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.
Don't accuse me of being evasive. That's BS. We talk, we talk right here. if we can't talk here ... that proves what I have been saying. I told you petety, I am not going to suck your toes. I will be happy to play. I have no problem telling you that this dogma of "we don't have to say anything" is yellow belly back stabbing cowardice atheism. I am not falling for that sick political trick.
Atheism is stronger than that. We walk out in the open and we use all lines of logic. We have the weight of science, commonsense, logic, and reason on our side. I will not be a political chump. Its ok to believe stuff when its logical.
We both said our piece ... That is now behind us. Now back to business ...
1) Nutrition? Nutrition, as we use the word, is not a requirement. The word "nutrition" is really better stated "metabolizes energy". It process the energy from the sun to carry out processes that cause we see it doing.
The recourses to be alive (Nutrition) come from the atmosphere mostly. But the rest comes from minerals on the outer layer of the planet. If there is a blood thing, it would be water. water breaks down the big pieces into smaller more useable pieces. Then transports it around. the water cycle ...
2) Reacting to the system around it. this ie easy.
I gave you the example of co2 level increasing and asteroid impact. The system is definitely reacted to those. That 's where the word homeostasis comes into play. It reacts in such a way as to try and maintain that homeostasis.
CO2 sinks. The levels increase and the system reacts to that increase. Bigger plants and animals for instance. Like so many millions of years ago. But we are killing them off to fast to see that one. Co2 sinks are also sea water. But we are also affecting that one.
3) homeostasis. Trying to self regulate and actually doing it are two different things.
Much like when you get sick. Sometimes we die. We are killing everything off. But in a healthy ecosystem, it most certainly self regulates. Example: "limiting factors". Its an ebb and flow.
Homeostasis does not mean "never changes" and/or "never dies".
So I still have it more than half.
Thank you for the effort.
I do appreciate it.
at this point we can stop. I don't really mind if you don't see it. I don't even mind that you don't agree with it. Although I never met one trained person, in person, that said I was wrong. And I have been lucky enough to hang around more than your average amount.
But its is not a delusional, irrational, or fanciful belief. It has a mechanism pete. That is really important if you know anything about making claims.
Its a bottom up approach. Now, I would be happy to got a another cite and go deeper into it. Things like cell size is limited by the how a cell operates. Maybe dna strands are also.
again,
thank you.
Well done, Arach. The primary problem instantiating the kind of philosophical cognitive flexibility needed to reorient perspectives from say the cellular level, to the multicellular, to the biosphere, to the solar system, etc. is that it is not the usual perspective employed by most people. You have a facility for switching among perspectives that is not typical, Arach. It is what facilitated your immediate grasp of my views long before anyone would credit them. I am so glad you and Gldn are here in the forum.
Don't accuse me of being evasive. That's BS. We talk, we talk right here. if we can't talk here ... that proves what I have been saying. I told you petety, I am not going to suck your toes. I will be happy to play. I have no problem telling you that this dogma of "we don't have to say anything" is yellow belly back stabbing cowardice atheism. I am not falling for that sick political trick.
Atheism is stronger than that. We walk out in the open and we use all lines of logic. We have the weight of science, commonsense, logic, and reason on our side. I will not be a political chump. Its ok to believe stuff when its logical.
We both said our piece ... That is now behind us. Now back to business ...
1) Nutrition? Nutrition, as we use the word, is not a requirement. The word "nutrition" is really better stated "metabolizes energy". It process the energy from the sun to carry out processes that cause we see it doing.
The recourses to be alive (Nutrition) come from the atmosphere mostly. But the rest comes from minerals on the outer layer of the planet. If there is a blood thing, it would be water. water breaks down the big pieces into smaller more useable pieces. Then transports it around. the water cycle ...
2) Reacting to the system around it. this ie easy.
I gave you the example of co2 level increasing and asteroid impact. The system is definitely reacted to those. That 's where the word homeostasis comes into play. It reacts in such a way as to try and maintain that homeostasis.
CO2 sinks. The levels increase and the system reacts to that increase. Bigger plants and animals for instance. Like so many millions of years ago. But we are killing them off to fast to see that one. Co2 sinks are also sea water. But we are also affecting that one.
3) homeostasis. Trying to self regulate and actually doing it are two different things.
