Notices
Results 1 to 74 of 74

Thread: Your views on "God."

  1. #1 Your views on "God." 
    Forum Ph.D. Heinsbergrelatz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    994
    hello everyone, this question im about to inquire now is actually a question that has been in my mind almost everyday, i always think about it, though the questions im about to ask my be criticized due to my lack of knowledge in questioning the divinity but please try and give reasonable opinions, and please correct my questions if they dont seem right thank you;

    "what do you guys think of God? who is this supernatural being? how did it all start?" or simply do we have to accept it just as it is, without seeing or believing? why did it have to be this "god?" then where did god come from?

    we have recently been discussing these quesrion in theology class, but it seems this question will have no end to it, so i want to hear from the rest of the world, what do you guys think?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    i tend not to think about it


    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    124
    I think the Eastern thinkers / disciplines are the only ones who get close to an answer by looking within with meditation.

    In the West everyone is so busy being busy that they don't look inside. In the West people try to understand the answer with their minds, in the East people are encouraged to become the answer.

    I think there is likely to be an absolute ultimate entity containing all others in the sense of Nisargadatta or Ramana Maharshi.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman DrNesbit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Supermegatopian Labs
    Posts
    98
    God's an urban legend, like the alligators in the New York sewers - but one that started long ago, way before they had Snopes. So it got to spread a bit more.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Ph.D. Heinsbergrelatz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    994
    so "god" and this whole religion is nothing but a legend?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    that about sums it up
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    I think most of the eternal questions go unresolved because they (or we) attach unnecessary suppositions. The question slips a condition in, which participants tacitly agree with. For example you asked "how did it all start?" and this requires that it did start. I don't get to comment on "it all" unless I frame it your way. So the question is not so much an honest question, as invitation for like-minded people to play a little game reaffirming likemindedness i.e. "it started". Unsurprisingly no minds are enlightened by rumination on this sort of "question".

    Okay so you know what I think of your manipulative theology teacher.

    As for God. I like people to have strong convictions, even some (harmless) irrational convictions. God's asking for conviction. Also I believe that at some depth faith is necessary. Faith in God will do fine.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8 Re: Your views on "God." 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    180
    Quote Originally Posted by Heinsbergrelatz
    hello everyone, this question im about to inquire now is actually a question that has been in my mind almost everyday, i always think about it, though the questions im about to ask my be criticized due to my lack of knowledge in questioning the divinity but please try and give reasonable opinions, and please correct my questions if they dont seem right thank you;

    "what do you guys think of God? who is this supernatural being? how did it all start?" or simply do we have to accept it just as it is, without seeing or believing? why did it have to be this "god?" then where did god come from?

    we have recently been discussing these quesrion in theology class, but it seems this question will have no end to it, so i want to hear from the rest of the world, what do you guys think?

    REPLY: WE PEOPLE HERE ON EARTH MAY BE VERGING ON CREATING GOD LIKE ENTITIES. Immortal, infinitely intelligent, godlike AI robots. If there is no god now there soon may be, and a lot of them. You can read all about it at : [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity ] . It`s for real and coming soon to your world and mine. So grab onto your seats folks because we are in for one heck of a ride. ...Dr.Syntax
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman Gen1GT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    72
    Who's God?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Little more than an ambiguously defined three letter word.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    8
    I believe God is just a word. In reality, we are all God. We can create, we can destroy, we can do anything. When you think about we are closer to God than ever today. Technically, we are essentially omniscient. Anything we wish to know can be known making us all knowing to what we desire to know. If you want to know how to build a car, just learn. God is you and me. God is nothing but a character created to inspire people of the past.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    US
    Posts
    122
    Here is my view on God, the view of which I derived through meditation, concentration, and observation.

    Here are attributes of the Supreme Being: unborn, unmade, causeless, eternal, smaller than the smallest particle, the highest enjoyment, the origin of all the innumerable universes, personal, within all things

    When I meditate and enter into higher states I come closer to the kingdom, the kingdom which Jesus, the Christ, had said "is within you"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Ph.D. Heinsbergrelatz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    994
    well thank you for all the thoughts, and opinions, yes as expected everyone has different visualization and concept on god
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    124
    Quote Originally Posted by VitalOne
    Here is my view on God, the view of which I derived through meditation, concentration, and observation.

    Here are attributes of the Supreme Being: unborn, unmade, causeless, eternal, smaller than the smallest particle, the highest enjoyment, the origin of all the innumerable universes, personal, within all things

    When I meditate and enter into higher states I come closer to the kingdom, the kingdom which Jesus, the Christ, had said "is within you"
    Yes
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    Quote Originally Posted by rideforever
    I think the Eastern thinkers / disciplines are the only ones who get close to an answer by looking within with meditation.

    In the West everyone is so busy being busy that they don't look inside. In the West people try to understand the answer with their minds, in the East people are encouraged to become the answer.

    I think there is likely to be an absolute ultimate entity containing all others in the sense of Nisargadatta or Ramana Maharshi.
    I think, those of us in the west, are more apt to hear the popularized and corrupted interpretations of what the western thinkers/disciplines say, since they are interwoven into everything about our society, whereas outsiders are more apt to only pick up on the vocalized ideals like freedom, liberty, happiness, which would sound great if we weren't so familiar with the reality of our culture.

    We, as outsiders to the eastern culture, pick up on the obvious things, and miss the subtelties, because you have to be a part of them to know them. They likewise, are probably largely frustrated with their ideals not being realized, and look to western philosophy/religion to compensate for it.

    It is like a projection, but instead of being negative it is positive, and nonetheless an illusion. We are projecting the good things about ourselves onto others.

