Are any of you here a Sensitive?

[mindphuk]

Nope, can't stand it when people lie to me. You claim biology is more than a hobby yet you haven't even demonstrated you know anything at all about biology. You claim to be advanced in genetics and have shown less (none whatsoever) evidence for your arguments than I have. I'm glad I was able to irritate you enough that you start offending me, that is usually a sign of insecurity for the unknown. For such a long reply filled with so much failed promises, it was quite easy for me to realize you are a waste of my time and anyone who probably is within talking distance of you can smell bullshit too. Not a single link to back up your horseshit, only closed, narrow minded and linear perception. If you feel the same about what i say than please shut the fuck up and stop replying to me. Namaste professor.

I can reply to whoever I want. You seem to be worried that I have your number. You pretend to have knowledge about science and evolution yet continue to demonstrate your lack of understanding of basic principles.
You have never asked me to demonstrated anything in particular except for ridiculous strawman questions like, 'why are there still monkeys?'
If you want evidence for something, how about asking. This is like the fifth time I offered, and each time you complain I haven't demonstrated anything.
Funny that you accuse me of offending you when it continues to be you that starts with personal attacks. If I'm a waste of your time, then you are a waste of everyone's time here. You keep talking shit about science and I'm here defending it. Your position is old and tired. It attacks science for lack of understanding every single last minutiae, then give lip service pretending to enjoy and accept science for what it is. Talk about the smell of bullshit. You repeatedly demonstrate your disdain for skepticism and the scientific process. You attack others for using solid, critical thinking as being "closed, narrow minded and linear." Sorry, but you're just another dumbass that thinks he has special knowledge about otherworldly things that cannot offer actual evidence to support them. As mentioned before, speculating is fine, but attacking the only process that has actually ever given us any real answers, anytime throughout history, is arrogant self-delusion.
If you don't want to read what I write, that's your prerogative but since you haven't been able to shout me down, you presume to be able to tell me to shut up. Well fuck you arrogant prick. I will continue to expose your incorrect claims and assumptions about areas that I feel strongly about.

 

[cannabineer]

So much bullshit, bye bye professor!

Translation: "I have nothing to counter that, either from the head or the heart, so here's from my gallbladder, just for you."


You then asked Mindphuk to present his "credentials" when discussing biology and genetics. What trap is this? You do not offer to counter with yours. cn

 

[ganja man23]

Translation: "I have nothing to counter that, either from the head or the heart, so here's from my gallbladder, just for you."


You then asked Mindphuk to present his "credentials" when discussing biology and genetics. What trap is this? You do not offer to counter with yours. cn

you realize he has barely mentioned a single fact about biology or even genetics?

He claims advanced knowledge yet in the many sentences he wrote has not demonstrated any therefore I said bye bye to the professor. That simple. and I'm not going to be offended because some dickweed claims he's an advanced biologist and is trying to take my credentials from me. He claims I'm behind in my introductory courses when the fact of the matter is that introductory engineering (the entire first year) courses are 90% identical for all engineering meaning the only "genetics" I have learned is my introduction to genetic engineering course which was rather a joke than actual materials based course. I see a flaw in his credentials therefore I'm done with this. If it helps you feel like you've accomplished something than sure, I have nothing to counter all the huge amount of evidence he showed me.

 

[Heisenberg]

You are extremely devoted to your world view and want others to understand and accept it by seeking those that disagree.You are an extremist, like it or not. That is not a strawman statement. Read greenswags take on it, he put it in much better words.

I did read his post, didn't notice my name anywhere. The word you are looking for is fundamentalist. If you say I am biased and unreasonably devoted to proving anything spiritual wrong, you would say I am a materialistic fundamentalist. If I went out and burned down my local church and ghost hunting club, I would be an extremest. My opinions are not outside of the norm, they are based on centuries of carefully collecting knowledge. If you find them unreasonable, you are free to point out the errors, but simply pointing to conviction as if it is a flaw is a cop out.

 

[ganja man23]

My opinions are not outside of the norm, they are based on centuries of carefully collecting knowledge. If you find them unreasonable, you are free to point out the errors.