Much like when you get sick. Sometimes we die. We are killing everything off. But in a healthy ecosystem, it most certainly self regulates. Example: "limiting factors". Its an ebb and flow.
Homeostasis does not mean "never changes" and/or "never dies".
So I still have it more than half.
Thank you for the effort.
I do appreciate it.
at this point we can stop. I don't really mind if you don't see it. I don't even mind that you don't agree with it. Although I never met one trained person, in person, that said I was wrong. And I have been lucky enough to hang around more than your average amount.
But its is not a delusional, irrational, or fanciful belief. It has a mechanism pete. That is really important if you know anything about making claims.
Its a bottom up approach. Now, I would be happy to got a another cite and go deeper into it. Things like cell size is limited by the how a cell operates. Maybe dna strands are also.
again,
thank you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Well done, Arach. The primary problem instantiating the kind of philosophical cognitive flexibility needed to reorient perspectives from say the cellular level, to the multicellular, to the biosphere, to the solar system, etc. is that it is not the usual perspective employed by most people. You have a facility for switching among perspectives that is not typical, Arach. It is what facilitated your immediate grasp of my views long before anyone would credit them. I am so glad you and Gldn are here in the forum.
And I see this assessment also indicative that all of it together (all the "systems" & everything that comprises them), in totality, being just OneThing.
Once that is the view/concept...it puts the potential Spiritual significance into greater perspective.
And I see this assessment also indicative that all of it together (all the "systems" & everything that comprises them), in totality, being just OneThing.
Once that is the view/concept...it puts the potential Spiritual significance into greater perspective.
And I see this assessment also indicative that all of it together (all the "systems" & everything that comprises them), in totality, being just OneThing.
Once that is the view/concept...it puts the potential Spiritual significance into greater perspective.
It is a point of view that is not false, delusional, fabricated, lie, needy comfy blankly. Its not a point of view based blind faith nor false hope. Its not just an empty belief. Its is a spiritual point of view with some real evidence. And most certainly not evil. Nor the cause of the bad we see around us.
Its a point of view that makes "Lack belief" because we don't know what we are talking about look like just that ... denial based on the person not knowing squat. It also brings to bear where people are reciting the dogma of "I don't have to say anything. You have to prove it" starts to look like yellow belly, back stabbing, frauds. aka: reilion-ist/fundy think types.
I would classify that as "evil" that needs to be fought. How about you? I will join ya. Gladly.
Last edited by Arach Angle; 07-10-2021 at 06:17 PM..
It is a point of view that is not false, delusional, fabricated, lie, needy comfy blankly. Its not a point of view based blind faith nor false hope. Its not just an empty belief. Its is a spiritual point of view with some real evidence. And most certainly not evil. Nor the cause of the bad we see around us.
Its a point of view that makes "Lack belief" because we don't know what we are talking about look like just that ... denial based on the person not knowing squat. It also brings to bear where people are reciting the dogma of "I don't have to say anything. You have to prove it" starts to look like yellow belly, back stabbing, frauds. aka: reilion-ist/fundy think types.
I would classify that as "evil" that needs to be fought. How about you? I will join ya. Gladly.
Here is what I find so strange...but, twistedly find it very entertaining.
I embrace a Religious concept that reveres All of Existence in Totality/ The Universe/Reality/Etc, and perceives it as worthy of the title "God".
This is the oldest Spiritual/Religious ideology there is...so generic, common, and ingrained that "G-O-D" is even defined as such in English Language reference books used to supply the data/info about what words & terms mean and represent.
It has no biased, bigoted, misogynistic, judgmental dogma. It does not seek to influence or effect any laws or moral codes.
If anything...the only derivative (outside of the reverence) there might be is a respect & concern for nature/the environment.
Why would anyone have any kind of issue whatsoever with that kind of Religion, Ideology, or Belief?
Are they really that triggered by the word/title "God"? What other reason could their be for such a offensive against it...that they would actually spend untold amount of time to harass, interrogate, insult, and mock strangers on the interweb over it?!
Some people view and revere Existence/Reality as God to them...and there are people that lose it over that! I must say...only people with really deep, serious issues would react like that to it.
Here is what I find so strange...but, twistedly find it very entertaining.