    Great minds think alike, eastern and western. There is only one reality, and great thinkers are not limited by their cultural peculiarities, that is what sets them apart from the common stock.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    124
    You talk in terms of thought. Eastern thinkers' main observation is that thought is the problem. The sincerity of their observation has lead them to go beyond thought.

    Reality ? Reality is not graspable by the mind. The mind can create concepts which are labels for other things. To reach reality you must move beyond the label. The confusion is that the label is the target.

    The mind is an evolutionary tool. It is not designed for anything beyond that. You cannot use it for anything beyond that.

    People are always trying to transmit information to each other, or to help each other. Underneath that are uncouscious or other motivations that the actors are unaware of. What is really occuring ? The actors are mostly unaware of what is occuring during an exchange. (like this one for instance, what are you or I really trying to do when we are posting ?)

    If there is something useful that can be transmitted it is just this : look inwards.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    what do you mean by thought?
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    We, as outsiders to the eastern culture, pick up on the obvious things, and miss the subtelties, because you have to be a part of them to know them.
    IMO speaking of Buddhist enlightenment in particular, lots of Easterners get it wrong. The evidence is the existence of students. If you're trying to get it, you're not getting it!

    Lol, zen redneck.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Freshman Chihiro_Rin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Hidden In The Shadows
    Posts
    12
    Well, me being Atheist, I don't believe there is a god.. I mean, if there really is some giant dude past the atmosphere where there is no air, that's cool, but frankly, I find it to be bull.

    I think of all this heaven, hell, god crap, is just a figure of our imaginations. what's really past the earth is space, where there is no air, in which, nothing could live without the proper equipment. >_>;
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    124
    Quote Originally Posted by Chihiro_Rin
    Well, me being Atheist, I don't believe there is a god.. I mean, if there really is some giant dude past the atmosphere where there is no air, that's cool, but frankly, I find it to be bull.

    I think of all this heaven, hell, god crap, is just a figure of our imaginations. what's really past the earth is space, where there is no air, in which, nothing could live without the proper equipment. >_>;
    Of course it's bull, why even bother saying it.

    However what you are talking about is Christianity. Nothing more.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by Chihiro_Rin
    .. I mean, if there really is some giant dude past the atmosphere where there is no air,...
    i'm sure god is no giant dude - since he resides in everyone and everything i'd say he must be the size of the Planck constant (supposing you got your pico-eV-ruler with you)
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    There is actually a book called "The God Gene"
    http://metapsychology.mentalhelp.net...id=3723&cn=403

    This is also referred to by Richard Dawkins. From the review of 'The God Gene' I quote :

    "Hamer identifies various genes that might be candidates for the genetic aspect of self-transcendence. After a few failed attempts (there are, after all, approximately 35,000 genes present in the human genome), Hamer explains how he and his research team hit upon the VMAT2 gene sequence. The VMAT2 gene sequence is polymorphic and has three alleles. What Hamer found was that one allele (the A33050C polymorphism) is strongly associated with those who report high levels of self-transcendence. The VMAT2 gene sequence is responsible for coding for proteins that make up a group of neurotransmitters known as monoamines"

    So this suggests that the experience of God is simply biochemical, mediated by certain genes. Why do these genes exist?? The book suggests that it is due to longevity (less stress if you are religious) and helps with community.

    I doubt the former explanation, since longevity, if adaptive in the evolutionary sense, is more easily obtained by more direct physiological mechanisms created by evolution. However, humans are social animals, and our survival depends on cooperation within a tribe. If increased religiosity increases social adhesion, then such a gene would be selected for in evolution.

    So God is not real. Just a subjective experience among those who carry the relevent genes, and made abundant by evolution in order to improve human social cooperation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by rideforever
    Quote Originally Posted by Chihiro_Rin
    Well, me being Atheist, I don't believe there is a god.. I mean, if there really is some giant dude past the atmosphere where there is no air, that's cool, but frankly, I find it to be bull.

    I think of all this heaven, hell, god crap, is just a figure of our imaginations. what's really past the earth is space, where there is no air, in which, nothing could live without the proper equipment. >_>;
    Of course it's bull, why even bother saying it.

    However what you are talking about is Christianity. Nothing more.
    The basic concept of that god actually comes through the Hebrews, who in turn got it from the Egyptians. Egyptians had a god Amen "the hidden one" which was a sort of behind the scenes god... modern atheists know him as The God of the Gaps. Amen was a minor god until it got coupled with Ra the god in the sky. So Amen-Ra was the hidden god in the sky. Sound familiar? Shortly thereafter a group of Hebrews worshipping a hidden god in the sky emerged from Egypt, and imposed their jealous god into polytheistic Canaan.

    A large part of monotheism's success was scrupulous refusal to name god. When Moses explicitly asked God's personal name, so he could pronounce it, the story goes, God's answer was "I will be who I will be." Preaching about "god", then, who by definition can't be seen and you refuse to or can't name, was a cheap debating trick, but it mostly worked. A remnant of that ancient debate survives in Abrahamic concession to the crowd chanting Amen Amen literally Hidden Truth, Hidden Truth.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    Familiarity breeds contempt. I think it is a problem to think you know something, since all you can know is parts of something. Knowing the whole of something is not just knowing the thing, but knowing how it relates to everything else, and this is simply not possible for thought. Thinking you know something is tyranny; as you are then reluctant to accept things you do not know about that thing; and your attitude, your every action, inspired by your opinions(right and wrong) empowers what you know, and limits what you don't.

