences.

That's why you use the playing cards.

It's a piece of completely irrelevant information that is placed exactly where NDEs are reported to float above to give them the best chance of being seen if they were actually there. And, of course, they never seem to see it, even to wonder why the heck it's there. Not one of them wakes up to ask, "Incidently, can anyone tell me why there's a jack of spades up on that top shelf?"

Quote
Evidence is there Haku but of course this evidence would shred in pieces all atheists beliefs that is why atheists cling to the idea that NDEs are all rubbish.
Again, poor controls make for poor data. The controls on these cases are exceedingly poor and highly anecdotal. That's why we performed the test. The test imposed controls on a particular piece of information that only an OOBer would have access to. Yet, they fail on this very simple test. Are NDEs so incurious that not one of them wonders why the heck there was a playing card on a shelf? Tosh.

Like every other form of paranormal, it fails under a simple test with modest controls. This is the track record of every other discarded hypothesis. I would be inconsistent to not dismiss this phenomenon that runs away from verification as I did every other.

Quote
Free will is there for all to be free to believe or not believe.
Why God would give the free will and then open the eyes of those who are not genuinely interested in Him?
Stop appealing to preserving my pweschous fwee will. We mere humans try to pursuade each other all the time, in exactly the way we're doing with each other now. Yet nobody thinks that we're undermining each other's free will. To think that a God couldn't contain himself in this manner is simply ridiculous.

Quote
We also have the engineer that create the vehicle that try to study how the drivers would react to the vehicle but how far do you think that study would go considering that the engineer is manly expert in building the vehicle?
You have yet to prove that consciousness is not under the perview of neuroscience; that it's not what the brain does, the same way Barricade presents the illusion of a car with a driver even though it's only the Decepticon.

Ponder that.
 
(https://www.freeiconspng.com/uploads/idea-icon-14.png)

Quote
Just answered that point. (see above)
You have not. You don't give ANY evidence at all that you have a genuine consciousness rather than a sham one. All you have done is asserted that you do. Sorry, a preprogrammed automaton can do that.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Who told you that God suppose to give hints or experiences only to dead people under the NDEs?
Wouldn't God have an interest in using NDEs to try to prove both the supernatural and himself? Establishing that a channel of communication can be relied upon is step one of communication. A God that doesn't understand this... is dumb.

Quote
Meditation is one of the best way to experience God
You have yet to prove that there is a God to experience.

Quote
Unfortunately most materialists think that if something is true they should be able to experience it in a material-physical way.
These people don't get the fact that not everything come under the physical-material dimension.
A God should be perfectly capable of showing that there is something beyond the material to be considered in a complete wordview. So far, all the evidence has been found wanting. That's not our fault. A world with supernatural content that presents itself to every reliable means of verification as only material is indistinguishable from one that is only material, and a supernatural so unwilling to present itself to verification is also one that is irrelevant. Material concerns makes itself felt in every aspect in our lives. Immaterial ones, not so much.

Quote
Fail again Haku.
There is evidence that the high degree of consciousness is due to a lot of hard work through the evolution process.
There is no evolutionary advantage to a consciousness that is permanent after death. It doesn't help the differential survival of an organism's genes. Evolution has no handle on making a consciousness permanet and able to survive death.

Quote
That is very very silly of you Haku.

Just imagine when people are involved in a vehicle incident.
Obviously the driver get hurt so his consciousness can not work properly as before but this doesn't mean that the driver is part and parcel of the car.
Again, consider Barricade. Once more, you have yet to establish that consciousness is a separate thing from the brain. You need ot do that before your driver and car example will have any force.

Quote
Meaningless answer.
Of course a logical ignoramous like you would consider it meaningless.

Quote
The universe is also a body and a body need to be fed all the time.
Do you need to be fed all the time, twenty-four/seven? I hope this answer is no.

Quote
The entropy theory go against this principle and other theories are not applicable so obviously someone is there all the time to feed this universe with energy and whatever is needed to be alive and well.
I know how entropy works, and it doesn't work this way. Entropy takes time to increase, and therefore it can take some time to reach equilibrium and heat death. Your proof is invalid.

Quote
Actually I saw several times in different forums that atheists think that both of them are the same thing when in reality the difference is astronomic.
Just because you think that the differences are astronomic doesn't mean that they are. They are in fact quite similar in one respect that is very important: they all contain unverifiable tripe.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Usually the history is mainly written by the winner and Jesus did not fight for the winner so obviously not much evidence is there for Jesus.
Then your God is dumb. I can think of a dozen different ways right off the bat for hiding evidence that Jesus performed miracles, so I'm smarter than your God.

Quote
But again the free will make sure that people shell not be given easy evidence that God exist.
Like most of your tripe, mere assertion.

Quote
I already answer this question in previous posts.
You did not answer in any satisfactory way.

Quote
Evolution of the consciousness is all about getting more awareness of who you are and your relationship with the whole and this evolution of the consciousness is billion more important that the physical evolution.
Evolution is purely a process founded in materialistic physics. There is no other evolution than physical. To assert that consciousness was evolved is to admit that consciousness is a physical phenomenon and not woo.

Quote
Physical science is only good for physical survival but man is after a lot more than that and this is something that you will find out when you will get tired of getting nowhere by relying on this material-physical dimension.
Yes, and I will go to hell if I don't believe in Jesus Christ. /sarcasm You have a hard time not making your spiel sound like a con. Either do better in making it sound actually intellectually respectable, or give up.

Quote
If you think that mental power is not necessary then let us go a bit further and see if you can poke in your flesh metal hooks without feeling any pain.

Do you think you can do that?  :wink:
It's happened to me. I snipped into my left hand with a pair of scissors one time, and I didn't feel pain as such. It was a deep snip, too, into the subcutaneous. I washed it out and wrapped it well, and only then did the pain start. So don't tell me what I can and can't do.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on June 16, 2019, 07:51:12 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are merely ASSERTING that consciousness is an entity at all, let alone an abstract one. Consciousness is a process, because a consciousness that does not engage in cognition is not a consciousness, but unconsciousness. By analogy, the running of a car cannot exist without a car, yet it is as much an "abstract entity" as consciousness.
Most people aren't very intelligent, and that's the difference. I've been telling you for about THREE POSTS now that I do not accept your assertion that consciousness is an abstract entity or thing. It doesn't matter how much you repeat that ASSERTION, until you get around to proving that consciousness IS an entity, I and neuroscience in general still have good reason to think that the consciousness is what the brain does. And what the brain does is absolutely the perview of neuroscience.

It doesn't matter if you say neurologists don't study consciousness. They absolutely do.
Once again, I do no submit to your ASSERTION that consciousness is like the driver of a brain car. If you've seen Bay's Transformers, think Barricade — the Decepticon police cruiser. The "driver" you see "operating" Barricade is not the driver, but a hologram projected by Barricade to help in its disguise. Barricade is moving himself.

Consciousness is similar. Consciousness is not in any way analogous to the driver of the car, but more analogous to Barricade's driver hologram: the "driver" appears to be in control, but it's actually the car in control of the "driver." The consciousness appears to be in control of the brain, but the brain is fully in control and projecting the illusion of a consciousness as a controlling entity.
We are not in court. I'll call you whatever I want. Someone who cannot understand simple english has no right to tell me that anything I've said doesn't "make sense."
I don't care about your definition. You cannot prove that your consciousness "went anywhere," any more than my consciousness "goes anywhere" when I dream of Narnia.
There is no "to some, to others" nonsense. They are different types of death that someone can go through. Clinical death (heart stopping) is more properly called cardiac arrest, and it is recoverable. There's a distinct correleation between the brain dying and the person never recovering consciousness.
Too bad. People who verifiably go through NDEs always have quite intact brains. People whose brains are verifiably destroyed, don't have any verifiable NDE experiences.
No, YOU fail. When these people wake up and convey their experiences, are their brains silent and dead? No? Then their episode was obviously reversible. Remember that the ten minutes cited here is an empirical observation. It's the point where you start seeing progressive brain damage when you restore blood flow and revive the person. As the apoxia continues, the brain will deteriorate to the point where you can restore blood flow but the patient never exhibits brain function. THAT's brain death. If he's restored from apoxia and recovers some function, he's not brain dead, by definition.

So, you have not established that a brain is ever "totally lifeless." Dormant and in extremis? Yes. Dead? By definition, no.

Furthermore, even if you restore blood flow, it can take hours, even days, to regain consciousness. This is where you get NDEs lasting well over 10 minutes. Blood flow is restored, but the patient doesn't regain consciousness immediately like turning on a light. The brain is definitely working, albeit in a disorganized way, and only when that organizaion is restored is consciousness restored along with it.

So, no, you have not demonstrated that NDEs are anything other than what I say they are.
Again, mere assertion. These same people tend to have access to what happened during their episode by ordinary means. People talk. The hospital ER is not a controlled environment where you can FORCE people not to gab about the episode. In fact, talking to a comatose patient is encouraged not only under the theory that the best treatment for a disabled brain is stimulation, but also good therapy for friends and family.

This is definitely a channel by which a patient can assimilate information without woo, in addition to people gabbing after the patient has regained consciousness. The flow of information to the patient is not under any sort of control, and uncontrolled conditions make for poor data. Too poor to support an extraordinary claim like OOB experiences.

That's why you use the playing cards.

It's a piece of completely irrelevant information that is placed exactly where NDEs are reported to float above to give them the best chance of being seen if they were actually there. And, of course, they never seem to see it, even to wonder why the heck it's there. Not one of them wakes up to ask, "Incidently, can anyone tell me why there's a jack of spades up on that top shelf?"
Again, poor controls make for poor data. The controls on these cases are exceedingly poor and highly anecdotal. That's why we performed the test. The test imposed controls on a particular piece of information that only an OOBer would have access to. Yet, they fail on this very simple test. Are NDEs so incurious that not one of them wonders why the heck there was a playing card on a shelf? Tosh.

Like every other form of paranormal, it fails under a simple test with modest controls. This is the track record of every other discarded hypothesis. I would be inconsistent to not dismiss this phenomenon that runs away from verification as I did every other.
Stop appealing to preserving my pweschous fwee will. We mere humans try to pursuade each other all the time, in exactly the way we're doing with each other now. Yet nobody thinks that we're undermining each other's free will. To think that a God couldn't contain himself in this manner is simply ridiculous.
You have yet to prove that consciousness is not under the perview of neuroscience; that it's not what the brain does, the same way Barricade presents the illusion of a car with a driver even though it's only the Decepticon.

Ponder that.
 
(https://www.freeiconspng.com/uploads/idea-icon-14.png)
You have not. You don't give ANY evidence at all that you have a genuine consciousness rather than a sham one. All you have done is asserted that you do. Sorry, a preprogrammed automaton can do that.
Wouldn't God have an interest in using NDEs to try to prove both the supernatural and himself? Establishing that a channel of communication can be relied upon is step one of communication. A God that doesn't understand this... is dumb.
You have yet to prove that there is a God to experience.
A God should be perfectly capable of showing that there is something beyond the material to be considered in a complete wordview. So far, all the evidence has been found wanting. That's not our fault. A world with supernatural content that presents itself to every reliable means of verification as only material is indistinguishable from one that is only material, and a supernatural so unwilling to present itself to verification is also one that is irrelevant. Material concerns makes itself felt in every aspect in our lives. Immaterial ones, not so much.
There is no evolutionary advantage to a consciousness that is permanent after death. It doesn't help the differential survival of an organism's genes. Evolution has no handle on making a consciousness permanet and able to survive death.
Again, consider Barricade. Once more, you have yet to establish that consciousness is a separate thing from the brain. You need ot do that before your driver and car example will have any force.
Of course a logical ignoramous like you would consider it meaningless.
Do you need to be fed all the time, twenty-four/seven? I hope this answer is no.
I know how entropy works, and it doesn't work this way. Entropy takes time to increase, and therefore it can take some time to reach equilibrium and heat death. Your proof is invalid.
Just because you think that the differences are astronomic doesn't mean that they are. They are in fact quite similar in one respect that is very important: they all contain unverifiable tripe.
Then your God is dumb. I can think of a dozen different ways right off the bat for hiding evidence that Jesus performed miracles, so I'm smarter than your God.
Like most of your tripe, mere assertion.
You did not answer in any satisfactory way.
Evolution is purely a process founded in materialistic physics. There is no other evolution than physical. To assert that consciousness was evolved is to admit that consciousness is a physical phenomenon and not woo.
Yes, and I will go to hell if I don't believe in Jesus Christ. /sarcasm You have a hard time not making your spiel sound like a con. Either do better in making it sound actually intellectually respectable, or give up.
It's happened to me. I snipped into my left hand with a pair of scissors one time, and I didn't feel pain as such. It was a deep snip, too, into the subcutaneous. I washed it out and wrapped it well, and only then did the pain start. So don't tell me what I can and can't do.



Since aitm told me to shut up or else I can not really reply to your post.

I will shut up but at least let me laugh when you say that............There is no other evolution than physical............

Have a good day anyway.  :wink:









Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on June 16, 2019, 08:02:53 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Worshipper of idols?  Sounds like paganism to me.  Magic letters?  Sounds like Salem Mass.


Has been a pleasure to see you around.
I may see you again in some other place who knows.

Time to go because the people of letters don't like to be challenged and are upset.
Bye.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on June 16, 2019, 11:24:55 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Has been a pleasure to see you around.
I may see you again in some other place who knows.

Time to go because the people of letters don't like to be challenged and are upset.
Bye.

Yes, enjoy Australia, is it?  Yes, a pleasure to have you visit.  Don't be a stranger.  I still have the links you shared, for further exploration.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 16, 2019, 07:05:58 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are merely ASSERTING that consciousness is an entity at all, let alone an abstract one. Consciousness is a process, because a consciousness that does not engage in cognition is not a consciousness, but unconsciousness. By analogy, the running of a car cannot exist without a car, yet it is as much an "abstract entity" as consciousness.
Most people aren't very intelligent, and that's the difference. I've been telling you for about THREE POSTS now that I do not accept your assertion that consciousness is an abstract entity or thing. It doesn't matter how much you repeat that ASSERTION, until you get around to proving that consciousness IS an entity, I and neuroscience in general still have good reason to think that the consciousness is what the brain does. And what the brain does is absolutely the perview of neuroscience.

It doesn't matter if you say neurologists don't study consciousness. They absolutely do.
Once again, I do no submit to your ASSERTION that consciousness is like the driver of a brain car. If you've seen Bay's Transformers, think Barricade — the Decepticon police cruiser. The "driver" you see "operating" Barricade is not the driver, but a hologram projected by Barricade to help in its disguise. Barricade is moving himself.

Consciousness is similar. Consciousness is not in any way analogous to the driver of the car, but more analogous to Barricade's driver hologram: the "driver" appears to be in control, but it's actually the car in control of the "driver." The consciousness appears to be in control of the brain, but the brain is fully in control and projecting the illusion of a consciousness as a controlling entity.
We are not in court. I'll call you whatever I want. Someone who cannot understand simple english has no right to tell me that anything I've said doesn't "make sense."
I don't care about your definition. You cannot prove that your consciousness "went anywhere," any more than my consciousness "goes anywhere" when I dream of Narnia.
There is no "to some, to others" nonsense. They are different types of death that someone can go through. Clinical death (heart stopping) is more properly called cardiac arrest, and it is recoverable. There's a distinct correleation between the brain dying and the person never recovering consciousness.
Too bad. People who verifiably go through NDEs always have quite intact brains. People whose brains are verifiably destroyed, don't have any verifiable NDE experiences.
No, YOU fail. When these people wake up and convey their experiences, are their brains silent and dead? No? Then their episode was obviously reversible. Remember that the ten minutes cited here is an empirical observation. It's the point where you start seeing progressive brain damage when you restore blood flow and revive the person. As the apoxia continues, the brain will deteriorate to the point where you can restore blood flow but the patient never exhibits brain function. THAT's brain death. If he's restored from apoxia and recovers some function, he's not brain dead, by definition.

So, you have not established that a brain is ever "totally lifeless." Dormant and in extremis? Yes. Dead? By definition, no.

Furthermore, even if you restore blood flow, it can take hours, even days, to regain consciousness. This is where you get NDEs lasting well over 10 minutes. Blood flow is restored, but the patient doesn't regain consciousness immediately like turning on a light. The brain is definitely working, albeit in a disorganized way, and only when that organizaion is restored is consciousness restored along with it.

So, no, you have not demonstrated that NDEs are anything other than what I say they are.
Again, mere assertion. These same people tend to have access to what happened during their episode by ordinary means. People talk. The hospital ER is not a controlled environment where you can FORCE people not to gab about the episode. In fact, talking to a comatose patient is encouraged not only under the theory that the best treatment for a disabled brain is stimulation, but also good therapy for friends and family.

This is definitely a channel by which a patient can assimilate information without woo, in addition to people gabbing after the patient has regained consciousness. The flow of information to the patient is not under any sort of control, and uncontrolled conditions make for poor data. Too poor to support an extraordinary claim like OOB experiences.

That's why you use the playing cards.

It's a piece of completely irrelevant information that is placed exactly where NDEs are reported to float above to give them the best chance of being seen if they were actually there. And, of course, they never seem to see it, even to wonder why the heck it's there. Not one of them wakes up to ask, "Incidently, can anyone tell me why there's a jack of spades up on that top shelf?"
Again, poor controls make for poor data. The controls on these cases are exceedingly poor and highly anecdotal. That's why we performed the test. The test imposed controls on a particular piece of information that only an OOBer would have access to. Yet, they fail on this very simple test. Are NDEs so incurious that not one of them wonders why the heck there was a playing card on a shelf? Tosh.

Like every other form of paranormal, it fails under a simple test with modest controls. This is the track record of every other discarded hypothesis. I would be inconsistent to not dismiss this phenomenon that runs away from verification as I did every other.
Stop appealing to preserving my pweschous fwee will. We mere humans try to pursuade each other all the time, in exactly the way we're doing with each other now. Yet nobody thinks that we're undermining each other's free will. To think that a God couldn't contain himself in this manner is simply ridiculous.
You have yet to prove that consciousness is not under the perview of neuroscience; that it's not what the brain does, the same way Barricade presents the illusion of a car with a driver even though it's only the Decepticon.

Ponder that.
 
(https://www.freeiconspng.com/uploads/idea-icon-14.png)
You have not. You don't give ANY evidence at all that you have a genuine consciousness rather than a sham one. All you have done is asserted that you do. Sorry, a preprogrammed automaton can do that.
Wouldn't God have an interest in using NDEs to try to prove both the supernatural and himself? Establishing that a channel of communication can be relied upon is step one of communication. A God that doesn't understand this... is dumb.
You have yet to prove that there is a God to experience.
A God should be perfectly capable of showing that there is something beyond the material to be considered in a complete wordview. So far, all the evidence has been found wanting. That's not our fault. A world with supernatural content that presents itself to every reliable means of verification as only material is indistinguishable from one that is only material, and a supernatural so unwilling to present itself to verification is also one that is irrelevant. Material concerns makes itself felt in every aspect in our lives. Immaterial ones, not so much.
There is no evolutionary advantage to a consciousness that is permanent after death. It doesn't help the differential survival of an organism's genes. Evolution has no handle on making a consciousness permanet and able to survive death.
Again, consider Barricade. Once more, you have yet to establish that consciousness is a separate thing from the brain. You need ot do that before your driver and car example will have any force.
Of course a logical ignoramous like you would consider it meaningless.
Do you need to be fed all the time, twenty-four/seven? I hope this answer is no.
I know how entropy works, and it doesn't work this way. Entropy takes time to increase, and therefore it can take some time to reach equilibrium and heat death. Your proof is invalid.
Just because you think that the differences are astronomic doesn't mean that they are. They are in fact quite similar in one respect that is very important: they all contain unverifiable tripe.
Then your God is dumb. I can think of a dozen different ways right off the bat for hiding evidence that Jesus performed miracles, so I'm smarter than your God.
Like most of your tripe, mere assertion.
You did not answer in any satisfactory way.
Evolution is purely a process founded in materialistic physics. There is no other evolution than physical. To assert that consciousness was evolved is to admit that consciousness is a physical phenomenon and not woo.
Yes, and I will go to hell if I don't believe in Jesus Christ. /sarcasm You have a hard time not making your spiel sound like a con. Either do better in making it sound actually intellectually respectable, or give up.
It's happened to me. I snipped into my left hand with a pair of scissors one time, and I didn't feel pain as such. It was a deep snip, too, into the subcutaneous. I washed it out and wrapped it well, and only then did the pain start. So don't tell me what I can and can't do.
Interesting, in order to refute Arik you suggest that consciousness is an illusion generated by the material world.  Yet I can just as easily believe that the material world is an illusion generated by consciousness.  This actually makes more sense to me.  Can you prove otherwise?

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Sal1981 on June 16, 2019, 08:44:53 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Interesting, in order to refute Arik you suggest that consciousness is an illusion generated by the material world.  Yet I can just as easily believe that the material world is an illusion generated by consciousness.  This actually makes more sense to me.  Can you prove otherwise?

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk


That ... isn't quite what Hakurei is saying.

But anyways, even if we'd to entertain your interpretation, this is easy to show that we're bound by a physical reality (whatever that reality might be) by probing it.

If physical reality was merely an illusion generated by consciousness, then we should be able to affect reality with our consciousness alone. No amount of wishing things to become true is a good testament that this is indeed a reality that shapes us, than we shaping it. The first thing that springs to mind is how this proposed illusion is able to directly alter our perception when it damages the seat of our mind, the brain. If reality was just an illusion, this would not be possible, because consciousness somehow should be generating it.


I'd  also argue that consciousness without a physical reality makes just as much sense as a wave without space to propagate in. We need a materia for our consciousness to manifest in. No amount of dualism is gonna escape that.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on June 16, 2019, 09:03:00 PM
Since you're not actually banned yet and there is still the possibility that you might read this, I'll respond even though I expect no reply.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I will shut up but at least let me laugh when you say that............There is no other evolution than physical............
When you specifically described biological evolution, yes, it's fucking physical.

See, when you describe things and assert things that we know aren't true with the absolute certainty as you have done, nobody's going to believe you. You didn't even think to fact-check the strength of bone and concrete to make sure you weren't talking out your ass when you asserted that bone was softer therefore it would break against concrete. Meanwhile, actual mechanical engineers, who know a thing or two about how things break, have done biomechanical studies on the physics of breaking blocks, and have calculated that it's not actually out of the realm of possibility for the human body with no woo involved.

As to your insipid car analogy, it fails because the driver has a verifiable physical reality beyond the car. When the driver steps out of the car, you can see him, hear him, smell him, touch him and taste him... though very few will let you get that far. Not so with consciousness. Not only does when consciousness "detach," there's no verifiable object that leaves, when it comes back, there is no reliable indication that it actually went anywhere. Again, NDE OOB experiences happen under very uncontrolled conditions (and it would be unethical to induce one purposefully) and as such cannot be taken except with a huge grain of salt. We also have a huge literature concerning false memories. Humans just aren't reliable observers.

And remember, you described consciousness as an abstract entity; it's silly to think that reasoning that applies to physical entities like human drivers will carry over to abstract entities.

Without a verifiable separate existence, consciousness and the brain has a closer match to the hologram driver and the Decepticon Barricade than they do with an ordinary human driver and car.

The way to get back into our good graces is to stop asserting and start supporting. We do not agree to your assertions about the nature of consciousness. You have been told multiple times that your assertions are not shared, and all argumentation using disputed assertions are DOA. You need to start supporting those assertions. When you're told a line of evidence isn't good enough, you need to find better evidence, not repeat the same evidence over and over again as if repetition makes it true. Even saying that you're sorry for being a butthead will go a long way to mending fences.

But you'll do what you'll do.

------

Now, Mr. Absolute...

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Interesting, in order to refute Arik you suggest that consciousness is an illusion generated by the material world.  Yet I can just as easily believe that the material world is an illusion generated by consciousness.  This actually makes more sense to me.  Can you prove otherwise?
Yeah. Like Sal said, to me the illusion of consciousness is not that it's not there in reality, but rather that it appears to be a thing when it is not. Consciousness is a process, and displays all of the signs of being a process. Change and assimilation of new information and experiences is what defines a person being conscious. Administering drugs and sustaining injuries that changes how the brain works changes how the consciousness behaves and what its capabilities are. When the brain ceases to function, consciousness disappears and does not return until brain function is restored. From this and other evidence, we conclude that consciousness is what the brain does. But of course, it's absurd to consider a process without something that the process is operating on. Hence, reality is real.

All my statements have to be evaluated on the basis that consciousness is a process and not an entity. No argument based on consciousness's being an entity will work unless and until you disabuse me of that notion.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on June 16, 2019, 10:42:56 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That ... isn't quite what Hakurei is saying.

But anyways, even if we'd to entertain your interpretation, this is easy to show that we're bound by a physical reality (whatever that reality might be) by probing it.

If physical reality was merely an illusion generated by consciousness, then we should be able to affect reality with our consciousness alone. No amount of wishing things to become true is a good testament that this is indeed a reality that shapes us, than we shaping it. The first thing that springs to mind is how this proposed illusion is able to directly alter our perception when it damages the seat of our mind, the brain. If reality was just an illusion, this would not be possible, because consciousness somehow should be generating it.


I'd  also argue that consciousness without a physical reality makes just as much sense as a wave without space to propagate in. We need a materia for our consciousness to manifest in. No amount of dualism is gonna escape that.

Our interpretation of reality, our sense of reality is an illusion generated by consciousness.  Assuming there is a reality (implies objectivity outside of humanity) and that there is a consciousness (again, this usually implies something objective/subjective not delusion).

The usual Enlightenment interpretation going back to Condillac etc ... "Étienne Bonnot de Condillac was a French philosopher and epistemologist, who studied in such areas as psychology and the philosophy of the mind."  Is there is an objective physical reality, that by physical processes our sense organs more or less provide an impression of this objective physical reality (we are excluding delusions etc).  What has developed in psychology over the last 200 years, is that our experience of our external senses is not free of intermediation (see gestalt).  There is a whole bunch of processing in the eye, in the optic nerve, and in the portion of the brain for reconstructing a virtual world experience, that we naively take for what is real.  And on top of that there is all sorts of cognitive processing ... "is that a cat or a dog?".

The normal POV, by ordinary people, is a naive realism.  We are not usually aware of all this physics and physiology and psychology that goes on between whatever is happening on my computer CRT, and what I am actually experiencing as I type this.  No primitive life form (humans for example) could survive without naive realism.  If you are a cave man, and a cheetah is about to eat you, you need to think ... "run" ... though of course given a cheetah you are too late and will be eaten.  And running just attracts a predatory response.  Only modern geeks would sit there contemplating their navel, and trying to decide the mysteries of metaphysics.  This is a good thing, it means that when we return to a "state of nature" all the eggheads get eaten first ;-)

In philosophy, this is called the "qualia" problem.  What is actually out there?  Versus all this poorly understood processing that we know, scientifically, happens, just to get a fight/flight response.  There was a good short story sci-fi once, about a virtual reality machine.  A man's family wandered into a 3d simulation of the Serengti (hence my example).  But they didn't return.  So the problem was, if there is no separation between subjective/objective experience, had his family fallen prey to predators or not?  What would happen if you simply turned off the machine.  Hence the thought experiment we are talking about.  IMHO, a virtual reality and ordinary reality are different.  If you turned off the machine (holodesk) his family would still be there, though perhaps worse for wear, because having not eating, drank etc in ordinary reality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyu7v7nWzfo
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Hydra009 on June 16, 2019, 11:38:02 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Interesting, in order to refute Arik you suggest that consciousness is an illusion generated by the material world.  Yet I can just as easily believe that the material world is an illusion generated by consciousness.  This actually makes more sense to me.  Can you prove otherwise?

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Hello Aki...err...Absolute Agent, who has valiantly tasked our Hakurei with proving that the universe isn't some sort of dream (gee, I sure hope that's falsifiable!) with the supporting evidence that it just makes more sense to you (argument from personal credulity?  Regardless, that's hella convincing).  You have an oddly similar debating style as Arik here, how fortunate that you joined up as soon as he (allegedly) departed.  Very interesting...
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on June 17, 2019, 12:31:50 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Hello Aki...err...Absolute Agent, who has valiantly tasked our Hakurei with proving that the universe isn't some sort of dream (gee, I sure hope that's falsifiable!) with the supporting evidence that it just makes more sense to you (argument from personal credulity?  Regardless, that's hella convincing).  You have an oddly similar debating style as Arik here, how fortunate that you joined up as soon as he (allegedly) departed.  Very interesting...

Too much paranoia.  He seems immediately a different personality to me.  But some people have multiple-personality syndrome.  In fact, you can view humanity as a multiple-personality syndrome of the human archetype ;-)

Absolute Agent isn't a yogi.  Not clear yet what kind of Muslim he is.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 17, 2019, 12:42:10 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Since you're not actually banned yet and there is still the possibility that you might read this, I'll respond even though I expect no reply.
When you specifically described biological evolution, yes, it's fucking physical.

See, when you describe things and assert things that we know aren't true with the absolute certainty as you have done, nobody's going to believe you. You didn't even think to fact-check the strength of bone and concrete to make sure you weren't talking out your ass when you asserted that bone was softer therefore it would break against concrete. Meanwhile, actual mechanical engineers, who know a thing or two about how things break, have done biomechanical studies on the physics of breaking blocks, and have calculated that it's not actually out of the realm of possibility for the human body with no woo involved.

As to your insipid car analogy, it fails because the driver has a verifiable physical reality beyond the car. When the driver steps out of the car, you can see him, hear him, smell him, touch him and taste him... though very few will let you get that far. Not so with consciousness. Not only does when consciousness "detach," there's no verifiable object that leaves, when it comes back, there is no reliable indication that it actually went anywhere. Again, NDE OOB experiences happen under very uncontrolled conditions (and it would be unethical to induce one purposefully) and as such cannot be taken except with a huge grain of salt. We also have a huge literature concerning false memories. Humans just aren't reliable observers.

And remember, you described consciousness as an abstract entity; it's silly to think that reasoning that applies to physical entities like human drivers will carry over to abstract entities.

Without a verifiable separate existence, consciousness and the brain has a closer match to the hologram driver and the Decepticon Barricade than they do with an ordinary human driver and car.

The way to get back into our good graces is to stop asserting and start supporting. We do not agree to your assertions about the nature of consciousness. You have been told multiple times that your assertions are not shared, and all argumentation using disputed assertions are DOA. You need to start supporting those assertions. When you're told a line of evidence isn't good enough, you need to find better evidence, not repeat the same evidence over and over again as if repetition makes it true. Even saying that you're sorry for being a butthead will go a long way to mending fences.

But you'll do what you'll do.

------

Now, Mr. Absolute...
Yeah. Like Sal said, to me the illusion of consciousness is not that it's not there in reality, but rather that it appears to be a thing when it is not. Consciousness is a process, and displays all of the signs of being a process. Change and assimilation of new information and experiences is what defines a person being conscious. Administering drugs and sustaining injuries that changes how the brain works changes how the consciousness behaves and what its capabilities are. When the brain ceases to function, consciousness disappears and does not return until brain function is restored. From this and other evidence, we conclude that consciousness is what the brain does. But of course, it's absurd to consider a process without something that the process is operating on. Hence, reality is real.

All my statements have to be evaluated on the basis that consciousness is a process and not an entity. No argument based on consciousness's being an entity will work unless and until you disabuse me of that notion.
Very well. Evaluating your argument that consciousness is a process, not an entity, I find it manifestly contradictory.  For the very nature of consciousness is to be an entity.  For instance, I am one entity, and you are one entity (not any other entity).  We are manifestly defined by our consciousness, since if it were not the case, how would we otherwise recognize each other as individual entities, having names, attributes and individual sovereignty, capable of interacting through the electronic medium independent of any perceptive interchange between our material biological manifestations?

Furthermore, while you acknowledge that consciousness is real, you claim it is not a "thing", presumably meaning a material object, by virtue of the fact that it is a process.  Somewhat like the software on a computer had no material frame but consists of a particular organization of codes and procedures that operate the physical machine.  Although the software resides on the computer it is not the computer; although the software is transmuted by physical media such as CD's, flash drives and disks, it is not those physical media in which it is transported.  Yet, without software a computer would be a mere pile of metal and plastic, the media mere chunks of dead meaningless matter.  The immaterial software makes them what they are; it defines them.

