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 am unsure what you are asking, but If you are wondering why I credit SOME of the writings in the "spiritual fossil record" it is because they provide a source of the consciousness I encountered in deep meditation. The descriptions of Jesus and His descriptions of the God He called His Father are exactly like the characteristics of the consciousness I encountered, I mean EXACTLY! The experience was so profound and life-changing that it set me on a course to explain it to my intellect. I succeeded and I have a plausible set of hypotheses consistent with extisting scientific knowledge that support my views.
You appear to accept Jesus as your savior. But, you also seem to not accept that he/his father is a blood thirsty tyrant. You also seem to disassociate Jesus from the OT. If this is so, how do you reconcile this?
Do you believe Jesus is a divine being?
Do you believe the OT God as a divine being?
Do you recognize the bible as associated with these divine beings?
Or, are you cherry picking the bible as a philosophy?
You appear to accept Jesus as your savior. But, you also seem to not accept that he/his father is a blood thirsty tyrant. You also seem to disassociate Jesus from the OT. If this is so, how do you reconcile this?
Do you believe Jesus is a divine being?
Do you believe the OT God as a divine being?
Do you recognize the bible as associated with these divine beings?
Or, are you cherry picking the bible as a philosophy?
those who don't cherry pick bite into a leaf or a branch. I personally don't have a problem with leaf eating but it hurts my teeth.
Yes...I agree.
It boils down to bias due to Godophobia issues.
Or, even more simple: They have "issues".
Though I don't blame them. They are part of a team so pathetically poor (Atheism) that it has been whooped up on by the opposing team (Theism) for over a thousand years. Wow!
And now...with the "God Exists" concept spreading through the area that has a fifth of the world population (China)...they will be doing even worse in this world. Oh, well...they will have to learn to cope.
I haven't met one atheist that activity will not address real, repeatable, observations because of some type of abuse, mental illness, or total misunderstanding about people that would make claims totally independent of a blind faith statement like "lack belief".
I base no conclusions on something that is not there. Like a christian type god or "lack belief". Its funny, like in elementary school when they were telling about a guy raising the dead. At like 12 I knew "it aint me guys."
But I understand that to the 90%-ers we are the crazy ones.
The inter net is like a baby brain. It will justify any claim to itself. each node firing because it can. Like my eight year olds. It'll grow up far sooner than latter gld.
What this makes me wonder is why are we assuming everything is alive instead of assuming the similarities means everything is mechanic and not alive? I feel like this is a slippery slope that'll land you at some odd conclusions.
still waiting on your answer. Unless I was blind and missed it.
qm was slippery, variable time was slippery, lots of descriptions lead to weird conclusions, like the double slit experiment. The descriptions either match observations or we rework the description.
So lest us make a measurement. secular style. "lack belief" does not effect my measuring. "omni god" is just not real so that will not affect me.
It begs the question, what type of atheist would let "lack belief" effect an unbiased measurement.?
Compare (measure) the sun's interactions and the biosphere's interactions to some things we classify as living and non living.
1) Compare the interactions of the biosphere to the interactions of a cell. (life)
2) compare the interactions of the biosphere to a rock, or even a computer. (non life)
3) compare the interactions of the biosphere to a virus. (fits both)
A simple measurement. Its repeatable by anybody. And it will make predictions. Its a totally scientifically valid claim in that one measurement can make it falsible.
Haha, yeah, I don't know of perhaps any agnostics who hold to that definition.
According to the dictionary, an atheist is essentially an agnostic and an agnostic is a whole new ball game.
I follow the dictionary definitions for the purpose of standardizing, but I definitely understand that it can cause confusion
If it helps at all, no matter what dictionaries say, or don't all atheists are agnostic, whether the realize it or not (so are theists, whether they admit it or not ) and that agnosticism is the logical basis of atheism, even if the uninformed theists try to say it isn't.
But that of course is no more the issue than the validity of the materialist default is the issue of research,invention and discovery. With atheism, the way the evidence points is the issue, not agnosticism or the acceptance of a possibility of a god existing.
I haven't met one atheist that activity will not address real, repeatable, observations because of some type of abuse, mental illness, or total misunderstanding about people that would make claims totally independent of a blind faith statement like "lack belief".
I base no conclusions on something that is not there. Like a christian type god or "lack belief". Its funny, like in elementary school when they were telling about a guy raising the dead. At like 12 I knew "it ain't me guys."
But I understand that to the 90%-ers we are the crazy ones.