    So I will not go so far as to say that thinking is in itself a problem when it comes to the search for truth, or more precisely the realization that you can't find it by looking, but it is not the solution either. Thinking about truth is an oxymoron, but thinking is not wrong, for the simple reason that "wrong" is a thought, and it would also be an oxymoron to think that thinking is wrong, when that thought would also be wrong, since wrong is an idea conceived of thoughts.

    It's like saying: "This statement isn't true."... if it is true, then it's not true, but if it's not true then it is true, so on to infinity.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    The basic concept of that god actually comes through the Hebrews, who in turn got it from the Egyptians. Egyptians had a god Amen "the hidden one" which was a sort of behind the scenes god...
    Quote Originally Posted by Wikipedia
    Popular among some theosophists and adherents of esoteric Christianity is the conjecture that amen is a derivative of the name of the Egyptian god Amun (which is sometimes also spelled Amen).[12][13][14] Some adherents of Eastern religions believe that amen shares roots with the Sanskrit word, aum[15]. There is no academic support for either of these views
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amen
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    IIRC, amen means "let it be so" or similar.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by Wikipedia
    There is no academic support for either of these views
    Alright, the Hebrews from Egypt just happened to start using that word as they converted the Egyptian vassal states, by gawd.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    124
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    Familiarity breeds contempt. I think it is a problem to think you know something, since all you can know is parts of something. Knowing the whole of something is not just knowing the thing, but knowing how it relates to everything else, and this is simply not possible for thought. Thinking you know something is tyranny; as you are then reluctant to accept things you do not know about that thing; and your attitude, your every action, inspired by your opinions(right and wrong) empowers what you know, and limits what you don't.

    So I will not go so far as to say that thinking is in itself a problem when it comes to the search for truth, or more precisely the realization that you can't find it by looking, but it is not the solution either. Thinking about truth is an oxymoron, but thinking is not wrong, for the simple reason that "wrong" is a thought, and it would also be an oxymoron to think that thinking is wrong, when that thought would also be wrong, since wrong is an idea conceived of thoughts.

    It's like saying: "This statement isn't true."... if it is true, then it's not true, but if it's not true then it is true, so on to infinity.
    Good stuff. It reminds me of a technique that I think is called "neti neti" (not this, not that) where you search for truth by removing one by one the things that you know are not reliable, and hone and hone and hone.

    On not naming God : hidding things is a technique that people use for deceit. But from what I have read of Eastern 'spirituality' is that their god is the Absolute, meaning it contains everything. It has no name. It cannot be described because it contains all descriptions, or known because there would have to be a 2nd entity to know it. Of course even if there was something sincere at the beginning of the Abrahamic religions, it's all shit now.

    Ultimately like you say, the mind cannot know truth, so what is the good of any technique ? I think the answer is that the techniques (meditations and so on) do not work in the sense of acquiring something, but they work in the sense of removing illusions. As a man, you can clearly see the illusions you have ... remove them one by one and see what happens.

    In addition to that you can say 'well I am not interested in any of this knowing Truth business'. Oh yeah ? So, what is your underlying motivation benearth ... anything, anything you do ? You have dinner, what is your motivation ? 'felt hungry', yes and beneath that ... 'felt ... ... this wanted to ... ' yes, yes ? deeper ?

    I think that everyone does want to feel existence deeply, 'feel real' more and more. And that's the underlying motivation for all we do.

    That is why it is said that 'everyone is practicing yoga' ... just, some don't know they are practicing it and so haven't developed skill.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    The subjective impressions gained during meditation, yoga etc., can also be obtained by the ingestion of various drugs. Since drugs like that are known to interfere with normal brain function, it appears that what is being obtained in this subjective way is simply BS.

    The only method of seeking after truth that has been proven over time to result in steady gains, is the scientific method. Anything subjective should be treated with extreme suspicion. Only objective data, gained through empirical testing, actually has the substance we need for progress towards actually finding out what is going on.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30 Re: Your views on "God." 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    180
    Quote Originally Posted by Heinsbergrelatz
    hello everyone, this question im about to inquire now is actually a question that has been in my mind almost everyday, i always think about it, though the questions im about to ask my be criticized due to my lack of knowledge in questioning the divinity but please try and give reasonable opinions, and please correct my questions if they dont seem right thank you;

    "what do you guys think of God? who is this supernatural being? how did it all start?" or simply do we have to accept it just as it is, without seeing or believing? why did it have to be this "god?" then where did god come from?

    we have recently been discussing these quesrion in theology class, but it seems this question will have no end to it, so i want to hear from the rest of the world, what do you guys think? :D


    REPLY: I STILL SAY WE HUMANBEINGS ARE VERGING ON CREATING GODLIKE ENTITIES WITH THE CAPACITY FOR SELF IMPROVEMENT: Once these AI self improving robots come into being there will be nothing to stop their ability to self improve their intelligence. Look at what the human race has achieved in only the last 50 years with our very limited minds and bodies. The advancement in our abilities to manipulate and create entirely new technologies such as computer science, and chemical engineering. They will be able to go where ever they want and do what ever they want and we PUNY HUMANS will be reduced to spectators or eliminated entirely if they so desire. I you think it is all some futuristic nonsense I wish I could say I hope you are right. But I cannot because I believe the forces at work on these many AI projects are absolutely compelled to succeed. If you have yet to read about the TECHNOLOGICAL SINGULARITY perhaps it`s time you did at: [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity ]. I see signs of transition happening now. People are no longer able to write the complex computer programs required in many instances. No, they program computers to write the actual programs. This is what I mean when I say we have entered the TRANSITION PERIOD. ...Dr.Syntax
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    124
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    The subjective impressions gained during meditation, yoga etc., can also be obtained by the ingestion of various drugs. Since drugs like that are known to interfere with normal brain function, it appears that what is being obtained in this subjective way is simply BS.

