Society/Culture Nobody has anything new to say about God.

[Total Power]

That's definitely going in your paper!

So still nothing Snakey? all fluff! so no scientific consensus on locality?

 

[Moshie The Mook]

Muhammad was a dullard.

Point me to one passage of the koran that impressed you and made your life better inshallah.

Dumbest book ever written.

 

[Lethality]

Religious dolts seem triggered by Hawking.

 

[Total Power]

Religious dolts seem triggered by Hawking.

This is exactly what religion has become. Boost your ego, my religion is better than yours and above all a free pass to heaven by accepting a spaghetti monster.

 

[Eagle Wrath]

View attachment 469718
Lol

 

[chelseacarlton]

See this is where i disagree, how can you agree with the atheist approach? if god is outside of space-time which by the very definition of it is, but you want to quantify both consciousness and god in "material" terms? Evidence is subjective in nature, if you want to define god in terms of science you won't find it, cause you have to realise we are finite beings restricted to the laws of nature. If we can't even define ourselves how do you expect to define something that's outside of space/time? The atheist approach is ridiculous, everything is an accident, the laws of nature and mathematics exist just by accident. Nothing formed everything and arranged itself in perfect harmony, just accident. This requires belief as well. When physicists form their theories it requires faith too, look at the constants they assume. That requires faith. If those constants change the variables fall apart. What i am trying to say there is nothing logical about the atheist approach, better find your own truth yourself, but if you are trying to find consciousness under a microscope you wont mind any ole mate, by definition its NOT material, hence there is no point.

I disagree!
That’s a theistic cop out,the one used by the powers that wish to control us in this world,”beyond space and time”,therefore,stick a garbage bag on your head and your voice is only worth that of half of a man!
No one knows the whole “beyond space and time” rhetoric to be true,how could they,unless they believed they’d spoken to this “beyond space and time” being!
No one has,they’re mad if they think that they had and should be treated as such,mad-crazy!
The institutions are full of them!
Faith and the creative path of science are very very different,one is belief without evidence,the other is the belief that using the techniques afforded us by 1000’s of people that laid the path for seeking the truth in the only realm we know to be true!
As yet no one has written a guide book to allow all to find this true self you speak of!
Otherwise we’d be teaching our children “the way”.
So far,we’re stuck in this realm,we mostly all agree on exists to some extent,because we can test it and agree on terms.
Faith requires no solid ground or base or foundation,just pure childlike trust!
I’m not having any of until it can be shown that it’s purpose is solid and fruitful for all humankind,not just a select few!

 

[Snake_Baker]

“I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken-down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.” - Stephen Hawking

 

[Total Power]

I disagree!
That’s a theistic cop out,the one used by the powers that wish to control us in this world,”beyond space and time”,therefore,stick a garbage bag on your head and your voice is only worth that of half of a man!
No one knows the whole “beyond space and time” rhetoric to be true,how could they,unless they believed they’d spoken to this “beyond space and time” being!
No one has,they’re mad if they think that they had and should be treated as such,mad-crazy!
The institutions are full of them!
Faith and the creative path of science are very very different,one is belief without evidence,the other is the belief that using the techniques afforded us by 1000’s of people that laid the path for seeking the truth in the only realm we know to be true!
As yet no one has written a guide book to allow all to find this true self you speak of!
Otherwise we’d be teaching our children “the way”.
So far,we’re stuck in this realm,we mostly all agree on exists to some extent,because we can test it and agree on terms.
Faith requires no solid ground or base or foundation,just pure childlike trust!
I’m not having any of until it can be shown that it’s purpose is solid and fruitful for all humankind,not just a select few!

How is it a cop out. By very definition god is not material, so how is it a cop out? people want a material explanation for something that is not by definition material. I already said to you, not all knowledge obtained is by faith. There are 30 million NDE experiences , some 1,000 odd peer reviewed NDE research papers available online and lots of neuroscience journals talking about consciousness being separate from brain. Yet you keep arguing that nothing is outside "material". This is not science, this is junk science ole mate. If you think consciousness = brain, i urge you to show me the evidence for it. This knowledge can also be obtained through intensive meditation, this has been peer reviewed throughout history by spiritual scientists. To dismiss it without experimentation is not science. When Susan Blackmore published her book to make her case against NDE neuroscientists were quick to call her out about the outrageous conclusions in her book which zero evidence behind it.

Now atheists are totally ok with simulation theory, so someone is simulating us, plausible, right? Nothing is real but everything is a simulation. It can be an alien simulating us or someone else simulating us, but cannot be god! you see the hypocrisy in the statement? so someone has created the whole environment, us, material world etc, as long as it's not good i am fine with it. This is hypocrisy, i am not saying i believe in the simulation theory, i am just pointing out the hypocrisy here! This is a position of faith, even mathematics is faith based, people assume the "axioms" in math, a simple google can tell you that mathematical results will be different if axioms are changed even for simple things like 2 plus 2. Scientists like Micho Kaku always mention this.