We are merely reminding you that what seems "the norm" at the moment may very well be hilarious the future so in theory you want to keep every single possibility an option rather than limit your findings to things published by science. Isnt narrow minded perspective what has shaped our limitations in the past? Don't forget the lessons history has taught us. For millenia, we as humans have been living with a mentality that we are as smart as it gets. It seems like no matter how much we progress we always laugh at how naive we were in the past. I'm sure the same will happen in the future with respect to our belief of our limitation to the physical world. Nothing is impossible, if it seems like it it's only because we apply limits to the possibility.

 

[Canna Sylvan]

Doer,
I see what I said was so true about you. Later snitch. Enjoy your circle jerk guys!

 

[Heisenberg]

My opinions are not outside of the norm, they are based on centuries of carefully collecting knowledge. If you find them unreasonable, you are free to point out the errors.

We are merely reminding you that what seems "the norm" at the moment may very well be hilarious the future so in theory you want to keep every single possibility an option rather than limit your findings to things published by science. Isnt narrow minded perspective what has shaped our limitations in the past? Don't forget the lessons history has taught us. For millenia, we as humans have been living with a mentality that we are as smart as it gets. It seems like no matter how much we progress we always laugh at how naive we were in the past. I'm sure the same will happen in the future with respect to our belief of our limitation to the physical world. Nothing is impossible, if it seems like it it's only because we apply limits to the possibility.

Accusing someone of extremism is far from a mere reminder. Science is open to anything observable, anything that has any effect on reality what so ever. You can not get more open minded than that. As other's keep pointing out, you do not argue against science, you argue against some closed minded authority system you have made up and labeled science. If we really thought we were as smart as it gets, then we wouldn't need science anymore. There is no working scientist alive who sits back and doesn't seek answers. Science is the first to admit it can be wrong, which is why all scientific answers come with error bars at the end.

If your argument is that magic could be possible in the future, then that is an argument that works both ways.

 

[cannabineer]

you realize he has barely mentioned a single fact about biology or even genetics?

He claims advanced knowledge yet in the many sentences he wrote has not demonstrated any therefore I said bye bye to the professor. That simple. and I'm not going to be offended because some dickweed claims he's an advanced biologist and is trying to take my credentials from me. He claims I'm behind in my introductory courses when the fact of the matter is that introductory engineering (the entire first year) courses are 90% identical for all engineering meaning the only "genetics" I have learned is my introduction to genetic engineering course which was rather a joke than actual materials based course. I see a flaw in his credentials therefore I'm done with this. If it helps you feel like you've accomplished something than sure, I have nothing to counter all the huge amount of evidence he showed me.

Doesn't a genetic engineering student start out as a mol. bio. major though? So I would imagine you're taking heavy courseloads in molecular and cell biology. What would engineering courses gain you? My understanding, and it might be obsolete, was that engineering at the college level referred specifically to mechanical and electrical engineering.
Even so, that would involve taking some physics, and that suggests to me that some of the contrarian beliefs you've written up for us here run counter to the material you're now charged with mastering. How do you reconcile this, if my guess is good? cn

 

[mindphuk]

you realize he has barely mentioned a single fact about biology or even genetics?

For the umpteenth time, you haven't asked me anything. You also have a problem understanding the burden of proof. I haven't made any claims except to your ignorance. I have demonstrated your ignorance by pointing out that you lack knowledge in evolutionary theory. Not a single person that is educated in that area would make the claims you have. Your question about why there are monkeys or why lions don't drive cars is my evidence. What more do you want? Both of those questions, although you thought they are somehow stumpers, are answered quite easily by our current model of evolution. The fact that you still do not understand this basic point and keep claiming I haven't shown you anything is just more blustering, whining by you.

Unless you can list some things about biology that you have asked, stop claiming I haven't demonstrated anything. I have been on this forum for years. Most people here can testify to my ability to answer questions related to biology and evolution, BUT YOU HAVEN'T ASKED ANY! The point is, you don't care if your views about evolution are mistaken, you are merely here trying to propagate a virus of thought, attack science for not knowing everything about everything, and then lie about being knowledgeable about genetics and evolution. You used your 'genetic engineering' claim as a defense against not having knowledge about genetics and evolution and now you admit that you have none.