    The only method of seeking after truth that has been proven over time to result in steady gains, is the scientific method. Anything subjective should be treated with extreme suspicion. Only objective data, gained through empirical testing, actually has the substance we need for progress towards actually finding out what is going on.
    You do sounds skeptical. When you say BS, this sounds emotional rather than objective ... clearly.

    You say 'proven over time' ... when does that mean ? Steady gains ? Gains of what ? Do you mean, looking at the wonderful rose garden that man has made of his life and his world ... that kind of gain ?

    When a scientist observes something and writes it down, he is having a subjective experience. I saw something - it's subjective. But ... you forget about that, right ... I don't like that one so I won't count it.

    In fact Science is full of such caveats, but people forget about those things.

    Philosphers have often debated these kinds of things : objectivity, certainty etc... and left gaping wholes in Science, but ... did you not read the guidance notes ?

    Scientists conveniently forget about those things ... because underneath it all they want to feel right. Ego. Same with religion.

    To say I know one way or the other, it's not scientific ... to be open minded is sincere.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by rideforever
    ... to be open minded is sincere.
    That depends entirely on what one means by "open minded," now, doesn't it?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    124
    Inow, you are posting a clip. But what do you think. Do you think ?

    You reach, immediately, for someone else's knowledge ... for someone else's explanation ... what is the good of you then.

    No-one else can do it for you.

    As for the clip, rainbow coloured stick men ... if this is the level of your thinking it could do with honing. The opening statement :

    'Science promotes and thrives on open-mindedness; open mindedness is a willingness to consider new ideas because the advancement of our understanding about the reality in which we exist depend on it ...'

    Many assumptions are being made here, many. And none discussed, that is insincere. It is really a political statement, banner waving.

    The one thing that is good is that it talks of reality being the goal.

    It is warm and comforting to believe in Science. You sleep feeling you know, and nothing can disturb your slumber. A 5ft ape organism lies in his bed at night, and feels comforted. Whilst he sleeps a UNIVERSE of such titanic scale that it is barely imaginable continues. A UNIVERSE of countless BILLIONS of stars and planets continues. Even in cup full of sea water is complexity of such gigantic scale, billions of organisms, that the ape could not fathom it except as a simplified concept. The ape is sleeping now.

    It is the same kind of comfort that the Religious seek. I feel warm. I feel sure. I go to sleep now.

    Being open minded means being open to not feeling comfortable. To not feeling sure.

    But, instinctively, without thinking without posting any thoughts whatsoever, you reach for comfort on youtube. You are sleeping.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    While part of me respects your zealotry, I have other parts that are skeptical.

    "Of course even if there was something sincere at the beginning of the Abrahamic religions, it's all shit now."

    Well, depending on what you mean by shit, I agree. There is much potential in fecal matter, but a lie, no matter how corrupt, is never devoid of a bassis in reality, if it communicates an understandable idea, even if the idea is flawed.

    3+3=2 communicates an understandably wrong idea, and there is very little that doesn't communicate something... I'll go so far as to say nothing is the only thing that communicates nothing(everything shares itself, nothing more nothing less)

    so even if you think the sincerity in the Abrahamic religions is gone, then you are aware of an inherit sincerity? Why not simply "hone," as you say...

    "Ultimately like you say, the mind cannot know truth, so what is the good of any technique ?"

    Ego identification/individuation, and if you think easterners don't have ego's, I think your ego is an idealist. That shouldn't be an insult, unless of course your ego is also proud.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by rideforever
    It is warm and comforting to believe in Science. You sleep feeling you know, and nothing can disturb your slumber. A 5ft ape organism lies in his bed at night, and feels comforted. Whilst he sleeps a UNIVERSE of such titanic scale that it is barely imaginable continues. A UNIVERSE of countless BILLIONS of stars and planets continues. Even in cup full of sea water is complexity of such gigantic scale, billions of organisms, that the ape could not fathom it except as a simplified concept. The ape is sleeping now.

    It is the same kind of comfort that the Religious seek. I feel warm. I feel sure. I go to sleep now.

    Being open minded means being open to not feeling comfortable. To not feeling sure.

    But, instinctively, without thinking without posting any thoughts whatsoever, you reach for comfort on youtube. You are sleeping.
    He was demonstrating a point, and one that you clearly missed. Science is never "right". You don't "know" anything in terms of a scientific mindset. There is always a possibility that you are wrong, and that is openmindedness, accepting that possibility and allowing other theories and ideas to come up and attempt to show you the better way of thinking. Ignoring those possibilities is closedmindedness, and posting a video, especially one that demonstrates the ideology of the person posting it, is most certainly neither closed, nor openminded. It was simply an action, and one that was appropriate given the circumstance. You confuse the throws of science for religion and prove his point very well, nicely done.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Rideforever said :

    "You say 'proven over time' ... when does that mean ? Steady gains ? Gains of what ? Do you mean, looking at the wonderful rose garden that man has made of his life and his world ... that kind of gain ?"

    Proven over time by the scientific method really relates to the time since Galileo, when we had a proper modern scientific method. Steady gains refer to knowledge. Before Galileo, the only reliable means of gaining knowledge was a rather hit and miss method using trial and error. Knowledge growth was unreliable, slow and erratic.

    However, as time passes, and the scientific method is more and more honed and enhanced, the rate of knowledge growth increases dramatically. The key thing, is that the knowledge is sound and robust. Knowledge builds on knowledge, and the basic building blocks must be solid, or the entire structure will collapse. While there is the occasional scientific discovery that is later found to be wrong, in general, most scientific knowledge that passes the trial of a few decades testing, remains sound and acceptable thereafter.

