Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I use the analogies to provide a cognitive basis for comprehending the actual reality without requiring rigorous (and largely incomprehensible) explanations.
Given how badly you misuse analogies - and you have been called on - and schooled on - your massive errors in this on many threads now - I think we would actually prefer you attempt the "rigorous explanations" for once. No really. Go for it. We are all ears. Drop the misleading analogies and rigourosly provide us the basis for your claims about god and your idea that the universe itself is concious - that jesus was something more than human - and that human consciousness and experience survives the death of the brain.
No really - I truely mean it - I have been asking you for months now - give us this rigorous explanation. Do not hide behind the claim that the reason you are not giving it is you fear it will be incomprehensible. That is not for you to judge - as I feel you underestimate us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
you are stuck with trying to explain how our consciousness could possibly exist within it.
I do not think we are even close to being as "stuck" here as you want to pretend. But even if we were - 100% absolutely entirely unable at this time to explain human consciousness - so what? Are you attempting to use a LACK of an explanation as a way to boost the one you simply make up? The old "You have no answer therefore any answer I give is correct" trick?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
The fundamental difference between consciousness and everything else seems to escape you.
I do not think it is as fundamental as you decree it to be to fuel your fantasy. The difference does not escape us at all - we just do not misconstrue that difference to fuel your agenda the way you do.
I need not explain them in any way. To presume I owe some reason for what I believe exhibits an outrageous and inappropriate sense of entitlement.
That entirely depends on the context actually. There are many contexts I can think of where you do very much "owe some reason" and this is neither outrageous, inappropriate or anything to do with "entitlement".
But as you say, there are many OTHER contexts where you are entirely correct too.
Please be specific. What context? Because my reaction to ANY context you might come up with is this:I need not explain them in any way. To presume I owe some reason for what I believe exhibits an outrageous and inappropriate sense of entitlement.
Clearly you feel repeating what you already said word for word some how adds to it. It does not.
Also I did not say "context" I said "contexts" plural. So I can not be "specific" as to do so would be to list them all, which I can not do. But I can give examples.
For example if a person were to enter our halls of education, power, or science and attempt to install or instigate some new rule or system based on religious beliefs.... then the onus should very much be on them to justify and explain the basis of those beliefs. Otherwise they should be simply summarily dismissed and their ideas shelved.
And again, since you have a fetish for repeating points word for word: this is neither outrageous, inappropriate or anything to do with "entitlement". It is called secularism. You might want to look it up.
How are we doing? I reminded myself of the OP which crashed and burned right at the start because it began with a smeary misunderstanding of atheism as Nihilistic and suggesting we need another approach.
No. The one we have is fine.
Mystic is pursuing his relentless faith -based wring -headedness, failing to understand the essential relationship between consciousness and everything else - which I thought his theory argued anyway.
I have no idea why Silverdene feels the need to loudly reiterate that he sees no reason to have to say why he can have his own beliefs. Of course. But anyone who comes on the boards 'telling us about it' can expect to be asked questions and some explanation is reasonably to be expected.
Is this thread producing anything useful? Did it ever? Isn't it about done?
How are we doing? I reminded myself of the OP which crashed and burned right at the start because it began with a smeary misunderstanding of atheism as Nihilistic and suggesting we need another approach.
No. The one we have is fine.
Mystic is pursuing his relentless faith -based wring -headedness, failing to understand the essential relationship between consciousness and everything else - which I thought his theory argued anyway.
Snarl! Snarl! My faith-based wrong-headedness is appended to my scientific hypotheses based on the "spiritual fossil record" and the identity between my experiences and the descriptions of Christ (and some subjective tests). But your materiality-based wrong headedness is a much bigger problem, old friend. The case for material substance is vanishing by leaps and bounds as the true implications of field theories are gaining ground. I suspect the search for "particles" will eventually lose the "particle" label and refer to what they actually are . . . "vibratory energy events." Once the full implications of the vibratory field manifestations we experience as material reality are fully understood . . . my hypotheses will not seem so "out there." Snarl! Snarl!
Yes indeed, since I appear to have caught you out in apparent confusion of the relation between consciousness and Consciousness, and your response is an irrelevant little preach on your theory, with some snarling.