Unlike you, I never mentioned credentials, you did. You keep harping about my credentials, yet never once did I tell you that my education is the reason you are wrong about what you say. Your wrongness was able to stand on its own. I have pointed out where you were wrong and misrepresented evolution in at least two separate occasions and you admitted as much when you realized your stupid monkey canard wasn't going to fly here. You admitted to being wrong yet you claim I haven't proved anything, so you continue to demonstrate you are a liar.

 

[mindphuk]

Doesn't a genetic engineering student start out as a mol. bio. major though? So I would imagine you're taking heavy courseloads in molecular and cell biology. What would engineering courses gain you? My understanding, and it might be obsolete, was that engineering at the college level referred specifically to mechanical and electrical engineering.
Even so, that would involve taking some physics, and that suggests to me that some of the contrarian beliefs you've written up for us here run counter to the material you're now charged with mastering. How do you reconcile this, if my guess is good? cn

That was my question to him in the post he decided to stop responding. I am merely asking him how can he not understand that his arguments from ignorance are incompatible with basic science. His claim that the only way we will know for sure that we evolved natural is if we can read our genomes like a book and have every last question answered. This type of thinking to me is completely contrary to how someone taking courses in and learning how to use the scientific method should be thinking. My guess is that he has a passing interest in science and sees pseudoscience as actual science because he is lacking the knowledge and training that helps people make the distinction.

 

[cannabineer]

I originally posted this, but decided against it and deleted it before anyone saw and was able to respond. If you want you can disregard it, just think of me as playing devils advocate in this. I personally believe everyone is correct in this, and I'm really just a spectator watching all of this going down but I'll throw in my own thoughts. Thank you CWE for the encouragement to post it.

Belief that god exist is a dangerous belief, as proven by the crusades and other things. This same danger follows every belief, which we can all agree on. We can also agree, that almost every time these beliefs end up dangerous, it is by an extremist individual or group. This leaves the belief itself, not guilty, but undisciplined, or over-disciplined believers of the belief. We can also agree that things to do with religions have had positive impact. Meditation for example, has been proven time and again by science, to have positive effects on the body and mind. I look at meditation as a spiritual thing, but respect what science has to say about too. You can look at meditation as a therapeutic thing backed by science..but can you respect it's spiritual aspect?

I can. However I also have to allow for the possibility that meditation is explicable in purely mundane (neurochemical) terms.

I am on neither side of this argument. I have my own blend of spirituality and science that I find works best for me. Which would be completely agreeing with everything science says, and then peppering in my own little spiritual twist on top here and there.

Without respect for the other side, there is no possible way to find an agreement or make progress. Let's also not forget, that the lack of belief, is a belief itself. You all know I'm not christian, but I just use it because it's the easiest example. Say someone doesn't believe in god. Well, they don't simply, not believe in god, they believe that god does not exist.

There is a third possibility: a god who exists but is disengaged, nullipotent, irrelevant to our daily being and doing. I suggest that "exist" and "matter" (verb intransitive) are distinct.

Therefore, they too have a belief, which like all beliefs, can be dangerous. Can you imagine an atheist, or scientologist or whatever else is out there. Out of frustration that people do not believe what they believe (the lack of any kind of god or spiritual things) and shooting up a church or temple or whatever. I can. Because it is the same danger in holding the belief that there is no god, as the danger of believing there is one, and attacking those who don't believe in the god. Using the danger of a belief is a viable point in saying that we should drop religions. But it is a double edged sword, and there are extremist in every group, like it or not. Just like a pro-lifer killing the doctor who performs abortions. Slightly Hypocritical.

I am NOT someone claiming 2+2=5. I very readily accept everyone's views with respect. I am a very rational person, and like I said before if someday they were to prove the benefits of what I believe to be non existent or wrong, I would happily drop what I believe, but it is yet to happen.

i don't believe it can happen. Proof is restricted to the domain of the purely abstract, such as mathematics. Proof in science is a relative, subjective thing, since we cannot even prove to our own or anybody's satisfaction that what we think of reality is ... real.