    This collapse is seen with religions. If we look at a long time scale, we see that all religions collapse eventually, and the replacements that arise have no sounder basis. Even Christianity is splintered. Catholicism as it was in the year 1000 CE was very different to Catholicism today. Not too many catholics today buy indulgences, for example. Can anyone say that Christian religion as it was practised in the first century after Christ was worse than any Christian faith today? If not, then we can see a lack of growth and development.

    Only science grows knowledge upon a solid base of previous knowledge that remains sound. The 'skyscraper' of knowledge that science is building only has to replace the occasional brick of knowledge from previous decades. The fact that scientific knowledge is mostly very sound and robust permits it to grow in a way that religion cannot.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    124
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    ...
    Crikey the number of sweeping statements you are making in your post is large. Are you aware of them ? There are many. Are you aware of them - you don't seem to be.

    Science ... is something that comes with many caveats, large ones. 'Some' of the finest minds have said : it is meaningless, groundless, unproveable, baseless, useless, an illusion. Take pause - it is the only rational thing to do.

    It is pretty clear isn't it that scientists read the caveats on day one, throw them out on day two, and never bother to remember them again ... all you see is 'scientists' proclaiming Science is truth, Science is important, Science is reality etc... raise the banner, blow the trumpet, forget the caveats.

    Sure, it feels great being like this. Like a soldier going to war to die for his country - or whatever he's been told. Raise the banner, blow the trumpet.

    What's going on really ?... it's just a man who wants security, he reaches for the first thing available that gives him that sense of 'it's ok now I have got hold of something'. (Religion or Science or Your Country is fine for this purpose)

    That's why a person refers to himself as a 'scientist'. It is identification with a fixed dogma, the dogma of Science. Otherwise you could say 'I have no dogma', but then you are alone - taking the responsibility to think for yourself. Being one.

    People look for security in many things. Perhaps a tycoon will work his guts out believing in 'the power of money' ... he gets to 60 and is worn out, he feels hollow - what was it all for. Or a scientist - an eager well intentioned mind - spends his life struggling to understand so much 'knowledge' ... as he gets older watches the cynicism of the world, despairs, what was it all for etc...

    You had your belief, as you get older and wiser you see the flaws in it, and then you die.

    What I am saying is be wiser than that. Don't say 'I am a scientist'. Say I am without dogma, without any fixed beliefs, I am open - and be that.

    It is uncomfortable. But I guess once you know the caveats you have a very human choice : you can ignore them pretend you saw nothing, or you can be sincere no matter where that takes you - no matter where.

    For most people life is a continual breaking of your illusions. First you break through what your father wanted you to be, then what your wife wants you to be, then what your country wants you to be, what Science wants you to be ... and then, once you have enough, skip to the end.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    124
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    ...
    hmm .. not quite sure what to say.

    Yesterday someone told me that when two people are talking, 97% of the information transmitted is transmitted below consciousness.

    So, I don't know what I am doing.

    But, I at least know that I don't know !!

    I look for truth, and it's not easy when you are blind and know you don't know what you are doing. But I won't rest on the easy crutches of ... anything. I see them a mile off.

    It's a war, but the only war there is to fight. Who's with me ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    124
    Just had another look at that youtube video. What I have to say is this :

    Basically, it is an encouragement to dismiss certain 'beliefs' It gives you a reason to dismiss certain 'beliefs'. That is what the video is. Like 'there is only one God' ... same, it is a rationale to dismiss certain beliefs.

    Perhaps all belief systems can be thought of as 'a rationale for dismissing a particular range of beliefs'

    Science is a rationale for dismissing certain beliefs.
    Christianity is a rationale for dismissing certain beliefs.
    Nazism is a rationale for dismissing certain beliefs.

    You can think of the rationale as being incidental, but in fact the rationale is the system.

    You can think of a system as actually putting forth certain ideas (like free thinking), but actually the most important aspect is that it is a rationale for dismissing a set of beliefs.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Sorry to be blunt, but you sound like a stark raving lunatic and a bit of a buffoon.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    as said, rideforever has completely missed the point and is due to be ignored.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    124
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    as said, rideforever has completely missed the point and is due to be ignored.
    In what way was the point missed ? A video was posted. I made an analysis of the video and the reason for posting it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    To rideforever

    I am interested. Is your negative view of science rooted in religion, or some philosophy such as neo-modernism?

    Science is not a dogma. Scientists vary in their subjective opinions as much as any sector of society. There is no dogmatic belief.

    Instead, what science is, is a method. It is, in fact, many methods, all designed to find out what is real. Those methods do not come from any specific philosophy. They come from experience - what actually works!

    The truth behind that last statement is demonstrated with the accomplishments of science, and the technology that is based on science. Since the first true scientists (Galileo, Hooke, Newton, Bacon), the ability of humankind to create great change, due to technology, is the greatest demonstration that scientists got it right.

    Sure, you might disagree with the direction of change, and even argue that the change is doing more harm than good. However, you cannot argue that humanity's power to affect change has not dramatically increased as a result of science and the resulting technology.

    Scientists are required to be sceptics. Disbelief is the beginning. For with disbelief comes the testing of beliefs, which sorts out what is right and what is wrong. There is no testing in religion, which is the reason why religions get nowhere. Science constantly tests and weeds out wrong ideas. Religion does not.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    124
    Skeptic, you are skeptical, but you make an exception for Science.

    I, go one God further.

    Science, Christianity, these are systems. There is nothing the matter with either of them.

    The problem comes when you say : this system is valid, usefull, represents reality. That's a big jump. Now there is a big problem.