And I still wonder whether this thread is producing anything worthwhile.
scientific hypotheses based on the "spiritual fossil record"
And yet whenever you bring this "fossil record" up all it turns out you mean is that the religious arguments have attempted to sound more complex over time. And you act like this is some kind of spiritual progression. What it certainly is _not_ however is scientific - or a valid basis for a scientific hypothesis. Let alone the hypotheses you hash out and label "scientific" when they could not be further from being so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
the identity between my experiences and the descriptions of Christ
The experience you claim to have had is so vague - you could parallel it with just about anything. Let alone the supposed christ character of lore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
The case for material substance is vanishing by leaps and bounds
From your bookshelf mainly - as you cherry pick only the texts that appear to you to fit what you want to believe - but have no actualy basis for.
And I am happy to fundamentally disagree with you on the nature of reality - provided that you understand that I have sound reasons (argued at length) for my position, and I have yet to see anything convincing (despite arguments at length) that supports yours. Keep well, mate...2 old dogs keep snarling...
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Snarl! Snarl! My faith-based wrong-headedness is appended to my scientific hypotheses based on the "spiritual fossil record" and the identity between my experiences and the descriptions of Christ (and some subjective tests). But your materiality-based wrong headedness is a much bigger problem, old friend. The case for material substance is vanishing by leaps and bounds as the true implications of field theories are gaining ground. I suspect the search for "particles" will eventually lose the "particle" label and refer to what they actually are . . . "vibratory energy events." Once the full implications of the vibratory field manifestations we experience as material reality are fully understood . . . my hypotheses will not seem so "out there." Snarl! Snarl!
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Yes indeed, since I appear to have caught you out in apparent confusion of the relation between consciousness and Consciousness, and your response is an irrelevant little preach on your theory, with some snarling.
And I still wonder whether this thread is producing anything worthwhile.
The snarling is lighthearted . . . accommodating your description of us. You and I will maintain our differences . . . but lurkers might benefit from the dialogue, old friend.
The snarling is lighthearted . . . accommodating your description of us. You and I will maintain our differences . . . but lurkers might benefit from the dialogue, old friend.
That is indeed the only point in responding. You won't convince me and I won't persuade you, which is fine. It is necessary however, that claims and arguments be responded to for the benefit of readers, posting or lurking.
Btw, I think lurkers are fine. I lurk myself, quite a lot.
That is indeed the only point in responding. You won't convince me and I won't persuade you, which is fine. It is necessary however, that claims and arguments be responded to for the benefit of readers, posting or lurking.
Being semi serious but ALSO semi tongue in cheek.... I would not be as pessimistic as you here as to declare that "you wont convince me" or even "I wont persuade you".
If I thought it was impossible that someone on these fora could not convince me I would not even be here. The whole reason I post on forums is because I hold out some hope that other people can educate me on something I did not know before, convince me about something I disagreed with before, or in some way affect my mind and upgrade it or change it.
I strongly agree with your core message there however. Replying to nonsense on forums such as this is important NOT because you need to respond to the person posting the nonsense.... who probably has you on ignore anyway or is at least pretending to...... but to ensure that anyone who goes onto google and puts in a search term that happens to bring them to a thread such as this..... does not just hear one side of nonsense but hears all the rebuttals too.
I play not just to the "Lurker" therefore. I play to anyone who manages somehow to happen by for any reasons.
And whatever else I might ever either be accused of OR complimented on on this forum, one thing I can be proud of is I know I have never left egregious nonsense sit on a thread without a rebuttal sitting near by for anyone who might happen along to read it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My faith-based wrong-headedness is appended to my scientific hypotheses based on the "spiritual fossil record" and the identity between my experiences and the descriptions of Christ (and some subjective tests). But your materiality-based wrong headedness is a much bigger problem, old friend. The case for material substance is vanishing by leaps and bounds as the true implications of field theories are gaining ground. I suspect the search for "particles" will eventually lose the "particle" label and refer to what they actually are . . . "vibratory energy events." Once the full implications of the vibratory field manifestations we experience as material reality are fully understood . . . my hypotheses will not seem so "out there." Snarl! Snarl!
that supports yours. 