Please do not try to throw me into the flames for holding a different view than both sides, this is not a 'your with me or against me' scenario, there is some kind of middle ground and I'm in that middle ground, dodging bullets from both sides. Not being christian I've still gone to church once in a blue moon with a friend, and still enjoy the morals of not stealing, killing etc. I still smile and thank them with respect when they bless me or say they will include me in their prayers. I don't think that there is anyone up there they are praying to, even though they believe it, but I still thank them for it. This is not a hard concept. I completely understand that if I hold a belief I should be ready for someone to question it, and I am. What I struggle to grasp is why someone would have such a hard time with me having my belief, when I'm not harming myself or anyone else, quite the opposite actually.

I cannot speak for anyone but myself in this matter. i am quite irreligious but i am not antireligious, and I am certainly not antispiritual. I do however have standards of ... not proof, but conviction. That's the human equivalent of proof "convince/unconvince me". Jmo.

When I volunteer, would it really matter if I do it because I enjoy it, and think it would bring good karma (if you do something good only for the sake of good karma, I believe it gives no karma at all) or because I think the people generally need help? Whether it has any attachment to a religious belief or not, you're still doing good. Hate the harmful extremist, not those who are rational, and choose to follow for other reasons that can bring good to them and those around them. Every religion has people who are helpful to society, and appreciate science too.

I think that if we were all together in person talking this out, we are all I think rational people, and we would be able to quickly find things from both sides that we can agree on, and the discussion would be over in like an hour. From there we would go out and grab a bite to eat all smiles and friendly. So why is it so hard to do that on here? Alright my horse is three stories and I'm leaving scuff marks on this soap box. I'm just hoping everyone can understand what I'm saying.

Like I said I was struggling, and still am, with whether or not I should post this. So many of you are so great at arguing your points like pad, that I guess I just have a fear of being shut down. But this is the internet, and I said above that I am willing to hear others views on the subject and that is true. Agree or disagree with my views, but don't let it change your overall view of me as a person.

Thank you for posting this, Greenswag; that took courage. I am also a rather rational person, and am always a bit baffled when i am accused of rationalism. It's my observation/conviction that reason is an excellent tool but it isn't the entire edifice. Reason operates upon but doesn't necessarily select the premises on which it operates. It is not a complete approach.
That said, I consider it a necessary tool for clear thought and communication. Some of the things I've experienced (psychedelic experiences spring to mind) cannot be communicated or reasoned. I imagine a similar limitation applies to spirit-perception. (Although I'd wager a draft beer at the place of your choice that CWE and GM would invert that, saying reason is the small bubble in the enormous matrix of the greater reality. I can't and won't controvert that.) The tools of science, and the greater tools of precise language, seem to utterly fail at grasping the essence of the topic.
So I restrict myself to the extension of spirit-perception into the mundane sensory material world that science can properly address, and get accused of bullying for pointing out when the submitted phenomenology of spirit-action or spirit-perception flatly contradicts what we know so far about nature. This is lamentable imo, because phenomena are the bailiwick of natural philosophy and the scientific method. My opinion.

I hope to see more of you here in this subforum. Welcome. cn.

 

[ganja man23]

Accusing someone of extremism is far from a mere reminder.
Extremism is related to views based on society, therefore being limited by what society collectively agrees upon. We are not knowledgable enough to make collective agreements about things we can't understand yet. Are you merely "going with the flow" so to speak or are you just not willing to accept anything unless proven by others? I personally go wherever my flow takes me because I realize following others' beliefs is like stealing. If you wish to live this life like that, then it is within your choice of infinity and you have every right to do that. You won't find what I consider true excitement or happiness experiencing this life with that mentality but that's part of life's learning experience nonetheless.