    If you read the 'Philosophy of Science' article on Wikipedia, you can get a flavour of the problems with making the jump. This demonstrates the dogma. Just read about the problem of induction for starters.

    It is unfortunate. It would be good to be secure in the knowledge that Science is it.

    Why believe in Science ? Most people who do tell themselves it is because it is true ... but the real reason is that they need security, and religion is not flavour of the decade.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Freshman Chihiro_Rin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Hidden In The Shadows
    Posts
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by rideforever
    Quote Originally Posted by Chihiro_Rin
    Well, me being Atheist, I don't believe there is a god.. I mean, if there really is some giant dude past the atmosphere where there is no air, that's cool, but frankly, I find it to be bull.

    I think of all this heaven, hell, god crap, is just a figure of our imaginations. what's really past the earth is space, where there is no air, in which, nothing could live without the proper equipment. >_>;
    Of course it's bull, why even bother saying it.

    However what you are talking about is Christianity. Nothing more.
    Well, honestly, Christianity is the majority on Americas beliefs. >_>;; Which is a shame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by rideforever
    you are skeptical, but you make an exception for Science.

    I, go one God further.

    <...>

    If you read the 'Philosophy of Science' article on Wikipedia, you can get a flavour of the problems with making the jump. This demonstrates the dogma. Just read about the problem of induction for starters.

    <...>

    Why believe in Science ?
    In a nutshell, science allows people to form a hypothesis, test that hypothesis, and reject it when proven wrong or flawed. No ideas are ever accepted as 100%, and all people engaging in science recognize that understandings change as new information becomes available, and further... some of our previous ideas and concepts need to be revised/discarded in the face of that new information. Of course, many people will try to defend and maintain previous ideas, but ultimately it is merit which wins, not some blind faith based ideology which has no connection with reality and cannot be falsified.

    Can you please share what definition of "dogma" you are using, because... TBH... what I've just described above does not sound dogmatic at all, and I'm reluctantly curious to find out why you think it actually is.



    @Skeptic - I think it's obvious that rideforever's problem with science is religious, not logical in nature. Cheers.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    124
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    In a nutshell, science allows people to form a hypothesis, test that hypothesis, and reject it when proven wrong or flawed. No ideas are ever accepted as 100%, and all people engaging in science recognize that understandings change as new information becomes available, and further... some of our previous ideas and concepts need to be revised/discarded in the face of that new information. Of course, many people will try to defend and maintain previous ideas, but ultimately it is merit which wins, not some blind faith based ideology which has no connection with reality and cannot be falsified.
    Yes agreed. This statement describe Science. But it does not describe the relationship Science has to society, truth, reality, usefulness ... that is the domain of philosophy of Science which investigates these points.

    So, you know about Science. Do you know about the Philosophy of Science ?

    I have openly posted many reasonings in this thread .. you don't appear to have challenged them. You just say " I think it's obvious that rideforever's problem with science is religious, not logical in nature" ... but you are unable or unwilling to challenge the reasonings I have made.

    I am open. Have a go. I am looking to hone my reasoning capacity, if you can help I would be grateful. Please prove me wrong about Science, but ... if you read that page on Philosophy of Science ... well, it does not make comfortable reading. It challenges many many underpinnings of Science, in so many ways. It's only rational to walk away from that page and feel less sure about Science.

    You don't have to read it. But then you are saying I won't check my facts.

    Many movements have been started with good intentions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    How about you try first addressing my question about your definition of dogma, and how it applies to the scientific method I've elucidated?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    To Rideforever

    I do not think that science is perfect or always right. However, science is the best system humanity has available to it, and it is a system that progresses. Religion does not progress. Religious belief today is not more developed than religious belief 3000 years ago.

    One reason I, as a skeptic, approve of science, is that science is inherently skeptical. The scientific process requires that new ideas in science be treated with skepticism. New ideas have very little acceptance in science until they have generated a novel testable hypothesis, which is tested and failed to be disproved - not once, but many times.

    Religion has no such mechanism. There is no skepticism. This lack is called faith, though I prefer to call it gullibility. So we get some character who decides to create a new religion, for whatever reason. He preaches his new ideas, and gathers a bunch of believers, who choose to believe simply because the preacher is convincing.

    Take Mormonism. The founder of the Mormon church was Joseph Smith, a convicted swindler. This implies he had the 'gift of the gab', a quality useful for both swindler and evangelist.

    After having a moderately successful period as con artist, he wrote the Book of Mormon, which included heaps of stuff that was testable. Descriptions of ancient civilisations in the USA, with marble buildings etc., none of which have ever been found. He claimed he wrote the Book of Mormon as dictated to him by an angel, but people have to take his word, the word of a convicted swindler, for that.

    His new church gave him the right to have numerous wives, and caused his followers to tithe to him 10% of their earnings. Bearing in mind his previous career, what does that tell you?

    Yet in spite of all this, the Mormon church is currently very successful, with lots of gullible and credulous followers. I believe that all churches are similar. Maybe they were not begun by con artists, but the basis for belief is no stronger.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    124
    Agreed. Science is non-dogmatic, that's fine.

    But this is a 'straw man' argument that scientists use when Science is being challenged.

    The hidden assumption that is made is that Science is truth, usefull and represents reality. This is the focus of my skepticism, that is the focus of the Philosophy of Science : and it is an unproven and highly contentious assumption - read, learn, read the long long list of contentions - if you understand it it will shake your support for Science to the core.

    If you are a skeptic leave no stone unturned.