Which then is more real dear Hakurei? Are not all "things" defined by a particular process, without which they are meaningless, and in very truth, lose their "thing-ness", their ability to be identified and distinguished as such?

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 17, 2019, 12:49:06 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Hello Aki...err...Absolute Agent, who has valiantly tasked our Hakurei with proving that the universe isn't some sort of dream (gee, I sure hope that's falsifiable!) with the supporting evidence that it just makes more sense to you (argument from personal credulity?  Regardless, that's hella convincing).  You have an oddly similar debating style as Arik here, how fortunate that you joined up as soon as he (allegedly) departed.  Very interesting...
And Hello to you.  How cheering it is to know you view my arrival as fortunate and my arguments as convincing.  Hakurei, if anyone, would be capable of this feat.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on June 17, 2019, 01:03:16 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Very well. Evaluating your argument that consciousness is a process, not an entity, I find it manifestly contradictory.  For the very nature of consciousness is to be an entity.  For instance, I am one entity, and you are one entity (not any other entity).  We are manifestly defined by our consciousness, since if it were not the case, how would we otherwise recognize each other as individual entities, having names, attributes and individual sovereignty, capable of interacting through the electronic medium independent of any perceptive interchange between our material biological manifestations?

Furthermore, while you acknowledge that consciousness is real, you claim it is not a "thing", presumably meaning a material object, by virtue of the fact that it is a process.  Somewhat like the software on a computer had no material frame but consists of a particular organization of codes and procedures that operate the physical machine.  Although the software resides on the computer it is not the computer; although the software is transmuted by physical media such as CD's, flash drives and disks, it is not those physical media in which it is transported.  Yet, without software a computer would be a mere pile of metal and plastic, the media mere chunks of dead meaningless matter.  The immaterial software makes them what they are; it defines them.

Which then is more real dear Hakurei? Are not all "things" defined by a particular process, without which they are meaningless, and in very truth, lose their "thing-ness", their ability to be identified and distinguished as such?

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

About Hakurei ... you have to break it up, refute or agree point by point, sometimes letter by letter ;-)

And then he will explain how every point where you differ from him ... is wrong ;-)

Materialists don't think in terms of entities.  There are just atoms, moving randomly about.  It is an arbitrary choice to divide one set of atoms from another, to divide me from the keyboard I am typing from.  There is no difference between a rock and a person ... because life and consciousness as commonly understood by the great unwashed, is naive.  And to avoid Hylozoism and Panpsychism ... (everything is alive and conscious) there can be nothing that is alive or conscious in conventional terms.  This is why robots and AIs are so popular with these people.  They see no essential difference between a biological system and a mechanical or computer system.  We have seen this particular rhetoric many times before, when this particular psychopathology first occurred in Greece primarily (and also in India about the same time).  It was never popular until modern European science happened in the 1600s.  At that point it became much more plausible.  With modern astronomy, it was no longer plausible that the Moon causes lunacy.  They were no longer seen as just a bunch of Oxford dons drunk in their cups.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on June 17, 2019, 04:04:56 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Since you're not actually banned yet and there is still the possibility that you might read this, I'll respond even though I expect no reply.


Ok. then.

Any suggestion?
Shell I continue the way I use to do, shell I wait until aitm decide something or shell I get lost?
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on June 17, 2019, 04:11:34 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Ok. then.

Any suggestion?
Shell I continue the way I use to do, shell I wait until aitm decide something or shell I get lost?

Welcome back.  Hakurei is a challenge.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on June 17, 2019, 05:30:00 AM
Bringing forward from another string ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=Zr7eaE9AUtg

Thats fits here ...
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on June 17, 2019, 07:55:29 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Bringing forward from another string ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=Zr7eaE9AUtg

Thats fits here ...


Here is the story of a neurosurgeon who had an NDE and is not a skeptic anymore.
(long story however 1:38:57 min)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbkgj5J91hE
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on June 17, 2019, 08:17:46 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Welcome back.

While waiting for aitm to decide something I keep on posting.
If God want me dead (in this forum) then let us die.  :smiley:


Quote
Hakurei is a challenge.


Our friend Haku fool himself thinking that he (she?) got some strong argument in order to knockdown my points but he doesn't.

I give you just one example.
He kept on saying that the brain during an NDE is still able to put together that experience on the ground that the brain cells are not dead yet and therefore is some sort of hallucination rather than a real experience with God.
The reality is that once the heart stop sending blood-oxygen into the brain the brain cells die within 3 minutes and in very rare case within ten minutes.
Now considering that most of the NDEs last over ten minutes is quite impossible for the brain to put together an NDE that is why it is the consciousness that is able to experience that NDE.
Now our friend Haku find more and more excuses and that I consider dishonesty so to me what Haku do is not a challenge but a folly to prevent defeat.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: josephpalazzo on June 17, 2019, 09:11:59 AM
Wake up people. Arik is a troll. And now he's being followed by another troll Absolute_Agent.

Coincidence???
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on June 17, 2019, 09:56:15 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Wake up people. Arik is a troll. And now he's being followed by another troll Absolute_Agent.

Coincidence???


In the past the masses though that the planet earth was flat.
From the ground it look flat so anyone that challenge that view was taken for a nut.
Today when people see a person that just die they think that it is all over and anyone who challenge that view is also taken for a nut.

The time goes on but idiots never change.
They keep on coming back again and again with similar dogmas and anyone who challenge their view is a troll or a nut but again after sometime the truth become clear and the previous trolls become heroes while the previous smart people become trolls. 

 
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on June 17, 2019, 10:48:00 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Since you're not actually banned yet and there is still the possibility that you might read this, I'll respond even though I expect no reply.
When you specifically described biological evolution, yes, it's fucking physical.



The so called biological evolution is but a physical change that allow a specie to survive.
That's all Haku so rather that say real evolution it would better to say a biological change that allow physical survival in a particular environment.

Real evolution is a total different story.
That involve a real progress that allow an entity to improve his-her consciousness.
Evolution is a word that imply progress a progress that stay with you as you climb the ladder of human emancipation and that can only be an evolution of the consciousness.
A change in the body can not do that that is why there is no real evolution in biological changes although biological changes can help to build a body that can better house a more developed consciousness so the body is there to serve the consciousness not the other way around.



Quote
See, when you describe things and assert things that we know aren't true with the absolute certainty as you have done, nobody's going to believe you.


Are you kidding me?

None of you has been able to bring an inch of evidence to support the atheists claims that I present in my 10 points and you have the audacity to say that is me that assert things without evidence?


Quote
You didn't even think to fact-check the strength of bone and concrete to make sure you weren't talking out your ass when you asserted that bone was softer therefore it would break against concrete. Meanwhile, actual mechanical engineers, who know a thing or two about how things break, have done biomechanical studies on the physics of breaking blocks, and have calculated that it's not actually out of the realm of possibility for the human body with no woo involved.


If you think that that is the case then why don't you brake 10 concrete slabs in one go with your head like those people in the video.
Are you ready Haku? :wink:



Quote
As to your insipid car analogy, it fails because the driver has a verifiable physical reality beyond the car. When the driver steps out of the car, you can see him, hear him, smell him, touch him and taste him... though very few will let you get that far. Not so with consciousness. Not only does when consciousness "detach," there's no verifiable object that leaves, when it comes back, there is no reliable indication that it actually went anywhere. Again, NDE OOB experiences happen under very uncontrolled conditions (and it would be unethical to induce one purposefully) and as such cannot be taken except with a huge grain of salt. We also have a huge literature concerning false memories. Humans just aren't reliable observers.

And remember, you described consciousness as an abstract entity; it's silly to think that reasoning that applies to physical entities like human drivers will carry over to abstract entities.

Without a verifiable separate existence, consciousness and the brain has a closer match to the hologram driver and the Decepticon Barricade than they do with an ordinary human driver and car.



Fail again Haku.

Right now you are reading and writing posts in this forum.

Your hands type what your consciousness-mind tell them to write.
Your mind can not be seen, touch, smell and so on yet it is there.
Who else order your finger to type a post?
Obviously the consciousness is an abstract entity otherwise you would be able to see, smell, taste and so on.



Quote
The way to get back into our good graces is to stop asserting and start supporting. We do not agree to your assertions about the nature of consciousness. You have been told multiple times that your assertions are not shared, and all argumentation using disputed assertions are DOA. You need to start supporting those assertions. When you're told a line of evidence isn't good enough, you need to find better evidence, not repeat the same evidence over and over again as if repetition makes it true. Even saying that you're sorry for being a butthead will go a long way to mending fences.

But you'll do what you'll do.



I just show you that the consciousness is an abstract entity.
You can not touch, taste, smell and so on but it exist so my assertions are fully supported.



Quote
Now, Mr. Absolute...
Yeah. Like Sal said, to me the illusion of consciousness is not that it's not there in reality, but rather that it appears to be a thing when it is not. Consciousness is a process, and displays all of the signs of being a process. Change and assimilation of new information and experiences is what defines a person being conscious. Administering drugs and sustaining injuries that changes how the brain works changes how the consciousness behaves and what its capabilities are. When the brain ceases to function, consciousness disappears and does not return until brain function is restored. From this and other evidence, we conclude that consciousness is what the brain does. But of course, it's absurd to consider a process without something that the process is operating on. Hence, reality is real.

All my statements have to be evaluated on the basis that consciousness is a process and not an entity. No argument based on consciousness's being an entity will work unless and until you disabuse me of that notion.


That is a very very silly point Haku.

It is quite natural that when...................Administering drugs and sustaining injuries that changes how the brain works changes how the consciousness behaves...............why not Haku considering that the consciousness during this life reside inside the brain.

Wouldn't you get hurt when you have and accident in your car and wouldn't your consciousness be affected by it?

   

Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: josephpalazzo on June 17, 2019, 11:23:11 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

In the past the masses though that the planet earth was flat.
From the ground it look flat so anyone that challenge that view was taken for a nut.
Today when people see a person that just die they think that it is all over and anyone who challenge that view is also taken for a nut.

The time goes on but idiots never change.
They keep on coming back again and again with similar dogmas and anyone who challenge their view is a troll or a nut but again after sometime the truth become clear and the previous trolls become heroes while the previous smart people become trolls. 

 

In the words of Christopher Hitchens, "What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Blackleaf on June 17, 2019, 12:48:48 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
In the words of Christopher Hitchens, "What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

Or as Abraham Lincoln once said, "You can't believe everything you read on the internet, but vampires are real."
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Sal1981 on June 17, 2019, 01:03:47 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Very well. Evaluating your argument that consciousness is a process, not an entity, I find it manifestly contradictory.  For the very nature of consciousness is to be an entity.  For instance, I am one entity, and you are one entity (not any other entity).  We are manifestly defined by our consciousness, since if it were not the case, how would we otherwise recognize each other as individual entities, having names, attributes and individual sovereignty, capable of interacting through the electronic medium independent of any perceptive interchange between our material biological manifestations?
That's just naming conventions, or are you so steeped into idealism  that you think that the concept of numbers exist apart from reality? And I reject the notion  that we are defined by our consciousness, because for me consciousness is merely the name-tag of the function of the brain we give it that we, individually, experience as our own novel self.


You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Furthermore, while you acknowledge that consciousness is real, you claim it is not a "thing", presumably meaning a material object, by virtue of the fact that it is a process.  Somewhat like the software on a computer had no material frame but consists of a particular organization of codes and procedures that operate the physical machine.  Although the software resides on the computer it is not the computer; although the software is transmuted by physical media such as CD's, flash drives and disks, it is not those physical media in which it is transported.  Yet, without software a computer would be a mere pile of metal and plastic, the media mere chunks of dead meaningless matter.  The immaterial software makes them what they are; it defines them.
Your analogy of the brain to a computer is more apt than you realize. The software, with an user interface, is part of the machine just as much as the RAM, the SSD, the CPU, etc., particularly, it's a virtual machine that the representation of  the ones and zeros on the SSD represent and which the CPU is able to generate much like how our novel configuration of the individual brain of the neurons in it and how they're connected. So no, the software isn't "immaterial", it's part and parcel of the computer - it's just transcribed from physical ones and zeros (on a SSD) to a virtual machine.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: aitm on June 17, 2019, 02:09:12 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
In the words of Christopher Hitchens, "What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

Hello Joe, what a wonderful surprise to see your nick again. I hope all is well with you.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 17, 2019, 03:15:05 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That's just naming conventions, or are you so steeped into idealism  that you think that the concept of numbers exist apart from reality? And I reject the notion  that we are defined by our consciousness, because for me consciousness is merely the name-tag of the function of the brain we give it that we, individually, experience as our own novel self.

Your analogy of the brain to a computer is more apt than you realize. The software, with an user interface, is part of the machine just as much as the RAM, the SSD, the CPU, etc., particularly, it's a virtual machine that the representation of  the ones and zeros on the SSD represent and which the CPU is able to generate much like how our novel configuration of the individual brain of the neurons in it and how they're connected. So no, the software isn't "immaterial", it's part and parcel of the computer - it's just transcribed from physical ones and zeros (on a SSD) to a virtual machine.
The software itself is not a material thing, but rather an entirely immaterial pattern.  Otherwise it could not migrate between machines and media.  It cannot be contained or defined by a single or any number of computers, even a billion computers.  The physical manifestation of such software, what is transcribed into electronic signals, is merely a material record of something that does not exist in material reality.  And despite not existing in material reality, it is assuredly a thing, an entity--having a beginning and end, and defined characteristics.

Similarly consciousness, while not existing as material, undoubtedly comprises an entity.  For instance, my consciousness in this forum is named "Absolute Agent".  I am my own self and not another: for instance I am not Baruch.  Therefore since I can be identified as something apart from other things, and have identity--ergo, I am am entity.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Blackleaf on June 17, 2019, 03:48:44 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The software itself is not a material thing, but rather an entirely immaterial pattern.  Otherwise it could not migrate between machines and media.  It cannot be contained or defined by a single or any number of computers, even a billion computers.  The physical manifestation of such software, what is transcribed into electronic signals, is merely a material record of something that does not exist in material reality.  And despite not existing in material reality, it is assuredly a thing, an entity--having a beginning and end, and defined characteristics.

Similarly consciousness, while not existing as material, undoubtedly comprises an entity.  For instance, my consciousness in this forum is named "Absolute Agent".  I am my own self and not another: for instance I am not Baruch.  Therefore since I can be identified as something apart from other things, and have identity--ergo, I am am entity.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

I'm not you sure realize this, but you're arguing against your own point. If you believe in an immaterial soul that exists independently from the body, then software is not a good example. I have pictures saved on my phone. Where do those pictures go if I smash my phone into a million pieces? Nowhere, because the software depends on the hardware to exist. Even if my phone were connected to the cloud, and I was able to recover my pictures that way, those files still only exist because they were shared to a physical computer out there somewhere. So unless we develop the ability to interface with technology and we upload our consciousness to the internet, our consciousness will not continue to exist after our brains cease to function.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 17, 2019, 03:57:15 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm not you sure realize this, but you're arguing against your own point. If you believe in an immaterial soul that exists independently from the body, then software is not a good example. I have pictures saved on my phone. Where do those pictures go if I smash my phone into a million pieces? Nowhere, because the software depends on the hardware to exist. Even if my phone were connected to the cloud, and I was able to recover my pictures that way, those files still only exist because they were shared to a physical computer out there somewhere. So unless we develop the ability to interface with technology and we upload our consciousness to the internet, our consciousness will not continue to exist after our brains cease to function.
Saying the software cannot exist without the computer is like saying the gas in the car can't exist without a car to be contained in. Granted, when you crash a car, the gas may spill into the street and no longer be useful to human vehicular requirements.  But this does not negate it's existence.  How about this?  Where was the software before it's inventor wrote it down?  Was it not existent when it was forming in her mind to be transcribed into the relevant medium?

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on June 17, 2019, 05:39:31 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Very well. Evaluating your argument that consciousness is a process, not an entity, I find it manifestly contradictory.  For the very nature of consciousness is to be an entity.
The "nature of consciousness" is very much the matter under dispute. You don't get to declare it as an entity by declaring it to be "its nature."

Quote
For instance, I am one entity, and you are one entity (not any other entity).
Yeah, we are manifestly distinct bodies, which are entities. Don't see how you get from here to "consciousness is an entity," though.

Quote
We are manifestly defined by our consciousness, since if it were not the case, how would we otherwise recognize each other as individual entities, having names, attributes and individual sovereignty, capable of interacting through the electronic medium independent of any perceptive interchange between our material biological manifestations?
Consciousness being a process does not preclude that they are proceding in a different way for each entity. I still don't see how this proves that consciousness is a thing. If you run a game, it will play out a different way from my instance of that game. The programs are exactly the same, but because they are in different states and responding to a different player, it will behave in a distinct way.

So, I still don't see how this proves that consciousness is a thing.

Quote
Furthermore, while you acknowledge that consciousness is real, you claim it is not a "thing", presumably meaning a material object, by virtue of the fact that it is a process.
Well, yeah. A process is defined by the action of particular things. The running of a car is in a distinct philosophical category from the car itself, yet it is defined by the car.

Quote
Somewhat like the software on a computer had no material frame but consists of a particular organization of codes and procedures that operate the physical machine.  Although the software resides on the computer it is not the computer; although the software is transmuted by physical media such as CD's, flash drives and disks, it is not those physical media in which it is transported.  Yet, without software a computer would be a mere pile of metal and plastic, the media mere chunks of dead meaningless matter.  The immaterial software makes them what they are; it defines them.
Nonsense. A piece of software defines the majority of the action of the computer. Even a computer that has no software on it will try to look for some instruction in its memory; indeed, the fact that the first thing a CPU does when it first turns on is to look for instructions in a particular part of its nonvolitile memory is the reason why bootstrap loaders work (aka, why computers boot up). If the computer without a program was truly the mere pile of metal and plastic you characterize it, then it couldn't do anything, even look for its bootstrap loader. The computer must be capable of doing at least one thing on its own in order for it to boot up: look for its bootstrap loader.

A computer is mostly useless without a program because to run programs is the entirety of its purpose. The goal of an organism is to survive. That's a different goal and that's where the analogy breaks. It is equipped with reflexes and automatic procedure to accomplish its purpose, accomplished through purely mechanical means. In us, one of the thing the zygote does is to build a brain which has automatic means to boot up a consciousness.

That said, if consciousness should be compared with anything in computer science, it is not software that consciousness should be compared with, but rather the process execution. The only way you know someone is conscious/has consciousness is by observing what they do.

Quote
Which then is more real dear Hakurei? Are not all "things" defined by a particular process, without which they are meaningless, and in very truth, lose their "thing-ness", their ability to be identified and distinguished as such?
The two should not be conflated. Proper things, like the brain or a car, should not be conflated with the processes they are performing, like consciousness or internal combustion. Furthermore, you seem to have retreated from consciousness as a thing to that it is what defines the brain. I'm fine with that, but that still doesn't make consciousness an entity with a separate existence from the brain. Indeed, it makes consciousness inseparably contingent on the existence of a brain.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 17, 2019, 06:47:28 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The "nature of consciousness" is very much the matter under dispute. You don't get to declare it as an entity by declaring it to be "its nature."
Yeah, we are manifestly distinct bodies, which are entities. Don't see how you get from here to "consciousness is an entity," though.
Consciousness being a process does not preclude that they are proceding in a different way for each entity. I still don't see how this proves that consciousness is a thing. If you run a game, it will play out a different way from my instance of that game. The programs are exactly the same, but because they are in different states and responding to a different player, it will behave in a distinct way.

So, I still don't see how this proves that consciousness is a thing.
Well, yeah. A process is defined by the action of particular things. The running of a car is in a distinct philosophical category from the car itself, yet it is defined by the car.
Nonsense. A piece of software defines the majority of the action of the computer. Even a computer that has no software on it will try to look for some instruction in its memory; indeed, the fact that the first thing a CPU does when it first turns on is to look for instructions in a particular part of its nonvolitile memory is the reason why bootstrap loaders work (aka, why computers boot up). If the computer without a program was truly the mere pile of metal and plastic you characterize it, then it couldn't do anything, even look for its bootstrap loader. The computer must be capable of doing at least one thing on its own in order for it to boot up: look for its bootstrap loader.

A computer is mostly useless without a program because to run programs is the entirety of its purpose. The goal of an organism is to survive. That's a different goal and that's where the analogy breaks. It is equipped with reflexes and automatic procedure to accomplish its purpose, accomplished through purely mechanical means. In us, one of the thing the zygote does is to build a brain which has automatic means to boot up a consciousness.

That said, if consciousness should be compared with anything in computer science, it is not software that consciousness should be compared with, but rather the process execution. The only way you know someone is conscious/has consciousness is by observing what they do.
The two should not be conflated. Proper things, like the brain or a car, should not be conflated with the processes they are performing, like consciousness or internal combustion. Furthermore, you seem to have retreated from consciousness as a thing to that it is what defines the brain. I'm fine with that, but that still doesn't make consciousness an entity with a separate existence from the brain. Indeed, it makes consciousness inseparably contingent on the existence of a brain.
Consciousness defines the brain because the brain exists as a translator of consciousness.  If the brain stops translating consciousness it is no longer properly a brain.  It is just a assortment of matter and chemicals.

"Furthermore, you seem to have retreated from consciousness as a thing to that it is what defines the brain."

If as you confirm that by "thing" you mean a material object, then your saying consciousness is not a thing only equates to saying that consciousness is not material--which I likewise assert.  My disagreement, a minor one, is on your definition of a thing necessarily being material.  For instance, isn't logic a thing, and doesn't logic exist entirely in the realm of consciousness, having no material existence?

Granted, no one of us has successfully defined what consciousness is, yet in common parlance "entity" denotes a conscious being.

The root question is whether consciousness can exist without a material form.  I would say yes.  However, once consciousness leaves a material body it will naturally no longer be identified with a body and thus no longer be constrained by the illusion of material, individualized, existence.  This will soon be established fact in the scientific community.  Just as gas leaking from the gas tank is no longer "car-gas"-- but still gas nonetheless.  It could go into another car or may become a pollutant in a stream.  It's label is determined by its function; likewise form and function are not divorced  but intrinsic to one another.

Your explanation of consciousness is less adequate since there are many processes which are not conscious, like combustion. Therefore consciousness is not properly defined as merely a process--it's something much more.

A computer without the boot function (a process) could not properly be called a computer.  Thus my analogy holds in demonstrating that you cannot reasonably divorce "things" from processes--one is inherent to the other. Therefore, even if consciousness is only seen as a process, then it is still a thing and still an entity.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on June 17, 2019, 06:59:42 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Our friend Haku fool himself thinking that he (she?) got some strong argument in order to knockdown my points but he doesn't.
Dearheart, a knockdown doll gets knocked down all the time. Just because you get right back up for more punishment doesn't mean you're not getting knocked down.

Quote
I give you just one example.
He kept on saying that the brain during an NDE is still able to put together that experience on the ground that the brain cells are not dead yet and therefore is some sort of hallucination rather than a real experience with God.
The reality is that once the heart stop sending blood-oxygen into the brain the brain cells die within 3 minutes and in very rare case within ten minutes.
So, in 3-10 minutes after getting blood flow cut off, the brain just up and dies, all together? In perfect synch, like some kind of Palestinian Suicide Squad? Nonsense. Even in these cases, there are differences in the conditions of the individual cells that means that some brain cells will last longer than others. The damage starts setting in at three minutes, and by ten minutes, the damage is usually so severe that consciousness never returns. If you're revived after four minutes, you'll be mostly okay, with some long-term effects. If you're revived after twelve minutes, you'll be a vegetable.

We know this because we have patients who run the spectrum. There is a clear progression of deterioration.

The other thing is in these episodes, you pretend that the healthcare providers are sitting around on their thumbs. Not so. They're doing stuff like CPR and other means to try to keep the heart pumping. That keeps the blood moving, even in a reduced capacity, and as such, while the brain doesn't get enough oxygen to continue functioning, it does get enough oxygen to survive much longer than it would were there no blood flow at all.

The other thing is that, being uncontrolled experiments as they are, you don't know where the information in NDEs are coming from. Again, we only get accounts of these NDEs after patients are brought back from the brink and spend some time convalescing.

Quote
Now considering that most of the NDEs last over ten minutes is quite impossible for the brain to put together an NDE that is why it is the consciousness that is able to experience that NDE.
NDEs are not experienced as they happen. They are reconstructed after full blood flow is restored, and the brain is getting enough oxygen to start returning to full function. That and the fact that healthcare providers are administering healthcare to the patient to keep some form of blood flow going to the brain easily explains how NDEs can last more than ten minutes. Also, recollected time is kind of fluid.

Quote
Now our friend Haku find more and more excuses and that I consider dishonesty so to me what Haku do is not a challenge but a folly to prevent defeat.
You wish, Arik Idle. It is in the nature of idiots to think they're ahead when they are actually far behind. When you can't even describe the biology of brain death and health care in the case of cardiac arrest accurately, you're not in any position to say what happens in those cases.

-

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The so called biological evolution is but a physical change that allow a specie to survive.
That's all Haku so rather that say real evolution it would better to say a biological change that allow physical survival in a particular environment.

Real evolution is a total different story.
Things described as "evolution" in the sciences describe quite particular things and I would thank you for not appropriating vocabulary you don't know how to apply correctly.

Quote
That involve a real progress that allow an entity to improve his-her consciousness.
We usually call this "developement" and "learning."

Quote
Evolution is a word that imply progress a progress that stay with you as you climb the ladder of human emancipation and that can only be an evolution of the consciousness.
Only when non-science idiots like you use it. Etymologically, it means "to roll out" and as such is used to describe a progression of stages or states, like the stages in the life cycle of a star, or a population. There is no implication of progression up a ladder of betterment. Part of the evolution of a star, for instance, is its inevitable death. The process of an organ or limb withering into a vestigial is a part of biological evolution, so this notion that evolution involves betterment is a myth perpetuated by those people who don't study the relevant fields.

Quote
A change in the body can not do that that is why there is no real evolution in biological changes although biological changes can help to build a body that can better house a more developed consciousness so the body is there to serve the consciousness not the other way around.
No, you're just using the word "evolution" in a way not recognized by science. You don't get to say what is "real" evolution. Only scientists get to do that.

Quote
Are you kidding me?

None of you has been able to bring an inch of evidence to support the atheists claims that I present in my 10 points and you have the audacity to say that is me that assert things without evidence?
You are the only one here who has not brought evidence. I already outlined the problems with your NDE canard, the most glaring of which is the completely uncontrolled manner of any scenario in which it shows up, and the only piece of information that has ever been introduced in a controlled way fails to show up in ANY NDE. This, analogies, and bald-faced assertions without support are the only things you have brought to the table. None of these things are evidence.

On the other hand, we have brought you hard-won knowledge from the only group of people who have ever brought evidence to bear on your questions. So, pot, stop calling the silverware black.

Quote
If you think that that is the case then why don't you brake 10 concrete slabs in one go with your head like those people in the video.
Are you ready Haku? :wink:
I already stated that you require physical conditioning to break the blocks, and physical conditioning in this area is something I very much lack. Have one of your spindly gurus break those blocks, and you'll be talking, because then you'd have proven that physical conditioning is unnecessary.

Seriously, how does my failing to break blocks with my mind power (without the relevant physical training) somehow prove that mind power is what breaks these bricks?

Quote
Fail again Haku.

Right now you are reading and writing posts in this forum.

Your hands type what your consciousness-mind tell them to write.
Your mind can not be seen, touch, smell and so on yet it is there.
Who else order your finger to type a post?
Obviously the consciousness is an abstract entity otherwise you would be able to see, smell, taste and so on.
Another bald-faced assertion. Look, the reason why I said that you can see, hear, smell, etc. the driver was to underline the point that the driver has physically verifiable properties. Well, your brain in action also has the same thing: hook up your brain to an EEG, or use a fMRI, and you can see the brain lighting up as I type these words. Particularly my motor cortex, my Broca's and Wernicke's areas, my prefrontal cortex, and my visual cortex. These are exactly the places where if disruption occurs I will lose my reasoning, vision, ability to move, or ability to process language. My consciousness is a physical process that can be measured and observed at work, but it is not separate from my brain.

We've seen people thinking with fMRI and EEGs, Mr. Idle. That is evidence, and it points towards consciousness as a physical process, not an abstract entity.

Quote
I just show you that the consciousness is an abstract entity.
You can not touch, taste, smell and so on but it exist so my assertions are fully supported.
No, you haven't. That list was not intended to be exhaustive. You can't see, hear, smell, touch or taste hydrogen gas either. Yet it is as physically real as your body is, particularly if it ignites and blows you the fuck up.

Quote
That is a very very silly point Haku.

It is quite natural that when...................Administering drugs and sustaining injuries that changes how the brain works changes how the consciousness behaves...............why not Haku considering that the consciousness during this life reside inside the brain.
Yet, apparently, when separated from the body as you contend with NDE OOB experiences, your consciousness functions just fine without any brain matter involved, regardless of its state of operation. It's able to eavesdrop on people, see people do their work, etc, in the absence of any physical substrate, yet when inside a body, damage and drugs disable these abilities utterly.

Do these abilities lie in the consciousness or in the brain, Mr. Idle? If they're in the consciousness, why does damaging the brain in the relevant region destroy the ability? If they're in the brain, why does the consciousness still have them when separated from the body? If they're in both, then why doesn't your consciousness act as backup? After all, all your consciousness needs to do is manipulate your motor cortex, and you're golden.

Quote
Wouldn't you get hurt when you have and accident in your car and wouldn't your consciousness be affected by it?
Injuries are not created equal. If you break your leg, you won't be able to walk on it, even in an OOB experience. That implies that the function of walking is bound to your legs. If you break your brain, you won't be able to think with it. That implies that the functions of cognition are bound to your brain.

For every faculty of the mind, we have a specific brain injury that impairs it, and the list of impairments is long indeed. This implies that these faculties are bound to the brain, and not a part of any abstract consciousness. So what does the consciousness do, Mr. Idle?
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on June 17, 2019, 07:44:27 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Consciousness defines the brain because the brain exists as a translator of consciousness.  If the brain stops translating consciousness it is no longer properly a brain.  It is just a assortment of matter and chemicals.
Bald-faced assertion. As if there is anything "just" about an assortment of matter and chemicals. Have you seen chemicals react? They can do some fucking amazing shit, even with a handful of them, never mind the hundreds of thousands of them in the cell alone.

Quote
"Furthermore, you seem to have retreated from consciousness as a thing to that it is what defines the brain."

If as you confirm that by "thing" you mean a material object, then your saying consciousness is not a thing only equates to saying that consciousness is not material--which I likewise assert.
No, I mean, "not a thing," meaning as opposed to the action of the brain which I contend consciousness's true nature. I acknowledge the category of abstract things, which means that thing and material object to me are not equivalent.

Quote
My disagreement, a minor one, is on your definition of a thing necessarily being material.  For instance, isn't logic a thing, and doesn't logic exist entirely in the realm of consciousness, having no material existence?
Logic isn't a physical thing, nor is it a process. In fact, it's not even a single distinct philosophical category that logic as an entirety belongs to. The logical statements in a logical discourse are abstract things, but are manipulated according to the rules of logic.

Consciousness is not a thing, but it is very much physical. You can see it at work in fMRIs. Arik thinks that consciousness is a thing, but not material in nature (immaterial). I think it is material in nature, but not a thing. "Thingness" is an orthogonal category to being material.

Quote
Granted, no one of us has successfully defined what consciousness is, yet in common parlance "entity" denotes a conscious being.
This is why you don't use common parlance in technical subjects. It uses precise definitions, and categorizes things differently from what common parlance does, because it has to represent the subject matter in a precise way and according to the best knowledge in the field.

Quote
The root question is whether consciousness can exist without a material form.  I would say yes.  However, once consciousness leaves a material body it will naturally no longer be identified with a body and thus no longer be constrained by the illusion of material, individualized, existence.  This will soon be established fact in the scientific community.  Just as gas leaking from the gas tank is no longer "car-gas"-- but still gas nonetheless.  It could go into another car or may become a pollutant in a stream.  It's label is determined by its function; likewise form and function are not divorced  but intrinsic to one another.
Meanwhile, the above description as it stands is completely indistinguishable from consciousness being a process of the brain and when the brain goes south, consciousness ceases and doesn't "go" anywhere — that when you die, you cease to exist utterly. Now, if you were to bring some evidence that consciousness survives death, then you would have something to talk about, but otherwise, Occam's razor cuts off the extraneous, unproved assertion.

