U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-07-2022, 09:18 AM
 
59,232 posts, read 34,974,269 times
Reputation: 7166

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule View Post
This ^^^ is the BEST entertainment and amusement this board had to offer!
When some here come up against those they cannot compete with...they try to claim they know more than them!
This is the guy you claim, "doesn't know":
https://www.robertlanza.com/

Thanks for the laugh Harry. It's like watching a poor Little League hitter, trying at bat against Justin Verlander.

It's okay Harry...we understand. That burst bubble and all.
I will pray for you.
It may be entertaining to you, Gldn, but it can be frustrating. As Duval suggested, their heterodyne detector is not functioning or they are not trying to tune it to God. The physical sensory system cannot detect Him so those who are looking for material or physical responses are looking in the wrong place.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-07-2022, 09:34 AM
 
25,366 posts, read 7,020,847 times
Reputation: 2774
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi View Post
To be honest with you, I have never found Mystic to be "itching for a fight". He is just very persistent in his own beliefs.
Look again...

When someone -- anyone -- writes something like this, "the religious views you want to demean and denigrate," I'm hard pressed to understand such a comment as other than an unjustified want to fight. Though in this forum a fight may or may not be the best description of what Mystic is up to. Hard to say, but insults like these make me want to hold up my end of whatever it is in any case.

That or better yet, ignore these kinds of comments altogether as I'm always reminding myself to do...
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-07-2022, 09:38 AM
 
25,366 posts, read 7,020,847 times
Reputation: 2774
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
I should have phrased it differently. I was not referring to any specific post of yours, but your general responses to my views in the forum. I have no interest in fighting. But your continued belief that your default view of atheism is somehow "de rigueur" as far as truth claims go is just annoying.

Your atheism is symptomatic of a simplistic ignorance of the existing science about the status of Reality, IMO. It is understandable pragmatically speaking but is incompatible with your claims about a sincere and rigorous effort to get to the truth of the matter about Reality.
If I have to put up with your ongoing misrepresentations of my views, like this again about my "default view of atheism," then it seems only fair you must put up with my "symptomatic" "simplistic ignorance" as well. I'll leave the ongoing insults to you, however, while I just try to ignore you. Fail as I do a bit too often...
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-07-2022, 10:11 AM
 
Location: Germany
14,325 posts, read 3,444,468 times
Reputation: 1614
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule View Post
This ^^^ is the BEST entertainment and amusement this board had to offer!
When some here come up against those they cannot compete with...they try to claim they know more than them!
False, I claim the people who do QM physics, astrophysics and neuroscience (which includes a part of my degree) know more than the biologist. Lanza is a medic.

Once again, your ad hominem does NOT refute my post. What you need to do is show the Double Slit experiment DOES lead to the idea of conscious influence, because this will be big news to the QM researchers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule View Post
This is the guy you claim, "doesn't know":
https://www.robertlanza.com/

Thanks for the laugh Harry. It's like watching a poor Little League hitter, trying at bat against Justin Verlander.

It's okay Harry...we understand. That burst bubble and all.
I will pray for you.
Some simple research and a bit of logic would have shown the problem with your medic.

Lawrence Krauss stated: "There are no scientific breakthroughs about anything, as far as I can see. It may represent interesting philosophy, but it doesn't look, at first glance, as if it will change anything about science."[1] In USA Today Online, astrophysicist and science writer David Lindley asserted that Lanza's concept was a "...vague, inarticulate metaphor..." and stated that "...I certainly don't see how thinking his way would lead you into any new sort of scientific or philosophical insight. That's all very nice, I would say to Lanza, but now what?"[39] Daniel Dennett, a Tufts University philosopher and eliminative materialist, said he did not think the concept meets the standard of a philosophical theory. "It looks like an opposite of a theory, because he doesn't explain how [consciousness] happens at all. He's stopping where the fun begins."

Whoops, what did those RELEVANT experts say? Do you never get tired of being shown to be a poor Little League hitter?

It is OK, we understand. Once again you are refuted. Perhaps if you started thinking instead of mumbling to yourself.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-07-2022, 10:26 AM
 
10,680 posts, read 5,402,617 times
Reputation: 868
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes View Post
False, I claim the people who do QM physics, astrophysics and neuroscience (which includes a part of my degree) know more than the biologist. Lanza is a medic.

Once again, your ad hominem does NOT refute my post. What you need to do is show the Double Slit experiment DOES lead to the idea of conscious influence, because this will be big news to the QM researchers.

Some simple research and a bit of logic would have shown the problem with your medic.

Lawrence Krauss stated: "There are no scientific breakthroughs about anything, as far as I can see. It may represent interesting philosophy, but it doesn't look, at first glance, as if it will change anything about science."[1] In USA Today Online, astrophysicist and science writer David Lindley asserted that Lanza's concept was a "...vague, inarticulate metaphor..." and stated that "...I certainly don't see how thinking his way would lead you into any new sort of scientific or philosophical insight. That's all very nice, I would say to Lanza, but now what?"[39] Daniel Dennett, a Tufts University philosopher and eliminative materialist, said he did not think the concept meets the standard of a philosophical theory. "It looks like an opposite of a theory, because he doesn't explain how [consciousness] happens at all. He's stopping where the fun begins."