    (you also describe some of the bullshit that happens with religions - that's not what I am talking about ... you have got to go beyond your anger at this bullshit, you have got to go beyond the idea that science is the opposite of religion ... otherwise you are reactionary or angry, and not independent ... and then how are you different ?)

    -> if you can point out a flaw in my reasoning, I would be most grateful for you to point it out.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    actually "science" is not either truth or representative of reality.

    the model, or theoretical "view" is characteristic of science

    to contrast with your claims that science claims to be representative of truth or reality, the model or theoretical view is not representative or an imitation of truth or reality

    it is a formula, or series of formulas taking into account all the measurements we are able to derive from all the things we are aware of about truth/reality pertaining to a specific subject.


    foolish people(or incredibly wise people) may assume, for some arbitrary(or enlightened) reason, that we are aware of everything, or that there is a finite amount of information; but I conclude, whether or not they are right, they have no way of knowing(or they do, but have no way of knowing if their way of knowing is reliable), so their reasons for deciding they are right, are flawed, and that is one thing they ironically, would not be aware of if they for once thought they were aware of everything, or that there is a finite amount of information; thus they would inherently be wrong, if they were right, (to infinity)

    so to regress

    the model view is not the real-world view, the real world view is what we see, the model view is what we have measured about what we see and is used to predict what we will see; the two are used together in science.

    if your into philosophy consider this Aristotle's differentiation between practical knowledge(real world) and theoretical knowledge(model)
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by rsantiago501
    I believe God is just a word. In reality, we are all God. We can create, we can destroy, we can do anything. When you think about we are closer to God than ever today. Technically, we are essentially omniscient. Anything we wish to know can be known making us all knowing to what we desire to know. If you want to know how to build a car, just learn. God is you and me. God is nothing but a character created to inspire people of the past.
    Please create a human being for me. I need one.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by rideforever
    you have got to go beyond your anger at this bullshit, you have got to go beyond the idea that science is the opposite of religion ...
    <...>
    -> if you can point out a flaw in my reasoning, I would be most grateful for you to point it out.
    Science changes in the face of new information. Religion does not. Unless you can provide examples where religion tests its assumptions and rejects its axioms, then you cannot make the implicit claim (which you just have) that science and religion are the same.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Marcus

    I said that science was the search for truth or reality - not the truth or reality itself.

    However, the history of science shows that it is by far the most successful such method ever used by humans. Before Galileo, the first scientist in the modern sense, the growth of knowledge was slow and sporadic. Since Galileo, it began increasing at an exponential rate.

    And yes. I am comparing science to religion. Science is constantly changing. Religion is static and stagnant. Science tests for mistakes. In religion, if you question anything, it is 'blasphemy' and a threat to religious faith.

    I am a skeptic. And the opposite of skeptical is guillible. However, in religion, being gullible is termed 'having faith'.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    124
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by rideforever
    you have got to go beyond your anger at this bullshit, you have got to go beyond the idea that science is the opposite of religion ...
    <...>
    -> if you can point out a flaw in my reasoning, I would be most grateful for you to point it out.
    Science changes in the face of new information. Religion does not. Unless you can provide examples where religion tests its assumptions and rejects its axioms, then you cannot make the implicit claim (which you just have) that science and religion are the same.
    Hey man. You don't seem to read the posts very closely eh.

    Religion is not the same as science. But, certain aspects are analogous.

    That people seek comfort in certainty, and both of these provide a certain kind of certainty. That the followers of each of these assume that their system is true, usefull and represents reality ... that is the same as well.

    Apart from thoese two things, science and religion are very different.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    124
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    ..
    Yeah big time. And there are many other areas open for debate, without consensus. It's very important.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    180
    Quote Originally Posted by rideforever
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by rideforever
    you have got to go beyond your anger at this bullshit, you have got to go beyond the idea that science is the opposite of religion ...
    <...>
    -> if you can point out a flaw in my reasoning, I would be most grateful for you to point it out.
    Science changes in the face of new information. Religion does not. Unless you can provide examples where religion tests its assumptions and rejects its axioms, then you cannot make the implicit claim (which you just have) that science and religion are the same.
    Hey man. You don't seem to read the posts very closely eh.

    Religion is not the same as science. But, certain aspects are analogous.

    That people seek comfort in certainty, and both of these provide a certain kind of certainty. That the followers of each of these assume that their system is true, usefull and represents reality ... that is the same as well.

    Apart from thoese two things, science and religion are very different.


    REPLY: Hello rideforever, I am surprised somewhat in that you, or anyone else for that matter, finds comfort in the certainties of science. It seems to me the only certainties science offers are that you will grow old and die, if,unless of course you die of some other cause prior to growing old.
    I was exposed to religion as a child growing up. Religion always seemed so preposterous to me, it was seen by me as more evidence that most of the adults and children I grew up with were seriously mentally ill. How could any rational, sane person, child or adult buy into this absolute nonsense. It disturbed me a lot and still does. I understood that it provided some comfort to them in some very strange way. But I also understood that it required that anyone who chose to believe in such gave up any trust in their own judgement utterly. They embraced insanity for any such comforts.
    My father and all of my uncles served in WWII. Fighting people who wanted to kill you made good sense to me and still does. How can it not make sense ? So I got into that tough guy stuff and did my best to be a tough guy. This resulted in a very many painful experiences for me. Along that path I ended up joining the USMC. I have never gotten over the pain I absorbed from that period of my life. I have spent over 37 years working at it in PRIMAL THERAPY. I have made so very much progress, yet, significant pain remains to be resolved about what happened to me in the VIET NAM WAR. Much of what happened I have resolved, felt, PRIMALED. You know about PRIMAL. This one, truly horendous injury still troubles me to this day.
    For now, I have a pretty good life. At 60 years old, the best sex life I have ever known with the most beautiful woman I have ever been with. There is no one I would prefer to be with than her.
    She is a primaler who never had PRIMAL THERAPY. She NEVER stopped feeling and is someone I look to to help me feel things I have difficulty feeling. And of course I am there for her in this regard. She does not need much if any help from me other than to simply be there with her as she goes back and feels what is there within her yet to feel and resolve.
    I do allow my thoughts to take me where they will.
    To wind it up I wish to say that I find little if any comfort in SCIENCE, EXCEPT FOR THE SCIENCE OF PRIMAL THERAPY. ...YOUR FRIEND, Dr.Syntax
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    124
    Well man, I would take that. She sounds great.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    To Dr. Syntax