You seem to be missing the suggestions that anything is possible in some perceivable physical form. We are limited in our four dimensional structure so how are we to prove anything outside of it with our lacking scientific knowledge and will to execute such knowledge? We create infinite possibilities for two dimensional realities (TV Shows, Video Games, Operating Systems) all the time artificially so why not embrace the fact that our own science is telling us the universe is structured the same way we are; without limits. Our perspective within the universe is designed in such a way as to limit us to the illusion that we are making choices over a period of time when the fact is that there is only one truly existing period of time; right now. You live your entire life experiencing "right now" don't you? On the highest dimension, we understand that right now is an ever lasting moment within infinity. This is where consciousness draws the line between reality and illusion. Imagine that in the fifth dimension, you will exist as one collective spirit (what can be seen as a physical entity when viewed from that dimension and any higher than it) from the date you are born to the date you die, but does the possibility of you living forever even in this life not exist within infinity if you haven't died yet? Just a thought to ponder.

Science is open to anything observable, anything that has any effect on reality what so ever. You can not get more open minded than that.
Correct but As other's keep pointing out, you do not argue against science, you argue against some closed minded authority system you have made up and labeled science.

"Open minded" insinuates being open to any concept conceivable by the mind, hence the term "open", meaning not limited. Open to "anything observable" is not how being open minded works. The mind can work on imagining beyond the observable, you are referring to the "open ego" not open mind. Perhaps it would be more appropriate if you should state being "open egotistical" in such concepts from now on.

Since you asked me, my "belief system" is based on the physical science concept of infinite dimensional realities, all of which are based on space and time. Most physicists agree that string theory will support the concept of infinite parallel dimensions and they work towards proving it in order to conclude the TOE. Some of the brightest minds have also suggested that in order for true confirmation that we truly are free to make choice we must consider every single infinite possibility. String theory is almost complete and the brightest minds agree to it and I personally am beginning to perceive how it functions with spirituality, I would say I'm well on the right track regardless of what you think.

It's not an authority system I made up and labelled, it's a realization that sciences such as physics, quantum mechanics and spirituality all incorporate and it's existed well before I was aware of it. Open your mind to the concept of infinite possible dimensions and the concept that because we have any choice in life that there are an infinite amount of possibilities we can make. Existance basically becomes the same definition as infinity in that sense. You cannot limit infinity in any way. You will argue that there is only one perceivable reality but newly proposed physical science concepts disagree with that. When combined with the new approach of what quantum mechanics suggests consciousness is, we are introduced to the concept that anything can happen and it is happening right now, right in front of every one of us an infinite amount of times for all of eternity. Despite the fact that we are in the fourth dimension (3rd Density, X,Y,Z and time, or duration is W), and from our perspective duration seems "linear", string theory supports the concept that higher dimensional realities can incorporate structures in which time is malleable, meaning we could see towards directions in time just like we can see forwards and backwards in physicality.


[video=youtube;QzMUIzsIRTQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzMUIzsIRTQ[/video]

If we really thought we were as smart as it gets, then we wouldn't need science anymore. There is no working scientist alive who sits back and doesn't seek answers. Science is the first to admit it can be wrong, which is why all scientific answers come with error bars at the end.

If your argument is that magic could be possible in the future, then that is an argument that works both ways.

I just had a brain freeze because I cannot process where this thought of magic came from? Since you want to speak about magic...Magic is created through the mind therefore it is "real". Does it exist in what you call "reality"?... Not really. It exists as more of an idea therefore making it a real in that sense. A fundamental law any true scientist holds is that if we can imagine something we can eventually work to make it happen if we eliminate the limitations we set. Am I Wrong? Can't magic just be another word for something like technology? Is there any magic we can't accomplish without that? If you mean "magic" as in changing physicallity by using your mind, that's rather silly to say that I said something like that. Just that we can work towards making it by any means. If we put a limit as to how we get there, of course it's going to be impossible when those barriers are set in place. The concept of magic is a limit in itself. We are limiting the results of magic to something only created by the mind, something we cannot do due to our position within the fourth dimension. In a higher dimension, such a concept is plausible therefore real within existance.

Sounds too crazy right? Anyway it truly offends me if you don't accept my claims. It's really unfortunate I can't get appraisal from an entity who shares the mimicked beliefs put forth by his civilization at a time period where said entity hasn't even left his planet yet.