Quote
Your explanation of consciousness is less adequate since there are many processes which are not conscious, like combustion. Therefore consciousness is not properly defined as merely a process--it's something much more.
And combustion is something much more than merely a process, too. That doesn't make it not a process.

At no point have I characterized conscousness as "merely" a process, or knowing it is a process is the end all and be all of it. It's simply a counter to one particular point about how it's catagorized. There is a lot more to consciousness than the bare fact that it is a process, but it's still a process, and a separate philosophical category from an entity.

Quote
A computer without the boot function (a process) could not properly be called a computer.  Thus my analogy holds in demonstrating that you cannot reasonably divorce "things" from processes--one is inherent to the other. Therefore, even if consciousness is only seen as a process, then it is still a thing and still an entity.
Non-sequitor. You can, in fact, reasonably divorce the concept of a process from its bound entity as categories, the same way that the running of a computer program can be divorced from the computer itself. In fact, you must be able to do this to have abstract entities in the first place.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on June 17, 2019, 09:26:50 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That's just naming conventions, or are you so steeped into idealism  that you think that the concept of numbers exist apart from reality? And I reject the notion  that we are defined by our consciousness, because for me consciousness is merely the name-tag of the function of the brain we give it that we, individually, experience as our own novel self.

Your analogy of the brain to a computer is more apt than you realize. The software, with an user interface, is part of the machine just as much as the RAM, the SSD, the CPU, etc., particularly, it's a virtual machine that the representation of  the ones and zeros on the SSD represent and which the CPU is able to generate much like how our novel configuration of the individual brain of the neurons in it and how they're connected. So no, the software isn't "immaterial", it's part and parcel of the computer - it's just transcribed from physical ones and zeros (on a SSD) to a virtual machine.

The electricity is part of the wire.  But the pattern of electricity has nothing to do with that, since if comes from a "will" not "random".  These people will invoke Pythagoras, Democritus and Plato ... then claim ... I don't do philosophy (because then it wouldn't be science) and that I am totally autonomous from history and present context ... my ideas aren't just a meme from 2500 years ago.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on June 17, 2019, 09:29:42 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Saying the software cannot exist without the computer is like saying the gas in the car can't exist without a car to be contained in. Granted, when you crash a car, the gas may spill into the street and no longer be useful to human vehicular requirements.  But this does not negate it's existence.  How about this?  Where was the software before it's inventor wrote it down?  Was it not existent when it was forming in her mind to be transcribed into the relevant medium?

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

AI/Robot religion says, giant Japanese speaking robots, with or without people in them (it is immaterial which, to these people, because people are meat-ware) are real, because we saw it on the silver screen.  ;-)  These are smart people, but as monkeys we are all easily taken in by our own cleverness.  Scientism says that scientists are the high priests of this godless religion ;-))

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rh5G6RUgjiM

Scifi isn't mythology, isn't it?
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on June 17, 2019, 09:31:24 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm not you sure realize this, but you're arguing against your own point. If you believe in an immaterial soul that exists independently from the body, then software is not a good example. I have pictures saved on my phone. Where do those pictures go if I smash my phone into a million pieces? Nowhere, because the software depends on the hardware to exist. Even if my phone were connected to the cloud, and I was able to recover my pictures that way, those files still only exist because they were shared to a physical computer out there somewhere. So unless we develop the ability to interface with technology and we upload our consciousness to the internet, our consciousness will not continue to exist after our brains cease to function.

Does the thing you took a picture of ... disappear if you smash your phone?  The picture is merely an image of what it was taken of, not the thing itself.  Just as the paper listing of a program doesn't disappear, or my memory of it in my head, disappear, when your HD crashes.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 17, 2019, 09:38:03 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You can, in fact, reasonably divorce the concept of a process from its bound entity as categories, the same way that the running of a computer program can be divorced from the computer itself. In fact, you must be able to do this to have abstract entities in the first place.

If I'm not mistaken you have just contradicted yourself to your own face:

If

1) Consciousness is a material process analagous to processes in a computer, and

2) Processes such as software execution CAN be divorced from their material "things"

Then consciousness can be divorced from the brain, can exist without the brain just as software can exist without a computer.

Note, what I am calling consciousness is analagous to software while what you call consciousness is analagous to software execution in a computer--one is a pattern of instructions while the other is a process of executing those instructions.  The brain is like a computer which takes consciousness, or software, and executes it in material reality so to speak--which process you are calling consciousness is actually only the manifest influence of consciousness.  There is plenty of evidence out there to support this model of consciousness if you cared to look.  For instance the phenomena of multiple inventors in completely different locations working on the same inventions simultaneously, not having been previously aware of each other's existence.  This suggests they were simply downloading the same information from a common immaterial source--an entity of consciousness independent of brains.  Furthermore, you could also find that the brain is structured as a signal receptor, somewhat like a radio receiver.  Your radio doesn't produce radio stations--it merely downloads and translates preexisting entities--radio waves.  IMO my model of consciousness is much more sensible.  Apparently you cannot refute it except to call on Occams razor, which is simply an easy way of saying you don't want to test my model. 

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 17, 2019, 11:02:57 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
AI/Robot religion says, giant Japanese speaking robots, with or without people in them (it is immaterial which, to these people, because people are meat-ware) are real, because we saw it on the silver screen.  ;-)  These are smart people, but as monkeys we are all easily taken in by our own cleverness.  Scientism says that scientists are the high priests of this godless religion ;-))

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rh5G6RUgjiM

Scifi isn't mythology, isn't it?
I don't discount the possibility of machine intelligence.  Science is useful when circumscribed by moral values, and religion is benevolent when tempered by pragmatic rationality.  Science fiction is myth--yet as past myths often point to a historical reality, so myths of the future often become fulfilled prophecies in hindsight.  This is related to the way that consciousness forms our material reality.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on June 17, 2019, 11:04:36 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If I'm not mistaken you have just contradicted yourself to your own face:

If

1) Consciousness is a material process analagous to processes in a computer, and

2) Processes such as software execution CAN be divorced from their material "things"

Then consciousness can be divorced from the brain, can exist without the brain just as software can exist without a computer.
Divorced on a conceptual level; you can make the distinction between a process and objects carrying out/undergoing that process, without separating the two in the slightest. The distinction boils down to that you can usually stop a process from occurring in an object without obviating the object, but you can't destroy the object without the process going along with it.

There is no contradiction here. It's only you making "divorce" out to be more than I described.

Software can exist (to a degree) from the computer that normally runs it, such as being written to media, but a process cannot be so meaningfully separated. Nothing can happen to software that exists on DVD. It takes a computer to run it.

Quote
Note, what I am calling consciousness is analagous to software while what you call conscious is analagous to software execution in a computer--one is a pattern of instructions while the other is a process of executing those instructions.
Yes, that difference is the whole point of contention. I have seen nowhere where you have convincingly supported yours. Every time you try to draw the argument to your side, there is a specific aspect of the difference between software and consciousness that destroys the point.

Quote
The brain is like a computer which takes consciousness, or software, and executes it in material reality so to speak--which process you are calling consciousness is actually only the manifest influence of consciousness.  There is plenty of evidence out there to support this model of consciousness if you cared to look.  For instance the phenomena of multiple inventors in completely different locations donated withing in the same inventions simultaneously, not having been previously aware of each other's existence.  This suggests they were simply downloading the same information from a common immaterial source--an entity of consciousness independent of brains.
Or that the prevailing technological and scientific development makes the time ripe for the invention to be necessary and possible, and usually only a few permutations will work. The telephone was invented nearly simultaneously by Alexander Graham Bell and Elisha Gray, but neither invention would have been possible prior to Östed's discovery of the connection between electricity and magnetism, and subsequent investigation to how magnetism and electicity interact. Not only that, there were the discoveries in the connection between sound and mechanical motion, and as such the little bits came together in Bell and Gray. Furthermore, Antonio Meucci filed a caveat (intention to invent) something similar five years earlier. It's not impossible that the fragments of the idea were bopping around for that time.

I don't think that you can show that any "independent" invention can be entirely independent. All invention builds upon the work of antecedents, which is quite definitely shared material.

Quote
Furthermore, you could also find that the brain is structured as a signal receptor, somewhat like a radio receiver.  Your radio doesn't produce radio stations--it merely downloads and translates preexisting entities--radio waves.
You "could" find? Then this is not actually evident. Things that are not evident aren't counted as evidence, boyo.

If you have a means of independently verifying this signal, by all means go out and find it. Otherwise, it's just a story you tell.

Quote
IMO my model of consciousness is much more sensible.  Apparently you cannot refute it except to call on Occams razor, which is simply an easy way of saying you don't want to test my model. 
I am not interested in your opinion of what sounds "sensible," as the universe owes you no such explanation. (Quantum theory is the ultimate "fuck you" here.) Occam's razor is an epistemological device which imposes discipline onto our speculations, but it is also mathematically justified. Multiplying assumptions tends to spread out your range of possible fitting data, and turn out to be more vague and dissipated. It takes much more data to prove and disprove one of these hypotheses than one with fewer assumptions.

Furthermore, it's not as if verified phenomena cease to exist if the more complicated model is true. Even in a world with genuine out-of-body experiences, there will still be people who lie, exaggerate, and are the victims of false memories brought about by limited anoxia to the brain and suggestion.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 18, 2019, 01:02:32 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Divorced on a conceptual level; you can make the distinction between a process and objects carrying out/undergoing that process, without separating the two in the slightest. The distinction boils down to that you can usually stop a process from occurring in an object without obviating the object, but you can't destroy the object without the process going along with it.

If you then concede that a process is inseparable in actuality from its host "thing" you have then confirmed my point that a process is integral to things generally.  Which leads to consciousness being an entity, because by your admission it is in actuality part of a "thing". The conceptual distinction then being illusory and referential only.

Now you claim that a process must stop when it's host "thing" is destroyed, yet a process can end without the host"thing" ceasing to exist.  But what kind of "existence" is that?  When consciousness stops, the body is buried.  When software execution ceases the computer is scrapped.  But it's still a computer you say?  What good is it?  It's still a brain you say?  What good is a brain without consciousness?  What good are all those fantastic chemical acrobatics?  It's just empty fireworks.  The stove is on but no one's home.  Functionally, pragmatically, the process is more real than the material form in which it operates. The software continues to exist long after the thousands of computers on which it operated are scrapped. 

You haven't really explained why software did not apply as an analogy for consciousness, except that you claim consciousness must be an observable process in physical matter.

Consciousness is more than a material process, it has its origins in a non-material reality.  The processes you see when you think you are observing consciousness are only the effects of consciousness as it impinges on the physical brain structure.

It follows logically that if you observe a material process in the brain analogous to software execution, you should expect that there is a body of instructions directing that process, analagous to the software itself--an immaterial entity. Occam's razor indeed...

There is plenty of scientific evidence for consciousness existing independent of a material body.  You just aren't interested in looking at it.  Schools of fish acting in perfect synchronicity is a good example, and there are many more if you wanted to find them.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on June 18, 2019, 09:14:32 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
In the words of Christopher Hitchens, "What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."


Good point Jos.

Now let us see if you can bring any evidence to these beliefs which most atheists are so keen to bring up so often so we don't have to say that these beliefs are asserted without evidence and therefore they will have to be dismissed without evidence.

Are you ready Jos?



1) When we die is all over.
2) The consciousness is a product of the brain.
3) We never lived before and we will never live again.
4) There is no need for a God to create or run the universe.
5) Religion and spirituality is the same thing.
6) Jesus never existed.
7) NDEs are all hallucinations and lies.
8) The progress of the consciousness has nothing to do with evolution.
9) Physical science is the real McCoy.
10) The power of the mind is not important in breaking slabs of concrete.


Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: josephpalazzo on June 18, 2019, 11:06:20 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Good point Jos.

Now let us see if you can bring any evidence to these beliefs which most atheists are so keen to bring up so often so we don't have to say that these beliefs are asserted without evidence and therefore they will have to be dismissed without evidence.

Are you ready Jos?



1) When we die is all over.
2) The consciousness is a product of the brain.
3) We never lived before and we will never live again.
4) There is no need for a God to create or run the universe.
5) Religion and spirituality is the same thing.
6) Jesus never existed.
7) NDEs are all hallucinations and lies.
8) The progress of the consciousness has nothing to do with evolution.
9) Physical science is the real McCoy.
10) The power of the mind is not important in breaking slabs of concrete.




1. Humans have been around for 200,000 years. Billions have died in those years. None have ever come back after death. Those are facts. Sorry for you to hear this, but it is over once you're death.

2. If some one cracks your brain with an ax there won't be an Arik spewing nonesense on the internet. If you believe otherwise you are naive and gullible. i dare you to try it. Plunge an ax through your brain, and if you come back, I'll apologize. Deal?

3. Cannot proved or disproved. What's your point?

4. I don't believe in God, and I see no need to believe in one. If you want to believe in God, it's your choice, and I don't give a fuck.

5. Yes, there are both figment of the imagination.

6. Don't know, don't care.

7. NDE's are like dreams - a product of the brains. In the USA, patients have visions of their beliefs in Christianity. In India, those patients ave visions of idols in their own culture. Ditto in othe countries. Those are facts. deal with it.

8. Unless you have a PhD in biology, I strongly suggest you stay off the topic of evolution. My expertise is in physics, and most likely i know ten times more than you do in evolution, but you will find a rare occasion that I have come on this forum to talk about evolution because I know I'm not an expert in that field. That's a major difference between a troll like you and I. I know where my expertise lies, and where it doesn't. You don't even know that much.

9. Yes, and I would include philosophy, math, art, literature, economics, history, just to name a few areas of learning that can enlarge your understanding.

10. ...or become the president of the USA - ever heard of Donald Trump?!?

Ok troll, enough of your nonsense. Do not expect me to answer you in the future. I have a policy not to waste time with gullible, naive and ignorant assholes like you.

Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on June 18, 2019, 11:17:57 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Dearheart, a knockdown doll gets knocked down all the time. Just because you get right back up for more punishment doesn't mean you're not getting knocked down.


Gee, this must be a very deep kind of philosophy.
Congratulation Haku.



Quote
So, in 3-10 minutes after getting blood flow cut off, the brain just up and dies, all together? In perfect synch, like some kind of Palestinian Suicide Squad? Nonsense. Even in these cases, there are differences in the conditions of the individual cells that means that some brain cells will last longer than others. The damage starts setting in at three minutes, and by ten minutes, the damage is usually so severe that consciousness never returns. If you're revived after four minutes, you'll be mostly okay, with some long-term effects. If you're revived after twelve minutes, you'll be a vegetable.

We know this because we have patients who run the spectrum. There is a clear progression of deterioration.

The other thing is in these episodes, you pretend that the healthcare providers are sitting around on their thumbs. Not so. They're doing stuff like CPR and other means to try to keep the heart pumping. That keeps the blood moving, even in a reduced capacity, and as such, while the brain doesn't get enough oxygen to continue functioning, it does get enough oxygen to survive much longer than it would were there no blood flow at all.




More excuses Haku.
The reality is that after 3 to 10 minutes that your heart stop sending blood-oxygen to the brain you are gone so the brain can not possibly put together any experience that is clear, sharp and remembered even after many years.
Doctors declare a person dead after they do their very best to revive a person including the CPR so your argument is bankrupt.



Quote
The other thing is that, being uncontrolled experiments as they are, you don't know where the information in NDEs are coming from. Again, we only get accounts of these NDEs after patients are brought back from the brink and spend some time convalescing.



Wrong again Haku.
If you bother to read these NDEs you will find that the patient is able to describe his-her experience immediately not after convalescing.


Quote
NDEs are not experienced as they happen. They are reconstructed after full blood flow is restored, and the brain is getting enough oxygen to start returning to full function. That and the fact that healthcare providers are administering healthcare to the patient to keep some form of blood flow going to the brain easily explains how NDEs can last more than ten minutes. Also, recollected time is kind of fluid.


Wrong again Haku.

NDEs are experienced as they happen out the body by the consciousness and remembered also after when the consciousness is back into the body-brain.
It is a dogma to believe that you can only experience an NDE when your brain is on.



Quote
You wish, Arik Idle. It is in the nature of idiots to think they're ahead when they are actually far behind. When you can't even describe the biology of brain death and health care in the case of cardiac arrest accurately, you're not in any position to say what happens in those cases.



It is also in the nature of fools to think that they can score points by insulting opponents.
As far as knowing or not as the body works I confess that I am an expert as a doctor is but that is why I listen to what these experts say which is something that you fail to do.


Quote
Things described as "evolution" in the sciences describe quite particular things and I would thank you for not appropriating vocabulary you don't know how to apply correctly.
We usually call this "developement" and "learning."
Only when non-science idiots like you use it. Etymologically, it means "to roll out" and as such is used to describe a progression of stages or states, like the stages in the life cycle of a star, or a population. There is no implication of progression up a ladder of betterment. Part of the evolution of a star, for instance, is its inevitable death. The process of an organ or limb withering into a vestigial is a part of biological evolution, so this notion that evolution involves betterment is a myth perpetuated by those people who don't study the relevant fields.
No, you're just using the word "evolution" in a way not recognized by science. You don't get to say what is "real" evolution. Only scientists get to do that.



Apparently the word evolution had nothing to do with Darwin and also existed before his theories.


https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/47424/did-the-word-evolution-exist-before-darwinism


Probably come from the Latin to mean the gradual development of something advancement, growth, rise, progress, progression, expansion, extension, unfolding, transformation and so on that is why your stubbornness in believing that is only about biological changes make you a total dreamer.



Quote
You are the only one here who has not brought evidence. I already outlined the problems with your NDE canard, the most glaring of which is the completely uncontrolled manner of any scenario in which it shows up, and the only piece of information that has ever been introduced in a controlled way fails to show up in ANY NDE. This, analogies, and bald-faced assertions without support are the only things you have brought to the table. None of these things are evidence.



So real people, real casualty situation, real doctors and real hospitals are not evidence?

Better go back to sleep Haku.



Quote
On the other hand, we have brought you hard-won knowledge from the only group of people who have ever brought evidence to bear on your questions. So, pot, stop calling the silverware black.
I already stated that you require physical conditioning to break the blocks, and physical conditioning in this area is something I very much lack. Have one of your spindly gurus break those blocks, and you'll be talking, because then you'd have proven that physical conditioning is unnecessary.



Oh, I see.

So you are not prepared to insert hooks in your flesh Haku, are you?



Quote
Seriously, how does my failing to break blocks with my mind power (without the relevant physical training) somehow prove that mind power is what breaks these bricks?



Those guys that insert hooks in their flesh without feeling any pain never had any physical training so how you explain that?



Quote
Another bald-faced assertion. Look, the reason why I said that you can see, hear, smell, etc. the driver was to underline the point that the driver has physically verifiable properties. Well, your brain in action also has the same thing: hook up your brain to an EEG, or use a fMRI, and you can see the brain lighting up as I type these words. Particularly my motor cortex, my Broca's and Wernicke's areas, my prefrontal cortex, and my visual cortex. These are exactly the places where if disruption occurs I will lose my reasoning, vision, ability to move, or ability to process language. My consciousness is a physical process that can be measured and observed at work, but it is not separate from my brain.


The same thing apply when you travel in your car.
As far as the two go hand in hand together one need the other to do things.
That doesn't mean that the two are inseparable because sooner or later the driver will leave the car same same as the consciousness leave the body when physical dead occur.


Quote
We've seen people thinking with fMRI and EEGs, Mr. Idle. That is evidence, and it points towards consciousness as a physical process, not an abstract entity.
No, you haven't. That list was not intended to be exhaustive. You can't see, hear, smell, touch or taste hydrogen gas either. Yet it is as physically real as your body is, particularly if it ignites and blows you the fuck up.
Yet, apparently, when separated from the body as you contend with NDE OOB experiences, your consciousness functions just fine without any brain matter involved, regardless of its state of operation. It's able to eavesdrop on people, see people do their work, etc, in the absence of any physical substrate, yet when inside a body, damage and drugs disable these abilities utterly.



You could have not chosen a more stupid example-analogy then this.

Being constrain inside a body involve that you are dependent on that body to do things.
And if that body doesn't work properly for some reasons then you are stuck unable to do anything.
There are people that refuse to live inside a body so they kill themselves.
This show how being inside a body can be so so bad for some.



Quote
Do these abilities lie in the consciousness or in the brain, Mr. Idle? If they're in the consciousness, why does damaging the brain in the relevant region destroy the ability? If they're in the brain, why does the consciousness still have them when separated from the body? If they're in both, then why doesn't your consciousness act as backup? After all, all your consciousness needs to do is manipulate your motor cortex, and you're golden.



One more stupid point.

When you are stuck inside a body is like when you are stuck inside a car.
When something bad happen to your body or to your vehicle you also suffer.
What else you suppose to do?

However the consciousness unlike a physical driver is an abstract entity and therefore it is immune to physical death.



Quote
Injuries are not created equal. If you break your leg, you won't be able to walk on it, even in an OOB experience. That implies that the function of walking is bound to your legs. If you break your brain, you won't be able to think with it. That implies that the functions of cognition are bound to your brain.



Obviously if you are stuck inside a smashed car after an incident you can not do much, do you?
That is why until physical death occur you are dependent on your body-brain to do anything.
That doesn't mean that when this constrain is over you are still in that situation.



Quote
For every faculty of the mind, we have a specific brain injury that impairs it, and the list of impairments is long indeed. This implies that these faculties are bound to the brain, and not a part of any abstract consciousness. So what does the consciousness do, Mr. Idle?



As I just explain above you are stuck until this constrain end with the physical death.
After that you are free.
But free only if your karma let you free otherwise the music of reincarnations goes on and on especially for those so called smart people that still don't understand how the whole system works.




Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Blackleaf on June 18, 2019, 12:17:35 PM
Arik here acting like he's a genius, while the rest of us see him as the babbling idiot he is. No evidence, no arguments worth a damn, no expertise on the subject, like a child thinking he knows better than his parents. If I were you guys, I wouldn't waste my time.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Simon Moon on June 18, 2019, 01:19:16 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Good point Jos.

Now let us see if you can bring any evidence to these beliefs which most atheists are so keen to bring up so often so we don't have to say that these beliefs are asserted without evidence and therefore they will have to be dismissed without evidence.

Are you ready Jos?


1) When we die is all over.
2) The consciousness is a product of the brain.
3) We never lived before and we will never live again.
4) There is no need for a God to create or run the universe.
5) Religion and spirituality is the same thing.
6) Jesus never existed.
7) NDEs are all hallucinations and lies.
8) The progress of the consciousness has nothing to do with evolution.
9) Physical science is the real McCoy.
10) The power of the mind is not important in breaking slabs of concrete.

You do not seem to be able to differentiate between a claim, and not being convinced of a claim.

You are passing the burden of proof. You and your ilk are making the claims for: afterlives, NDE's, gods, 'spirituality', etc. It is up to you to support your claims. The burden of proof is not up to those that do not believe your claims, it is up to those making the claims. 

Quote
1) When we die is all over.

Very few atheists make the claim, with absolute certainty, that there is no life after death. Most take the position, that theists claims that there is life after death has not met its burden of proof, therefore, there is no warrant to believe it is true.

Quote
2) The consciousness is a product of the brain.

Please point to one verifiable, falsifiable, demonstrable example of a consciousness that exists absent a brain.

All evidence points to consciousness being a result of physical brain processes. Please provide verifiable, falsifiable, demonstrable evidence that consciousness is not a product of a physical brain.

Quote
3) We never lived before and we will never live again.

I do not make the claim, with absolute certainty, that I have never lived before or will not live again. My position is, that those of you that claim this is true, have not met your burden of proof. Therefore, I have no warrant to believe it is true.

Quote
4) There is no need for a God to create or run the universe.

There is no evidence that a god is needed to create or run the universe. Please provide verifiable, falsifiable, demonstrable evidence that a god is necessary.

Again, you are the one making the claim that a god is necessary, therefore, you have the burden of proof.

As soon as theists are able to meet their burden of proof, I will be forced to accept it is true.

It is interesting, however, that the majority of physicists and cosmologists, are non-believers. Doesn't mean they are correct, only that the people that understand the evidence well beyond you are I do, do not see evidence of gods.

Quote
5) Religion and spirituality is the same thing.

There is at least one obvious difference, religion is pretty easy to define, spirituality is not. For every single person I've ever heard use the term 'spirituality', I get just as many different definitions.

Quote
6) Jesus never existed.

Very few atheists make this claim. Even guys like Robert Price or Richard Carrier, 2 of the most vocal mythicists, do not claim to be absolutely certain that Jesus did not exist. Their position is that there is not enough evidence to prove that he did exist.

But here's the thing, even if a historical Jesus did exist, that offers zero evidence that any of the miracle god claims attributed to him occured. After all, the evidence for a historical Mohamed is stronger than for a historical Jesus, but I'll bet you don't believe Mohamed flew to Heaven on a winged creature.

Quote
7) NDEs are all hallucinations and lies.

Even if they are hallucinations, that doesn't mean that they are lies. The person experiencing a NDE, may be having a completely natural (but nonstandard) brain state, that they are misinterpreting. They might completely believe their experience is real, without lying about it.

Quote
9) Physical science is the real McCoy.

Science is the single best and most reliable method ever developed by humanity to explain reality. Please name another method that is as successful and reliable.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Unbeliever on June 18, 2019, 01:35:18 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The electricity is part of the wire.  But the pattern of electricity has nothing to do with that, since if comes from a "will" not "random".  These people will invoke Pythagoras, Democritus and Plato ... then claim ... I don't do philosophy (because then it wouldn't be science) and that I am totally autonomous from history and present context ... my ideas aren't just a meme from 2500 years ago.
Pythagoras was a pretty funny guy - he invented a prank cup that, when over-filled, would drain the contents out through the base.

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


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmOvA5VlO8U


:-P

Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on June 18, 2019, 02:51:27 PM
"You are passing the burden of proof." ... that is a political act aka courtroom strategy.  In IRS, you have the burden of proof.  In regular court, the government has the burden of proof.  Rhetoric is commonly the conceptual system in which parliamentary debate occurs.

So what politics is one doing when one says "You are passing the burden of proof".  In the case of my hand, proof is irrelevant, I know my hand is on my arm.  In the case of love, proof -> demonstration.  Does she demonstrate that she loves me or not?  in the case of love, if I play the courtroom gambit of "you are passing the burden of proof" what I am saying is, she has asked me to demonstrate that I love her, rather than her responding with a demonstration that she loves me.

In the case of abstractions like free will or G-d ... other than dialectical sparring, what does "you are passing the burden of proof" get us?  Well something more than the fallacy of ad hominem "that poster is stupid".  In rationality, one has axioms that all agree on, and one follows a valid sequence of deduction (except nobody does this in practice, because either we don't agree on the axioms or nobody has the ability to do the logical deduction correctly in practice).  In empiricism, we rely on objective evidence (it is confirmed that the victims blood was on the glove of O J ... or it is confirmed by independent witnesses that OJ threatened the victim verbally).  But empirical evidence for anything, if ruled out in advance (do we accept the evidence or not), we go into a rhetorical chain of evidentiary rules (the bloody glove wasn't obtained per legal evidentiary rules, it could have been tampered with).  With people, it isn't unusual that we can't come to an agreement, it is unusual, even if we are following the same rules, that we can ... come to an agreement.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on June 19, 2019, 09:10:26 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If you then concede that a process is inseparable in actuality from its host "thing" you have then confirmed my point that a process is integral to things generally.  Which leads to consciousness being an entity, because by your admission it is in actuality part of a "thing". The conceptual distinction then being illusory and referential only.
No, again, that doesn't follow. It only follows if you consider processes themselves entities, which given your and Mr. Idle's umbrage to my characterization of conscousness as processes, you do not.

When I say that a process cannot be separated from its contigent thing, I mean that to talk about a process as if it were not happening to that thing is absurd. The running of a car in the absence of a car is absurd. The same is not generally true of entities like cars. A car can be not running.

So, there's an asymmetry between entities and processes. A given process is contingent on an entity, but an entity is not contingent on the process. It may be an entity that is not doing it's job, but it's still there. You ask what good are bodies and computers without consciousness and software execution, and to that I asnwer — irrelevant to the issue at hand. This is not an argument about utility, functionality, teleology, pragmatics or any other higher-order purpose, but just to the existence and the nature thereof of brains and consciousness. A dead, silent brain is still clearly a brain, and a broken computer is still clearly a computer. Whether or not there's a point to them is a red herring.

Even if I were to admit that consciousness is an entity, it doesn't change the fact that it's still contingent upon a brain. It's still a fact that we have never observed a consciousness outside of a brain, or other matter substrate. A consciousness without a brain to operate on is just as pointless and functionless as a brain without a consciousness, especially given how much of your mental faculties are verifiably linked to your brain.

Quote
The software continues to exist long after the thousands of computers on which it operated are scrapped. 
And given that we're talking about the execution thereof, the continued existence of the software outside the computer is not really gerund to the discussion.

Quote
You haven't really explained why software did not apply as an analogy for consciousness, except that you claim consciousness must be an observable process in physical matter.
Software can be observed to be in a state where it is not doing anything and does not affect to cause change in any object, like when it is stored on a DVD. Consciousness is defined by changes in state, particularly awareness. Awareness requires the assimilation of new information. Ergo, equating consciousness to software is a bad analogy.

Besides, reasoning by analogy is an actual fallacy. You use analogies in clarification, not in reasoning.

Quote
Consciousness is more than a material process, it has its origins in a non-material reality.  The processes you see when you think you are observing consciousness are only the effects of consciousness as it impinges on the physical brain structure.
And here's the mere assertion. The claim that consciousnes is more than a material process has to be substantiated, and you have not done so. Indeed, everything we know about the brain indicates that, if consciousness is a separate thing, it would have prescious little to do. The only thing it seems to actually do is to have a sense of being in control, and not actually be in control.

Quote
It follows logically that if you observe a material process in the brain analogous to software execution, you should expect that there is a body of instructions directing that process, analagous to the software itself--an immaterial entity. Occam's razor indeed...
The correct application of Occam's razor applies to hypotheses that explain the data equally well. The notion of consciousness as a separate entity does NOT explain what we see at all, unless you make consciousness an impotent rider in the brain with no purpose or function. Fallacious hypotheses are killed long before they get to Occam's razor.

Quote
There is plenty of scientific evidence for consciousness existing independent of a material body.  You just aren't interested in looking at it.  Schools of fish acting in perfect synchronicity is a good example, and there are many more if you wanted to find them.
And here's the accusation that I'm "not interested" in things that don't fit my worldview. No, that's the pot calling the silverware black. I'm not interested in fallacious reasoning, and yours is very fallacious. You have brought no evidence at all, only analogies, which is a fallacious form of argument. You have no way of explaining why every mental faculty has a specific brain injury that disables it, if the consciousness is the seat of any of those faculties. You have no demonstration of consciousness being observed outside of the brain, a necessary condition for it to survive death or make OOB experiences a thing, except for the hellish possibility of your consciousness being trapped in an unresponsive body in perpetuity after death. The only thing you have brought that might have been evidence was your inventions malarkey, and there you can't separate the extraordinary hypothesis of an all-consciousness communicating ideas to inventors from the complex but very ordinary interaction between the prevailing technology and human need — that things were invented because the time was ripe. It is not evidence for separate consciousness because it is not indicative of that hypothesis to the exclusion of other explanations.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on June 19, 2019, 09:45:23 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
More excuses Haku.
An observed fact is never an "excuse."

Quote
The reality is that after 3 to 10 minutes that your heart stop sending blood-oxygen to the brain you are gone so the brain can not possibly put together any experience that is clear, sharp and remembered even after many years.
Then you have no way to explain the progressive deterioration of patients after anoxia. Furthermore, you have no assurance that the memories of what these patients experience came at the time or after normal blood flow is restored. But we know false memories exist, because we have experiments that have created them. Furthermore, these completely fabricated memories are as clear and sharp as any NDE. Clarity and sharpness are not guarantees of accuracy.

Quote
Doctors declare a person dead after they do their very best to revive a person including the CPR so your argument is bankrupt.
All that means is that the person is beyond medical help. Their declaration is just not detailed enough to allow them to say that any part of the body is definitively dead. A person who is not revived... doesn't come back to relate a NDE. They're dead. There's a quite definite bias to who we hear NDE's from.

