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.
QFT, QED, Cold Matter Physics - deep understanding. Macro-reality theories - I assume special/general relativity - deep understanding.
Resonance Theories of Consciousness - not much. It seems to be a very shallow theory with a few papers, I will read up on.
The question is, what is Mystic's understanding. Without verification, we have no reason to believe his claims. But that would be for either the science forum or the pantheism thread.
I suspect we have another one desirous of obtaining the Cliffs Notes version of the necessary education and understanding, Arach. If he is young enough, has the depth in those areas he alludes to, and has a genuine interest, he should be more than able to pursue my ideas on his own. My days in the education business are well past me. Perhaps he will be the young Turk who will make a mathematical breakthrough (on the scale of the calculus) to resolve the theoretical mismatch.
It will definitely take something along those lines to achieve the blending of spherical standing waveform mechanics, spherical resonance with quantum decoherence in the medium of the brain, with Einstein's gravity waves. quantum gravity, and his continuous field equations. Perhaps it will require doing some nesting as Bohm wanted to do with his hidden variables equations or producing some bastardized workarounds, like the Maldacena Conjecture. Whatever, I will certainly not be here to see it.
I assume he knows what he talking about. He may not know exactly right now but just a brief review and he'll be up to speed very quickly. In fact, probably a lot quicker than I could be. I say that because I have spoken to young physics guys. They don't know what I am saying exactly at that moment, but they they get it when they go look very quickly.
Although I am sure I have the rugged handsome angle covered.
I feel, and this is just me, when we are here and allowed to talk (which we have been given some leeway recently, Thank you CD) what we say start to make to sense. That data does suggest something is going on past what we see. The system around is acting like a unity and it is connected at every level in the hierarchy of structure.
I see nothing in physics, when assembled into a theory, that removes "totally connected" from the argument. In fact, its just the opposite, physics is based on it. "contact forces", the whole of physics is based on little straight line vectors "contacting" each other. And I feel saying "I don't have to say anything" is a cop when just going to believing sites to tell people they are wrong.
To me, based on the traits of life in any bio book, "aliveness" is best I can I do for now for creation. In fact, "aliveness" fits so well some people have to specifically state they are are arguing "forward thinking, finger in the bowl, entity only". I prefer to argue from common traits and discuss them.
Piece together what we agree on and build up. "Bottom up". Looking at a final claim and only telling you where you are wrong (top down) has value, no doubt, but not over and over and over and over. At some point we have to man up.
"aliveness" assembled humans. The system around humans designed humans. Our body layout is solely defined by the system around us. There is no way around that fact. "random", we have to be careful of the word "random". Some Cell functions can be classified as random. A cell is about as far from random, as people us the word, as we can get. Its a high tuned, highly complex system in a very small volume.
SO for me, Something creating us like we created a car is something I just don't see. "aliveness" of the system around us is what it looks like created us. In fact, I feel so strongly that it holds up the only answer some people have is "I am not going to say anything." or "I am not interested" or "so what, we aren't talking about that"
There is one huge gap/problem I have with what I think. The universe (this volume) actually created that car. Is the simplest statement I know. I can't say it any simpler. And a atheist creed is factors of ten more complex than that.
In your example above i am trying to undrrstand what the person who claims that women are weaker is expecting in return? No intension of discussing the differences between belief and claim but hoping to try to ubderstand what exacting you mean whete the person making thecclaim is expecting something for it and that your example seems like a claim not asking for benefits received.
If you do wish to argue with me asking about this claim in particular id like you to know that i do not agree with the particular claim in your example so im asking just for clarification.
I dont wish to argue with you.
Is there an error in the bolded, the main part of your doubt? Is the second claim is really belief? I am going to assume that is what you meant to say and respond to your question.
If the claim is that women are weaker than men, the benefit of such a clam can then be basis for paying women lower wages than men who do the same work. Wages should be based on hours worked and the type of work, not on strength. Thus a woman who gets pregnant should not be an excuse to fire her because of that.
As this point is a minor point to the purpose of the thread and discussion, i do not wish to continue discussing it and derail the thread into something else.
I dont wish to argue with you.
Is there an error in the bolded, the main part of your doubt? Is the second claim is really belief? I am going to assume that is what you meant to say and respond to your question.
If the claim is that women are weaker than men, the benefit of such a clam can then be basis for paying women lower wages than men who do the same work. Wages should be based on hours worked and the type of work, not on strength. Thus a woman who gets pregnant should not be an excuse to fire her because of that.
As this point is a minor point to the purpose of the thread and discussion, i do not wish to continue discussing it and derail the thread into something else.
I did not mean anything in my question other fhan i did not understand a part of what you wre posting.
As far as men profiting from.paying somen less i was thinking of men in general and not as employers so i missed that .
I too have no desire to sidetrack the thread to one of the differences betwen belief and claim. I wished only to be able to follow what you had already posted and ibwas confused.
I did not mean anything in my question other fhan i did not understand a part of what you wre posting.