You know, sometimes i get caught up in this jungle to the point where I am convinced this is reality. I have never felt so free as I do now. I spend a lot of time writing all of this and I can't begin to tell you how much it has helped me. I know you won't understand this yet it's going to mean something to you on some level wether you realize it or not: you've been stuck on earth too long, friend. One love. <3

 

[Zaehet Strife]

But from the post I've seen in this thread and in others, it seems a lot of people like to say that ganja man, and other spiritual people who post here are wrong. And I may be wrong in that and if I am please correct me.

You are wrong with this statement, at least in regards to myself. I am not EVER trying to say that peoples supernatural beliefs are wrong. I am plainly trying to state the simple fact that they COULD, be wrong. That the same possibility exists that our supernatural beliefs could be wrong, as there is of them being right.

That any reasonable, logical, honest, truthful, person... can understand that there is always a chance that the beliefs they hold about supernatural ideas are just that... ideas. That no matter how badly we want them to be true, we do not know if they are certainly true, nor certainly false either.

That when anyone goes around parading the fact that they know with certainty of an afterlife (or any other supernatural idea) not only are they lying to me and to everyone else, but to themselves as well.

Even though there are so many people who do not have the courage to accept that they cannot be absolutely sure if their supernatural beliefs are true or false, there are a few who can still accept that fact, but yet continue to hold onto the belief all the while. Faith, yet with the knowledge and acceptance that their supernatural beliefs really have no place in reality, and aren't certainty true just as much as they aren't certainly false.

Just like Heis was explaining earlier, in which i still need to spread my rep around before i give him more. I don't know how anyone could be more authentic, candid or genuine... if before they talk about their supernatural beliefs, they state at first "I think" before they state their supernatural belief. Not only will that keep people from misinterpreting or misunderstanding, but it will save wasteful hours in pointless debates and it may also help people accept the fact that our supernatural beliefs are just ideas, and we are not certain if they are true.

You, me, everyone who has a supernatural belief (and yes i have one) COULD be wrong. So none of us can be certain.

It can be scary sometimes, but that's why sharing ideas is so valuable, we can help each other get past some of our deepest worries and fears. One of those is the fear that our supernatural beliefs might be wrong, something we must all get through in order to grow.

Edit:

Sounds too crazy right? Anyway it truly offends me if you don't accept my claims. It's really unfortunate I can't get appraisal from an entity who shares the mimicked beliefs put forth by his civilization at a time period where said entity hasn't even left his planet yet.

You have really cool ideas and beliefs, I've heard most of them before though... but that doesn't take away from their sweetness. -there's your appraisal.

Regardless, if you continue to tell yourself you are certain that these ideas and supernatural beliefs are absolutely true, then you will continue to lie to yourself... which leads down paths that are extremely hard to find your way out of. -Constructive criticism.

 

[ganja man23]

Doesn't a genetic engineering student start out as a mol. bio. major though? So I would imagine you're taking heavy courseloads in molecular and cell biology. What would engineering courses gain you? My understanding, and it might be obsolete, was that engineering at the college level referred specifically to mechanical and electrical engineering.
Even so, that would involve taking some physics, and that suggests to me that some of the contrarian beliefs you've written up for us here run counter to the material you're now charged with mastering. How do you reconcile this, if my guess is good? cn

I didn't claim to be mastering any material, just saying that I have enough understanding to be qualified to talk about it. He claimed he had a mastery of materials. I am an undergrad at the university level and i shared that so he could understand my level. College level is a joke with respect to the difficulty and the amount of materials required for students to be tested upon.

My courses First Semester: Introduction To Engineering, Physics, Chemistry, Calculus, Linear Algebra
Second Semester: Biology, Calculus 2, Physics 2: Waves and Fields, Introduction to genetic engineering, Economics

The way it works is that to get my degree I am going to be trained to be able to work with any device that is engineered to analyze and even change genetic structure. Without engineered tools, we have no access to genetics. I anticipate future courses such as anatomy, biotechnology, genetics and evolution would further expand my level of evolutionary knowledge but I chose biology for one reason and that it's an expanding market since it's a relatively new scientific technology. I by no means excel in it like I do in physics (not bragging but my grades are much stronger in physical science than biological science since this lacklustre method of education has so far involved simply memorizing various texts and diagrams and regurgitating the information when the beloved professor asks me and everyone else to).