Quote
Wrong again Haku.
If you bother to read these NDEs you will find that the patient is able to describe his-her experience immediately not after convalescing.
Waking up from a coma doesn't take place immediately, you idiot. A person waking up immediately after normal sinus rhythm and blood flow is restored just doesn't happen. Those medical dramas telling you otherwise are lying to you. The brain takes a while to get itself back into order, and during that time its still receiving information. Hence, "convalescing."

Quote
Wrong again Haku.

NDEs are experienced as they happen out the body by the consciousness and remembered also after when the consciousness is back into the body-brain.
It is a dogma to believe that you can only experience an NDE when your brain is on.
You have no assurance that the memory of that experience was formed at the time that the NDE patient claims. It's all related hours after the fact, even if the patient relates the memory immediately after waking up, because the waking up doesn't take place immediately after but hours later at best. Sometimes waking up from a coma takes days. You have hours unaccounted for. And before you say otherwise, episodes severe enough to require the heroic intervention required are the kind of comas it takes hours to wake up from.

Furthermore, while a patient may relate an experience immediately after waking up, there's no guarantee that the original related experience matches that of the experience related even days later. Again, we have demonstrations and evidence that episodic memory is altered every single time it is recalled. Unless someone was sitting at the bedside recording audio at the time, it's not going to be an original account, but filtered by time and experience.

Quote
It is also in the nature of fools to think that they can score points by insulting opponents.
I insult you for my pleasure, not to score any points. Everyone else can see that you're an idiot. I'm just calling a spade a spade.

Quote
As far as knowing or not as the body works I confess that I am an expert as a doctor is but that is why I listen to what these experts say which is something that you fail to do.
I do. Except I listen directly to the doctors and try to understand what they say on their own terms. I also take specializations into account. The people most qualified to comment about NDE are psychologists and neurophysiologists. Those experts say that there are quite organic reasons to believe that NDE's are not evidence of actual OOB experiences or evidence of a separate consciousness, and they have access to the full medical histories of the patients involved (you and I don't). None of them think that any of your excuses are noteworthy, so I don't either.

Quote
Apparently the word evolution had nothing to do with Darwin and also existed before his theories.
Irrelevant as I've never made that point. The way it is used now is what matters, and while some evolution involve advancement as we would consider it, what we call regressions are also parts of the theories.

Quote
Probably come from the Latin to mean the gradual development of something advancement, growth, rise, progress, progression, expansion, extension, unfolding, transformation and so on that is why your stubbornness in believing that is only about biological changes make you a total dreamer.
There is no field of study called "mental evolution." It's just you applying the word "evolution" to the mind and making up whatever definition suits you. Sorry, I'm not playing that game.

Quote
So real people, real casualty situation, real doctors and real hospitals are not evidence?
Not evidence for OOB experiences, just like the existence of real chocolate bars are not evidence for OOBs. You have not shown anything beyond "your brain thinks up funny things after a coma."

Quote
Oh, I see.

So you are not prepared to insert hooks in your flesh Haku, are you?
No. Again, I don't see how demonstrating my lack of ability to use mental powers to nullify pain demonstrates the power of the mind to nullify pain. We've already been over the hooked gurus thing and what I would consider a proper experiment and examination, and we will not go over it again.

Quote
Those guys that insert hooks in their flesh without feeling any pain never had any physical training so how you explain that?
Don't change the subject! I was talking about your spindly gurus' ability to break blocks like the karate masters! They can feel all the pain they want doing that, they just have to break the blocks.

And we've already been over the hooked gurus.

Quote
The same thing apply when you travel in your car.
As far as the two go hand in hand together one need the other to do things.
That doesn't mean that the two are inseparable because sooner or later the driver will leave the car same same as the consciousness leave the body when physical dead occur.
Again, find a consciousness that is actually observable outside the body, when it is outside the body, and you'll be miles ahead of where you are now. Until then, your driver analogy is just that, an analogy and an inappropriate one.

Quote
You could have not chosen a more stupid example-analogy then this.

Being constrain inside a body involve that you are dependent on that body to do things.
And if that body doesn't work properly for some reasons then you are stuck unable to do anything.
There are people that refuse to live inside a body so they kill themselves.
This show how being inside a body can be so so bad for some.
Then what of your OOB's then? Aren't those "experiences" happening outside your body, and not contingent on your body? The point about your analogy to a driver in the car was that the driver was NOT dependent on the car; he could get out of the car and walk the distance himself if need be. Sorry, but at this point your claim has devolved into absurdity.

Quote
One more stupid point.

When you are stuck inside a body is like when you are stuck inside a car.
Your entire point is that you're not stuck inside the proverbial car.

Quote
When something bad happen to your body or to your vehicle you also suffer.
I doubt that I would suffer as much in a car's protective body as I would if I suffered a collision at 60 mph with a multi-ton car on my actual person. And why would an immaterial consciousness need protection from the material world anyway?

Quote
What else you suppose to do?
Get out and walk.

Quote
However the consciousness unlike a physical driver is an abstract entity and therefore it is immune to physical death.
Why would an entity not immune to physical injury then be immune to physical death? You want me to stop calling you an idiot? Stop saying stupid shit like this.

Quote
Obviously if you are stuck inside a smashed car after an incident you can not do much, do you?
That is why until physical death occur you are dependent on your body-brain to do anything.
So inside the brain, the consciousness is a completely impotent existence completely dependent on its brain to do all the thinking for it. What a useless NEET consciousness is!

Quote
That doesn't mean that when this constrain is over you are still in that situation.
Even trapped in a car, you still have the ability to call for help. You can use a cell phone, or just shout very loud. You still have the ability to kick at the windshield to try to break it so you can crawl out. Indeed, in NDEs, this seems to be exactly what happens, even though the body is still in a condition that is recoverable — because all NDEs are related by just such people.

Sorry, Mr. Idle, none of your spiel dismisses the fact that, unlike drivers of cars, consciousness is never detected outside the body and is never seen acting independently of a brain.

Quote
As I just explain above you are stuck until this constrain end with the physical death.
Your "constraint of the body" canard doesn't wash, and indeed undermines your entire point.

Quote
After that you are free.
Unless your body is revived, and it's back in the lamp with you, Jafar!

Quote
But free only if your karma let you free otherwise the music of reincarnations goes on and on especially for those so called smart people that still don't understand how the whole system works.
If you're right, then I have literally infinite time to reconsider. If you're wrong, then I will have wasted my one and only shot at life. Unless you bring me better... well, any evidence, the smart choice is to not believe you. You are definitely no bodhisattva.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 19, 2019, 12:27:33 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
No, again, that doesn't follow. It only follows if you consider processes themselves entities, which given your and Mr. Idle's umbrage to my characterization of conscousness as processes, you do not.

Correct.  I do not consider consciousness as a material process.  There is no logical reason to.  It is an unbounded immaterial complex of intelligent, likely geometric structure which generates the illusion of material reality.  In practice a materialist is necessarily capable of denying all evidence for this understanding of conscious since it by definition does not exist in a material form.  However, I adopt this model because it is the most rational, logical and useful.  The assumption that there can be no reality other than material reality is irrational, akin to the belief that the Earth was the center of the universe of old.  The material process you label consciousness is only an expression of one or more aspects of consciousness in the material realm through physical entities designed as receptors of consciousness.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on June 19, 2019, 12:59:07 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Correct.  I do not consider consciousness as a material process.  There is no logical reason to.
As I've said in the past, logic without grounding is barren. There may be no "logical reason" to consider it a material process, but there's also no logical reason to not consider it such. That's when you turn to evidence, and the evidence that the world presents us is that consciousness is a material process.

Quote
It is an unbounded immaterial complex of intelligent, likely geometric structure which generates the illusion of material reality.
See, everything above you just said? That's mere supposition. What shows ANY of this above is actually the case? That's where speculation ends and investigation begins.

Quote
In practice a materialist is necessarily capable of denying all evidence for this understanding of conscious since it by definition does not exist in a material form.
What "evidence"? The reason why I discount your drivel is because it's not evidence. It doesn't discriminate between the two cases. The only thing you've presented that even might count as evidence is easily explainable by the fact that most invention really only takes ideas that are already out there and finding a new use for the parts — the solution space is actually rather restrictive, and there are many people seeking solutions to the same problem, so of course you occasionally come up with inventions being hit upon at the same time independently. You present nothing else, so no matter how convincing your rhetoric sounds to you, to me it sounds like someone with nothing to show and less to tell.

Quote
However, I adopt this model because it is the most rational, logical and useful.
Yes, that's why people turn to you to solve their issues with brain damage. Oh wait. They go to neurologists and psychologists. Sorry, buddy, your "logic" is ungrounded and flapping in the breeze, it's not rational in the slightest to attribute effects to things you can't observe when there are plenty of things you can observe to attribute them to, and people are helped more by the hard-nosed, materialistic sciences than have ever been helped by your philosophy.

Quote
The assumption that there can be no reality other than material reality is irrational, akin to the belief that the Earth was the center of the universe of old.
We think that because the immaterial actually doesn't seem to exist. If you lot found a way to reliably demonstrate the immaterial, then you would have a case that the material is not all that exists. But you can't; whenever anyone tries to find these immaterial components of the universe you seem to think exist, it vanishes into smoke, just like every other fucking time we've looked.

In case you haven't noticed, the assumption that there is something beyond the material and that consciousness is a special thing is what the self-centered belief that was later discarded, like the belief that the Earth was the center of the universe.

You can't rely on the unreliable. Well, you can, but you'll be disappointed.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 19, 2019, 01:46:59 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
As I've said in the past, logic without grounding is barren. There may be no "logical reason" to consider it a material process, but there's also no logical reason to not consider it such. That's when you turn to evidence, and the evidence that the world presents us is that consciousness is a material process.
See, everything above you just said? That's mere supposition. What shows ANY of this above is actually the case? That's where speculation ends and investigation begins.
What "evidence"? The reason why I discount your drivel is because it's not evidence. It doesn't discriminate between the two cases. The only thing you've presented that even might count as evidence is easily explainable by the fact that most invention really only takes ideas that are already out there and finding a new use for the parts — the solution space is actually rather restrictive, and there are many people seeking solutions to the same problem, so of course you occasionally come up with inventions being hit upon at the same time independently. You present nothing else, so no matter how convincing your rhetoric sounds to you, to me it sounds like someone with nothing to show and less to tell.
Yes, that's why people turn to you to solve their issues with brain damage. Oh wait. They go to neurologists and psychologists. Sorry, buddy, your "logic" is ungrounded and flapping in the breeze, it's not rational in the slightest to attribute effects to things you can't observe when there are plenty of things you can observe to attribute them to, and people are helped more by the hard-nosed, materialistic sciences than have ever been helped by your philosophy.
We think that because the immaterial actually doesn't seem to exist. If you lot found a way to reliably demonstrate the immaterial, then you would have a case that the material is not all that exists. But you can't; whenever anyone tries to find these immaterial components of the universe you seem to think exist, it vanishes into smoke, just like every other fucking time we've looked.

In case you haven't noticed, the assumption that there is something beyond the material and that consciousness is a special thing is what the self-centered belief that was later discarded, like the belief that the Earth was the center of the universe.

You can't rely on the unreliable. Well, you can, but you'll be disappointed.

People also turn to faith healers, shamans and the like, but your selective focus only allows you to see what you want to see. And there are many things I observe that cannot be attributed to material causes; in fact I conclude that causality itself is an illusion: thus the need for an immaterial point of view.  You concede that simultaneous inventions might be evidence for an immaterial reality, yet explain it away in purely material terms.  So what use would it be for me to pile on more evidence only to be"explained away"? The nature of consciousness is the ability to shut out information we don't wish or have time to see.

So whatever the reasons, you shut out information that does not support a materialistic world view.  However, unlike many materialists and atheists, you do adhere to a self-consistent logical methodology apparently free from prejudice and discrimination.  As such, our interaction could be productive despite not coming to agreement.

I propose that we examine the case of simultaneous inventions more closely and break it down into a more finely-tuned logical discussion, then see where that leads.  What is your opinion?

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: aitm on June 19, 2019, 02:02:02 PM
Odd how Arik seems to fall out of of coverage just in time for this very similar nut job to chime in.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Unbeliever on June 19, 2019, 02:05:31 PM
I have it on good authority that there's one born every minute.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on June 19, 2019, 03:44:21 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
People also turn to faith healers, shamans and the like, but your selective focus only allows you to see what you want to see.
But the only people who actually are helped past the placebo effect are those who go to real doctors. That's because the methodology doctors employ are tested under controlled conditions. You know, to see if they actually are effective in and of themselves.

We've tested witch doctors, faith healers, shamans and the like, and they don't work. In fact, when they seem effective, they turn out to be scammers. This is not a good track record. The reason why we don't go to you for real help is because you have given us no indication that you can do what you say and every reason to doubt what you say.

Quote
And there are many things I observe that cannot be attributed to material causes;
Like Mr. Idle, I don't think you know enough about the material world to say what can and cannot be attributed to material causes. Forgive me if I'm skeptical of your claims.

Quote
in fact I conclude that causality itself is an illusion: thus the need for an immaterial point of view.  You concede that simultaneous inventions might be evidence for an immaterial reality, yet explain it away in purely material terms.
The purely material terms are the ones we know for certain are in force, and even in a world where the immaterial exists, material terms for these phenomenon still need serious consideration. You have given me no cause to think that the immaterial even behaves the way you describe. It's simply an assumption on your part. While I do acknowledge that it COULD be the case, you have given me no reason to consider it a serious possibility.

That's the difference. We know about material reality and it is something you can work with. We know how people behave and how they think, regardless of the origin of those thoughts. The material world does indeed seem to follow very rigid and universal rules. The immaterial is anybody's guess and will continue to be anybody's guess unless and until it yields to scientific investigation. An immaterial that refuses to be replicated by some means is too fickle to be usable or reliable as an explanation, and indeed in its extreme is indistinguishable from random noise.

Quote
So what use would it be for me to pile on more evidence only to be"explained away"? The nature of consciousness is the ability to shut out information we don't wish or have time to see.
In my case, its because it's automatically filtering out low-quality and inconclusive data. It's not my fault that your evidence is too weak to support your claim. You need to get better evidence. If you could reliably detect a disembodied consciousness, then you would blast open the field, because even if you could only detect their presence, then all the consciousness has to do to communicate is leave the detection area and come back in a modulated way.

Quote
So whatever the reasons, you shut out information that does not support a materialistic world view.
I refuse to accept the responsibility for your poor data. No scientist whines like you do when their data is rejected as inconclusive, and peer review is a lot rougher than than what you're currently getting. A scientist understands that the most extraordinary of claims requires serious quality evidence. The difference between your posts and a serious research paper is as plain as night and day. The only people who complain about worldviews are people whose own worldview had been smacked down by hard-nosed skeptics. You barely get two answers in before resorting to it, even though I'm bending over backwards telling you exactly what you need to prove your point.

Real research takes work, boyo. It also will result in failure. Piles and piles of failure. Most of your ideas are trash. The secret to success in research is to fail faster — learn to quickly recognize and test ideas for quality, for once you recognize a trash idea, you can discard it and move on to the next idea. Once in a while, it won't be complete trash and those result in the actual papers. And when colleagues say your idea is trash after all, accept it and move on. Fail faster.

The bottom line is that you need to be your own worst critic. Each and every one of my held principles has been through the wringer of scrutiny literally hundreds of times. They're not going to yield to just any philosophical casual.

Quote
However, unlike many materialists and atheists, you do adhere to a self-consistent logical methodology apparently free from prejudice and discrimination.  As such, our interaction could be productive despite not coming to agreement.
There will be no productive discussion unless you acknowledge that, however good you think your arguments and evidence is, that they might not actually be that good and may well be terrible. I acknowledge that I might be wrong in thinking that the immaterial doesn't exist, so the least you could do is acknowledge that you might be wrong in thinking the immaterial does. You'll also be well served by asking yourself and researching why the experts of the field don't think as you do, even though they have your evidence and more. There'll be no discussion with an unsinkable rubber duck.

Quote
I propose that we examine the case of simultaneous inventions more closely and break it down into a more finely-tuned logical discussion, then see where that leads.  What is your opinion?
The problem I see is that I don't see how simultaneous inventions are even a problem for materialism. In the end, you're trying to advance a statistical argument that there are two many simultaneous inventions for materialism to support. That raises the question of how many simultaneous inventions would you expect in a solely materialistic world? Do you have an answer for that? I don't, and I'm a statistician, and without that control rate, we're nowhere. Until you determine normal, you can't recognize the anomalous.

Instead, I think you need to find a means to detect disembodied consciousnesses. Your theory of consciousness speaks to the very core of reality, and is too much for soft sciences like history and sociology to support. Even if your purported consciousnesses turn out to be not the case, discovering a new phenomenon is always interesting.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Unbeliever on June 19, 2019, 04:00:01 PM
Out of body experiences can now be induced in a laboratory setting, but it's only an illusion:


First Out-of-body Experience Induced In Laboratory Setting (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070823141057.htm)
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Unbeliever on June 19, 2019, 04:03:24 PM
Affecting the brain with drugs can induce NDEs:


Drug-Induced Near Death Experience (https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/drug-induced-near-death-experience/)
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Unbeliever on June 19, 2019, 04:05:45 PM
Then, of course, there's the God helmet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_helmet)
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Blackleaf on June 19, 2019, 04:13:12 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Odd how Arik seems to fall out of of coverage just in time for this very similar nut job to chime in.

Agent may be a nut, but Arik is a whole fruitcake.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 19, 2019, 07:08:34 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
But the only people who actually are helped past the placebo effect are those who go to real doctors. That's because the methodology doctors employ are tested under controlled conditions. You know, to see if they actually are effective in and of themselves.

We've tested witch doctors, faith healers, shamans and the like, and they don't work. In fact, when they seem effective, they turn out to be scammers. This is not a good track record. The reason why we don't go to you for real help is because you have given us no indication that you can do what you say and every reason to doubt what you say.
Like Mr. Idle, I don't think you know enough about the material world to say what can and cannot be attributed to material causes. Forgive me if I'm skeptical of your claims.
The purely material terms are the ones we know for certain are in force, and even in a world where the immaterial exists, material terms for these phenomenon still need serious consideration. You have given me no cause to think that the immaterial even behaves the way you describe. It's simply an assumption on your part. While I do acknowledge that it COULD be the case, you have given me no reason to consider it a serious possibility.

That's the difference. We know about material reality and it is something you can work with. We know how people behave and how they think, regardless of the origin of those thoughts. The material world does indeed seem to follow very rigid and universal rules. The immaterial is anybody's guess and will continue to be anybody's guess unless and until it yields to scientific investigation. An immaterial that refuses to be replicated by some means is too fickle to be usable or reliable as an explanation, and indeed in its extreme is indistinguishable from random noise.
In my case, its because it's automatically filtering out low-quality and inconclusive data. It's not my fault that your evidence is too weak to support your claim. You need to get better evidence. If you could reliably detect a disembodied consciousness, then you would blast open the field, because even if you could only detect their presence, then all the consciousness has to do to communicate is leave the detection area and come back in a modulated way.
I refuse to accept the responsibility for your poor data. No scientist whines like you do when their data is rejected as inconclusive, and peer review is a lot rougher than than what you're currently getting. A scientist understands that the most extraordinary of claims requires serious quality evidence. The difference between your posts and a serious research paper is as plain as night and day. The only people who complain about worldviews are people whose own worldview had been smacked down by hard-nosed skeptics. You barely get two answers in before resorting to it, even though I'm bending over backwards telling you exactly what you need to prove your point.

Real research takes work, boyo. It also will result in failure. Piles and piles of failure. Most of your ideas are trash. The secret to success in research is to fail faster — learn to quickly recognize and test ideas for quality, for once you recognize a trash idea, you can discard it and move on to the next idea. Once in a while, it won't be complete trash and those result in the actual papers. And when colleagues say your idea is trash after all, accept it and move on. Fail faster.

The bottom line is that you need to be your own worst critic. Each and every one of my held principles has been through the wringer of scrutiny literally hundreds of times. They're not going to yield to just any philosophical casual.
There will be no productive discussion unless you acknowledge that, however good you think your arguments and evidence is, that they might not actually be that good and may well be terrible. I acknowledge that I might be wrong in thinking that the immaterial doesn't exist, so the least you could do is acknowledge that you might be wrong in thinking the immaterial does. You'll also be well served by asking yourself and researching why the experts of the field don't think as you do, even though they have your evidence and more. There'll be no discussion with an unsinkable rubber duck.
The problem I see is that I don't see how simultaneous inventions are even a problem for materialism. In the end, you're trying to advance a statistical argument that there are two many simultaneous inventions for materialism to support. That raises the question of how many simultaneous inventions would you expect in a solely materialistic world? Do you have an answer for that? I don't, and I'm a statistician, and without that control rate, we're nowhere. Until you determine normal, you can't recognize the anomalous.

Instead, I think you need to find a means to detect disembodied consciousnesses. Your theory of consciousness speaks to the very core of reality, and is too much for soft sciences like history and sociology to support. Even if your purported consciousnesses turn out to be not the case, discovering a new phenomenon is always interesting.

I wasn't aware we were in a research forum; I thought it was general discussion.  Nonetheless I thank you for taking the time to systematically explain your positions.

The possibility of my being wrong about everything is always a given in my thought process, but it is of little practical value to include this in one's discussions with others.  For your reassurance though: "I could be wrong, there may not in fact exist a separate immaterial reality." However this is unlikely and therefore I don't ordinarily represent what seems unlikely to me.  Note: the recognition of one's own ignorance is a fundamental prerequisite for spirituality.

"But the only people who actually are helped past the placebo effect are those who go to real doctors." = an urban legend bandied about the scientific/medical establishment for the sole purpose of reinforcing their own legitimacy and self-importance.

"An immaterial that refuses to be replicated by some means is too fickle to be usable or reliable as an explanation, and indeed in its extreme is indistinguishable from random noise."

If an immaterial reality exists (it does), then it would by definition be imperceptible in the material realm except through the most delicate of instruments--the brain being a primary example of such.  This would give the illusion of fickleness and uselessness; yet the immaterial reality could be much more solid and permanent in it's own right (it is).  It is the instruments themselves which are fickle, in terms of the material realm, not the reality they connect to.  Thus you sweepingly dismiss evidence from the internal perception of the brain (the subjective, anecdotal as you refer to it), evidence which you claim is unreliable of that very reality the brain is equipped to tap into.  Of course it would seem absurd and unreliable to a materially-focused individuation of consciousness since it functions in a completely different set of rules.  But this is only a matter of perception: that immaterial reality could be (and is by all observations) more "solid" and persistent than the material.  In fact, it generates our material reality. 

"If you could reliably detect a disembodied consciousness, then you would blast open the field"

This is already occurring on a mass scale and soon the force of its impact will rock the scientific establishment to the core. The reason you don't know about it yet is the research findings are being suppressed (including physicists being taken out).  Why?  Like all revolutionary ideas, the existing establishment correctly perceives their livelihoods threatened.  But like all revolutionary ideas, it's advent is inevitable.   Consider dark matter.  It cannot be directly perceived (hence the term "dark"), yet astrophysicists know it must exist, because of its observed effects.  Similarly, we are approaching a threshold of universal awareness in which it will become widely accepted that a unified immaterial super-conscious source field not only exists, but powers our collective material reality. This will be established through the observation of its effects in material reality.

If [material] causality were a real law, and not a figment of materially focused consciousness, the entire universe would have reached entropic equilibrium long ago--if there had been any energy to begin with.  It would be an indescript mass of static nothingness.  In a purely material world, even one invention would be an anomaly, let alone multiple simultaneous ones.  You see the problem is not getting data and evidence, my focus is on achieving a truly rational evaluation of the existing data.  If we don't understand our data we're just so many rats in a maze blindly looking for cheese.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on June 19, 2019, 08:12:27 PM
On NDE ... per conventional epistemology, it is non-scientific.  But that can never be the last word, since it is an assumption, though a good working one, that we need to pay closer attention to the scientific (objective).  The non-scientific is alway at best, subjective.  And that beggars the question regarding what to do with subjectivity.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on June 19, 2019, 09:59:08 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I wasn't aware we were in a research forum; I thought it was general discussion.  Nonetheless I thank you for taking the time to systematically explain your positions.
It's not a research forum, but when dealing with the extraordinary claims of the immaterial, unless you are adhering to the scientific consensus, or presenting evidence of quality equal to the claim, you're talking out of your ass.

Quote
The possibility of my being wrong about everything is always a given in my thought process, but it is of little practical value to include this in one's discussions with others.  For your reassurance though: "I could be wrong, there may not in fact exist a separate immaterial reality." However this is unlikely and therefore I don't ordinarily represent what seems unlikely to me.  Note: the recognition of one's own ignorance is a fundamental prerequisite for spirituality.
I note that the recognition of one's own ignorance is general good advice, spirituality or no. The problem is that ignorance is just that: ignorance. It is not a substitute for knowledge.

Quote
"But the only people who actually are helped past the placebo effect are those who go to real doctors." = an urban legend bandied about the scientific/medical establishment for the sole purpose of reinforcing their own legitimacy and self-importance.
You are talking out of your ass. When alternative medicine proves itself to actually be effective, it becomes medicine, unqualified. Techniques and medicines that prove themselves to be effective are taken in and added to the whole of medical knowledge. That's the strength of the scientific method, and science-based medicine.

This notion that mainstream medicine doesn't want to cure people is itself an urban legend bandied about by alternative woo, and they milk it so much that any ethical person ought to be ashamed of himself. I personally wouldn't care if good medicines were powered by woo, because I want to get well. But I do care about getting a real, effective treatment instead of being taken for a ride. As it turns out, the real, effective treatments do turn out to be based on materialistic principles.

And yes, the placebo effect does in fact exist. We see it all the time in placebo controlled studies, where you split up the patents into the control group (no treatment), a placebo group (a sham treatment), and a treatment group (the real deal). You very often find that the placebo group does better than the control group. If your treatment works, then the treatment group will do best of all.

Administering a placebo instead of real treatment in hopes of eliciting a placebo effect is fraud, by the way. If we could deliberately leverage the mechanisms of the placebo effect to consistent effect, then it would be very interesting and powerful, but we can't. The placebo effect is quite delicate and just suspecting that you're getting a placebo ruins the effect — hence, double blinding.

Quote
"An immaterial that refuses to be replicated by some means is too fickle to be usable or reliable as an explanation, and indeed in its extreme is indistinguishable from random noise."

If an immaterial reality exists (it does), then it would by definition be imperceptible in the material realm except through the most delicate of instruments--the brain being a primary example of such.
The brain?

The most delicate of instruments?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!

Oh, no! The brain is not a delicate instrument at all! You just have to attach EEG probes to see that the brain is a noisy place. Any given signal is actually driven by dozens if not hundreds of individual neurons firing. The propagation of an action potential is driven mostly by heat; the ion channels in the membrane of a neuron work by harnessing thermodynamic noise. A transcranial magnetic stimulation coil takes about half a joule to get a response from the cortex. That may not mean anything to you, except what I would call "a most delicate of instruments" has a sensitivity on the order of femtojoules (10^-15 J) — to such an instrument, half a joule would be a sledgehammer.

This notion that the immaterial is something that only the brain could pick up on is simply nonsensical, given that stimulating that kind of action by other means reveals quite the opposite: as a sensor, the brain is rather poor. Then again, its job isn't to sense, but to process, and as such it would need to be robust to outside interference.

So, yes, I do "sweepingly dismiss" the notion that the brain is some sort of antenna for the immaterial, given it's complete insensitivity in other respects. If you knock a neuron hard enough to fire, it's gonna fire, regardless of the source. Any immaterial that could affect the brain in such a way would easily be detectable by some means by our instruments, given what the immaterial would have to overcome. That, and the brain will cheerfully work without a hitch even in an MRI scanner, which has a magnet capable of attracting a gas cylinder to respectable speed from a few meters away (such an accident caused the death of a 6 year old boy). And all this is not even touching upon the intricacies of signal theory.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BBx8BwLhqg
YIKES!

No, ignorance will not serve you in this discussion. It is simply not credible to characterize the brain as a "most sensitive of instruments."

Quote
But this is only a matter of perception: that immaterial reality could be (and is by all observations) more "solid" and persistent than the material.  In fact, it generates our material reality. 
Supposition. You've already made an error characterizing the brain as a "sensitive instrument" (it's not), and the above contention is based upon no evidence put forward. "By all observations?" What observations? Name the observations, and what about them leads you to believe that the immaterial is more solid and persistent, and generates our reality? The reasoning is important, Absolute.

Quote
"If you could reliably detect a disembodied consciousness, then you would blast open the field"

This is already occurring on a mass scale and soon the force of its impact will rock the scientific establishment to the core.
Promises, promises. Your camp has been trying to prove the immaterial for centuries, and you're actually further from your goal now than you've ever been. Science still chips away at the hiding spots for the immaterial.

Quote
The reason you don't know about it yet is the research findings are being suppressed (including physicists being taken out).  Why?  Like all revolutionary ideas, the existing establishment correctly perceives their livelihoods threatened.  But like all revolutionary ideas, it's advent is inevitable.
No, I'm not going to buy any grand conspiracy on the part of the scientific establishment bullshit. It is anathema to the entire dicipline to suppress knowledge like this. And the notion that their "livelihoods" would be "threatened?" Total poppycock! On the contrary, it would represent a whole new superfield of science where a scientist could make a name for himself, and there would be many, many Nobel prizes waiting for significant discoveries. Grants couldn't be issued fast enough to keep up with demand of new research proposals.

Nah, I think your papers are rejected for the same reason all other scientific papers are rejected: flawed methodology, sloppy experiments, inadequate controls, studies too small, and questionable analysis, among other ills.

Quote
Consider dark matter.  It cannot be directly perceived (hence the term "dark"), yet astrophysicists know it must exist, because of its observed effects.
It's the observed and well-documented effects that separates it from woo. The evidence is plain and clear, unfiltered by human folley. Even so, it took a lot of work and much more than anecdotes to establish.

Quote
Similarly, we are approaching a threshold of universal awareness in which it will become widely accepted that a unified immaterial super-conscious source field not only exists, but powers our collective material reality. This will be established through the observation of its effects in material reality.
Or it'll be more N-rays. Confidence is fine and all, but I wouldn't be so boastful about finding something that has turned out to be smoke when men smarter than you tried to find it. Most people, even most scientists, are doomed to relative obscurity with only the most minor accomplishments to their name. Even the ones that are as starry eyed as you.

You seriously sound like every apocalyptic preacher, ever. They have a poor track record for predicting the end of the world.

Quote
If [material] causality were a real law, and not a figment of materially focused consciousness, the entire universe would have reached entropic equilibrium long ago--
Nonsense. Do you even know how to perform an entropy calculation? So long as there are stars shining, the universe will not be in thermal equilibrium, and the red dwarf stars will burn for trillions of years.

Seriously, who taught you this, because whoever it is taught you wrong.

Quote
if there had been any energy to begin with.
The total energy content of the universe is actually very close to zero. The positive forms of energy are balanced out to great precision by the negative forms.

Quote
It would be an indescript mass of static nothingness.
Supposition born of ignorance. The laws of physics are such that the universe cannot be static. Full stop. Einstein tried to enforce a global static-ness, but failed.

Quote
In a purely material world, even one invention would be an anomaly, let alone multiple simultaneous ones.
Supposition born of ignorance. Inventions are created to fulfill needs, and humans are clever little monkeys.

Quote
You see the problem is not getting data and evidence, my focus is on achieving a truly rational evaluation of the existing data.  If we don't understand our data we're just so many rats in a maze blindly looking for cheese.
Well, they do say that it takes competence to recognize competence. The problem is not not understanding data, it's thinking you understand the data when in fact you don't. Being that this is what I do, I think I have a better grasp on how to do that than you do.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 19, 2019, 11:45:48 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It's not a research forum, but when dealing with the extraordinary claims of the immaterial, unless you are adhering to the scientific consensus, or presenting evidence of quality equal to the claim, you're talking out of your ass.
I note that the recognition of one's own ignorance is general good advice, spirituality or no. The problem is that ignorance is just that: ignorance. It is not a substitute for knowledge.
You are talking out of your ass. When alternative medicine proves itself to actually be effective, it becomes medicine, unqualified. Techniques and medicines that prove themselves to be effective are taken in and added to the whole of medical knowledge. That's the strength of the scientific method, and science-based medicine.