Whoops, what did those RELEVANT experts say? Do you never get tired of being shown to be a poor Little League hitter?

It is OK, we understand. Once again you are refuted. Perhaps if you started thinking instead of mumbling to yourself.
What you are saying is the same as those that supported Hoyle over Lamaitre.
They could have also produced dissenting views.
EVERY bit of scientific research...especially "breakthroughs" see a lot of dissent.

https://www.robertlanzabiocentrism.c...eates-reality/

That you completely reject a top scientist that is published in the top physics journals tells me:
A. You know squat about it yourself.
B. You are ruled by your bias.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-07-2022, 10:51 AM
 
Location: West Virginia
15,458 posts, read 13,879,170 times
Reputation: 9848
Does anybody have anything to say about "Exploring other religions and faiths?" After all, that is what this thread is about.
__________________
Moderator posts are in RED.
City-Data Terms of Service: //www.city-data.com/terms.html
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-07-2022, 11:03 AM
 
Location: Germany
14,325 posts, read 3,444,468 times
Reputation: 1614
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensaguy View Post
Does anybody have anything to say about "Exploring other religions and faiths?" After all, that is what this thread is about.
Correct, and I am confident that those who are honestly interested can continue this discussion in the science forum.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-07-2022, 11:25 AM
 
Location: Sun City West, Arizona
43,041 posts, read 18,690,104 times
Reputation: 28722
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensaguy View Post
Does anybody have anything to say about "Exploring other religions and faiths?" After all, that is what this thread is about.
Okay, I will.

I've seen different ways that people explore other religions and faiths. One of the most impressive things I ever saw a person do was three days after 9/11. One of our guidance counselors, who was Jewish, went to visit the local mosque to sit down with some of the Muslims and tell them that he did not blame Islam for the events of 9/11. He was actually quite well received.

But beyond that, there are -- to me -- to basic ways that one can explore different faiths/religions.

One way is 'book learning'. There's nothing wrong with that, except that I'm not sure it gives one the 'feel' of the religion.

Personally, I have found it more effective to visit places of worship. One day, when visiting Wat Bowoniwet in Bangkok, I'm sure looking like a tourist, camera in hand, I happened upon one of ceremonies when new monks were being ordained. I joined a number of the Thais looking in through one of the windows at the ceremony. Suddenly I saw a monk inside stand up and walk out and come over to me. 'Oh oh", I thought. But no, he led me into the ubosot and had me sit amongst those being ordained. Another time at a temple up in Chiang Mai I was invited in to help them make decorations for another Buddhist ceremony. And there were other similar occurrences in my years in Thailand.

But those kinds of situations are not apparent in all religions. When I would go to visit Chinese temples in Bangkok's Chinatown, I felt more like I was tolerated than accepted.

With Muslim mosques it was even more stark. The first Muslim mosque I wanted to visit was the main historic mosque in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. When I arrived, dressed very conservatively (black pants, white dress shirt, and no camera), well, if looks could kill...as the old saying goes. So I didn't visit the interior of that mosque. On an island in southern Thailand I came upon a mosque that actually had a sign in front that said: "Infidels not welcome. But you may give money".

And it reminds me of two conversations that I have had that seem somewhat related. One of my son's Muslim friends (my adopted son is Muslim) one day said, "Americans don't even try to understand Islam". And I replied, "So why don't you take me to your mosque. Maybe I could learn something". "No, we don't allow non-Muslims at my mosque". "So you don't welcome non-Muslims into your places of worship, but you lament that non-Muslims don't understand Islam. Hmmmmmm." I had another conversation similar to that, although not about religion, with an American Indian from New Mexico. I had met him when he was in Washington, D.C., and he was lamenting that Americans didn't even try to understand his culture. I asked him exactly where he was from in New Mexico, having traveled through that state. I asked him which village he was from, and he told me the name. "Isn't that one of the villages where outsiders are not allowed?" "Yes. You cannot visit". "But you're complaining that 'we' don't understand your culture".

What I'm trying to get a here is that there is such a divide. People who are open and would like to learn, and people who are closed-minded about 'other' religions. Religions that are open and welcoming, and religions that are, to one extent or another, resistant to visitors.

Two properties up from my school in Northern Virginia there was the largest Jewish temple in the area. We had quite a few Jewish students in my school. One day the rabbi invited our school's administrators, counselors, and any teachers interested to come up (on a teacher work day) and have a 'sit down' with some members of their congregation. I insisted the counselor and other administrators attend, and invited teachers to attend (only a handful of teachers did so). It was a very nice, friendly, learning situation (even with a Q/A session). It was about learning, and yet few teachers wanted to learn about a culture important to many of our families.