I claim: I have knowledge in at least basic evolutionary concepts based on even my high school biology class and have yet to see science remove the possibility of extraterrestrial influence. This is my thought and based on what i have found as tangible evidence, i have deemed it a very possible belief. no sense in telling me i'm wrong, i already know that of course.

The other guy claims: He is much more advanced than me so I am clearly not worth him digging up a shred of evidence to take my claims away from me. Merely calling them bullshit which was pretty funny because I don't care about that belief enough to spend any more time worrying about it. It's irrelevant to me whether we were modified by aliens, but I'm not going to surrender to the belief that our complex consciousness is a coincidence which is what evolution insinuates. There is a certain definition to "alien" you fail to understand. It goes beyond those little grey fellas portrayed in our media.

 

[ganja man23]

You have really cool ideas and beliefs, I've heard most of them before though... but that doesn't take away from their sweetness. -there's your appraisal.

Regardless, if you continue to tell yourself you are certain that these ideas and supernatural beliefs are absolutely true, then you will continue to lie to yourself... which leads down paths that are extremely hard to find your way out of. -Constructive criticism.

So Michio Kaku and all the other physicists (AKA the very scientists you all praise) are all wandering down paths they can't find their way out of? I don't understand what you could mean by hard to find your way out of? Your criticism of thought has led me to believe that you have simply taken the easy way out by choosing to not believe anything beyond a certain level you have defined yourself. There's nothing wrong with that because you're merely staying within your limits until someone can prove to you that reality is beyond it. Obviously you already understand that you are not any more intelligent than anyone else because of the beliefs you choose. You seem like you are trying to prove an intelligence by accusing others in their beliefs while becoming limited to your own. A belief is just an accepted thought or suggestion isn't it?

p.s. they're not really my ideas. i've borrowed them from what i call a valid source (if not the most credible source today) and am very comfortable accepting them as part of "reality". there's a reason you've heard them of course. they've been suggested by many people.

 

[Zaehet Strife]

So Michio Kaku and all the other physicists (AKA the very scientists you all praise) are all wandering down paths they can't find their way out of? I don't understand what you could mean by hard to find your way out of?

There's nothing wrong with that because you're merely staying within your limits until someone can prove to you that reality is beyond it.

A belief is just an accepted thought or suggestion isn't it?

Their beliefs are not supernatural beliefs, but beliefs based upon tangible evidence and proof. (The belief in gravity, atoms, strings)

I have no limits, yet you have already set yours. You limit yourself within the the constraints of your already set supernatural beliefs that you tell yourself you know with one-hundred percent certainty. I do not have any set supernatural beliefs, i understand that i cannot be certain, and all possibilities are open giving birth to an infinite capacity of thought... where your thought end where your supernatural beliefs start.

A belief is an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists. Supernatural means not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws; not physical or material, attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

This is the reason why i put the word "supernatural" behind the word "belief" so there would be no mistake in terminology.

"Any reasonable, logical, honest, truthful, person... can understand that there is always a chance that the beliefs they hold about supernatural ideas are just that... ideas. That no matter how badly we want them to be true, we do not know if they are certainly true, nor certainly false either.

It can be scary sometimes, but that's why sharing ideas is so valuable, we can help each other get past some of our deepest worries and fears. One of those is the fear that our supernatural beliefs might be wrong, something we must all get through in order to grow. That includes you Ganja man.

When you go around parading as fact that you know with certainty of an afterlife (or any other supernatural idea) not only are you lying to me and to everyone else, but to yourself as well."

 

[ganja man23]

That was my question to him in the post he decided to stop responding. I am merely asking him how can he not understand that his arguments from ignorance are incompatible with basic science. His claim that the only way we will know for sure that we evolved natural is if we can read our genomes like a book and have every last question answered. This type of thinking to me is completely contrary to how someone taking courses in and learning how to use the scientific method should be thinking. My guess is that he has a passing interest in science and sees pseudoscience as actual science because he is lacking the knowledge and training that helps people make the distinction.