This notion that mainstream medicine doesn't want to cure people is itself an urban legend bandied about by alternative woo, and they milk it so much that any ethical person ought to be ashamed of himself. I personally wouldn't care if good medicines were powered by woo, because I want to get well. But I do care about getting a real, effective treatment instead of being taken for a ride. As it turns out, the real, effective treatments do turn out to be based on materialistic principles.

And yes, the placebo effect does in fact exist. We see it all the time in placebo controlled studies, where you split up the patents into the control group (no treatment), a placebo group (a sham treatment), and a treatment group (the real deal). You very often find that the placebo group does better than the control group. If your treatment works, then the treatment group will do best of all.

Administering a placebo instead of real treatment in hopes of eliciting a placebo effect is fraud, by the way. If we could deliberately leverage the mechanisms of the placebo effect to consistent effect, then it would be very interesting and powerful, but we can't. The placebo effect is quite delicate and just suspecting that you're getting a placebo ruins the effect — hence, double blinding.
The brain?

The most delicate of instruments?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!

Oh, no! The brain is not a delicate instrument at all! You just have to attach EEG probes to see that the brain is a noisy place. Any given signal is actually driven by dozens if not hundreds of individual neurons firing. The propagation of an action potential is driven mostly by heat; the ion channels in the membrane of a neuron work by harnessing thermodynamic noise. A transcranial magnetic stimulation coil takes about half a joule to get a response from the cortex. That may not mean anything to you, except what I would call "a most delicate of instruments" has a sensitivity on the order of femtojoules (10^-15 J) — to such an instrument, half a joule would be a sledgehammer.

This notion that the immaterial is something that only the brain could pick up on is simply nonsensical, given that stimulating that kind of action by other means reveals quite the opposite: as a sensor, the brain is rather poor. Then again, its job isn't to sense, but to process, and as such it would need to be robust to outside interference.

So, yes, I do "sweepingly dismiss" the notion that the brain is some sort of antenna for the immaterial, given it's complete insensitivity in other respects. If you knock a neuron hard enough to fire, it's gonna fire, regardless of the source. Any immaterial that could affect the brain in such a way would easily be detectable by some means by our instruments, given what the immaterial would have to overcome. That, and the brain will cheerfully work without a hitch even in an MRI scanner, which has a magnet capable of attracting a gas cylinder to respectable speed from a few meters away (such an accident caused the death of a 6 year old boy). And all this is not even touching upon the intricacies of signal theory.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BBx8BwLhqg
YIKES!

No, ignorance will not serve you in this discussion. It is simply not credible to characterize the brain as a "most sensitive of instruments."
Supposition. You've already made an error characterizing the brain as a "sensitive instrument" (it's not), and the above contention is based upon no evidence put forward. "By all observations?" What observations? Name the observations, and what about them leads you to believe that the immaterial is more solid and persistent, and generates our reality? The reasoning is important, Absolute.
Promises, promises. Your camp has been trying to prove the immaterial for centuries, and you're actually further from your goal now than you've ever been. Science still chips away at the hiding spots for the immaterial.
No, I'm not going to buy any grand conspiracy on the part of the scientific establishment bullshit. It is anathema to the entire dicipline to suppress knowledge like this. And the notion that their "livelihoods" would be "threatened?" Total poppycock! On the contrary, it would represent a whole new superfield of science where a scientist could make a name for himself, and there would be many, many Nobel prizes waiting for significant discoveries. Grants couldn't be issued fast enough to keep up with demand of new research proposals.

Nah, I think your papers are rejected for the same reason all other scientific papers are rejected: flawed methodology, sloppy experiments, inadequate controls, studies too small, and questionable analysis, among other ills.
It's the observed and well-documented effects that separates it from woo. The evidence is plain and clear, unfiltered by human folley. Even so, it took a lot of work and much more than anecdotes to establish.
Or it'll be more N-rays. Confidence is fine and all, but I wouldn't be so boastful about finding something that has turned out to be smoke when men smarter than you tried to find it. Most people, even most scientists, are doomed to relative obscurity with only the most minor accomplishments to their name. Even the ones that are as starry eyed as you.

You seriously sound like every apocalyptic preacher, ever. They have a poor track record for predicting the end of the world.
Nonsense. Do you even know how to perform an entropy calculation? So long as there are stars shining, the universe will not be in thermal equilibrium, and the red dwarf stars will burn for trillions of years.

Seriously, who taught you this, because whoever it is taught you wrong.
The total energy content of the universe is actually very close to zero. The positive forms of energy are balanced out to great precision by the negative forms.
Supposition born of ignorance. The laws of physics are such that the universe cannot be static. Full stop. Einstein tried to enforce a global static-ness, but failed.
Supposition born of ignorance. Inventions are created to fulfill needs, and humans are clever little monkeys.
Well, they do say that it takes competence to recognize competence. The problem is not not understanding data, it's thinking you understand the data when in fact you don't. Being that this is what I do, I think I have a better grasp on how to do that than you do.
I don't doubt you are skilled at analyzing data; if that weren't the case I wouldn't have invested the time bouncing my ideas off you. My suggestion is take a step back and look at the big picture.  Just think about it: if the total energy in the universe is near zero, what exactly was it that initiated the huge differentials creating all these stars that burn for ages?  The intricate life forms? Was it just a poof random event?  Why is there so much order in the midst of chaos?  It simply can't be explained by mere material causality.  Ignorance is not a virtue but recognizing it is the foundation of true knowledge.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on June 20, 2019, 12:56:31 AM
Hakurei is a professional statistician.  But I don't trust facile manipulation of statistics either.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on June 20, 2019, 10:05:12 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Affecting the brain with drugs can induce NDEs:


Drug-Induced Near Death Experience (https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/drug-induced-near-death-experience/)


Also a masturbation induce an ejaculation so what?

Would you be so frivolous to compare a masturbation with making love?

A chemical masturbation with drugs also open to a certain degree what is inside the pineal gland which lies at the border between the finite and the infinity but there is a limit how far a chemical masturbation can go.

With drugs you force your consciousness to get closer to the infinity but the consequences are dreadful because it seem obvious to me that God doesn't like to be forced to give bliss so what you get are only sparks of bliss and the price that people pay is very very high indeed and this exercise has very little to do with a real experience with God such as a real NDE. 
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on June 20, 2019, 10:16:17 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Hakurei is a professional statistician.  But I don't trust facile manipulation of statistics either.


Unfortunately Hakurei doesn't have the big picture in his mind.

All his picture is confined to the corral of the finite dimension and he is quite happy with that little.
One day he too like everybody else will realize that the big picture involve the infinity.
All the best to him anyway.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on June 20, 2019, 10:30:51 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Unfortunately Hakurei doesn't have the big picture in his mind.

All his picture is confined to the corral of the finite dimension and he is quite happy with that little.
One day he too like everybody else will realize that the big picture involve the infinity.
All the best to him anyway.

"'Tis too narrow for your mind. That must be because you're so ambitious. It's too small for your large mind. O God, I could be bounded in a nutshell and count myself a king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad dreams." ... Hamlet Reimu.

Tell us plainly, Arik ... you are or are not the same guy as Absolute_Agent.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on June 20, 2019, 11:02:25 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You do not seem to be able to differentiate between a claim, and not being convinced of a claim.

You are passing the burden of proof. You and your ilk are making the claims for: afterlives, NDE's, gods, 'spirituality', etc. It is up to you to support your claims. The burden of proof is not up to those that do not believe your claims, it is up to those making the claims.



I beg your pardon?

These are atheists claims Simon not mine so it is up to those who make these claims to back them up with evidence.



Quote
Very few atheists make the claim, with absolute certainty, that there is no life after death. Most take the position, that theists claims that there is life after death has not met its burden of proof, therefore, there is no warrant to believe it is true.



Again Simon.
I have seen (read) many many times atheists that claim that when you are dead is all over so it is up to them to back their claim.



Quote
Please point to one verifiable, falsifiable, demonstrable example of a consciousness that exists absent a brain.

All evidence points to consciousness being a result of physical brain processes. Please provide verifiable, falsifiable, demonstrable evidence that consciousness is not a product of a physical brain.


1) NDEs are clear evidence because the people who had these NDEs described what was happening while physically dead in the casualty room and witness confirmed the events.
2) There is no evidence that the consciousness being a result of physical brain processes.
None of whatsoever. All there are are all guesses.


Quote
I do not make the claim, with absolute certainty, that I have never lived before or will not live again. My position is, that those of you that claim this is true, have not met your burden of proof. Therefore, I have no warrant to believe it is true.


Let us forget for a minute that NDEs are not prove that life exist after death and let us instead think how the human consciousness is so much evolved compare to animals or even plants.
Why is that so Simon?
Do you really think that our INDIVIDUAL consciousness come as per magic and we never build it up in previous lives?
Are you that fool to believe in magic?


Quote
There is no evidence that a god is needed to create or run the universe. Please provide verifiable, falsifiable, demonstrable evidence that a god is necessary.

Again, you are the one making the claim that a god is necessary, therefore, you have the burden of proof.

As soon as theists are able to meet their burden of proof, I will be forced to accept it is true.


This is an atheist claim Simon so atheists should really provide evidence.
As far as it concern me the universe is like a body and as all the bodies need to be fed by the one who created in the first place.
Energy in different forms is needed all the time or the universe would cease to exist.


Quote
It is interesting, however, that the majority of physicists and cosmologists, are non-believers. Doesn't mean they are correct, only that the people that understand the evidence well beyond you are I do, do not see evidence of gods.



I do not have the statistics of how many are believer or non believer but this has very little importance.
Also long time ago most people thought that the earth was flat but later on they were proven wrong.



Quote
There is at least one obvious difference, religion is pretty easy to define, spirituality is not. For every single person I've ever heard use the term 'spirituality', I get just as many different definitions.


So let answer this question to all atheists that say that they are the same thing.



Quote
Very few atheists make this claim. Even guys like Robert Price or Richard Carrier, 2 of the most vocal mythicists, do not claim to be absolutely certain that Jesus did not exist. Their position is that there is not enough evidence to prove that he did exist.


History is written by the winners and Jesus was not a winner.



Quote
But here's the thing, even if a historical Jesus did exist, that offers zero evidence that any of the miracle god claims attributed to him occured. After all, the evidence for a historical Mohamed is stronger than for a historical Jesus, but I'll bet you don't believe Mohamed flew to Heaven on a winged creature.



I don't believe in miracles.
To me to walk on the water is not a miracle but something natural for anyone who understand that this dimension is an illusion.
Same thing for those who insert hooks in their flesh without experience any pain and having the hole close as soon as the hook is removed.


Quote
Even if they are hallucinations, that doesn't mean that they are lies. The person experiencing a NDE, may be having a completely natural (but nonstandard) brain state, that they are misinterpreting. They might completely believe their experience is real, without lying about it.

Science is the single best and most reliable method ever developed by humanity to explain reality. Please name another method that is as successful and reliable.



Intuitional science.



Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on June 20, 2019, 11:05:09 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
"'Tis too narrow for your mind. That must be because you're so ambitious. It's too small for your large mind. O God, I could be bounded in a nutshell and count myself a king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad dreams." ... Hamlet Reimu.

Tell us plainly, Arik ... you are or are not the same guy as Absolute_Agent.


I know an absolute cosmic consciousness but I don't really know an Absolute Agent.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on June 20, 2019, 11:06:43 AM
Sleep time mate.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: josephpalazzo on June 20, 2019, 11:19:25 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Sleep time mate.

Ok since you refuse to answer my post, here's a question for you: do you believe in the after life?
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Unbeliever on June 20, 2019, 01:27:23 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Energy in different forms is needed all the time or the universe would cease to exist.

The universe (probably) doesn't use any energy at all: it contains zero net energy, because the positive energy of the matter/radiation is balanced by the negative energy of gravity.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe

Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Hydra009 on June 20, 2019, 01:38:25 PM
Quote from: Arik
Intuitional science.
intuitional "science" photo side by side with a photo of guesswork and unjustified opinions.

(https://i.imgur.com/XFqHtXE_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium)
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on June 20, 2019, 05:11:09 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The universe (probably) doesn't use any energy at all: it contains zero net energy, because the positive energy of the matter/radiation is balanced by the negative energy of gravity.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe

Slacker universe ;-)  Principle of least action, regardless of the net-net value of the whole universe ... has been a valid principle for over 300 years now.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on June 20, 2019, 05:13:19 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I know an absolute cosmic consciousness but I don't really know an Absolute Agent.

Not the first time this community demonstrates xenophobia and paranoia ;-)  What can one do?

Continue to talk as long as you can, unless something else becomes more immediate.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on June 20, 2019, 10:05:23 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't doubt you are skilled at analyzing data; if that weren't the case I wouldn't have invested the time bouncing my ideas off you. My suggestion is take a step back and look at the big picture.  Just think about it: if the total energy in the universe is near zero, what exactly was it that initiated the huge differentials creating all these stars that burn for ages?
Well, that is a difficult question, but we actually have an embarassment of hypotheses awaiting evidence to discriminate between them. The first thing to realize is that the time that you're familiar with and the time against which you formed your conception of causality doesn't exist apart from the universe. The universe is not an object that exists in time, but rather it is time that exists within the universe.

It's also not a differential. The mass energy of the universe and gravitational potential are two different types of energy. Furthermore, most people have this conception that energy is a substance that is exchanged between parts of a system like a fluid. This is not so. Energy is a number, a so-called state variable, associated with the state of a system. If a system is in a particular state, there is exactly one energy associated with that state.

Now that's out of the way, let's take a closer look at that event typically referred to as the beginning of the universe. This is, according to our best theories, simply the event at which there is no event prior in time — to whit, the first instant. We do know that all the matter in the universe was crammed into an itty-bitty volume smaller than a proton. Now, you can't put that many particles (particularly fermions) into that small a space and not have your average fermion have a tremendous amount of energy. Furthermore, that matter being in one place with that energy demands a particular curvature from spacetime, one that is either expanding or contracting, and we know that the universe wasn't contracting at that point. Ergo, it expands, and you have the Big Bang.

After that, the expanding universe cools (to around 2 K) to the point where gas can coalesce into stars. These stars are heated by the gravitational contraction about them (remember gravitational potential?), and ignite in nuclear fusion. Now there are hot spots in the universe and temperature differentials where interesting things can happen.

Why there was a bunch of particles crammed together in a small volume is not something that is known at this point. It may be a quantum fluctuation (likely, given that the energy content of the early universe was not different from zero), but at this point, "Nobody rightly knows," is the only honest answer that anyone can give. Yes, that includes you, because at this point you're just speculating using intuition in a regime we know intuition breaks down.

So, yeah.

Quote
The intricate life forms? Was it just a poof random event?
There are intriguing calculations that show that the fastest way for a system to increase entropy is for a replicator to do its business within it. Whatever else life is, it is a replicator. As such, systems that create replicators tend to increase energy the fastest. As such, primitive replication would tend to be entropically favored. In short, creationists may have it completely backwards: that life generates far more entropy than their creation reduces.

Quote
Why is there so much order in the midst of chaos?
Because you can only get chaos in complex systems. Also, chaos also organizes itself into an order. You look at any real complex system and there is a hidden order somewhere in it. In short, creations may have it exactly backwards: that the natural tendency of the universe is to fall into order, not chaos.

Quote
It simply can't be explained by mere material causality.
Knowledge of "mere material causality" reveals this to be mere ignorance. Again, you do not know enough about the mere material causality you live in to make this kind of statement.

Quote
Ignorance is not a virtue but recognizing it is the foundation of true knowledge.
And scientists recognize the limits of their knowledge. That's why they investigate.

But proclaiming you know that the material is not all there is without evidentiary support is, in fact, ignorance. It's ignorance merely disguised as knowledge. Ignorance disguised as knowledge is the most dangerous kind of ignorance of all.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 21, 2019, 12:16:11 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Well, that is a difficult question, but we actually have an embarassment of hypotheses awaiting evidence to discriminate between them. The first thing to realize is that the time that you're familiar with and the time against which you formed your conception of causality doesn't exist apart from the universe. The universe is not an object that exists in time, but rather it is time that exists within the universe.

It's also not a differential. The mass energy of the universe and gravitational potential are two different types of energy. Furthermore, most people have this conception that energy is a substance that is exchanged between parts of a system like a fluid. This is not so. Energy is a number, a so-called state variable, associated with the state of a system. If a system is in a particular state, there is exactly one energy associated with that state.

Now that's out of the way, let's take a closer look at that event typically referred to as the beginning of the universe. This is, according to our best theories, simply the event at which there is no event prior in time — to whit, the first instant. We do know that all the matter in the universe was crammed into an itty-bitty volume smaller than a proton. Now, you can't put that many particles (particularly fermions) into that small a space and not have your average fermion have a tremendous amount of energy. Furthermore, that matter being in one place with that energy demands a particular curvature from spacetime, one that is either expanding or contracting, and we know that the universe wasn't contracting at that point. Ergo, it expands, and you have the Big Bang.

After that, the expanding universe cools (to around 2 K) to the point where gas can coalesce into stars. These stars are heated by the gravitational contraction about them (remember gravitational potential?), and ignite in nuclear fusion. Now there are hot spots in the universe and temperature differentials where interesting things can happen.

Why there was a bunch of particles crammed together in a small volume is not something that is known at this point. It may be a quantum fluctuation (likely, given that the energy content of the early universe was not different from zero), but at this point, "Nobody rightly knows," is the only honest answer that anyone can give. Yes, that includes you, because at this point you're just speculating using intuition in a regime we know intuition breaks down.

So, yeah.
There are intriguing calculations that show that the fastest way for a system to increase entropy is for a replicator to do its business within it. Whatever else life is, it is a replicator. As such, systems that create replicators tend to increase energy the fastest. As such, primitive replication would tend to be entropically favored. In short, creationists may have it completely backwards: that life generates far more entropy than their creation reduces.
Because you can only get chaos in complex systems. Also, chaos also organizes itself into an order. You look at any real complex system and there is a hidden order somewhere in it. In short, creations may have it exactly backwards: that the natural tendency of the universe is to fall into order, not chaos.
Knowledge of "mere material causality" reveals this to be mere ignorance. Again, you do not know enough about the mere material causality you live in to make this kind of statement.
And scientists recognize the limits of their knowledge. That's why they investigate.

But proclaiming you know that the material is not all there is without evidentiary support is, in fact, ignorance. It's ignorance merely disguised as knowledge. Ignorance disguised as knowledge is the most dangerous kind of ignorance of all.

Impressive.  Much of that was over my head.  Do you run across this material in your job or is it a hobby?  I like your approach.

Now, what I gather is:

1) You don't have the answer to what got everything started.

2) You don't think I know the answer.

3) You think I am making a claim of knowledge without evidence.

4) You think what is known, subverts the concept of creationism.

My response:

1) I don't know the answer.

2) I have a theory based on personal experiential evidence that cannot meet a scientific standard, in conjunction with additional scientific evidence which is not widely published, that I am unable to disclose.

3) I have beliefs that logically explain all the ultimate answers, although they cannot be proven, yet which have been consistently and abundantly confirmed in personal subjective experience.

4) I do not see the information you shared invalidating my theory that immaterial consciousness generates reality, or my belief that Allah created everything.  This does not mean I believe that Allah is consciousness itself, since Allah cannot be conceived.

5) It is possible that the manner in which Allah created, and Allah Himself, are completely different from what humans including myself have thus far conceived.

6) My beliefs are not just made up.  They are based on evidence, the scriptures.  I consider them convincing evidence, even though you do not.

7) I find your statement that time exists in matter and not matter in time, intriguing and plausible.  I hypothesize that time itself is an illusion.  All moments past, present and future, exist simultaneously, in reality.


Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 21, 2019, 10:25:55 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Also, chaos also organizes itself into an order. You look at any real complex system and there is a hidden order somewhere in it. In short, creations may have it exactly backwards: that the natural tendency of the universe is to fall into order, not chaos.
Knowledge of "mere material causality" reveals this to be mere ignorance. Again, you do not know enough about the mere material causality you live in to make this kind of statement.

What I understand is that material causality is the assumption that all phenomena in the material world are caused by other material things, as opposed to divine intervention.  This is what you refer to as the discarding of spiritual briefs in science.  Prima facie, this is an illogical belief similar to if I were to believe that steel molds itself into cars and bicycles.  No, I would logically assume that a conscious intelligent agent is acting upon the materials to bring about a design.  Likewise it is more logical to assume that all material forms are a product of consciousness, than that all consciousness is a product of those material forms.

Chaos "organizes itself into order?" This is ultimate the logical conclusion of the belief in material causality, a pinnacle of absurdity.  Its just you all are so engrossed in the multitudinous details of your trip down the rabbit hole you don't realize how deep into confusion you have fallen. 

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Sal1981 on June 21, 2019, 10:43:40 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
What I understand is that material causality is the assumption that all phenomena in the material world are caused by other material things, as opposed to divine intervention.  This is what you refer to as the discarding of spiritual briefs in science.  Prima facie, this is an illogical belief similar to if I were to believe that steel molds itself into cars and bicycles.  No, I must logically believe that an agent is acting upon the materials to bring about a design.  Am I missing something?

Chaos "organizes itself into order?" This is ultimate the logical conclusion of the belief in material causality, a pinnacle of absurdity.  Its just you all are so engrossed in the multitudinous details of your trip down the rabbit hole you don't realize how deep into confusion you have fallen. 

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

There is local order arising in chaos, happens all the time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on June 21, 2019, 10:52:48 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Ok since you refuse to answer my post, here's a question for you: do you believe in the after life?



What sort of deranged psycho are you?

First you accuse me to be a troll and that you have a policy not to waste time with gullible, naive and ignorant assholes like me.
Now you ask me why I didn't answer your post.

Are you under the influence of something?

Never mind Joe, I am getting used to get insulted so I pretend that nothing happen and answer your questions.


1) You probably mean after this physical life.
Yes of course.
In reality we never died and we will never die.
Energy and consciousness that are the two sides of the same sheet are immortal.
Even science say that energy can not be destroyed.

Now let me answer your question from the previous post.


Quote
1. Humans have been around for 200,000 years. Billions have died in those years. None have ever come back after death. Those are facts. Sorry for you to hear this, but it is over once you're death.


Sorry for you to hear this but your facts are load of garbage.
In fact there is no evidence that anybody ever did died but there is plenty of evidence that life goes on and on after the physical death.

https://www.nderf.org/Archives/exceptional.html



Quote
2. If some one cracks your brain with an ax there won't be an Arik spewing nonesense on the internet. If you believe otherwise you are naive and gullible. i dare you to try it. Plunge an ax through your brain, and if you come back, I'll apologize. Deal?



Have you ever seen a dead consciousness next to a dead body?
Body dead does not means dead consciousness and because you are the consciousness that is clear that you can not die.
A physical-material blow is unable to penetrate and kill something abstract like the consciousness.
Materialists are stuck with the notion that you are the body-brain when in fact body-brain are the vehicles that you use to live this physical life.
Get real Joe. (svegliati Giuseppe)



Quote
3. Cannot proved or disproved. What's your point?


Since most atheists say that we only live once they should really provide evidence that this is the case.
As far as it concern me I already provided evidence that this is not the case with the NDEs.


Quote
4. I don't believe in God, and I see no need to believe in one. If you want to believe in God, it's your choice, and I don't give a fuck.



I never asked you whether you believe or not in God.
That is your choice which has nothing to do with the point that I made.
The point was that most atheists say that there is no need for a God to create and run this universe so the thing was for atheists to provide evidence that nobody ever created and nobody run this universe.



Quote
5. Yes, there are both figment of the imagination.


Obviously you haven't got the slightest clue.



Quote
6. Don't know, don't care.



Your answer is much better than the answer that many atheists give which is that Jesus never existed despite there is so much history behind it.


Quote
7. NDE's are like dreams - a product of the brains. In the USA, patients have visions of their beliefs in Christianity. In India, those patients ave visions of idols in their own culture. Ditto in othe countries. Those are facts. deal with it.



1) How can a dead brain be able to dream?
You too haven't got the slightest clue of what you are talking about.
2) It is natural that different culture-upbringing have different visions after all God is not a physical entity and will show to the person as it is most natural to him-her according to his-her culture.



Quote
8. Unless you have a PhD in biology, I strongly suggest you stay off the topic of evolution. My expertise is in physics, and most likely i know ten times more than you do in evolution, but you will find a rare occasion that I have come on this forum to talk about evolution because I know I'm not an expert in that field. That's a major difference between a troll like you and I. I know where my expertise lies, and where it doesn't. You don't even know that much.


For God'sake Giuseppe stop talking garbage.

Darwin never talk about evolution.
He was only interested in biological changes which have little to do with evolution.
The word evolution existed well before him and it stand for PROGRESS.
It Latin UNFOLD means explain, unravel, expound, disentangle, unroll so by this we come to a progress and a progress in consciousness equal to evolution.
Obviously there is evolution also in many fields such as medical science in rocket science and in all other field of science.
In unravel more consciousness a science is also needed so even in this field we can have a progress that cause a change for the better that is why we say that progress stand for evolution and evolution is progress.



Quote
9. Yes, and I would include philosophy, math, art, literature, economics, history, just to name a few areas of learning that can enlarge your understanding.


All these factors are quite important to stay afloat in this material-physical dimension but all this does not equal to progress.
Progress is a total different thing.
Progress is when you add one positive to zero so 0 + 1 give you 1.
When instead you add 1 to -1 you get 0 and that is what happen when you struggle to stay afloat.
Life is a continuous struggle to stay afloat so real progress is just a dream because the positive and the negative ALWAYS balance each other.
The only progress exist in the spiritual arena where the negative does not exist.


Quote
10. ...or become the president of the USA - ever heard of Donald Trump?!?


If that guy would have to wear a military uniform and face the enemy he probably would poo in his pants but as all politician he let other people to fight his wars for him and die for him.




Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 21, 2019, 11:50:54 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
There is local order arising in chaos, happens all the time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
This is what order arising out of chaos would look like:

1) Put a thousand monkeys in a room with an infinite supply of paint buckets.  Have them throw the buckets of paint at the walls, making sure to feed them and replace them with fresh monkeys when dead or exhausted.

Materialist argument: Eventually after some time, a painting of the Mona Lisa will definitely emerge, complete with enigmatic smile.  It could be thousands or millions of years, or trillions... But eventually it will happen.

2) Drop atomic bombs on an unlimited number of junk yards across the known universe.

Materialist argument: Eventually, a Rolls Royce will emerge, complete with keys and power seating.  It may be billions or even quadrillions of light years--but eventually, it will happen; guaranteed.

Who wants to try these experiments?  Any volunteers?

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Sal1981 on June 21, 2019, 12:33:13 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
This is what order arising out of chaos would look like:

1) Put a thousand monkeys in a room with an infinite supply of paint buckets.  Have them throw the buckets of paint at the walls, making sure to feed them and replace them with fresh monkeys when dead or exhausted.

Materialist argument: Eventually after some time, a painting of the Mona Lisa will definitely emerge, complete with enigmatic smile.  It could be thousands or millions of years, or trillions... But eventually it will happen.

2) Drop atomic bombs on an unlimited number of junk yards across the known universe.

Materialist argument: Eventually, a Rolls Royce will emerge, complete with keys and power seating.  It may be billions or even quadrillions of light years--but eventually, it will happen; guaranteed.

Who wants to try these experiments?  Any volunteers?

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk


What a hopelessly broken analogy.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on June 21, 2019, 01:38:58 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
There is local order arising in chaos, happens all the time.

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

An example of ice making.  To achieve ice, you have to lower the temperature of the liquid water.  This can happen with net energy transfer in the overall system (electricity to cooler).  When insulated, no external power transfers, the temperature rises/lowers to average.  If the average was lower (ice already in drink), it is possible for more drink to freeze, if the overall average is less than the freezing point.

But the appearance of local order arising, only happens with sloppy accounting.  Only by borrowing entropy.  Either you get entropy from the larger environment, or you simply ignored the irregular distribution of entropy in your insulted thermos.  There is no free lunch, or free order.

Suppose you had a sealed container of water on the dark side of the Moon.  Won't it freeze?  Yes it will.  But that is because of radiative energy transfer from the water to outer space.  There isn't anyway to prevent the average temperature in the water container going to 3.5K aka very cold.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: josephpalazzo on June 21, 2019, 02:10:05 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

In reality we never died and we will never die.
Energy and consciousness that are the two sides of the same sheet are immortal.



As I wrote before: What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on June 21, 2019, 02:15:16 PM
Absolute_Agent ... as a demi-god I can compose or modify sacred scripture; per Jesus, man wasn't made for scripture, scripture was made for man ...

Quote
ܦܪܐܙܼܐܦܐܐܡܝܬܐ
ܗܪܝܕܐܝܼܐ
ܣܘܼܬܪܐܢ
ܐܪܝܼܐ
ܐܘܐܠܘܿܟܝܬܥܫܘܐܪܘܿ
ܒܘܿܕܿܝܣܐܬܘܘܿ
ܓܐܡܒܿܝܪܐܢ
ܦܪܐܙܼܐܦܐܪܐܡܝܬܐ
ܚܐܪܝܼܐܢ
ܚܐܪܐܡܐܢܘܿ܀

Of course it helps to put it into a strange language and a strange writing system ... more mysterious that way.  And yes, the Devil made me do it.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Mike Cl on June 21, 2019, 03:06:20 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Absolute_Agent ... as a demi-god I can compose or modify sacred scripture; per Jesus, man wasn't made for scripture, scripture was made for man ...

You almost got that right.  '.....scripture was made "by" man........'
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on June 21, 2019, 09:19:09 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You almost got that right.  '.....scripture was made "by" man........'

Some people's scribbles are more equal than others.  I don't think Absolute_Agent will reply, if I admit Iblis is my wingman.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on June 21, 2019, 10:39:01 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Impressive.  Much of that was over my head.  Do you run across this material in your job or is it a hobby?  I like your approach.
A little of both.

Quote
1) I don't know the answer.
Good.

Quote
2) I have a theory based on personal experiential evidence that cannot meet a scientific standard, in conjunction with additional scientific evidence which is not widely published, that I am unable to disclose.
The only reason why you would not be able to disclose "scientific evidence" is precisely because it isn't published anywhere. While technically that counts as "not widely published," your wording is deceptive. Furthermore, there may be a reason for that. Anyway, once published in a journal, there is literally no advantage to keeping such evidence under wraps.

As to your personal experimental evidence, I very much doubt that you have done experiments that have any significant power. If the effects of the immaterial are as subtle as you claim, the equipment costs alone would bankrupt your typical Joe Everybody.

Quote
3) I have beliefs that logically explain all the ultimate answers, although they cannot be proven, yet which have been consistently and abundantly confirmed in personal subjective experience.
Correction: You think that your beliefs logically explain all the ultimate answers. However, from what I have seen of your logical ability, with repeated appeals to known fallacies, I don't think that your logic would hold up under scrutiny. For instance, there is a very real possibility that what you are seeing your personal subjective experience is the result of cherry picking and confirmation bias.

Quote
4) I do not see the information you shared invalidating my theory that immaterial consciousness generates reality, or my belief that Allah created everything.  This does not mean I believe that Allah is consciousness itself, since Allah cannot be conceived.
Since you have been very cagey about how the immaterial supposedly generates reality, I'm not surprised. Fighting vapors is always difficult. You don't have anything specific enough to attack. If you're content to let your contention remain forever vague, then good for you. However, nobody will take your word for it or even credit you with the idea should they actually find the immaterial. The "theory" you have presented thus far doesn't really take any actual work. If I decided I believe you, develop and test a hypothesis of the immaterial, and publish my findings, and eventually it takes its place among the great ideas of science, I'm going to be the one having the Nobel prize coming to me. There'll be nothing for you.

Quote
5) It is possible that the manner in which Allah created, and Allah Himself, are completely different from what humans including myself have thus far conceived.
So? Humans are quite clever little monkeys. Cheeky, too.

Quote
6) My beliefs are not just made up.  They are based on evidence, the scriptures.  I consider them convincing evidence, even though you do not.
The scriptures are not evidence. The scriptures are the claims. There is nothing in them that could not have been written by the humans who wrote them. They also don't really distinguish themselves as different from every other mythology out there.