Scientists will disagree with you about science and religion (not the organised religion but mysticism), even a great agonist like Sagan:

 

[Total Power]

 

[chelseacarlton]

Religious dolts seem triggered by Hawking.

I think the funny about this tweet is the part where the maker is questioning Hawking!
“So tell me more about black holes Stephen,I didn’t have time to read your book,how do they work?”
“Well,it’s like this big guy........”

 

[chelseacarlton]

No no no
An atheist only believes there is not adequate evidence of a supreme being,they don’t believe there is no god!
Big difference!
He got it wrong,or those quotes are not his!

 

[Snake_Baker]

If you had any understanding of science you would know that science and strict atheism do not go hand in hand.

However, the truly laughable thing is that you somehow believe this supports your view of existence.

 

[Snake_Baker]

No no no
An atheist only believes there is not adequate evidence of a supreme being,they don’t believe there is no god!
Big difference!
He got it wrong,or those quotes are not his!

Semantics, which just happens to be the entirety of TP's play book.

 

[chelseacarlton]

How is it a cop out. By very definition god is not material, so how is it a cop out? people want a material explanation for something that is not by definition material. I already said to you, not all knowledge obtained is by faith. There are 30 million NDE experiences , some 1,000 odd peer reviewed NDE research papers available online and lots of neuroscience journals talking about consciousness being separate from brain. Yet you keep arguing that nothing is outside "material". This is not science, this is junk science ole mate. If you think consciousness = brain, i urge you to show me the evidence for it. This knowledge can also be obtained through intensive meditation, this has been peer reviewed throughout history by spiritual scientists. To dismiss it without experimentation is not science. When Susan Blackmore published her book to make her case against NDE neuroscientists were quick to call her out about the outrageous conclusions in her book which zero evidence behind it.

Now atheists are totally ok with simulation theory, so someone is simulating us, plausible, right? Nothing is real but everything is a simulation. It can be an alien simulating us or someone else simulating us, but cannot be god! you see the hypocrisy in the statement? so someone has created the whole environment, us, material world etc, as long as it's not good i am fine with it. This is hypocrisy, i am not saying i believe in the simulation theory, i am just pointing out the hypocrisy here! This is a position of faith, even mathematics is faith based, people assume the "axioms" in math, a simple google can tell you that mathematical results will be different if axioms are changed even for simple things like 2 plus 2. Scientists like Micho Kaku always mention this.

Scientists will disagree with you about science and religion (not the organised religion but mysticism), even a great agonist like Sagan:

You’re making the claim god is beyond space and time,it therefore becomes incumbent upon you to provide adequate evidence for making the claim!
That’s how this all works,as yet none has been provided,by anyone,ever!
My position remains the same until it is provided!

 

[Total Power]

No no no
An atheist only believes there is not adequate evidence of a supreme being,they don’t believe there is no god!
Big difference!

e got it wrong,or those quotes are not his!

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

Definition of atheism
: a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods:
a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

On the other hand agnosticism says:
“Agnosticism may mean no more than the suspension of judgment on ultimate questions because of insufficient evidence, or it may constitute a rejection of traditional Christian tenets.”

The definition is very clear, disbelief in god! evidence of otherwise an atheist is a materialist. If you do not fall under the category then:

Why not call yourself a agnostic then? if you are not sure there is no god, then you are by definition a agnostic person. Richard dawkins says he 6.9/7 certain there is no god, so he is "almost certain" there is no god, from my understand of your posts you are the same, so you do not qualify under your definition, how can you be "sure" that god didnt create us? if you say there is no evidence but i can't be sure, i understand but you are saying materialism all that exists and nothing exists outside of material world is a position of pure faith. Hence you exactly fall under the definition sagans atheism.

The quotes are not wrong, read up on Sagan mate, he clearly said he doesn't believe in a god depending how you define god.

From Washington times:

I e-mailed the person who would know Sagan’s views better than anyone: Ann Druyan, Sagan’s widow. I specifically asked her about the quote in my 1996 story (“An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no God”). Druyan responded:

“Carl meant exactly what he said. He used words with great care.He did not know if there was a god. It is my understanding that to be an atheist is to take the position that it is known that there is no god or equivalent. Carl was comfortable with the label ‘agnostic’ but not ‘atheist.'”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...did-he-believe-part-1/?utm_term=.16902c8db0a1

You are saying a great scientist is wrong and you know more about this than him! well ok then, i dont think anything else needs to be said.