As far as men profiting from.paying somen less i was thinking of men in general and not as employers so i missed that .
I too have no desire to sidetrack the thread to one of the differences betwen belief and claim. I wished only to be able to follow what you had already posted and ibwas confused.
I am glad you asked thevquestion because answering it helped clarify my own thought. A claim is a public statement, expected to carry weight in the public space, and can have an effect on people’s lives, for good or bad.
A belief is internal, only relevant to oneself, and can affect only one’s own life, for good or bad.
I am glad you asked thevquestion because answering it helped clarify my own thought. A claim is a public statement, expected to carry weight in the public space, and can have an effect on people’s lives, for good or bad.
A belief is internal, only relevant to oneself, and can affect only one’s own life, for good or bad.
Im glad i helped even if unintenriinally.
I like this difference between the two. Had never looked at it from an external internal view but i like it and it makes me rethink of how i viewed the terms before
We believers hear that one a lot from atheists. You are saying if believing in Santa Claus makes us happy, even though we aren't children anymore, then we should continue believing.
Maybe you don't mean to be arrogant and condescending, but that is what you are being. You are saying that you are tough enough to accept the 'truth" that nothing is real unless it is "physical," but we are babies who need to deceive ourselves.
Maybe some believers believe just to feel good, even though deep down they know it's all fantasy. But at least some of us have different reasons for believing -- our own experiences, similar experiences of many others, logic and science, and yes even common sense -- all that tells us the "physical" world is a very small part of what exists. We know with absolute certainty that we are part of a greater whole, and we are part of something infinitely intelligent.
It might give us peace and happiness, sometimes. Or it might do the opposite. I think atheism gives some people peace and happiness, because they think they don't have to worry about non-physical forces and entities that might be harmful and dangerous. And they don't have to worry about what happens when they die, because they "know" nothing will happen.
So the next time you make that condescending remark to a believer, at least be aware of what you are really saying. No, you are not expressing tolerance and empathy. Not in the least.
I always find post like this to be literally laughable.
What could be more condescending and arrogant than christians telling non-believers (whether they be atheists or Buddhists, or some other group) that they are going to hell because they don't believe what the christian believes? Or, historically, how christians literally slaughtered people in the Western Hemisphere (and I'm sure other places) when they didn't accept your religion.
"our own experiences". What about the personal experiences of Buddhists or others of different beliefs that are different than yours? How arrogant and condescending it is for you to tell us that your personal experiences are the only real or correct experiences.
You're wrong that atheists all ""know" nothing will happen" after death. Some of us -- for example those who are Buddhist -- wonder what is next' while other atheists are open-minded and wondering what will happen next. Not all atheists believe there is no god. Many say that they see no evidence of a god, or at least not the god of the bible.
So the next time you make that condescending remark to a non-believer, at least be aware of what you are really saying. No, you are not expressing tolerance and empathy. Not in the least.
I always find post like this to be literally laughable.
What could be more condescending and arrogant than christians telling non-believers (whether they be atheists or Buddhists, or some other group) that they are going to hell because they don't believe what the christian believes? Or, historically, how christians literally slaughtered people in the Western Hemisphere (and I'm sure other places) when they didn't accept your religion.
"our own experiences". What about the personal experiences of Buddhists or others of different beliefs that are different than yours? How arrogant and condescending it is for you to tell us that your personal experiences are the only real or correct experiences.
You're wrong that atheists all ""know" nothing will happen" after death. Some of us -- for example those who are Buddhist -- wonder what is next' while other atheists are open-minded and wondering what will happen next. Not all atheists believe there is no god. Many say that they see no evidence of a god, or at least not the god of the bible.
So the next time you make that condescending remark to a non-believer, at least be aware of what you are really saying. No, you are not expressing tolerance and empathy. Not in the least.
WHY did you make the assumption that I am a Christian???? I am NOT a Christian, and don't belong to any organized religion. Why do people make comments after reading only the title?
No evidence of the god of the bible???? There is nothing in the OP or any of my comments about any god of "the" bible. What bible?
WHY did you make the assumption that I am a Christian???? I am NOT a Christian, and don't belong to any organized religion. Why do people make comments after reading only the title?
No evidence of the god of the bible???? There is nothing in the OP or any of my comments about any god of "the" bible. What bible?
Sorry for the presumptions, but you started off your post with the phrase "We believers", and the vast majority of the "believers" on this forum are christians.
Possibly, although I would not use those terms. People use rule of thumb thinking all the time, and cognitive bias is a problem for everyone.
But to argue 84% of the world population identifies with a religion is to ignore (or misrepresent) the fact that these religions are different to each other. Not all of them can be correct.
And as most US Americans belong to a Christian culture, it is only natural that they believe in the biblical god.
All religions have certain things in common. All evolved from some form of shamanism. Magic, divination, ritual, mystical experience, are at the heart of all religions.
There is no reason to be fixated on Christianity in this kind of discussion. You ignore the origins and evolution, and essense, of religion. The essence of religion is compatible with pantheism and other more modern and scientific approaches.
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.