Quote
7) I find your statement that time exists in matter and not matter in time, intriguing and plausible.  I hypothesize that time itself is an illusion.  All moments past, present and future, exist simultaneously, in reality.
I said that time is part of the universe, not part of matter per se. That's a different statement. As to time being an illusion, it's complicated. Time itself is definitely real in that not everything happens all at once. It's a very real dimension on par with the other dimensions of space, and freely mixes with them. Time passing is in part an illusion, because eternalism (past, present, and future exist all at once) is the only way relativity makes sense. However, in most situations it can be treated exactly as it appears to us, where it passes inevitably into the past. We need to be cautious as we deal with the edges of that domain, like at the beginning of the universe.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: josephpalazzo on June 22, 2019, 07:10:21 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You almost got that right.  '.....scripture was made "by" man........'

Blasphemy!
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on June 22, 2019, 10:34:17 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
As I wrote before: What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.


Ok. then.

That means that the 10 points related to atheists claims must be dismissed because they are void of any evidence.

Thank Joe, that was what I was waiting for.

(https://listimg.pinclipart.com/picdir/s/53-533218_3-arden-tundra-tues-copy-clapping-hands-animation.png)
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: josephpalazzo on June 22, 2019, 11:23:16 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Ok. then.

That means that the 10 points related to atheists claims must be dismissed because they are void of any evidence.

Thank Joe, that was what I was waiting for.



You've got it wrong. If you claim something exists, the burden is on you to prove that existence. Example: there is a ghost in the basement of my house. Making that claim would require that I provide proof. But stating that there is no ghost does NOT require a proof. Example: my neighbor killed someone - proof is required; my neighbor didn't kill anyone - no proof required. There is no afterlife - no proof required; there is an afterlife - proof required. There is a God - proof required; there is no god - no proof required. There are fire-breathing dragons - proof required; there are no fire-breathing dragons - no proof required.

IF YOU CLAIM THAT "ANY THING EXISTS" THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU TO PROVE THAT THIS THING DOES EXIST.

GET IT.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Unbeliever on June 22, 2019, 01:19:44 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJRy3Kl_z5E
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on June 22, 2019, 09:20:23 PM
What is actual science history, not Sagan sound bite?  "Billions and billions" is what humanity has spent of time,
effort and treasure, to get a better model (which has indirect economic consequences).  Next entry shows that.

Sagan is philosopher and poet, not as scientist ... as proponent of "scientism" not science.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECuarAmpK00

I make no hypotheses - Newton, regarding what gravity is.  Galileo, earlier dismissed "force at a distance"
regarding tides, as being occult nonsense.  Force can only happen on contact.  Descartes agrees with him.

1. Things fall down - common observation, clarified by Galileo (disproving Aristotle)
2. i can model that with an equation - provided by Galileo (first quantitative mechanics)
3. Surprisingly, I can use that same equation to describe the motion of the Moon
4. Therefore, the Moon is falling down to Earth, same as an apple off a tree
5. Generalize to "universal gravitation" ... everything attracts everything else, gravitationally
6. "fundamental mechanical laws" of motion, derived by generalizing Galileo (see #2)
7. Further analysis (calculus which Newton co-invented) shows that the overall pattern of planetary motion
that was hypothesized by Kepler, based on the careful measurements of Tycho ... can be derived  from
"universal gravitation" plus "fundamental mechanical laws".
8. Therefore law of falling of apple, of Moon ... is model for whole Solar system.

Everything since, regarding gravitation, makes no hypothesis as to what gravity is, just how to model it.
Einstein's first improvement on Newton, came about because Newtonian mechanics is not correct at
high speed (special theory of relativity).  Einstein's second improvement on Newton, came about
because Newtonian gravity is inconsistent special theory of relativity.  It can be restored to consistency
thru a new model (general theory of relativity).

9. Turns out that small deviations from Newtonian gravity can be modeled with general theory of relativity
10. Bonus ... new equation also models whole universe, not just Solar system

General Relativity ... has its own problems.  Dark Matter and Dark Energy hypotheses brought in in attempt
to correct.  Results inconclusive.

Meanwhile, microscopic matter is assumed to gravitate.  Too small to measure.  Higgs boson hypothesis
created in QFT, to attempt to model masses microscopic matter.  Results inconclusive.

So we will don't know what gravity or mass is.  But we can more or less model it mathematically at all scales.
Only took 400 years ;-)  It took over 13 billion (LHC) to find that Higgs boson.

I match your Sagan and raise you an Al-Khalili.  Sagan is good, if a bit bombastic and Al-Khalili is more recent.
The story is incomplete, and always will be.  And in call cases, science doesn't tell us what gravity or mass is
just provides us with a mostly useful mathematical model of it (as per Pythagoras).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_p2ELD7npw

Including up to date on gravity waves ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qGucb958rI

We can measure space and time very accurately.  But I make no hypothesis as to what space or time is.

Black holes aren't new, dark stars were predicted by Laplace based on Newton in 1799 ...

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2009JAHH...12...90M

Of course Einstein's version is more accurate, because it takes account of general relativity.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on June 22, 2019, 09:45:34 PM
I worked with a geophysics exploration company, for a year.  Our clients were concerned with geology in Mongolia and off shore New Guinea.  They would develop detailed gravitational and magnetic maps at the Earth's surface.  Which tells us indirectly, what kind of rocks exist underground.  A useful petroleum exploration tool for general surveys.  Detailed surveys are done by seismic survey.  The classic example are salt domes on the Texas Gulf coast.  Salt domes are less dense than regular rocks.  So a salt dome underground makes a local low gravity feature.  Oil and gas are found at the margins of the salt dome (the dome is shaped like a mushroom, the cap of the mushroom captures oil and gas, that would otherwise leak out over time).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbSg9dhb3fM

I also worked briefly in oil exploration ... downhole geophysics.  You have a deep hole in the ground, and you drop a set of instruments down the hole to analyze the rock layers.  That is a direct observation (someone had to speculate a lot of money to drill that hole) compared to indirect geophysics.  Of course this just demonstrates Pythagoras, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Einstein had ever more empirical methods.  All of them assumed rationality (things have to be mathematically consistent).  It doesn't answer "what things are" or "why things are".  Only philosophy and theology do that.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on June 22, 2019, 10:02:45 PM
Scientism as human arrogance ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltjI3BXKBgY

The Nazis were rational and scientific (Zyklon B came from chemistry).

Math and science cannot save mankind from itself.  Voltaire and Rousseau are optimists.

We are today being turned into numbers ... not by tattoos as prisoners ...
but on the comprehensive electronic tracking and evaluation of human beings.
As micromanaged prisoners without walls.  Shenzhen China.

Science doesn't prove or disprove theism.  The assumption that it does, is scientism, a form of secularism, which is a philosophy.  Of course neither secularism nor religion will prevent humans from murdering each other.  That is modeled by psychology and sociology.  But I make no hypothesis as to why people are the way they are.  "Why" is a subjective question, not an objective one.  Science can only handle the objective (and quantitative).
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: josephpalazzo on June 23, 2019, 07:15:54 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJRy3Kl_z5E (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJRy3Kl_z5E)

Nice video.

There is also another dimension not mentioned in that video. That is, we make an hypothesis - there is a dragon in my garage- but then we must make a prediction based on that hypothesis. Example: the dragon occupies a certain volume of space, or makes wind when it moves around, etc. If the prediction is observed then the hypothesis acquires a certain credibility. But if the same predicted observation can be explained by a better hypothesis, then "there is a dragon in my garage" might not reach a consensus. OTOH, if prediction fails, or the hypothesis cannot generate a testable prediction, then the hypothesis is useless. This is the problem with String Theory -  nice hypothesis, but it cannot make any testable prediction. Until then, it shouldn't even qualify as a "theory."
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on June 23, 2019, 07:33:22 AM
But, but ... scifi is real, because Jules Verne was always right.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on June 23, 2019, 09:05:36 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I worked with a geophysics exploration company, for a year.  Our clients were concerned with geology in Mongolia and off shore New Guinea.  They would develop detailed gravitational and magnetic maps at the Earth's surface.  Which tells us indirectly, what kind of rocks exist underground.  A useful petroleum exploration tool for general surveys.  Detailed surveys are done by seismic survey.  The classic example are salt domes on the Texas Gulf coast.  Salt domes are less dense than regular rocks.  So a salt dome underground makes a local low gravity feature.  Oil and gas are found at the margins of the salt dome (the dome is shaped like a mushroom, the cap of the mushroom captures oil and gas, that would otherwise leak out over time).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbSg9dhb3fM

I also worked briefly in oil exploration ... downhole geophysics.  You have a deep hole in the ground, and you drop a set of instruments down the hole to analyze the rock layers.  That is a direct observation (someone had to speculate a lot of money to drill that hole) compared to indirect geophysics.  Of course this just demonstrates Pythagoras, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Einstein had ever more empirical methods.  All of them assumed rationality (things have to be mathematically consistent).  It doesn't answer "what things are" or "why things are".  Only philosophy and theology do that.


To me philosophy and theology are external approaches.

I don't really see how something that lie within should be searched outside.  :shocked:
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Mike Cl on June 23, 2019, 09:31:18 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

To me philosophy and theology are external approaches.

I don't really see how something that lie within should be searched outside.  :shocked:
And therein lies the problem.  For me, all of the 'inside' is a product of the 'outside'.  I don't really see a real difference.  The universe is not a being or a consciousness or alive in any way.  The universe consists of all of the elements it contains, but has no awareness.  I do have awareness but of and related to myself.  I see and feel the universe as my species has evolved and since we are still here is a species, it has succeeded so far.  Other species see and feel the universe differently.  In any case, the universe does not care, for it cannot care.  It is and always has been and always will be neutral.  As a species we will thrive--or not.  The universe does not care.  I am what I am (Kudos to Popeye) because of the the evolution of my species from all the materials generated by this universe.  I, and I alone, can care; I determine how I feel (to some extent, at least) ; I chose (to some extent) how I act.  And the universe does not care and is not aware. 

That is how I understand it--and you see it another way.  That's not good---that's not bad; it just is.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on June 23, 2019, 09:53:30 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You've got it wrong. If you claim something exists, the burden is on you to prove that existence. Example: there is a ghost in the basement of my house. Making that claim would require that I provide proof. But stating that there is no ghost does NOT require a proof. Example: my neighbor killed someone - proof is required; my neighbor didn't kill anyone - no proof required. There is no afterlife - no proof required; there is an afterlife - proof required. There is a God - proof required; there is no god - no proof required. There are fire-breathing dragons - proof required; there are no fire-breathing dragons - no proof required.

IF YOU CLAIM THAT "ANY THING EXISTS" THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU TO PROVE THAT THIS THING DOES EXIST.

GET IT.


Wrong again Joe.

To say that something exist or not exist are affirmations in both cases no matter how you put it and affirmation are nothing unless they are back by evidence.

If you go to court and you say to the judge.........that thing does not exist........ the judge will ask you to give evidence that that is the case and if you say that you do not have to give evidence you will get in real trouble with the judge.

You may well have dozen and dozen of degrees in every subject but that doesn't help you much because your naivety is a real concern.

You live in a cocoon of fantasy thinking that everything revolve around the physical reality beside I already gave evidence that the 10 atheists points are all bankrupt.

You even had the audacity to say that the brain which was dead had the capability to put together an NDE.
Total disaster Joe.  :rolleyes:


 
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: josephpalazzo on June 23, 2019, 10:00:44 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
And therein lies the problem.  For me, all of the 'inside' is a product of the 'outside'.  I don't really see a real difference.  The universe is not a being or a consciousness or alive in any way.  The universe consists of all of the elements it contains, but has no awareness.  I do have awareness but of and related to myself.  I see and feel the universe as my species has evolved and since we are still here is a species, it has succeeded so far.  Other species see and feel the universe differently.  In any case, the universe does not care, for it cannot care.  It is and always has been and always will be neutral.  As a species we will thrive--or not.  The universe does not care.  I am what I am (Kudos to Popeye) because of the the evolution of my species from all the materials generated by this universe.  I, and I alone, can care; I determine how I feel (to some extent, at least) ; I chose (to some extent) how I act.  And the universe does not care and is not aware. 

That is how I understand it--and you see it another way.  That's not good---that's not bad; it just is.

Good post Mike. The problem with arik and his post

"To me philosophy and theology are external approaches.

I don't really see how something that lie within should be searched outside."

It is just another cry of "in my heart of heart I know the truth", which you get time after time from Christian apologists. Therefore there's no need to justify my beliefs with evidence.  It's a perverted and insidious way to escape accountability.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on June 23, 2019, 10:09:53 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
And therein lies the problem.  For me, all of the 'inside' is a product of the 'outside'.  I don't really see a real difference.  The universe is not a being or a consciousness or alive in any way.  The universe consists of all of the elements it contains, but has no awareness.  I do have awareness but of and related to myself.  I see and feel the universe as my species has evolved and since we are still here is a species, it has succeeded so far.  Other species see and feel the universe differently.  In any case, the universe does not care, for it cannot care.  It is and always has been and always will be neutral.  As a species we will thrive--or not.  The universe does not care.  I am what I am (Kudos to Popeye) because of the the evolution of my species from all the materials generated by this universe.  I, and I alone, can care; I determine how I feel (to some extent, at least) ; I chose (to some extent) how I act.  And the universe does not care and is not aware. 

That is how I understand it--and you see it another way.  That's not good---that's not bad; it just is.



You are running too fast with your mind Mike.

Who said that the universe care or not care?
What I said instead was that everything is made of consciousness.
That doesn't mean that the universe has enough consciousness to know things.
Evolution is there to evolve and that means that there are degree of progress in this evolution.

The universe is made of matter and matter is the lowest form of evolution so it is impossible for the lowest form of evolution to have any concern about one of the most form of evolution such as the human stage of evolution.


The concern with the whole universe and all forms of life within can not lie with the universe itself but with the creator of this universe.



Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on June 23, 2019, 10:16:32 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Good post Mike. The problem with arik and his post

"To me philosophy and theology are external approaches.

I don't really see how something that lie within should be searched outside."

It is just another cry of "in my heart of heart I know the truth", which you get time after time from Christian apologists. Therefore there's no need to justify my beliefs with evidence.  It's a perverted and insidious way to escape accountability.



How on earth can you mention the word .....accountability.........when you even refuse to back your affirmations with solid evidence?

Get real Joe.







Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: josephpalazzo on June 23, 2019, 10:23:04 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


How on earth can you mention the word .....accountability.........when you even refuse to back your affirmations with solid evidence?

Get real Joe.









You're just a troll as you clearly refuse to read the other posts that have addressed your issues, and you come back with the same drivel over and over. I believe it's time to consider a ban on you.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on June 23, 2019, 11:05:12 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You're just a troll as you clearly refuse to read the other posts that have addressed your issues, and you come back with the same drivel over and over. I believe it's time to consider a ban on you.


You are a liar Joe.

All you said is that you do not have to give any evidence to your affirmations and now you are begging the administration to ban me.

How sick you are.

Grow up Joe.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: josephpalazzo on June 23, 2019, 11:16:40 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are a liar Joe.

All you said is that you do not have to give any evidence to your affirmations and now you are begging the administration to ban me.

How sick you are.

Grow up Joe.

 The evidence required is about "something that exists". That was established many posts ago. But you keep ignoring it with the same drivel over and over. That's why I'm asking for a ban. There is no dialogue possible with you.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on June 23, 2019, 11:30:35 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The evidence required is about "something that exists". That was established many posts ago. But you keep ignoring it with the same drivel over and over. That's why I'm asking for a ban. There is no dialogue possible with you.


How do you know that something does not exist?

The fact that a particular thing does not exist in your mind does not means that does not exist elsewhere.
To get a particular station in your radio you got to tune in, right?
Your problem is that you still do not know how to tune in and your are not interested in what may exist outside your understanding yet you claim that the reception is not possible therefore it does not exist.

Fail again Joe.
What you really need is not to try to ban somebody.
What you really need is to grow up and get out the cocoon of fantasy that so far give you so many false certainties.









Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: josephpalazzo on June 23, 2019, 11:49:12 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

How do you know that something does not exist?


That's not the point. The statement "there is no dragon in my garage", requires no evidence. It's only if you make the statement that "there is a dragon in your garage", that you would need to provide evidence.
Quote
The fact that a particular thing does not exist in your mind does not means that does not exist elsewhere.
To get a particular station in your radio you got to tune in, right?


But I can find out if that particular station exists. And that evidence is physical and can be accessible to anyone, just not restrict to you alone.

Quote
Your problem is that you still do not know how to tune in and your are not interested in what may exist outside your understanding yet you claim that the reception is not possible therefore it does not exist.


There is no tuning in what you are proposing- "consciouness is everywhere". The funny part is you use a radio analogy that requires physical evidence, but you are peddling something that is unphysical. Wrong analogy.




Quote
What you really need is not to try to ban somebody.


Prove to me that you can debate reasonably instead of ignoring what was said and repeating endlessly the same thing over and over.



Quote
What you really need is to grow up and get out the cocoon of fantasy that so far give you so many false certainties.


I'm old enough to be your grandfather. As to live in a cocoon of fantasy, that describes perfectly yourself as you clinch desperately to something no one on earth can prove.










Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Mike Cl on June 23, 2019, 12:10:58 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


You are running too fast with your mind Mike.

Who said that the universe care or not care?
What I said instead was that everything is made of consciousness.
That doesn't mean that the universe has enough consciousness to know things.
Evolution is there to evolve and that means that there are degree of progress in this evolution.

The universe is made of matter and matter is the lowest form of evolution so it is impossible for the lowest form of evolution to have any concern about one of the most form of evolution such as the human stage of evolution.


The concern with the whole universe and all forms of life within can not lie with the universe itself but with the creator of this universe.
The crux of the matter---there is no 'creator'.  The universe came with all the material and substances we now have.  What happened, happened.  Happenstance and math--that drives the universe.  There is no 'plan' nor a 'creator of that plan'.  There is probably something like a billion to one that life (any life) will occur.  That seems to make it impossible that life would or could form; except that there are probably trillions of times the right combo of substances combined just right and so it makes the seemly impossible odds of a billion to one to one of certainty.  Just impossible to tell exactly when or where.  It see the probability much like when I first walk out into a rain storm.  I will be hit by one specific first drop.  The storm has trillions of drops, so predicting which one will be the first is impossible; but it is a total certainty that I will be hit by one; but it is impossible to know just exactly which would be the first.  But I will get wet!

Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: aitm on June 23, 2019, 02:22:30 PM
This idiot babbles on and on about nothingness...which is  the immaterial he thinks is something...though it is nothing and has done nothing to any positive effect for human or animal while material has done everything. His babbling is old and tiresome and worn out. When you guys are tired of it just let me know.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on June 23, 2019, 04:15:10 PM
"For me, all of the 'inside' is a product of the 'outside'.  I don't really see a real difference.  The universe is not a being or a consciousness or alive in any way."

"The universe came with all the material and substances we now have.  What happened, happened.  Happenstance and math--that drives the universe."

Exactly, a materialist.  A philosophy ... and no philosophy is true, not yours, not mine.  Because humans have no truth in them.  Shit and piss, that we have in abundance ;-)

It is OK to be you.  Ok to be a materialist.  And I certainly wouldn't oppress anyone over their philosophy (but others might).

The universe is a materialistic self licking ice-cream cone.  With a few Pythagorean rules.  Like positive integers good, irrational numbers bad.  Basically a pool game, without any pool game players.  Nobody to create or set up the pool game.  Nobody to play the game.  Just balls moving all on their own, semi-randomly.

We are the life of the universe and the consciousness of the universe.  All life and all consciousness are.  Your atoms are not alive, yet you are alive.  Your atoms are not conscious, yet you are conscious.  This is too irrational a belief for me to accept.  Please give me evidence for pool games that play by themselves, without any people involved.  For me materialist philosophy, even rationalism, are dead things.  The philosophy is implicitly anti-human.

Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on June 23, 2019, 04:19:05 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
This idiot babbles on and on about nothingness...which is  the immaterial he thinks is something...though it is nothing and has done nothing to any positive effect for human or animal while material has done everything. His babbling is old and tiresome and worn out. When you guys are tired of it just let me know.

Nothing is something.  Vacuum and plenum aren't opposites.  They are complements.  There are no opposites, just over simplified arguments.

Every hear of QFT, that the vacuum between atoms, is infinitely full of spontaneous virtual particles?
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: aitm on June 23, 2019, 05:24:09 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
There are no opposites, just over simplified arguments.

there are opposites...the composition of the atom perhaps.  Occams razor vs self-aggrandizing arguments that suggest humans have any causality to the universe whatsoever. There is nothing....nothing that suggests the interaction of humanity can in anyway budge, nudge, prick, poke or make wince the universe....other than our arrogance.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on June 23, 2019, 06:52:54 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
there are opposites...the composition of the atom perhaps.  Occams razor vs self-aggrandizing arguments that suggest humans have any causality to the universe whatsoever. There is nothing....nothing that suggests the interaction of humanity can in anyway budge, nudge, prick, poke or make wince the universe....other than our arrogance.

And you are a Binary.  There is only 1 and 0, no other numbers.  BTW - 0 and 1 are not opposites either.

I can pick up my bottled water ... I am a demi-god.  I have will and power.  You have no will, no power.  You are a rock rolling downhill gathering moss.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: aitm on June 23, 2019, 07:46:22 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
  There is only 1 and 0, no other numbers. 

right....sometimes you simply are and sometimes you are not.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on June 24, 2019, 12:12:44 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
right....sometimes you simply are and sometimes you are not.

And sometimes none of the above or all of the above.  Don't limit yourself to European prejudice.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: aitm on June 24, 2019, 08:42:11 AM
oo took out another tree.....
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on June 24, 2019, 11:36:17 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


That's not the point. The statement "there is no dragon in my garage", requires no evidence. It's only if you make the statement that "there is a dragon in your garage", that you would need to provide evidence.


Quote
But I can find out if that particular station exists. And that evidence is physical and can be accessible to anyone, just not restrict to you alone.

There is no tuning in what you are proposing- "consciouness is everywhere". The funny part is you use a radio analogy that requires physical evidence, but you are peddling something that is unphysical. Wrong analogy.



Fail again Joe.

Within you got everything.
If you can not find something that is your problem.
All knowledge come from within from our own effort.

Even the theory of relativity pop up in Einstein mind from within.
You think and think and sooner or later you will get what you are looking for.
The main thing is to build a parallelism between external and internal consciousness mind.
That is the tune up that I was talking about.

Einstein did not find his theory on a shelf of a shop.
He got it from within.
Within his consciousness and the same thing happen to everybody who wish to discover something.

There is a mine of gold within but not everybody is able to get it out especially those like you that expect to get evidence of it without putting any effort in finding it.


Quote
Prove to me that you can debate reasonably instead of ignoring what was said and repeating endlessly the same thing over and over.



I beg your pardon!

You have been talking nonsense since you started posting in this thread and now you have the audacity to tell me that I can not debate reasonably?

1) You said that  NDE's are like dreams - a product of the brains
Why don't you explain how a dead brain is able to put together an NDE?

2) You said Humans have been around for 200,000 years. Billions have died in those years. None have ever come back after death. Those are facts.

Where is the evidence Joe about your facts?
How would you know that you never lived before?


But after you say.............. Cannot proved or disproved. What's your point?

So before you say that none come back but after you say that ........Cannot proved or disproved.....

This show how your facts are non facts.


3) You say............. i know ten times more than you do in evolution.................but you show that you didn't even know that Darwin never talk about evolution and the word evolution stand for progress rather than a biological change.

4) You agree that physical science together with philosophy, math, art, literature, economics, history, just to name a few areas of learning are the real McCoy as most atheists agree but you fail to understand that all these sciences are related to the finite universe while human expectations are not finite.
That means that by concentrating on the finite arena or dimension you only strive for survival not for some permanent solution  so at the end you get nowhere.


Quote
I'm old enough to be your grandfather. As to live in a cocoon of fantasy, that describes perfectly yourself as you clinch desperately to something no one on earth can prove.



How would you know how old I am?

One more foolish thinking is to put the knowledge on someone age.

Some kids are clever than old people.
See Beethoven and other that in very young age were already very very clever.



Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Hydra009 on June 24, 2019, 12:44:34 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
How would you know how old I am?
It's the more charitable assumption. Because if you're peddling this hokum at any age over 13, you're either a con man or exceptionally deluded.  Being young and foolish is a much less embarrassing flaw.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: josephpalazzo on June 24, 2019, 05:13:28 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login



Fail again Joe.

Within you got everything.
If you can not find something that is your problem.
All knowledge come from within from our own effort.

Even the theory of relativity pop up in Einstein mind from within.
You think and think and sooner or later you will get what you are looking for.
The main thing is to build a parallelism between external and internal consciousness mind.
That is the tune up that I was talking about.

Einstein did not find his theory on a shelf of a shop.
He got it from within.
Within his consciousness and the same thing happen to everybody who wish to discover something.

There is a mine of gold within but not everybody is able to get it out especially those like you that expect to get evidence of it without putting any effort in finding it.




I beg your pardon!

You have been talking nonsense since you started posting in this thread and now you have the audacity to tell me that I can not debate reasonably?

1) You said that  NDE's are like dreams - a product of the brains
Why don't you explain how a dead brain is able to put together an NDE?

2) You said Humans have been around for 200,000 years. Billions have died in those years. None have ever come back after death. Those are facts.

Where is the evidence Joe about your facts?
How would you know that you never lived before?


But after you say.............. Cannot proved or disproved. What's your point?

So before you say that none come back but after you say that ........Cannot proved or disproved.....

This show how your facts are non facts.


3) You say............. i know ten times more than you do in evolution.................but you show that you didn't even know that Darwin never talk about evolution and the word evolution stand for progress rather than a biological change.

4) You agree that physical science together with philosophy, math, art, literature, economics, history, just to name a few areas of learning are the real McCoy as most atheists agree but you fail to understand that all these sciences are related to the finite universe while human expectations are not finite.
That means that by concentrating on the finite arena or dimension you only strive for survival not for some permanent solution  so at the end you get nowhere.




How would you know how old I am?

One more foolish thinking is to put the knowledge on someone age.

Some kids are clever than old people.
See Beethoven and other that in very young age were already very very clever.





You're repeating the same garbage over and over.

AFAIC, discussion over.

If you're banned, you will have only deserved it.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on June 24, 2019, 06:37:23 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Within you got everything.
If you can not find something that is your problem.
All knowledge come from within from our own effort.

Even the theory of relativity pop up in Einstein mind from within.
Without confirmation from evidence coming from outside, even Einstein's ideas would be just that: ideas. Furthermore, you have no clue on the history of how Einstein came up with relativity — the idea has its roots in Galileo Galilee and Ernst Mach. His mathematics came from Henri Poincaré, Bernhard Riemann, and Hendrik Lorentz — that's why the principle transformation in special relativity is called the Lorentz transformation. Note that most of the mathematical framework of general relativity does not bear Einstein's name. I think only the Einstein field tensor and the Einstein summation convention bear his name, and the Einstein field tensor almost got called the Hilbert field tensor because David Hilbert was within days of scooping him. Hell, the complete static spherical solution to his equations, leading to the most famous consequence of GR (black holes), is called the Schwarzschild solution. And of course, general relativity finds confirmation and therefore justification from external experiments.

Despite your scientific myth, most of what is in relativity came definitively from OUTSIDE Einstein.

Getting anything from within is fine as long as the confirmation comes from without. That's the way science is done. If you're not doing that, you're not doing science. Simple as.

Quote
You think and think and sooner or later you will get what you are looking for.
The main thing is to build a parallelism between external and internal consciousness mind.
That is the tune up that I was talking about.
I like it how you think that this is something profound. It's not. It's mundane. It's just letting your thinking remain grounded in reality even as you have your head in the clouds.

Quote
Einstein did not find his theory on a shelf of a shop.
He got it from within.
Within his consciousness and the same thing happen to everybody who wish to discover something.
Einstein got most of the components of his theory from "a shop" — that is, learning from the real world and from other people. Special relativity was mostly not his. That's why the mathematical devices he uses don't bear his name.

Quote
There is a mine of gold within but not everybody is able to get it out especially those like you that expect to get evidence of it without putting any effort in finding it.
The example you are using to "prove" your point... doesn't prove your point at all. We know where most of the ideas that Einstein used came from. There were a shitton of people involved in the formation of Einstein's relativity, whether you like it or not. And, again, Einstein would not be a household name had his ideas failed in the experimental arena. We know for a damn fact that physics and mathematical luminaries were working on the problem of resolving Michelson and Morley, and had gotten close. It was just that Einstein had the final insight of turning the usual approach on its head. Instead of trying to make Maxwell's laws agree with Newton, he assumed the correctness of Maxwell and followed this to its bitter end. And even with this bizarre thing called relativity, it agreed with Newton to the regime where Newton was known to be correct.

See, when you derive stuff yourself, and are guided through the insights and ideas, you realize that you could have come up with this stuff, had you come at the right time and with the right approach. When you consider the real history of relativity, you realize that Einstein's feat wasn't that remarkable. Yeah, Einstein was smart, but he was absolutely cognizant of the fact that he was only a tiny bit ahead of his scientific peers. Had history gone another way, it would have been David Hilbert we credit general relativity to.

Quote
I beg your pardon!

You have been talking nonsense since you started posting in this thread and now you have the audacity to tell me that I can not debate reasonably?
It only sounds like nonsense to you. And it's only audacity if it isn't as plain as the nose on your face that you cannot, in fact, debate reasonably. You never debated me reasonably. Hell, you couldn't even be bothered to spend five minutes on Google to check the ultimate strengths of bone and concrete... you know, to make sure you weren't talking out of your ass when you asserted that concrete was stronger than bone. If you can't even do these simple checks, then you're nowhere in a debate.

Quote
1) You said that  NDE's are like dreams - a product of the brains
Why don't you explain how a dead brain is able to put together an NDE?
Because it ain't dead yet. Ya been told this before, and you've never refuted this. You've never answered my rebuttal of the obvious fact that the only brains that we get NDEs from are ones that come out of the ER alive, and that we only know about the NDEs a few hours later, after the patent has woken up from their coma.

Next question.

Quote
2) You said Humans have been around for 200,000 years. Billions have died in those years. None have ever come back after death. Those are facts.

Where is the evidence Joe about your facts?
There is no verified incident of a person who has been able to come back from the dead. Exactly what you'd expect to happen, if nobody comes back from the dead.

Next question.

Quote
How would you know that you never lived before?
If you don't know, by some means, then it's a useless question to begin with. A slate that's blank because it's new, and one that's blank because it's erased... is still a blank slate.

Next question.

Quote
But after you say.............. Cannot proved or disproved. What's your point?

So before you say that none come back but after you say that ........Cannot proved or disproved.....

This show how your facts are non facts.
No, being philosophically undecidable is not the same as being scientifically undecidable. There are certain things we can reasonably expect out of a world with a persistent consciousness. We do not see these effects. It's therefore reasonable to conclude that such persistent conciousnesses do not exist. It is not unreasonable to conclude as fact that something that looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and has the genetic and anatomical features of a duck is actually a genuine duck, instead of a duck-like alien.

Next question.

Quote
3) You say............. i know ten times more than you do in evolution.................but you show that you didn't even know that Darwin never talk about evolution and the word evolution stand for progress rather than a biological change.
Irrelevant. A pioneer in a field doesn't have any control over what the field is later called. Population dynamics in response to selection pressure is called "evolution," or if you're being specific, "biological evolution," and it doesn't matter what it was called before or what "evolution" meant before, that's what it means now.

Believe it or not, you are intruding on the scientific magisterium when you assert that consciousness is a real but immaterial thing and that NDE's are actual out of body experiences. When you then start using recognizable scientific words in non-scientific ways, people are going to complain. You are going to get clashes between what you mean by the word and what everyone else understands the word to mean. Avoiding those clashes is just good communication. It is incumbent upon you to define your terms so we know what the hell you're talking about.

Next... question? Point? Whatever. Next!

Quote
4) You agree that physical science together with philosophy, math, art, literature, economics, history, just to name a few areas of learning are the real McCoy as most atheists agree but you fail to understand that all these sciences are related to the finite universe while human expectations are not finite.
Untrue. Try listing out your expectations. I guarantee you will eventually run out.

Next.

Quote
That means that by concentrating on the finite arena or dimension you only strive for survival not for some permanent solution  so at the end you get nowhere.
Prove that there is some permanent solution to find, and there is somewhere to go at all, or you're just wasting time.

Next.

Quote
How would you know how old I am?

One more foolish thinking is to put the knowledge on someone age.
Let me point out that you have every incentive to not confirm this age if he's right. The fact that you do not confirm this age is completely unremarkable and contains no information.

Quote
Some kids are clever than old people.
There is nothing in your responses that are in any way clever.