I embrace a Religious concept that reveres All of Existence in Totality/ The Universe/Reality/Etc, and perceives it as worthy of the title "God".
This is the oldest Spiritual/Religious ideology there is...so generic, common, and ingrained that "G-O-D" is even defined as such in English Language reference books used to supply the data/info about what words & terms mean and represent.
It has no biased, bigoted, misogynistic, judgmental dogma. It does not seek to influence or effect any laws or moral codes.
If anything...the only derivative (outside of the reverence) there might be is a respect & concern for nature/the environment.
Why would anyone have any kind of issue whatsoever with that kind of Religion, Ideology, or Belief?
Are they really that triggered by the word/title "God"? What other reason could their be for such a offensive against it...that they would actually spend untold amount of time to harass, interrogate, insult, and mock strangers on the interweb over it?!
Some people view and revere Existence/Reality as God to them...and there are people that lose it over that! I must say...only people with really deep, serious issues would react like that to it.
And, apparently, it teaches one to be a bold-faced liar.
And, apparently, it teaches one to be a bold-faced liar.
Yes...your angst over people holding Theist views obviously does trigger you to be that.
But...in the future you might figure out how to get a grip, and then, it won't be like that anymore.
I have attempted to educate you on the futility of your crusade...but, you're a nonlearner, and continue.
Keep spitting into the strong wind of Theism...and when you are done, you could find something way more useful, like pounding sand.
Here is what I find so strange...but, twistedly find it very entertaining.
I embrace a Religious concept that reveres All of Existence in Totality/ The Universe/Reality/Etc, and perceives it as worthy of the title "God".
This is the oldest Spiritual/Religious ideology there is...so generic, common, and ingrained that "G-O-D" is even defined as such in English Language reference books used to supply the data/info about what words & terms mean and represent.
It has no biased, bigoted, misogynistic, judgmental dogma. It does not seek to influence or effect any laws or moral codes.
If anything...the only derivative (outside of the reverence) there might be is a respect & concern for nature/the environment.
Why would anyone have any kind of issue whatsoever with that kind of Religion, Ideology, or Belief?
Are they really that triggered by the word/title "God"? What other reason could their be for such a offensive against it...that they would actually spend untold amount of time to harass, interrogate, insult, and mock strangers on the interweb over it?!
Some people view and revere Existence/Reality as God to them...and there are people that lose it over that! I must say...only people with really deep, serious issues would react like that to it.
The average person understands the concept that "we are not the top of the reality stack". When we unpack a belief from bottom up, that's the starting point.
Weather one calls it spiritual, connection to nature, awe, multidimensional, souls, aviata, true self, or god. Doesn't matter.
The simple "fact" is it clearly looks like we are not the top of this reality stack. You call it god and I don't.
How in no gld's god can they look themselves in the mirror and fight that so hard? Then say there is absolutely no proof for that kind of spiritual belief? That we are liars, needy, delusional, and the cause of the the evil we see?
At some point "lack belief" in we are not the top of the reality stack is going to need some proof because it counters what we see and experience everyday.
To use "I don't have to say anything, You have to prove it." when we say "our belief is based on us not being the top of the reality stack" over and over and over and over and over. Is just intellectually dishonest.
And, apparently, it teaches one to be a bold-faced liar.
I don't think so salty. Not to the extent you are saying.
Many of us believe that we are not at the top of the reality stack.
Many people find a spiritual connection to that statement. Calling it god, awe, connection to nature, avaita, true self, or like I do "just nature". And some don't.
Its not a lie, needy, delusional, has absolutely no proof, the cause of all evil in the world
To use those words when challenging beliefs based on "we are not the top of the reality stack" is what? When it is so clearly "true".
How would you clarify what you are actually challenging? Because if you only looking at it from evidence, commonsense, logic and reason, "we are not the top of the reality stack" is about as self evident as we can get.
well, that and my rugged good looks.
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.
Well done, Arach. The primary problem instantiating the kind of philosophical cognitive flexibility needed to reorient perspectives from say the cellular level, to the multicellular, to the biosphere, to the solar system, etc. is that it is not the usual perspective employed by most people. You have a facility for switching among perspectives that is not typical, Arach. It is what facilitated your immediate grasp of my views long before anyone would credit them. I am so glad you and Gldn are here in the forum.