The internet is like a baby brain. It will justify any claim to itself. each node firing because it can. Like my eight year olds. It'll grow up far sooner than latter gld.
For many of them (especially in places like this board) their main "issue" is God Belief through Religion.
As they have fervently stated, the only perceptions of God they will consider are Religious Deities.
Many have said (even threads on it), "Mainstream Religion is the greatest threat on Earth to humankind"..."God Belief is a *mental illness* and should be treated"..."Those teaching Abrahamic Religions to kids (even their own) should be arrested and prosecuted for child abuse"...and every slam imaginable.
They are totally into their Atheist NoGod Religion, and have bigtime "issues" with "GodBelief Religions". Places like this are where they "congregate".
If it helps at all, no matter what dictionaries say, or don't all atheists are agnostic, whether the realize it or not (so are theists, whether they admit it or not ) and that agnosticism is the logical basis of atheism, even if the uninformed theists try to say it isn't.
But that of course is no more the issue than the validity of the materialist default is the issue of research,invention and discovery. With atheism, the way the evidence points is the issue, not agnosticism or the acceptance of a possibility of a god existing.
I like that last line. All religions have issue with the way the evidence points. especially when it doesn't fit a particular belief statement.
cut and pasting that in my duck list ... quack quack.
For many of them (especially in places like this board) their main "issue" is God Belief through Religion.
As they have fervently stated, the only perceptions of God they will consider are Religious Deities.
Many have said (even threads on it), "Mainstream Religion is the greatest threat on Earth to humankind"..."God Belief is a *mental illness* and should be treated"..."Those teaching Abrahamic Religions to kids (even their own) should be arrested and prosecuted for child abuse"...and every slam imaginable.
They are totally into their Atheist NoGod Religion, and have bigtime "issues" with "GodBelief Religions". Places like this are where they "congregate".
For many of them (especially in places like this board) their main "issue" is God Belief through Religion.
As they have fervently stated, the only perceptions of God they will consider are Religious Deities.
Many have said (even threads on it), "Mainstream Religion is the greatest threat on Earth to humankind"..."God Belief is a *mental illness* and should be treated"..."Those teaching Abrahamic Religions to kids (even their own) should be arrested and prosecuted for child abuse"...and every slam imaginable.
They are totally into their Atheist NoGod Religion, and have bigtime "issues" with "GodBelief Religions". Places like this are where they "congregate".
As you know i don't go as far as you, but pantheism just fits observations. I see nothing with offer that to people instead of a junker like the christian dude died, woke up, and flew away.
the "lack belief" belief in anything just causes slack jawed disbelief in me. Yeah, i lack belief in how the universe works. really?
I've read these before and realize, as you stated, these are only philosophical points, which isn't "scientific knowledge". Others with a more comprehensive understanding of neuroscience than me have taken you to task for your unsubstantiated claims in these, so I won't rehash them. Whenever you discover scientific substantiation please post it.
You can disregard philosophical issues but they wont go away. The best summary of the essential issues is found in my post to Matadora explaining the same scientific knowledge of reality that I use. It is probably the best and least verbose summary of the issues that form the basis of my Synthesis.
"Matadora, I appreciate your displaying the foundations of your views. I understand that you are operating from a similar knowledge base. That is good. We accept all the same research but draw very different conclusions from them. The acceptance of euphemistic pronouncements AS IF they were somehow authoritative explanations will never be acceptable to me. Statements like, "emergent property" is just hubris masquerading as an explanation. But since our entire reality operates as manifestations within fields, the idea that there is a single unified field as the basis of our reality seems cogent. The one feature of reality that cannot be adequately contained within the current materialistic physics is consciousness or subjective awareness. It is the one manifestation of the unified field that escapes understanding. We cannot see how we can mathematically arrive at such a state using the equations of physics.
So the existence of such a subjective state defies the materialistic premises underlying the Standard Model. But we do have analogs in the EM-spectrum that seem to suggest at least a potential venue for the existence of such a state as a COMPOSITE of individual neuronal activity. The idea of a resonant neural field that summarizes the state of the entire brain at any point in time and produces a COMPOSITE state that possesses subjective awareness within an EM-like spectrum seems plausible. That is all I have proposed. I posit that a consciousness field IS the unified field that establishes our reality and that our consciousnesses are simply component parts of it. But of course, if a consciousness field is what establishes our reality, it MUST perforce BE God."
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.
) and that agnosticism is the logical basis of atheism, even if the uninformed theists try to say it isn't. 