Quote
See Beethoven and other that in very young age were already very very clever.
Beethoven was "very very clever" because he was able to convey his vision such that even the rabble could recognize that his was great music, and his rivals had to recognize his skill and vision. So far, you have not proven yourself equal to the task of convincing us that you even have anything to offer.

See, even coached in eloquent language, a stupid idea is still stupid. Conversely, a smart idea is still smart, even conveyed in simple language. Yours is the former.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Unbeliever on June 24, 2019, 06:55:10 PM
I think Arik is just teasing the Miko...and he got bitten! :-P
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on June 25, 2019, 11:43:16 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Without confirmation from evidence coming from outside, even Einstein's ideas would be just that: ideas. Furthermore, you have no clue on the history of how Einstein came up with relativity — the idea has its roots in Galileo Galilee and Ernst Mach. His mathematics came from Henri Poincaré, Bernhard Riemann, and Hendrik Lorentz — that's why the principle transformation in special relativity is called the Lorentz transformation. Note that most of the mathematical framework of general relativity does not bear Einstein's name. I think only the Einstein field tensor and the Einstein summation convention bear his name, and the Einstein field tensor almost got called the Hilbert field tensor because David Hilbert was within days of scooping him. Hell, the complete static spherical solution to his equations, leading to the most famous consequence of GR (black holes), is called the Schwarzschild solution. And of course, general relativity finds confirmation and therefore justification from external experiments.

Despite your scientific myth, most of what is in relativity came definitively from OUTSIDE Einstein.

Getting anything from within is fine as long as the confirmation comes from without. That's the way science is done. If you're not doing that, you're not doing science. Simple as.
I like it how you think that this is something profound. It's not. It's mundane. It's just letting your thinking remain grounded in reality even as you have your head in the clouds.
Einstein got most of the components of his theory from "a shop" — that is, learning from the real world and from other people. Special relativity was mostly not his. That's why the mathematical devices he uses don't bear his name.
The example you are using to "prove" your point... doesn't prove your point at all. We know where most of the ideas that Einstein used came from. There were a shitton of people involved in the formation of Einstein's relativity, whether you like it or not. And, again, Einstein would not be a household name had his ideas failed in the experimental arena. We know for a damn fact that physics and mathematical luminaries were working on the problem of resolving Michelson and Morley, and had gotten close. It was just that Einstein had the final insight of turning the usual approach on its head. Instead of trying to make Maxwell's laws agree with Newton, he assumed the correctness of Maxwell and followed this to its bitter end. And even with this bizarre thing called relativity, it agreed with Newton to the regime where Newton was known to be correct.

See, when you derive stuff yourself, and are guided through the insights and ideas, you realize that you could have come up with this stuff, had you come at the right time and with the right approach. When you consider the real history of relativity, you realize that Einstein's feat wasn't that remarkable. Yeah, Einstein was smart, but he was absolutely cognizant of the fact that he was only a tiny bit ahead of his scientific peers. Had history gone another way, it would have been David Hilbert we credit general relativity to.



What has got to do whether physics and mathematical luminaries were working on the problem of resolving Michelson and Morley or any other issue with what Einstein came up with?

Obviously a lot of people may think to similar things at the same time and obviously one will be the first to solve that problem.

So what?

Here I am talking about where the knowledge come from not whether a group of people were interested in the same thing or not.
As usual you twist my point in a way to show that you are smarter than anybody else and that is something that should concern your honesty.



Quote
It only sounds like nonsense to you. And it's only audacity if it isn't as plain as the nose on your face that you cannot, in fact, debate reasonably. You never debated me reasonably. Hell, you couldn't even be bothered to spend five minutes on Google to check the ultimate strengths of bone and concrete... you know, to make sure you weren't talking out of your ass when you asserted that concrete was stronger than bone. If you can't even do these simple checks, then you're nowhere in a debate.
Because it ain't dead yet. Ya been told this before, and you've never refuted this. You've never answered my rebuttal of the obvious fact that the only brains that we get NDEs from are ones that come out of the ER alive, and that we only know about the NDEs a few hours later, after the patent has woken up from their coma.


The reason why I never refuted your point is because these guys in the video smashed not one slab of concrete but some of them even 10 together so ten concrete slabs together must be harder than a bone beside there is no injury in the skin that protect the skull.
Are you going to tell me that also the skin is harder than the concrete?
So how do you explain that the skin is intact after that?


Quote
Next question.
There is no verified incident of a person who has been able to come back from the dead. Exactly what you'd expect to happen, if nobody comes back from the dead.


Next question.
If you don't know, by some means, then it's a useless question to begin with. A slate that's blank because it's new, and one that's blank because it's erased... is still a blank slate.

Next question.
No, being philosophically undecidable is not the same as being scientifically undecidable. There are certain things we can reasonably expect out of a world with a persistent consciousness. We do not see these effects. It's therefore reasonable to conclude that such persistent conciousnesses do not exist. It is not unreasonable to conclude as fact that something that looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and has the genetic and anatomical features of a duck is actually a genuine duck, instead of a duck-like alien.

Next question.
Irrelevant. A pioneer in a field doesn't have any control over what the field is later called. Population dynamics in response to selection pressure is called "evolution," or if you're being specific, "biological evolution," and it doesn't matter what it was called before or what "evolution" meant before, that's what it means now.

Believe it or not, you are intruding on the scientific magisterium when you assert that consciousness is a real but immaterial thing and that NDE's are actual out of body experiences. When you then start using recognizable scientific words in non-scientific ways, people are going to complain. You are going to get clashes between what you mean by the word and what everyone else understands the word to mean. Avoiding those clashes is just good communication. It is incumbent upon you to define your terms so we know what the hell you're talking about.

Next... question? Point? Whatever. Next!
Untrue. Try listing out your expectations. I guarantee you will eventually run out.



NDEs are documented facts.

Real people, real incidents, real hospitals, doctors and nurses and real death.
On the other hands your skepticism has no foundations.



Quote
Next.
Prove that there is some permanent solution to find, and there is somewhere to go at all, or you're just wasting time.



Materialists have the notion that evolution stop with humanity.
That notion is totally bankrupt because humans can not be satisfied with the finite.
Humans struggle to go up and up until peace of mind and unlimited bliss become a reality.
That simply means that evolution of the consciousness need to merge in the infinity.
Beside the consciousness that we got did not pop up as per magic but build up through the evolution process which means that the desire to advance is unstoppable.



Quote
Next.
Let me point out that you have every incentive to not confirm this age if he's right. The fact that you do not confirm this age is completely unremarkable and contains no information.
There is nothing in your responses that are in any way clever.
Beethoven was "very very clever" because he was able to convey his vision such that even the rabble could recognize that his was great music, and his rivals had to recognize his skill and vision. So far, you have not proven yourself equal to the task of convincing us that you even have anything to offer.

See, even coached in eloquent language, a stupid idea is still stupid. Conversely, a smart idea is still smart, even conveyed in simple language. Yours is the former.



I respect your personal opinion.

To me Beethoven was clever because he lived before and developed his art step by step through many lives.


Have a good day.



Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on June 25, 2019, 12:01:59 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You're repeating the same garbage over and over.

AFAIC, discussion over.

If you're banned, you will have only deserved it.



Oh, I see.

So you can not explain to me how a dead brain is able to put together an NDE, right?

Never mind Joe.

By the way do you know why roses and other flowers that are grown inside greenhouse do not smell like those grown outside and also the vegetable grown inside green houses do not taste as good as those grown out in the open?

Apparently those grown inside are protected from the elements and from pests so these plants do not need to be strong anymore to fight for survival.

The challenges have gone so these plants are getting used to live inside a cocoon that protect them.
Something similar happen to people like you that are not prepared to fight the challenge by trying to get rid of people that show your failings.
I may be gone from this forum Joe but for you it will be even worse because by trying to get rid of the challengers you become a parasite inside a cocoon of fantasy.



All the best anyway.



Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Simon Moon on June 25, 2019, 01:33:15 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

NDEs are documented facts.

The only 'fact' is that people REPORT that they have had some sort of experience that their consciousness leaves their bodies. No one is disputing that some people, when they are close to death, have some mental experience. What is being refuted, is that this experience actually is their consciousness leaving their body and experiencing an afterlife.

It is up to those claiming that they are actually leaving their bodies, to prove that is what is actually happening. Instead of, say, that they are misinterpreting an unusual, but purely natural brainstate caused by the trauma of a dying brain.

Quote
Real people, real incidents, real hospitals, doctors and nurses and real death.
On the other hands your skepticism has no foundations

Yes, real people misinterpret natural brain states all the time. Does not prove they are actually leaving their physical body.

Yes, real doctors and nurses treat patients that get close to dying all the time. Does not prove their patients are actually leaving their physical body.

No, it is not real death. You do understand the the "N" in the abbreviation stands for "NEAR" (as in NEAR DEATH), right?

Quote
On the other hands your skepticism has no foundations.

Sure it does have foundations. You and your ilk, have not met your burden of proof. So, our disbelief in your claims are completely and rationally justified. As soon as you meet your burden of proof, I will be forced by my intellectual honesty, to believe your claims.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: aitm on June 25, 2019, 03:17:44 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That simply means that evolution of the consciousness need to merge in the infinity.
Beside the consciousness that we got did not pop up as per magic but build up through the evolution process which means that the desire to advance is unstoppable.

Lordy......you come up with some wacky ass bull-shit. You have tried real hard to put it on a wagon and paint it and then tell us its a parade....but we know it's still a wagon full of bull-shit.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on June 25, 2019, 05:35:06 PM
"No, it is not real death." - actually living people don't know, only dead people do.  Are you dead yet?
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on June 25, 2019, 06:34:42 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
What has got to do whether physics and mathematical luminaries were working on the problem of resolving Michelson and Morley or any other issue with what Einstein came up with?

Obviously a lot of people may think to similar things at the same time and obviously one will be the first to solve that problem.

So what?
Are you fucking dense? Did you even read what I wrote? I wrote that Einstein didn't "come up" with much. The mathematical tools he used to solve M-M using relativity came mostly from other people. Einstein wasn't some guru sitting atop a mountain, handing down truths from on high that he came up from his sheer genius. He was in the thick of things, fully engaged with his scientific peers.

Quote
Here I am talking about where the knowledge come from not whether a group of people were interested in the same thing or not.
You contended that Einstein's knowledge came from within, when I demonstrated that it came from without. Einstein built his house on the work of his predecessors, and he did so to solve a problem that he saw in our understanding of physical reality. Very little of his thought process was actually unique to him, and what was can easily be explained by differences in his brain or differences in his experience.

Quote
As usual you twist my point in a way to show that you are smarter than anybody else and that is something that should concern your honesty.
And you obviously have no theory of mind, something that usually develops before the age of ten. You suppose that the only way I could distort your position is if I'm dishonestly doing so, instead of being a miscommunication. If you don't make yourself clear, then how in the world can I be expected to understand you properly?

So you are invited to fuck yourself with a totem pole.

Quote
The reason why I never refuted your point is because these guys in the video smashed not one slab of concrete but some of them even 10 together so ten concrete slabs together must be harder than a bone beside there is no injury in the skin that protect the skull.
Are you going to tell me that also the skin is harder than the concrete?
So how do you explain that the skin is intact after that?
Nonsense. Being on risers like that means that, mechanically, the guys are only smashing one block at a time, albeit in quick succession. By the time a slab above has bent enough to contact the slab below, it's already broken and not contributing any structural strength to the stack, and its inertia and weight means that it actually helps break slabs below. Also, these blocks probably had no time to cure, which is when concrete gets most of its strength — the blocks broken are probably not even a tenth as strong as structural concrete.

Also, skin is springy, and filled with water, which for the most part protects it from sudden shocks, water being incompressible and all.

The biomechanics of the breaking brick stacks is actually well-examined. I remember that there as a Scientific American article examining karate feats back in the day. You would do well to go to the biomechanical literature first to figure out what is physically possible for the human body before going to the woo.

Quote
NDEs are documented facts.
But facts of what? Yes, they had experiences, but so what? I have experiences too.

Quote
Real people, real incidents, real hospitals, doctors and nurses and real death.
On the other hands your skepticism has no foundations.
Your accounts read more like urban legends than real accounts. I have yet to see a name attached to an account that even resembles your fairy tales, and real people tend to have names. Real accounts of NDEs, with actual documentation, reveal a much more mundane story — NDEs, as documented in reality, are quite materialistically plausible. And again, the difference between near death and real death is... well, death. As in, people not coming back from it. We don't get accounts of people who don't come back, and all data concerning people that do come back reveal themselves to be not nearly as dire as you assert.

Quote
Materialists have the notion that evolution stop with humanity.
Don't tell me what materialists think. You don't know, and clearly so. Evolution doesn't stop with us because there's no end goal. Population dynamics will continue with us as surely as it did our ancestors. But here's the thing: there's nothing to say that we're actually better, in an objective way, than our ancestors. Reproductive success is just a numbers game, but that's what biological adaptation is optimizing. Any other notion of advancement is simply irrelevant to biological evolution.

Quote
That notion is totally bankrupt because humans can not be satisfied with the finite.
Humans struggle to go up and up until peace of mind and unlimited bliss become a reality.
That simply means that evolution of the consciousness need to merge in the infinity.
Ambitions do not guarantee success. You have yet to prove that any human's satisfaction truly cannot be satisfied with the finite. The finite can be very very big, so you have yet to show that this notion that we "cannot be satisfied" with finite things is even true.

Furthermore, you never specify what "evolution of the consciousness" even means, and as such, I can only apply what I know, which requires consciousness to be material in order for population dynamics to apply.

Again, you ignore that everyone's idea of bliss is different. You treat everyone as if they're from the same cardboard cut-out and that this "peace of mind and unlimited bliss" will suit everyone. You don't even specify what "peace of mind and unlimited bliss" means, and right now that sounds to me like the evolved consciousness (whatever that means) just sits around being blissful and in peace of mind. Do you know what creature has this kind of "peace of mind and unlimited bliss"?

(https://img-aws.ehowcdn.com/750x428p/photos.demandstudios.com/getty/article/110/71/86808034_XS.jpg)

SPONGES!

If that's the future of conscious evolution, you can keep it!

Quote
Beside the consciousness that we got did not pop up as per magic but build up through the evolution process which means that the desire to advance is unstoppable.
Non sequitor. You invoke "evolution" in context with consciousness. Either this is evolution we're familiar with, or one we're not familiar with. If it's the former, then all the caveats of material objects apply, and as such your conclusion does not follow because the forms of evolution we're familiar with are not goal-directed, and therefore NOTHING. If it's the latter, then you have failed to define your terms and thus your statement has no content unless and until you reveal what you think this "evolution process" constitutes and how it operates. Only upon revealing this can you be credited with having SAID anything.

Even now, I still credit you with a mediocrum of a possibility that you might actually have some hidden knowledge, but that is rapidly vanishing and you are not helping matters by being cagey and obtuse.

Great intellectuals like Einstein, Kant, and Poincaré are great because they can explain their concepts in a clear manner to eager listeners. This is a skill you sorely and very obviously lack.

Quote
I respect your personal opinion.

To me Beethoven was clever because he lived before and developed his art step by step through many lives.
So now you seek to diminish Beethoven's intellect and artistic acumen by asserting that he developed it over an untold number of previous lives. My Beethoven is an artistic genius that in his short lifetime was a bright, prolific light that was extinguished all too soon. Your Beethoven is just a slow-witted recluse who spends untold millennia developing his work before presenting it all at once in a single lifetime to earn undue credit as a prolific genius.

I prefer my Beethoven. There's nothing your reincarnation bullshit offers that is appealing.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on June 25, 2019, 09:05:52 PM
Put down that Beethoven!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROsbGWFltU0

What an amazing POS!
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on June 26, 2019, 10:29:56 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The only 'fact' is that people REPORT that they have had some sort of experience that their consciousness leaves their bodies. No one is disputing that some people, when they are close to death, have some mental experience. What is being refuted, is that this experience actually is their consciousness leaving their body and experiencing an afterlife.

It is up to those claiming that they are actually leaving their bodies, to prove that is what is actually happening. Instead of, say, that they are misinterpreting an unusual, but purely natural brainstate caused by the trauma of a dying brain.

Yes, real people misinterpret natural brain states all the time. Does not prove they are actually leaving their physical body.

Yes, real doctors and nurses treat patients that get close to dying all the time. Does not prove their patients are actually leaving their physical body.

No, it is not real death. You do understand the the "N" in the abbreviation stands for "NEAR" (as in NEAR DEATH), right?

Sure it does have foundations. You and your ilk, have not met your burden of proof. So, our disbelief in your claims are completely and rationally justified. As soon as you meet your burden of proof, I will be forced by my intellectual honesty, to believe your claims.


Your post is a total disaster SM.

1) Most Atheists believe in physical science, right?
So why they don't believe the doctors that declare a person dead?

Brain dead means that only the consciousness is able to experience something.

Who else can put together such experience with the brain dead?
Most of these NDEs demonstrate that the consciousness separate from the brain-body because it can see his-her dead body from above so all your skepticism is unfounded.

2) The reason why these experiences are called NDE and not permanent death is because it is a temporary death but death it is as the heart and the brain cells are dead.
Most people are unaware and would say that it is a miracle that dead people come back to life but for God it is not a miracle.
As you are the creator of your dreams and you can do what you like with them also God can do the same but in a scale that is quite difficult to understand by most.


I am afraid that it is your hypocrisy that prevent to find the burden of proof by not believing the doctors and at the same time believing in physical science.

Who on earth are the doctors?
Aren't they medical scientists?
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Mike Cl on June 26, 2019, 11:14:44 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

1) Most Atheists believe in physical science, right?

You inability to see what is right in front of your face is astounding!  Atheists don't 'believe' in anything.  Theists do that.  For example, I don't 'believe' the sun will rise tomorrow.  I think (know) it will for the simple reason is that science explains what that little phrase means.  My knowledge of the 'sun rising' comes from facts.  So, facts allow me to know the sun will rise--until one day in the far far future it will not.  'Belief' does not need proof other than what one feels.  My knowledge comes from facts.  And you and facts just don't know each other.  I have met few who simply love to reveal their ignorance, and to revel in it to the extent you do.  But if being blind gets you thru life, then that's what you have to do. 
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on June 26, 2019, 11:51:33 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Are you fucking dense? Did you even read what I wrote? I wrote that Einstein didn't "come up" with much. The mathematical tools he used to solve M-M using relativity came mostly from other people. Einstein wasn't some guru sitting atop a mountain, handing down truths from on high that he came up from his sheer genius. He was in the thick of things, fully engaged with his scientific peers.
You contended that Einstein's knowledge came from within, when I demonstrated that it came from without. Einstein built his house on the work of his predecessors, and he did so to solve a problem that he saw in our understanding of physical reality. Very little of his thought process was actually unique to him, and what was can easily be explained by differences in his brain or differences in his experience.
And you obviously have no theory of mind, something that usually develops before the age of ten. You suppose that the only way I could distort your position is if I'm dishonestly doing so, instead of being a miscommunication. If you don't make yourself clear, then how in the world can I be expected to understand you properly?



You are full of BS, are you?

Someone else knowledge obviously always help other people in their work but even in this case that so called external knowledge was in fact coming from within, within the consciousness of other people so every knowledge originate from within.

Even so Einstein had to do some work himself to put together that theory because all the so called external help was not sufficient to finish the work and again that final work could have been completed because the effort came from within.

Quote
So you are invited to fuck yourself with a totem pole.
Nonsense. Being on risers like that means that, mechanically, the guys are only smashing one block at a time, albeit in quick succession. By the time a slab above has bent enough to contact the slab below, it's already broken and not contributing any structural strength to the stack, and its inertia and weight means that it actually helps break slabs below. Also, these blocks probably had no time to cure, which is when concrete gets most of its strength — the blocks broken are probably not even a tenth as strong as structural concrete.



Now you play the expert engineer that know all the technical details about physical laws.
You already came up with some similar stories about the people who insert hooks in their flesh without feeling any pain and explain how the hole close as soon as the hook is removed.

Story after story after story in a never end to all your BS.



Quote
Also, skin is springy, and filled with water, which for the most part protects it from sudden shocks, water being incompressible and all.



Oh, my God this one is a real pearl.

After braking hundred of concrete slabs with the head the skin on the head doesn't show any bruises just because the..........skin is springy, and filled with water...........oh, my God I must write this one for my friends to have a good laugh.....LOL



Quote
The biomechanics of the breaking brick stacks is actually well-examined. I remember that there as a Scientific American article examining karate feats back in the day. You would do well to go to the biomechanical literature first to figure out what is physically possible for the human body before going to the woo.
But facts of what? Yes, they had experiences, but so what? I have experiences too.
Your accounts read more like urban legends than real accounts. I have yet to see a name attached to an account that even resembles your fairy tales, and real people tend to have names. Real accounts of NDEs, with actual documentation, reveal a much more mundane story — NDEs, as documented in reality, are quite materialistically plausible. And again, the difference between near death and real death is... well, death. As in, people not coming back from it. We don't get accounts of people who don't come back, and all data concerning people that do come back reveal themselves to be not nearly as dire as you assert.



There is a very good reason why in permanent body death the same people do not come back in the same body.
Life is hard enough as it is.
If we could remember even the past lives our life would be a real hell.
Just imagine to add our present trouble to our previous troubles from previous lives.
We just could not concentrate in a positive manner and be able to go ahead.
In this way we can because our burden of trouble is limited to this life.


Quote
Don't tell me what materialists think. You don't know, and clearly so. Evolution doesn't stop with us because there's no end goal. Population dynamics will continue with us as surely as it did our ancestors. But here's the thing: there's nothing to say that we're actually better, in an objective way, than our ancestors. Reproductive success is just a numbers game, but that's what biological adaptation is optimizing. Any other notion of advancement is simply irrelevant to biological evolution.


You are obsessed with biological evolution as the only evolution.
All your world unfortunately is still confined to the corral of physicality.
Outside it there is nothing.
Grow up son so one day you too can understand how the whole system works.


Quote
Ambitions do not guarantee success. You have yet to prove that any human's satisfaction truly cannot be satisfied with the finite. The finite can be very very big, so you have yet to show that this notion that we "cannot be satisfied" with finite things is even true.



I have never seen anyone who is totally happy with what they got.
Everyone strive to get more and more and this can only be achieved where the positive is not annulled by the negative.
Considering that in this physical reality the positive and the negative always go hand in hand then is easy to see the evidence that the finite is not able to satisfy anyone.


Quote
Furthermore, you never specify what "evolution of the consciousness" even means, and as such, I can only apply what I know, which requires consciousness to be material in order for population dynamics to apply.


People who in the past lived in the caves did not know who they were and why they exist at all.
These days we know a little bit more but not enough to understand the whole thing.
As we go further we will know more and more because our consciousness expand.



Quote
Again, you ignore that everyone's idea of bliss is different. You treat everyone as if they're from the same cardboard cut-out and that this "peace of mind and unlimited bliss" will suit everyone. You don't even specify what "peace of mind and unlimited bliss" means, and right now that sounds to me like the evolved consciousness (whatever that means) just sits around being blissful and in peace of mind. Do you know what creature has this kind of "peace of mind and unlimited bliss"?


I know one thing man and that is that we are like seeds and the tree that generate these seed is the same for everyone.



Quote
SPONGES!

If that's the future of conscious evolution, you can keep it!
Non sequitor. You invoke "evolution" in context with consciousness. Either this is evolution we're familiar with, or one we're not familiar with. If it's the former, then all the caveats of material objects apply, and as such your conclusion does not follow because the forms of evolution we're familiar with are not goal-directed, and therefore NOTHING. If it's the latter, then you have failed to define your terms and thus your statement has no content unless and until you reveal what you think this "evolution process" constitutes and how it operates. Only upon revealing this can you be credited with having SAID anything.

Even now, I still credit you with a mediocrum of a possibility that you might actually have some hidden knowledge, but that is rapidly vanishing and you are not helping matters by being cagey and obtuse.

Great intellectuals like Einstein, Kant, and Poincaré are great because they can explain their concepts in a clear manner to eager listeners. This is a skill you sorely and very obviously lack.
So now you seek to diminish Beethoven's intellect and artistic acumen by asserting that he developed it over an untold number of previous lives. My Beethoven is an artistic genius that in his short lifetime was a bright, prolific light that was extinguished all too soon. Your Beethoven is just a slow-witted recluse who spends untold millennia developing his work before presenting it all at once in a single lifetime to earn undue credit as a prolific genius.

I prefer my Beethoven. There's nothing your reincarnation bullshit offers that is appealing.



Don't you worry man.

You too will get there sooner or later.



Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Hydra009 on June 26, 2019, 03:09:08 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Your post is a total disaster SM.
That's certainly something you'd like us to believe, though you seem to consistently have problems figuring out how to be convincing to people who don't already hold the same conclusions you do.  You might want to take a sec and figure out why.  That'd help you a lot around here.

Quote
1) Most Atheists believe in physical science, right?
We place great value in science, yes. Shame that that isn't a more unversal stance.  But we don't "believe" this stuff in the way that religious people believe.

Quote
So why they don't believe the doctors that declare a person dead?
Declared clinically dead =/= actually dead.  Hence the N in NDE.

Quote
Brain dead means that only the consciousness is able to experience something.
Ummm...no.  wtf are you smoking?
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: aitm on June 26, 2019, 04:15:20 PM
Quote
   There is a very good reason why in permanent body death the same people do not come back in the same body.
Life is hard enough as it is.   

Life is hard enough as it is......thats if folks!! The grand answer to all your questions. Life is hard enough as it is.
Write that one down. Arik wins!


Life is hard enough as it is.......sheeesh....what a twit.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Unbeliever on June 26, 2019, 04:17:39 PM
Well, I think it was Mae West who said "A hard life is good to find."
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on June 26, 2019, 04:42:29 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You inability to see what is right in front of your face is astounding!  Atheists don't 'believe' in anything.  Theists do that.  For example, I don't 'believe' the sun will rise tomorrow.  I think (know) it will for the simple reason is that science explains what that little phrase means.  My knowledge of the 'sun rising' comes from facts.  So, facts allow me to know the sun will rise--until one day in the far far future it will not.  'Belief' does not need proof other than what one feels.  My knowledge comes from facts.  And you and facts just don't know each other.  I have met few who simply love to reveal their ignorance, and to revel in it to the extent you do.  But if being blind gets you thru life, then that's what you have to do.

Belief isn't about what is right in front of your face.  By definition, it is something that is invisible (per Paul) ... hope for something not seen.

I agree, believe in nothing, unless it is right in front of you.  That is why I take the existence of Trump with a lump of salt.

But belief isn't just about what one feels, that is an attempt to deny EQ vs IQ.  Vulcan vs Human.  Hope is a "feel".  So is "fear".  The future is a mix of emotions, that of "hope" and "fear".  And therefore not a fact, until it is the present/past.  Other reasons for belief is as a "thought experiment" ... the "as if".  But not the same meaning as the other one.  Other meanings are ... plausible hypothesis (not the same as thought experiment) aka probable cause.  As in ... I looked at my cards, and I have two jacks, so I have some probability of winning the hand.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: josephpalazzo on June 26, 2019, 05:54:08 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Well, I think it was Mae West who said "A hard life is good to find."

She also said, "Is that a gun in your pants or are you just happy to see me?"
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Unbeliever on June 26, 2019, 06:00:41 PM
Yeah, and "Fasten your seatbelts, it's going to be a bumpy night!"


:-P
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Mike Cl on June 26, 2019, 06:42:35 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Belief isn't about what is right in front of your face.  By definition, it is something that is invisible (per Paul) ... hope for something not seen.

I agree, believe in nothing, unless it is right in front of you.  That is why I take the existence of Trump with a lump of salt.

But belief isn't just about what one feels, that is an attempt to deny EQ vs IQ.  Vulcan vs Human.  Hope is a "feel".  So is "fear".  The future is a mix of emotions, that of "hope" and "fear".  And therefore not a fact, until it is the present/past.  Other reasons for belief is as a "thought experiment" ... the "as if".  But not the same meaning as the other one.  Other meanings are ... plausible hypothesis (not the same as thought experiment) aka probably cause.  As in ... I looked at my cards, and I have two jacks, so I have some probability of winning the hand.
I see myself as two people--one using reasoning and critical thinking and the other using feelings.  I am at my best when the two of those sides work well together, with one supporting the other.  But there are times when feelings win out and times when reasoning is all I use.  That is the constant battle within me.  But I do not equate EQ with belief or faith systems.  EQ is not blind.  Here is a down and dirty look at EQ:


For most people, emotional intelligence (EQ) is more important than one’s intelligence (IQ) in attaining success in their lives and careers. As individuals our success and the success of the profession today depend on our ability to read other people’s signals and react appropriately to them.

Therefore, each one of us must develop the mature emotional intelligence skills required to better understand, empathize and negotiate with other people — particularly as the economy has become more global. Otherwise, success will elude us in our lives and careers.

“Your EQ is the level of your ability to understand other people, what motivates them and how to work cooperatively with them,” says Howard Gardner, the influential Harvard theorist. Five major categories of emotional intelligence skills are recognized by researchers in this area.

Understanding the Five Categories of Emotional Intelligence (EQ)
1. Self-awareness. The ability to recognize an emotion as it “happens” is the key to your EQ. Developing self-awareness requires tuning in to your true feelings. If you evaluate your emotions, you can manage them. The major elements of self-awareness are:

Emotional awareness. Your ability to recognize your own emotions and their effects.
Self-confidence. Sureness about your self-worth and capabilities.
2. Self-regulation. You often have little control over when you experience emotions. You can, however, have some say in how long an emotion will last by using a number of techniques to alleviate negative emotions such as anger, anxiety or depression. A few of these techniques include recasting a situation in a more positive light, taking a long walk and meditation or prayer. Self-regulation involves

Self-control. Managing disruptive impulses.
Trustworthiness. Maintaining standards of honesty and integrity.
Conscientiousness. Taking responsibility for your own performance.
Adaptability. Handling change with flexibility.
Innovation. Being open to new ideas.
3. Motivation. To motivate yourself for any achievement requires clear goals and a positive attitude. Although you may have a predisposition to either a positive or a negative attitude, you can with effort and practice learn to think more positively. If you catch negative thoughts as they occur, you can reframe them in more positive terms — which will help you achieve your goals. Motivation is made up of:

Achievement drive. Your constant striving to improve or to meet a standard of excellence.
Commitment. Aligning with the goals of the group or organization.
Initiative. Readying yourself to act on opportunities.
Optimism. Pursuing goals persistently despite obstacles and setbacks.
4. Empathy. The ability to recognize how people feel is important to success in your life and career. The more skillful you are at discerning the feelings behind others’ signals the better you can control the signals you send them. An empathetic person excels at:

Service orientation. Anticipating, recognizing and meeting clients’ needs.
Developing others. Sensing what others need to progress and bolstering their abilities.
Leveraging diversity. Cultivating opportunities through diverse people.
Political awareness. Reading a group’s emotional currents and power relationships.
Understanding others. Discerning the feelings behind the needs and wants of others.
5. Social skills. The development of good interpersonal skills is tantamount to success in your life and career. In today’s always-connected world, everyone has immediate access to technical knowledge. Thus, “people skills” are even more important now because you must possess a high EQ to better understand, empathize and negotiate with others in a global economy. Among the most useful skills are:

Influence. Wielding effective persuasion tactics.
Communication. Sending clear messages.
Leadership. Inspiring and guiding groups and people.
Change catalyst. Initiating or managing change.
Conflict management. Understanding, negotiating and resolving disagreements.
Building bonds. Nurturing instrumental relationships.
Collaboration and cooperation. Working with others toward shared goals.
Team capabilities. Creating group synergy in pursuing collective goals.

None of those five categories focus on belief or faith.  Reasoning and critical thinking are important to use in those five categories.  Theists use blindness and willful ignorance and call it a virtue.  Airk is a prime example--he calls his willful blindness a huge virtue and true sight.  I don't see that he has any EQ and little IQ.   
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on June 26, 2019, 06:53:45 PM
Trigger words don't help.

Democrat = Commie
Republican = Nazi
Theist = Nut Job
Atheist = Cool Dude

etc.

We each have our own list.  With trigger words, we can't have a conversation on any topic, without throwing milkshake or battery acid in each others faces.

MikeCL - nice long post.  Hard to say, if being of one mind, or of two minds, or many minds ... is right.  Maybe all are, depending on who you are at the moment.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: josephpalazzo on June 27, 2019, 01:58:19 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


None of those five categories focus on belief or faith.  Reasoning and critical thinking are important to use in those five categories.  Theists use blindness and willful ignorance and call it a virtue.  Airk is a prime example--he calls his willful blindness a huge virtue and true sight.  I don't see that he has any EQ and little IQ.   

Nice post on EQ.

As to arik, his tactics have been denial, obfuscation, distortion, with sadistic lack of empathy - all the earmarks of a troll. His kicks is to upset you, and the best remedy is to ignore him - DON'T FEED THE TROLL.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on June 27, 2019, 11:16:20 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I see myself as two people--one using reasoning and critical thinking and the other using feelings.  I am at my best when the two of those sides work well together, with one supporting the other.  But there are times when feelings win out and times when reasoning is all I use.  That is the constant battle within me.  But I do not equate EQ with belief or faith systems.  EQ is not blind.  Here is a down and dirty look at EQ:


For most people, emotional intelligence (EQ) is more important than one’s intelligence (IQ) in attaining success in their lives and careers. As individuals our success and the success of the profession today depend on our ability to read other people’s signals and react appropriately to them.

Therefore, each one of us must develop the mature emotional intelligence skills required to better understand, empathize and negotiate with other people — particularly as the economy has become more global. Otherwise, success will elude us in our lives and careers.

“Your EQ is the level of your ability to understand other people, what motivates them and how to work cooperatively with them,” says Howard Gardner, the influential Harvard theorist. Five major categories of emotional intelligence skills are recognized by researchers in this area.

Understanding the Five Categories of Emotional Intelligence (EQ)
1. Self-awareness. The ability to recognize an emotion as it “happens” is the key to your EQ. Developing self-awareness requires tuning in to your true feelings. If you evaluate your emotions, you can manage them. The major elements of self-awareness are:

Emotional awareness. Your ability to recognize your own emotions and their effects.
Self-confidence. Sureness about your self-worth and capabilities.
2. Self-regulation. You often have little control over when you experience emotions. You can, however, have some say in how long an emotion will last by using a number of techniques to alleviate negative emotions such as anger, anxiety or depression. A few of these techniques include recasting a situation in a more positive light, taking a long walk and meditation or prayer. Self-regulation involves

Self-control. Managing disruptive impulses.
Trustworthiness. Maintaining standards of honesty and integrity.
Conscientiousness. Taking responsibility for your own performance.
Adaptability. Handling change with flexibility.
Innovation. Being open to new ideas.
3. Motivation. To motivate yourself for any achievement requires clear goals and a positive attitude. Although you may have a predisposition to either a positive or a negative attitude, you can with effort and practice learn to think more positively. If you catch negative thoughts as they occur, you can reframe them in more positive terms — which will help you achieve your goals. Motivation is made up of:

Achievement drive. Your constant striving to improve or to meet a standard of excellence.
Commitment. Aligning with the goals of the group or organization.
Initiative. Readying yourself to act on opportunities.
Optimism. Pursuing goals persistently despite obstacles and setbacks.
4. Empathy. The ability to recognize how people feel is important to success in your life and career. The more skillful you are at discerning the feelings behind others’ signals the better you can control the signals you send them. An empathetic person excels at:

Service orientation. Anticipating, recognizing and meeting clients’ needs.
Developing others. Sensing what others need to progress and bolstering their abilities.
Leveraging diversity. Cultivating opportunities through diverse people.
Political awareness. Reading a group’s emotional currents and power relationships.
Understanding others. Discerning the feelings behind the needs and wants of others.
5. Social skills. The development of good interpersonal skills is tantamount to success in your life and career. In today’s always-connected world, everyone has immediate access to technical knowledge. Thus, “people skills” are even more important now because you must possess a high EQ to better understand, empathize and negotiate with others in a global economy. Among the most useful skills are:

Influence. Wielding effective persuasion tactics.
Communication. Sending clear messages.
Leadership. Inspiring and guiding groups and people.
Change catalyst. Initiating or managing change.
Conflict management. Understanding, negotiating and resolving disagreements.
Building bonds. Nurturing instrumental relationships.
Collaboration and cooperation. Working with others toward shared goals.
Team capabilities. Creating group synergy in pursuing collective goals.

None of those five categories focus on belief or faith.  Reasoning and critical thinking are important to use in those five categories.  Theists use blindness and willful ignorance and call it a virtue.  Airk is a prime example--he calls his willful blindness a huge virtue and true sight.  I don't see that he has any EQ and little IQ.



I do not say that most of your ideal are bad.
In fact they are good but unfortunately you miss the most important point.

In saying that these ideal would help someone in their lives and careers you only direct them towards a physical-material  accomplishment and achievement.
Considering that success in this field does not equal to peace of mind and permanent happiness then at the end you get nowhere. 

Just a waste of time.

Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on June 27, 2019, 11:31:52 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You inability to see what is right in front of your face is astounding!  Atheists don't 'believe' in anything.  Theists do that.  For example, I don't 'believe' the sun will rise tomorrow.  I think (know) it will for the simple reason is that science explains what that little phrase means.  My knowledge of the 'sun rising' comes from facts.  So, facts allow me to know the sun will rise--until one day in the far far future it will not.  'Belief' does not need proof other than what one feels.  My knowledge comes from facts.  And you and facts just don't know each other.  I have met few who simply love to reveal their ignorance, and to revel in it to the extent you do.  But if being blind gets you thru life, then that's what you have to do.


How can you say that Atheists do not believe in anything when in fact they go on and on in repeating the 10 points that I show in previous posts?



1) When we die is all over.
2) The consciousness is a product of the brain.
3) We never lived before and we will never live again.
4) There is no need for a God to create or run the universe.
5) Religion and spirituality is the same thing.
6) Jesus never existed.
7) NDEs are all hallucinations and lies.
8) The progress of the consciousness has nothing to do with evolution.
9) Physical science is the real McCoy.
10) The power of the mind is not important in breaking slabs of concrete.




Are you kidding me? 
Beside don't they believe in material objects that they use all the time and in many cases they worship them like a religious person would worship God?

Get real Mike.

The only people who do not believe in anything are those who commit suicide.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on June 27, 2019, 11:51:37 AM
Atheists have no beliefs, they only have facts ... because they have partly corroborated claims.  Physics, chemistry all the materialist stuff.  Like a defense attorney, who tries to get thrown out, any evidence that tends to incriminate his client.  Like criminal law, these arguments are not dispassionate.  They are deeply partisan.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Simon Moon on June 27, 2019, 05:46:15 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Atheists have no beliefs, they only have facts ... because they have partly corroborated claims.  Physics, chemistry all the materialist stuff.  Like a defense attorney, who tries to get thrown out, any evidence that tends to incriminate his client.  Like criminal law, these arguments are not dispassionate.  They are deeply partisan.

I define belief as "the psychological state in which one accepts a premise or proposition as being true, or likely true". This is the way most cognitive scientists and philosophers of mind define belief.

So, yes, I have plenty of beliefs.

Yes, when it comes to existential claims, I am partisan on what I will accept as the type and strength of evidence that would warrant belief.

When someone makes the claim that a god exists, why should I accept anything less than: demonstrable, verifiable, repeatable, and falsifiable evidence, reasoned argument, and valid and sound logic, to accept their claim as being true? After all, I care whether my beliefs are true or not.

I proportion the strength of my belief, to the strength of the evidence provided for the proposition.

I am not making the claim, with absolute certainty, that theists are wrong, only that they continue to fail to meet their burden of proof, therefore, I have no warrant to accept their go claims as being true, or likely true.

If you tell me that you walked your dog this morning, I will believe you (accept your proposition as being true) with almost no further evidence. Why? Because I know dogs exist, I know people have them as pets, I know people take them for walks, etc. There is deconfirming evidence this belief, however, if I went to your house and did not see a dog, dog bowl, poop in your yard, a leash, etc.

But, if you told me that you walked you dog on Mars this morning, I would require an immense amount of further evidence, even if I knew you owned a dog.

When you say "Atheists have no beliefs, they only have facts", this is untrue. A fact is a data point , that is accepted as being true. So, even facts are believed to be true.

When has anyone ever provided demonstrable, verifiable, repeatable, and falsifiable evidence, reasoned argument, and valid and sound logic to support the claim that gods exist, that I am "throwing out"?

All the arguments ever made (Kalam, teleological, ontological, TAG, presuppositional, etc) are fallacious. And zero of the evidence ever provided, is demonstrable, verifiable, repeatable, and falsifiable.

Quote
because they have partly corroborated claims.  Physics, chemistry all the materialist stuff

We need none of this stuff in order to not accept theists claims. I do not need materialist explanations to reject your supernatural explanations. All I need is that you and your ilk have not met your burden of proof.

Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on June 27, 2019, 07:58:45 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I define belief as "the psychological state in which one accepts a premise or proposition as being true, or likely true". This is the way most cognitive scientists and philosophers of mind define belief.

So, yes, I have plenty of beliefs.

Yes, when it comes to existential claims, I am partisan on what I will accept as the type and strength of evidence that would warrant belief.

When someone makes the claim that a god exists, why should I accept anything less than: demonstrable, verifiable, repeatable, and falsifiable evidence, reasoned argument, and valid and sound logic, to accept their claim as being true? After all, I care whether my beliefs are true or not.

I proportion the strength of my belief, to the strength of the evidence provided for the proposition.

I am not making the claim, with absolute certainty, that theists are wrong, only that they continue to fail to meet their burden of proof, therefore, I have no warrant to accept their go claims as being true, or likely true.

If you tell me that you walked your dog this morning, I will believe you (accept your proposition as being true) with almost no further evidence. Why? Because I know dogs exist, I know people have them as pets, I know people take them for walks, etc. There is deconfirming evidence this belief, however, if I went to your house and did not see a dog, dog bowl, poop in your yard, a leash, etc.

But, if you told me that you walked you dog on Mars this morning, I would require an immense amount of further evidence, even if I knew you owned a dog.

When you say "Atheists have no beliefs, they only have facts", this is untrue. A fact is a data point , that is accepted as being true. So, even facts are believed to be true.

When has anyone ever provided demonstrable, verifiable, repeatable, and falsifiable evidence, reasoned argument, and valid and sound logic to support the claim that gods exist, that I am "throwing out"?

All the arguments ever made (Kalam, teleological, ontological, TAG, presuppositional, etc) are fallacious. And zero of the evidence ever provided, is demonstrable, verifiable, repeatable, and falsifiable.

We need none of this stuff in order to not accept theists claims. I do not need materialist explanations to reject your supernatural explanations. All I need is that you and your ilk have not met your burden of proof.

How dare you sir! ;-)  How dare you believe anything not verified by academics or CNN?  Those are totally reliable source of facts ;-)  I accept no burden of proof placed on me ... by anyone.  My right hand is connected to my right arm.  No argument there, unless you want my fist ...

I don't argue.  I know.  It is a matter of how my perception works, as developed in a lifetime of human experience.  Your milage may vary of course.  It is called subjectivity.  Megalomaniacs of course claim that they are different, that they uniquely have objectivity.  Pish-Posh.

And yes, all arguments are false, because even if one used deduction correctly, all axioms are subject to BS claims.  Thus no point in arguing.  Either irrationality is in play, or shitty axioms or both.  Your choice.

And as posted many times, I agree, supernatural (as defined by atheists) doesn't exist.  Everything is natural (as defined by atheists).  That is rhetoric for you.  Heads I win, tails you lose. ;-))  I am not you.  My use of English differs.  My personal experience differs.

Philosophy = the egghead ignorant demonstrating their absurdity.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Mike Cl on June 28, 2019, 10:07:01 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


Just a waste of time.
Yes, you are indeed, a total waste of time.  And as Joe suggested, you are simply a troll--and not even a good one.  I'll waste my time elsewhere.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on June 28, 2019, 10:13:02 AM
Talking about natural I also believe in natural but there is huge difference between what I consider natural and the Atheists concept of natural.

An illusion can not possibly represent the natural so if this creation is just the mental projection of someone then is not natural but a huge illusion.

This physical dimension is real and natural only as far as we accept it as a reality but again what would you say if the creatures of your dreams say that they are real.

Isn't that foolish?
That is why I consider more natural the mind behind this creation than his creation itself.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on June 28, 2019, 10:21:09 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yes, you are indeed, a total waste of time.  And as Joe suggested, you are simply a troll--and not even a good one.  I'll waste my time elsewhere.


Oh, well I suppose that Joe suggestions must be the real McCoy of intellect.
But please do me a favor Mike.
Do not disturb Joe for sometime.
At the moment he is quite busy trying to explain how a dead brain can put together an NDE.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: aitm on June 28, 2019, 10:54:31 AM
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on June 28, 2019, 11:03:03 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Talking about natural I also believe in natural but there is huge difference between what I consider natural and the Atheists concept of natural.

An illusion can not possibly represent the natural so if this creation is just the mental projection of someone then is not natural but a huge illusion.

This physical dimension is real and natural only as far as we accept it as a reality but again what would you say if the creatures of your dreams say that they are real.

Isn't that foolish?
That is why I consider more natural the mind behind this creation than his creation itself.

Artistic vs analytical definition.  It is natural for a music prodigy to compose music ... we say it comes to them naturally, in a way it might not for you or me.  The analytical definition presupposes no interest in art, and presupposes materialism.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on June 28, 2019, 11:03:41 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Hive mind much? ;-)
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Unbeliever on June 28, 2019, 01:19:15 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
At the moment he is quite busy trying to explain how a dead brain can put together an NDE.


I wonder if pigs can have NDEs?

Quote
Using brains from animals killed for food, researchers have now restored some cellular functions in pig brains hours after death, potentially offering a new avenue for studying and treating brain diseases and disorders.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2019/04/pig-brains-partially-revived-what-it-means-for-medicine-death-ethics/


Quote
Scientists have restored cellular function in 32 pig brains that had been dead for hours, opening up a new avenue in treating brain disease—and shaking our definition of brain death to its core. Announced on Wednesday in the journal Nature, researchers at the Yale University School of Medicine devised a system roughly analogous to a dialysis machine, called BrainEx, that restores circulation and oxygen flow to a dead brain.

Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on June 28, 2019, 05:01:56 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I wonder if pigs can have NDEs?

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2019/04/pig-brains-partially-revived-what-it-means-for-medicine-death-ethics/

Ha ... no pigs are reincarnated people, who ate bacon and ham.  Justice.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on June 29, 2019, 09:37:02 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I wonder if pigs can have NDEs?

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2019/04/pig-brains-partially-revived-what-it-means-for-medicine-death-ethics/



You still don't get it UB, do you?


Many body parts are used for transplant for quite sometime so what?

Is the consciousness left in these body parts?

Of course not that is why it is of little importance whether a brain can or can not have some possibilities to be revived or not.
As far as the consciousness is gone that matter a zilch because the entity in question can not re-enter the brain.

NDEs are a different story altogether.
Consciousness in these cases goes back in the brains due to a non material-physical intervention and that has only been done on humans with good reasons.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on June 29, 2019, 10:00:16 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Artistic vs analytical definition.  It is natural for a music prodigy to compose music ... we say it comes to them naturally, in a way it might not for you or me.  The analytical definition presupposes no interest in art, and presupposes materialism.


Actually i think that everyone is an artist.
We all create something that eventually become an art.
Even the desperate guy that collect butts to make a cigarette out of them is an artist in his own.
I couldn't imitate his art.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Unbeliever on June 29, 2019, 01:20:52 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You still don't get it UB, do you?


Well, in the words of the great Lopan, "You are not brought upon this world to 'get it'."
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on June 29, 2019, 01:29:15 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Well, in the words of the great Lopan, "You are not brought upon this world to 'get it'."

Poor sexual hygiene and ... you will "get it".

https://www.moviequotedb.com/movies/big-trouble-in-little-china/character_373.html

I agree with "boil them until their flesh falls off" ... applied to Anti-fa in Portland.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on June 30, 2019, 09:41:00 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Well, in the words of the great Lopan, "You are not brought upon this world to 'get it'."


Lopan who?

The psycho nut that wanted to dominate the universe?
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on June 30, 2019, 11:21:05 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Lopan who?

The psycho nut that wanted to dominate the universe?

Lo-Pan ... say it right or face bad things.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Unbeliever on June 30, 2019, 05:38:51 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Lopan who?

The psycho nut that wanted to dominate the universe?

David Lopan, a character in the movie Big Trouble in Little China. A great movie!

I don't know that he wanted to dominate the universe, he just wanted to live forever in a real human body, instead of the ephemeral ghost body he was having to tolerate.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on July 01, 2019, 03:27:41 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Lo-Pan ... say it right or face bad things.


(https://66.media.tumblr.com/4b85163cb5eeac66433d0ff5259d0c0b/tumblr_ms14pm0oMP1r75rkko1_400.gif)


Gee, I didn't know that Lo-Pan was so so powerful.
Now I am all shaking and trembly.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on July 01, 2019, 03:45:54 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
David Lopan, a character in the movie Big Trouble in Little China. A great movie!

I don't know that he wanted to dominate the universe, he just wanted to live forever in a real human body, instead of the ephemeral ghost body he was having to tolerate.


To be a ghost is not very good so I wouldn't blame a ghost for wishing to get a human body so one day through the evolution process he too will be able to reach the goal of life and end this life of struggle.




(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-gu6UkVtKBoA/VrbRdlFwkaI/AAAAAAAAAMU/VQzy41y-Zc4/s1600/ngh.jpg)
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on July 01, 2019, 05:19:09 AM
In eastern culture, hungry ghosts ...

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

Think invisible zombie ...

Korean TV is really big on hungry ghosts ... since their culture is shamanistic.  One of those shows my daughter loved (because it was a love story between two living people, but the young woman was a natural medium for all these needy ghosts).
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Hydra009 on July 01, 2019, 12:20:42 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Talking about natural I also believe in natural but there is huge difference between what I consider natural and the Atheists concept of natural.
Yes.  It's a flaw that you should correct.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on July 01, 2019, 01:02:41 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yes.  It's a flaw that you should correct.

The grammar Nazis strike again?
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Unbeliever on July 01, 2019, 04:00:27 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIdPo-soklY



Quote
What if the universe is self-aware?  Is there a cosmic superconsciousness? Could it be a giant brain?  There is a short but lazy answer, and there is longer but more intriguing answer.  The lazy answer goes something like this.  We humans are made of pieces of the universe. We are conscious, so the universe is conscious through us. 

This is the standard short answer to the question of a conscious universe. But could the universe have a consciousness separate from us or any other conscious being?  Could it be a kind of super consciousness?  This concept has a name.  It is called panpsychism.   

The concept of Panpsychism has been around for thousands of years. It is an essential aspect of many religions, from the Old Testament's omnipresent God to the Brahman of Hinduism and Buddhism. In fact, in Buddhism, nothing exists except consciousness.

Theoretical physicist Freeman Dyson, the man who conceived of the Dyson sphere, embraced panpsychism and said that the universe not only operates through our consciousness but a consciousness of its own. 

Could this be true? 

First we have to establish what consciousness is. Neuroscientist and psychiatrist Giulio Tononi, at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, has proposed a way to measure how conscious a thing is. He proposes that consciousness has to do with how much control a being has over itself or things around it. He even invented a measurement unit called phi to label how conscious something is.

This theory separates intelligence from consciousness, which are two different things.  Super computers for example, which are highly intelligent, can routinely out-think humans and beat them at chess and Jeopardy, but they don’t have a will of their own.  The programmer controls it. So intelligence and consciousness are two different things. 

Based on this line of thinking we can say that a tree is more conscious than a rock. A worm is more conscious than a tree.  A cat is more conscious than a worm. A human is more conscious than a cat. And the ultimate consciousness could be the universe itself. 

If this is the way consciousness works, then the complexity of an organism’s brain has something to do with its level of consciousness.  And scientists do have good evidence that the seat consciousness resides in brains. If we are more conscious than all the other animals, as we appear to be, it surely is no coincidence that we also have the most complex brain.

Consciousness seems to be an emergent property of highly interconnected and communicating systems like the brain which is an interconnected network of neurons that can fire chemical and electronic signals. Consciousness is not a property of individual neurons but results from the interactions of many neurons.

And what are neurons? They are triggered by certain stimuli and can send signals to each other.  And large complex networks of these neurons seem to emerge into consciousness.  The more complex the network, the more conscious something appears to be. 

So is there some kind of network such that a “communication” of sorts might be happening at the quantum level between entangled pairs of particles. There is a humongous network of galaxies in the universe, many hundreds of billions of galaxies.  This is not dissimilar from the network of the billions of interconnected neurons in our brain.  The difference appears to be that each of our brain cells can communicate or at least fire a signal to other brain cells.  Do the galaxies have such a communication mechanism between them?

It doesn’t appear so, but you have to remember that at the center of almost all galaxies, there is a black hole.  It’s like the nucleus of a brain cell.  What’s happening inside a black hole?  We have no idea…because all our physics equations break down at the event horizon of a black hole – this is the point where time and space cease to exist and Einstein’s equations don’t work. 

Is it possible that something is happening here that we just don’t know about? The black hole could only be analogous to a brain cell if somehow they were connected to each other and could send signals to each other. 

If that was the case, a vast network of communicating trillion black holes would act like a gigantic information processor, and indeed be intelligent and possibly conscious. This would truly be a kind of super consciousness that could theoretically control not only our universe, but perhaps time and space itself. 

But I think I’m getting way too excited about a completely speculative possibility.  Practically, we have to ask, does the universe need to be conscious in order to arrive at its present state. In other words, does what we see around us need a consciousness to direct the events that lead up to what we observe, that lead to life?  Would what we see right now be any different if the universe was utterly without consciousness?



Quote
We humans are made of pieces of the universe. We are conscious, so the universe is conscious through us.

Yep, that's how I see it.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: aitm on July 01, 2019, 09:44:19 PM
So's a cricket for all we know.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on July 01, 2019, 11:03:49 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are full of BS, are you?

Someone else knowledge obviously always help other people in their work but even in this case that so called external knowledge was in fact coming from within,
Stop.

Knowledge is about things. Unless knowledge is about something external to itself, it ceases to be meaningful and as such is not knowledge. There is no such thing as knowledge that exists in a complete vacuum. Knowledge must refer to something to even be knowledge. Thus, it is a complete and utter absurdity for knowledge to come "from within" because the entire point of it is to refer to things without. If you have an idea that is unverified, it is not knowledge, period. It only becomes knowledge when you link that idea to some externality.

As such, knowledge can ONLY come from without because it is the external connection that makes an idea knowledge.

Einstein's General Relativity would only be a neat idea, and not knowledge, if it could never be linked to and verified by observing the universe that it is clearly about.

Quote
Now you play the expert engineer that know all the technical details about physical laws.
I don't need much engineering knowledge to be your superior in that account. You don't give the human body nearly enough credit. The human body is a thing honed through 3.5 billion years of evolution, since it's distant single celled ancestor. It has a lot of tricks up its sleeve. One of its tricks is being able to remodel itself in response to stress. I very much doubt that your breaking bricks videos are the very first time these martial artists have slammed their fists, feet and heads into something to break it. There was very much failed attempts to do so, resulting in injuries. But when the injuries healed, the body built it a bit tougher since it seemed to be getting unusually stressed.

Quote
You already came up with some similar stories about the people who insert hooks in their flesh without feeling any pain and explain how the hole close as soon as the hook is removed.
The pain bit is easy. Pain exists in the head. Your brain has natural chemicals that modulate the feeling of pain, called endorphins. It is not a great stretch to theorize that the gurus who do this are ignoring the pain through biofeedback. This is not "a story," but verified, real science.

Second, callus and scar tissue are not "a story." Again, if you insult a point on your body, it tends to respond by remodeling itself, and one of the characteristics of scar tissue is a relative derth of blood vessels. Your source would not be witnessing a green guru poking themselves for the first time. It would be a seasoned guru who already knows where and how to stab himself to do this trick. Furthermore, blood isn't just going to sit there and wait for the hooks to be pulled out. The clotting process starts immediately. So, if you leave the hooks in for long enough, all the severed blood vessels will be sealed off by the time you extract the hooks, explaining the lack of blood from the few blood vessels left.

As to "closing as soon as the hook is removed?" Unverified story. To my knowledge no medical examination has revealed that these holes actually close without a trace, and given the lack of sources to said medical examinations, you don't either. I don't need to explain what is not evident.

Quote
Story after story after story in a never end to all your BS.
Funny, all you have are story after story and unverified BS.

Quote
Oh, my God this one is a real pearl.

After braking hundred of concrete slabs with the head the skin on the head doesn't show any bruises just because the..........skin is springy, and filled with water...........oh, my God I must write this one for my friends to have a good laugh.....LOL
Which shows just how much of an ignoramous you are. Water is incompressible. Thus, when you smack it down (as it would when your fist contacts a slab), that force is spread out over the entirety of its container instead of just in the direction of force. Skin being springy means that it will give a bit when stressed. But force over displacement is energy, which means that springy flesh will absorb more energy than brittle stone before breaking.

And again, instead of finding out the mechanical details, you simply shit on my explanation. But even if it is bogus, it's still an EXPLANATION, using verified physical principles. The dirty little secret of your immaterial is that it doesn't help you explain why martial artists can do their feats, nor how gurus are able to hook themselves without apparent pain, nor NDEs. You simply think it's an explanation.

Quote
There is a very good reason why in permanent body death the same people do not come back in the same body.
Life is hard enough as it is.
If we could remember even the past lives our life would be a real hell.
Just imagine to add our present trouble to our previous troubles from previous lives.
We just could not concentrate in a positive manner and be able to go ahead.
In this way we can because our burden of trouble is limited to this life.
For all you complain about my bullshit, you spew a lot of your own. This is all unverified bullshit and ad hoc explanation. It also contradicts your notion that Beethoven got gud from experiences from previous lives. Beethoven is brilliant because of experiences in his past lives; but now you have it that they can't remember their past lives. Well, if they can't remember their past lives, then as far as NDEing consciousness is concerned, this is still the only life they get, so there's no compelling reason for them to go to the hereafter.

There is no operational difference between your above tripe and the materialistic explanation that sometimes the brain is too far gone to recover. And being far gone is a concern in your immaterialistic world as well, given your car analogy.

Quote
You are obsessed with biological evolution as the only evolution.
You have steadfastly refused to define any other. Why should I even think your evolution is a thing if you're so cagey about it?

Do you have ANY direct evidence for your consciousness as a thing existing as a separate entity? And yes, there should be because your consciousness manifestly interferes with the real world according to you. You cannot see unless you are able to interact with photons. You cannot hear unless you are able to interact with air vibrations. And your NDE consciousnesses are able to see and hear.

Quote
I have never seen anyone who is totally happy with what they got.
So? Nobody has owned an entire planet, lock stock and barrel.

Quote
Everyone strive to get more and more and this can only be achieved where the positive is not annulled by the negative.
Considering that in this physical reality the positive and the negative always go hand in hand then is easy to see the evidence that the finite is not able to satisfy anyone.
Unverifiable bullshit. You have not excluded truly obscene amount of material wealth, and furthermore, you have not explained people who are, actually, perfectly comfortable with their life. Your "positive and negative" do not exist except in very restricted contexts unconnected with the satisfaction of human beings.

Quote
People who in the past lived in the caves did not know who they were and why they exist at all.
These days we know a little bit more but not enough to understand the whole thing.
As we go further we will know more and more because our consciousness expand.
That's perfectly explainable by the fact that there is a continuity of culture that is able to teach young people their past as to not repeat it.

Quote
I know one thing man and that is that we are like seeds and the tree that generate these seed is the same for everyone.
Unverified tripe, because if it weren't true, we would still be very similar to each other just through the fact that we're human and stem from the same ancestors.

Quote
Don't you worry man.

You too will get there sooner or later.
Usually, that's the line of someone with no case. "God will reveal himself to you!" Boy, haven't I heard that often enough before.

At the end, all you have is unverified tripe and empty rhetoric. Demonstrate your immaterial with some sort of direct measurement of a disembodied consciousness and you'd have an actual case. So far, all I see is confidence. Well, that and a dollar will get you a Snickers ad the local K-mart.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Baruch on July 01, 2019, 11:51:15 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So's a cricket for all we know.

Which is smarter?  Never met at cricket I didn't like.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Unbeliever on July 02, 2019, 01:43:42 PM
Here are some crickets for you:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OP6JGlv32nw
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on July 03, 2019, 08:44:01 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIdPo-soklY


Yep, that's how I see it.



The 5 fundamental elements that compose the universe (space, air, light-energy, water and matter are just the most primitive and rudimental factor so their consciousness is next to zero.

How can such a limited form of consciousness that by the way will take millions of years to evolve to our human level be able to have much influence on us humans?

If you really want to understand how the whole system works you should look a lot higher than that but I suppose that it will take some more time before you realize who really run the entire system.

Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Mike Cl on July 03, 2019, 09:08:17 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


The 5 fundamental elements that compose the universe (space, air, light-energy, water and matter are just the most primitive and rudimental factor so their consciousness is next to zero.

How can such a limited form of consciousness that by the way will take millions of years to evolve to our human level be able to have much influence on us humans?

If you really want to understand how the whole system works you should look a lot higher than that but I suppose that it will take some more time before you realize who really run the entire system.
This should be posted everywhere and labeled for what it is:  The credo of the stupid, willfully ignorant and blind; in other words, theists everywhere. 
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on July 03, 2019, 09:21:42 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The 5 fundamental elements that compose the universe (space, air, light-energy, water and matter are just the most primitive and rudimental factor so their consciousness is next to zero.
Water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen, and is not an element in any meaningful sense of the word. Air is composed of a mixture of chemcials, and is not an element either. Energy isn't a thing at all, let alone an element. Space isn't it's own thing, being intimately tangled with time, and matter is a catch-all for the material particles that makes up stuff we can hold.

It is statements like this that makes you look like an ignoramus. The twenty six elementary particles (12 fermions, 4 electroweak bosons, 8 gluons, the graviton and the Higgs boson) are the only ones we know so far to be truly indivisible. So far. You also present no reason why such things should have no consciousness except your say so.

Quote
How can such a limited form of consciousness that by the way will take millions of years to evolve to our human level be able to have much influence on us humans?
So far, the only reason you give for this is because of your say so.

Quote
If you really want to understand how the whole system works you should look a lot higher than that but I suppose that it will take some more time before you realize who really run the entire system.
Because obviously we should take the word of someone who is ignorant enough to tell us air and water are elements of the universe (even though they aren't to any experimental rigor). My philosophy professor always told us, "Science is true, even in philosophy class." The moral of the story, if science doesn't jive with your philosophy, then it's your philosophy that is at fault, not the science.
Title: Re: How many GODS do you have?
Post by: Arik on July 03, 2019, 09:50:48 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Stop.

Knowledge is about things. Unless knowledge is about something external to itself, it ceases to be meaningful and as such is not knowledge. There is no such thing as knowledge that exists in a complete vacuum. Knowledge must refer to something to even be knowledge. Thus, it is a complete and utter absurdity for knowledge to come "from within" because the entire point of it is to refer to things without. If you have an idea that is unverified, it is not knowledge, period. It only becomes knowledge when you link that idea to some externality.

As such, knowledge can ONLY come from without because it is the external connection that makes an idea knowledge.

Einstein's General Relativity would only be a neat idea, and not knowledge, if it could never be linked to and verified by observing the universe that it is clearly about.
I don't need much engineering knowledge to be your superior in that account. You don't give the human body nearly enough credit. The human body is a thing honed through 3.5 billion years of evolution, since it's distant single celled ancestor. It has a lot of tricks up its sleeve. One of its tricks is being able to remodel itself in response to stress.



Stop there Haku.

All your limited knowledge (unfortunately for you) relate to this physical dimension and that is very sad.
Love is not only physical.
In fact the best form of love is mental and spiritual.
The fact that you never experience this form of love make you believe that love is mainly physical.
That is your problem Haku 

So because the best form of love is not physical all your point that knowledge is external is just a load of rubbish.


Quote
I very much doubt that your breaking bricks videos are the very first time these martial artists have slammed their fists, feet and heads into something to break it. There was very much failed attempts to do so, resulting in injuries. But when the injuries healed, the body built it a bit tougher since it seemed to be getting unusually stressed.
The pain bit is easy. Pain exists in the head. Your brain has natural chemicals that modulate the feeling of pain, called endorphins. It is not a great stretch to theorize that the gurus who do this are ignoring the pain throug