But going back to gods

Einsteins god is extremely plausible, he had the deepest respect for hindu cosmology based on the spirituality, there are youtube videos of him acknowledging it.

Right, so consciousness itself is not an evidence? how about the universe itself? So 14 billion years ago there was nothing and now here we are, just by accident and that requires no belief. Accident!

 

[Total Power]

You’re making the claim god is beyond space and time,it therefore becomes incumbent upon you to provide adequate evidence for making the claim!
That’s how this all works,as yet none has been provided,by anyone,ever!
My position remains the same until it is provided!

I have already given you the evidence, the fact that you are not even willing to consider these evidences shows you are not interested reading up about it and anything that i say will be dismissed as hallucinating or pure lies! 30 million recorded NDE experiences and some 1,000 odd Peer reviewed studies to support the theory that physical explanation of NDE is not enough. But you are going to play the "god of gaps" card so, lets move to consiousness research then.

I clearly said to you, if you believe consciousness is local , show me the evidence. I am willing to consider it, but research suggests physical explaination for consciousness isn't enough, that's why we are looking for beyond biology now.

Mystics have confirmed the existence of other reals thousands of years ago, there was no microscope then, there was no computer either. These realms can be explored by you and solely by you. Despite me telling you this you are going to dismissing this without trying it out yourself. That's not a very good scientist right there.

 

[skilts]

Recent approaches often view myths as manifestations of psychological, cultural, or societal truths, rather than as inaccurate historical accounts.

FMD, we are reduced to discussing inaccurate truths. You're silly.

 

[Total Power]

FMD, we are reduced to discussing inaccurate truths. You're silly.

That's why its called "myth-ology", bible is not a book of science, nor a book of history, its mythology, every single culture have mythologies, which carry a deeper meaning than what's mentioned. The miracle birth of Jesus is one such archetype, yet it carries a profound meaning in mysticism.

 

[skilts]

That's why its called "myth-ology", bible is not a book of science, nor a book of history, its mythology, every single culture have mythologies, which carry a deeper meaning than what's mentioned. The miracle birth of Jesus is one such archetype, yet it carries a profound meaning in mysticism.

There cannot exist truths which are inaccurate. Such a sentence is a contradiction in terms.

Also, what, exactly, is your much vaunted, but never defined, 'sprituality'? Is this another 'truth'? Another 'truth' which seems to be a different thing, or things, to different people? Hardly the stuff of 'truth' is it?

I used to admire your posts. What happened?

 

[Total Power]

There cannot exist truths which are inaccurate. Such a sentence is a contradiction in terms.

Also, what, exactly, is your much vaunted, but never defined, 'sprituality'? Is this another 'truth'? Another 'truth' which seems to be a different thing, or things, to different people? Hardly the stuff of 'truth' is it?

I used to admire your posts. What happened?

Historically inaccurate it says, cause it wasn't meant to be "historically accurate", that's why its mythology. At the time of Homer, mythology was the best form of ensuring the passing on of teachings particularly those with esoteric symbols. It does not matter if the Christ characters are complete fabrications. What matters is the symbology. Even Plato for example was considered to be born or virigin, historically accurate of not, it has deeper meaning.

Dont admire my posts mate, i dont come here for point scoring, i base my posts based on my experiences that i have gathered throughout my life, some included intensive meditation.

 

[Seeds]

“I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken-down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.” - Stephen Hawking

so why start this thread then?

god doesnt exist. anyone who is not a moron knows this. why pander to morons.

 

[Snake_Baker]

so why start this thread then?

god doesnt exist. anyone who is not a moron knows this. why pander to morons.

I didn't start it.

Admin had me abducted and brought here.

 

[Lethality]

I didn't realise the religious were so triggered over Stephen Hawking.

 

[Snake_Baker]

...You can't subvert metaphysics....

You can't subvert the flying spaghetti monster either!

 

[Total Power]

If you had any understanding of science you would know that science and strict atheism do not go hand in hand.

Thanks for your infinite wisdom, but i already said it many pages ago that science =/= atheism. If that would be the case, then only a tiny minority of scientists wouldnt be atheist.

However, the truly laughable thing is that you somehow believe this supports your view of existence.

Consciousness is a thing, or it isn't. You claim non-locality have no consensus, that means local consciousness must have consensus? its either/or, cannot be both. So if you cannot explain consciousness through locality, then beyond biology explanation if extremely plausible. There is nothing unscientific about that and billions and billions of dollars would not be invested in researching this if there is a "consensus" that brain = consciousness. Despite requesting details about consensus on locality , all you have done is deflect. The fact remains we cannot define consciousness by limited ourselves to the physical only. If you disagree show me the scientific consensus. There is a "lot" of science out there which agrees with my statements above, there is none out there which limits consciousness to the physical, would you like to try again?