Being open is not easy...sometimes on both sides of a religion.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-07-2022, 11:27 AM
 
59,232 posts, read 34,974,269 times
Reputation: 7166
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule View Post
What you are saying is the same as those that supported Hoyle over Lamaitre.
They could have also produced dissenting views.
EVERY bit of scientific research...especially "breakthroughs" see a lot of dissent.

https://www.robertlanzabiocentrism.c...eates-reality/

That you completely reject a top scientist that is published in the top physics journals tells me:
A. You know squat about it yourself.
B. You are ruled by your bias.
When your entire perspective is dominated by the physical/material "icons" in the "user interface" presented by our brains, it is more than a simple bias, Gldn. It is endemic to their thought processes and seemingly unavoidable. Let's face it, the term "Physics" is illustrative of the essence of the field itself. The neuroscientists operate on the presumption that what they call the Homunculus that they are using to investigate what they are investigating (Consciousness) is itself "illusory." That makes their perspective suspect as well.

This is why Quantum theory has thrown them all for such a loop! It is why Lindsey's critique of Lanza rings false (e.g., "It looks like an opposite of a theory because he doesn't explain how [consciousness] happens at all. He's stopping where the fun begins.") It is true he doesn't explain it because we cannot currently measure it. It exists as quanta, which he does allude to (and which I explain how it probably forms as a BEC through the amplification of resonance).

The dissenters are a normal part of any breakthroughs on the fringes, but the cadre here refuses even to acknowledge that. The demand for validation is bogus in the face of the measurement obstacles with quanta. Although as the focus shifts to the quantum views there is progress being made.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-07-2022, 12:17 PM
 
12,339 posts, read 4,662,733 times
Reputation: 7059
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi View Post
Okay, I will.

I've seen different ways that people explore other religions and faiths. One of the most impressive things I ever saw a person do was three days after 9/11. One of our guidance counselors, who was Jewish, went to visit the local mosque to sit down with some of the Muslims and tell them that he did not blame Islam for the events of 9/11. He was actually quite well received.

But beyond that, there are -- to me -- to basic ways that one can explore different faiths/religions.

One way is 'book learning'. There's nothing wrong with that, except that I'm not sure it gives one the 'feel' of the religion.

Personally, I have found it more effective to visit places of worship. One day, when visiting Wat Bowoniwet in Bangkok, I'm sure looking like a tourist, camera in hand, I happened upon one of ceremonies when new monks were being ordained. I joined a number of the Thais looking in through one of the windows at the ceremony. Suddenly I saw a monk inside stand up and walk out and come over to me. 'Oh oh", I thought. But no, he led me into the ubosot and had me sit amongst those being ordained. Another time at a temple up in Chiang Mai I was invited in to help them make decorations for another Buddhist ceremony. And there were other similar occurrences in my years in Thailand.

But those kinds of situations are not apparent in all religions. When I would go to visit Chinese temples in Bangkok's Chinatown, I felt more like I was tolerated than accepted.

With Muslim mosques it was even more stark. The first Muslim mosque I wanted to visit was the main historic mosque in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. When I arrived, dressed very conservatively (black pants, white dress shirt, and no camera), well, if looks could kill...as the old saying goes. So I didn't visit the interior of that mosque. On an island in southern Thailand I came upon a mosque that actually had a sign in front that said: "Infidels not welcome. But you may give money".

And it reminds me of two conversations that I have had that seem somewhat related. One of my son's Muslim friends (my adopted son is Muslim) one day said, "Americans don't even try to understand Islam". And I replied, "So why don't you take me to your mosque. Maybe I could learn something". "No, we don't allow non-Muslims at my mosque". "So you don't welcome non-Muslims into your places of worship, but you lament that non-Muslims don't understand Islam. Hmmmmmm." I had another conversation similar to that, although not about religion, with an American Indian from New Mexico. I had met him when he was in Washington, D.C., and he was lamenting that Americans didn't even try to understand his culture. I asked him exactly where he was from in New Mexico, having traveled through that state. I asked him which village he was from, and he told me the name. "Isn't that one of the villages where outsiders are not allowed?" "Yes. You cannot visit". "But you're complaining that 'we' don't understand your culture".

What I'm trying to get a here is that there is such a divide. People who are open and would like to learn, and people who are closed-minded about 'other' religions. Religions that are open and welcoming, and religions that are, to one extent or another, resistant to visitors.

Two properties up from my school in Northern Virginia there was the largest Jewish temple in the area. We had quite a few Jewish students in my school. One day the rabbi invited our school's administrators, counselors, and any teachers interested to come up (on a teacher work day) and have a 'sit down' with some members of their congregation. I insisted the counselor and other administrators attend, and invited teachers to attend (only a handful of teachers did so). It was a very nice, friendly, learning situation (even with a Q/A session). It was about learning, and yet few teachers wanted to learn about a culture important to many of our families.

Being open is not easy...sometimes on both sides of a religion.
Sacred places are, well, sacred places. It is not for the curious, it is for the devoted, those who who understand stand and value the symbolism. the people i most open to about Hinduism are those who already have studied it, and have appreciation and eagerness to know. Hinduism and other religions do not seek to convert and there is no need for promoting it.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2022, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top