    First,

    I am also 60 years old. Fortunately I never had to experience the trauma of the Viet Nam war. Here in NZ, we had a ballot, which I fortunately missed, meaning I was not picked for conscription. My father fought in WWII and was considered a war hero. I learned enough to know that I never wanted to be a soldier!

    I cannot let your primal therapy comments pass. It is most definitely NOT, NOT, NOT a science. It is a form of therapy that rose from an idea by a chap named Janov. It has never passed the rigorous testing that is required by science.

    However, we are all different and respond to different stimuli. If you found it helpful, then that is great!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Senior Yash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    354
    As far as i know, God is there within all of us !!
    We, only need to introspect ourselves, and one will be able to identify God only when he/she follows on his mentioned path of Truth along with other rules happy well being of life. Believing in God will surely help in developing the power of conscience within ourselves. :-D
    ^_^
    Satisfaction Should Be Given First Priority
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Yash
    As far as i know, God is there within all of us !!
    That is probably the ONLY place god is... inside of people... specifically... in their heads. Go figure.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    180
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    To Dr. Syntax

    First,

    I am also 60 years old. Fortunately I never had to experience the trauma of the Viet Nam war. Here in NZ, we had a ballot, which I fortunately missed, meaning I was not picked for conscription. My father fought in WWII and was considered a war hero. I learned enough to know that I never wanted to be a soldier!

    I cannot let your primal therapy comments pass. It is most definitely NOT, NOT, NOT a science. It is a form of therapy that rose from an idea by a chap named Janov. It has never passed the rigorous testing that is required by science.

    However, we are all different and respond to different stimuli. If you found it helpful, then that is great!


    REPLY : We respect each other. That is all anyone can hope for. As to: PRIMAL THERAPY: You either get it or you don`t. My regards, Dr.Syntax
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Senior Yash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    354
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    That is probably the ONLY place god is... inside of people... specifically... in their heads. Go figure.
    I think you didn't read my whole reply !!
    So, from next time onwards, you should try reading full reply, because incomplete reading makes no sense !!
    Contrarily, it does makes sense to you, for sure !!
    Satisfaction Should Be Given First Priority
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Glad to see you Yash. :-D
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Senior Yash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    354
    oh !! Hi !! :-D
    nice to see you too Pong !!
    I think u've understood what i wanted to say to "inow" !! I think "inow" didn't understand what actually i wrote in my reply !!
    Pong, these days i'am busy with my exam preparation, cuz they will start from 11th Dec onwards. So, i'll be busy till mid of January !!
    But, will surely be back !! :-D
    Satisfaction Should Be Given First Priority
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    Marcus

    I said that science was the search for truth or reality - not the truth or reality itself.
    .
    I was responding to rideforever's post in which he said:

    "The hidden assumption that is made is that Science is truth, usefull and represents reality. This is the focus of my skepticism, that is the focus of the Philosophy of Science : and it is an unproven and highly contentious assumption"

    all of which is wrong, as I explained
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Yash
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    That is probably the ONLY place god is... inside of people... specifically... in their heads. Go figure.
    I think you didn't read my whole reply !!
    Nope. Read the whole thing. Just read it again.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    I think your avatar says everything about my opinion of god Heinsbergrelatz :wink:
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Glad to see you too, Doc. :-D Notice Q's old role has been taken up, above.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Ph.D. Heinsbergrelatz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    994
    I think your avatar says everything about my opinion of god Heinsbergrelatz
    my avatar? the heisenberg's uncertantity principle?
    ah, i see the metaphor there
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Glad to see you too, Doc. :-D Notice Q's old role has been taken up, above.
    Thanks, nice to see familiar faces knocking about. I never thought I'd end up similar to Q, he was despised by me for being my opposite a long time ago. Maybe he's gone all religious now and is locked up with the monks in some monastary. Where is he anyway?

    my avatar? the heisenberg's uncertantity principle? Rolling Eyes
    ah, i see the metaphor there


    Oh I believe we haven't actually met by the way, nice to meet you and I see you must be into Quantum Mechanics, whats your favourite wacky doo lally theory from it? Need I guess its Heisenburgers?
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Maybe Q was struck by lightning, or swallowed alive into the Earth. And no I didn't mean you were taking Q's role.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Ph.D. Heinsbergrelatz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    994
    Oh I believe we haven't actually met by the way, nice to meet you and I see you must be into Quantum Mechanics, whats your favourite wacky doo lally theory from it? Need I guess its Heisenburgers?
    yes nice to meet you to, well i am interested in quantum mechanics, and mathematics, my favorite theory from quantum mechanics would of course be the heisenberg's uncertantity principle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Its great isn't it? Is that what you study more than any other theories? Ever delved into classical mechanics or string theory? I think Maxwell's work and thermodynamics needs some quantum tinkering... I perosnally love Quantum Entanglement and spooky action at a distance.. err.. I mean action at a distance... :P
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •