How many GODS do you have?

[aitm]

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.

[Baruch]

"No, it is not real death." - actually living people don't know, only dead people do.  Are you dead yet?

[Hakurei Reimu]

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.

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.

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.

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 â€" 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.

NDEs are documented facts.

But facts of what? Yes, they had experiences, but so what? I have experiences too.

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 â€" 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.

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.

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"?



SPONGES!

If that's the future of conscious evolution, you can keep it!

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.

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.

[Baruch]

Put down that Beethoven!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROsbGWFltU0

What an amazing POS!

[Arik]

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?

[Mike Cl]

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. 

[Arik]

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.

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 â€" 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.

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

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 â€" 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Hydra009]

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.

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.

So why they don't believe the doctors that declare a person dead?

Declared clinically dead =/= actually dead.  Hence the N in NDE.

Brain dead means that only the consciousness is able to experience something.

Ummm...no.  wtf are you smoking?

[aitm]

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.

[Unbeliever]

Well, I think it was Mae West who said "A hard life is good to find."

[Baruch]

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.

[josephpalazzo]

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?"

[Unbeliever]

Yeah, and "Fasten your seatbelts, it's going to be a bumpy night!"


:-P

[Mike Cl]

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 â€" 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 â€" 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.   

[Baruch]

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.