You seem to be under the impression that studying the genome has answered all questions we have about our evolution as a species. I just want to remind you that we have yet to come upon agreement with the function of what we call 'junk' dna, which accounts for the far majority of our biological structure. We are so inadequate we have called the majority of our biological structure 'junk' because we don't understand it's purpose. My prediction is that the future will unfold in a way that suggests that the so called junk dna and genetic dna that is present in all organisms is a direct relationship with how an organism perceives the physical world. How advanced do you exactly think we are in biology? Do you think studying the genome for a few decades has given us all the evolutionary knowledge we have been seeking? Keep in mind we have been studying physics for thousands of years and have still barely touched the tip of the ice berg. Discovering and analyzing that we have a genome is merely like the apple falling on Newton's head. It fails to incorporate the metaphysical knowledge of how our experience of reality differs with respect to any other organism. If genetics can explain everything there is to know about us and our physical and metaphysical origins, why has it not yet shown how our genetics shape our reality with evidence combined with physical science, quantum mechanics most specifically.

 

[ganja man23]

Their beliefs are not supernatural beliefs, but beliefs based upon tangible evidence and proof. (The belief in gravity, atoms, strings)

So why exactly are their beliefs tangible when compared against mine? The structure of my life has unfolded in such a way that I have incorporated their tangible evidence with my spiritual evidence and theorize that eventually they are going to become a universal concept. The very fact that the brightest minds are working on supporting the insights I have received through using nothing but meditation is enough tangibility for me to continue to believe such a claim. Yes, perhaps you can think of me delusional in that sense but I know that life is to short to sit around and wait for conclusions. The reason I show certainty in my beliefs is that it's necessary for my spiritual development, despite how delusional someone who doesn't understand might think it is.

The only certainty I have is that of my spiritual experiences and how real they are to me and anyone else who has them. Science is pointing me towards the direction that these experiences are all a part of my consciousness, not that my consciousness is subject to these ecperiences. You are choosing to base your perspective the opposite way from me and that's a belief too isn't it? Are you going to tell me that just because me and you and everyone else seem to be based only on existence within this 4D structure that this is the "most real" of all realities? Yes I realize that so far we limit all findings on concepts within these four dimensions but that doesn't make it "a reality' when our own evidence in science is suggesting our life is an illusion perceived by consciousness. What's even more soothing to me is the fact that many spiritual people who have the pleasure of escaping the barriers of physicality by reaching metaphysical levels and too many similarities to come back to share the messages with too many similarities to be accounted for as simple coincidence.

Can we agree that I argue that consciousness is based outside of physicality and the experience is through it whereas you guys claim the opposite; that we are limited to this perspective (or reality) because we cannot physically perceive anything outside of it? If we can agree to those definitions than we can agree that the claim that we are limited to this reality is just as flawed as any assumptions I make? At times I forget we are all here to learn but the truth is that your method gives me the false impression that you are here to criticize what ideas that I share (one of which we are at the stage where everything is based on perspective) rather than constantly remind me that I'm just sharing ideas with you all, but I remind you that you are all doing the same so every argument that arises will come down to the question of is the cup half full or half empty. does my ideology not tell us that we can view the cup in more than one way and the reality is that quantum mechanics incorporates the fact that they are all equally real. What you are telling me is that we need to find what is real in our "reality" which is true if we want to progress forward. We cannot simply ignore the rest because we can't incorporate it within w x y and z.

 

[Heisenberg]

"Science is best defined as a careful, disciplined, logical search for knowledge about any and all aspects of the universe, obtained by examination of the best available evidence and always subject to correction and improvement upon discovery of better evidence. What's left is magic. And it doesn't work." -James Randi

"At the heart of science is an essential balance between two seemingly contradictory attitudes--an openness to new ideas, no matter how bizarre or counterintuitive they may be, and the most ruthless skeptical scrutiny of all ideas, old and new. This is how deep truths are winnowed from deep nonsense." - Carl Sagan

 

[greenswag]

Thank you cn and zs for responding so kindly and I agree. I like when I hear something different that I didn't think of, I only learn more and love when that kind of thing happens. Also thank you for welcoming me, I think I'll really enjoy this sub forum.