Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Science is no longer objectionable to God's existence...

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Re: Science is no longer objectionable to God's existence...

    Hagelin is not a neutral or strictly scientific voice. His involvement with the natural law party, the TM movement, and other new age interests make everything he says suspect.

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • #47
      Re: Science is no longer objectionable to God's existence...

      Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
      I ran across this...

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C5pq7W5yRM

      ... scientific evidence tells us today, that consciousness creates the universe, instead of consciousness being created by matter.

      Materialism is apparently dead, which means all of he arguments based in it are now invalid.
      You have to be careful with videos like this. There is real interest and plenty of science to discuss, but there is a difference between omission of facts and omission of alternate conclusions.

      The double slit observation / non-observation experiment provides interesting notions about how we look at our reality. Because of the conclusions with consciousness effect on microscopic elements, we have interesting implications on macroscopic elements not being effected. I would argue then that the conclusions of the experiment do not necessarily prove all materialism "as all dead," but rather proves its concrete boundaries are not factual. That would be confirmed by the efforts of QM today to show fluctuation in what physics considers constants.

      Because of those conclusion possibilities, I would not rush out to close all monotheism religions and then march over and shut down all modern physics work.

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • #48
        Re: Science is no longer objectionable to God's existence...

        I would argue that the true scientific position is agnostic, and has been since the age of enlightenment. They should involve themselves trying to prove or disprove that which is subject to the scientific method. Proof of a deity is still in the realm of philosophy, rather than the scientific method.

        Advances in physics may change that, but that is where we stand now.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • #49
          Re: Science is no longer objectionable to God's existence...

          Originally posted by JDJarvis View Post
          Hagelin is not a neutral or strictly scientific voice. His involvement with the natural law party, the TM movement, and other new age interests make everything he says suspect.
          I could get you a good list of other physicists who would agree to what Hagelin is saying. In fact, I have listened to those others and just found him in the last couple days.

          I doubt his credentials could be questioned, given his contribution to QP. Neither could David Bohm, and the number of others who have thought about the implications. I think there is this deal going on within that community to stay away from drawing implications, and this started at the founding of QM. All of that info is available online if one cares to read about it.

          But here is the deal. QM doesn't by its nature support the materialistic arguments against a higher intelligence, for QM doesn't recognize a solid substance as the ground of reality. It recognizes fields, and those fields are non material. Fields of probability and potentiality. And from the non material, the universe, with its matter and law manifests. To conclude that this non materiality is also intelligent seems to be a given. And that is something that negates a materialistic view of reality. Which is really what the original link in the OP is getting at.

          So classical physics and QP compliment one another, but it also gets rid of a materialistic view of reality, for reality at the smallest level is not in the realm of materialism. And prior to QM, indeed it was, and the argument used by atheists. So that they could back their beliefs up with science. If they still use that today, they do so without being very informed. And many still do it. Not the scientists, but the general public.

          BTW, I doubt Hagelin was that schooled in the Hindu Vedas, which can be seen as agreeing with QM, in so far as consciousness is concerned. I think QM led to his discovery of that ancient religion, which is Hinduism, and its offspring Buddhism.

          Something similar happened to David Bohm. He wasn't into religion, but an atheist, when he ran across a book in a library in London, or his wife did, and she read something about the observer and the observed, in a philosophical book. Since Bohm was working on QM at the time, and the observer and the observed was a part of that, he eventually met the man who wrote the book and this is how he discovered the affinity of QM and the Vedas.

          What is happening is that some of the QPs over the last 50 years discovered a very ancient religion that was speaking of the things being discovered at in QM, and this is why they moved towards it. That is, they didn't start out as religious and then moved from there, but started out as QPs and moved from the science. For they saw an ancient religion was talking about QM.

          Yet it was Bohr I think that was drawn to mysticism after his discoveries and work. It just seems that QPs are more apt to be attracted to the mystical than the classical physicists, for obvious reasons.

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • #50
            Re: Science is no longer objectionable to God's existence...

            Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
            I ran across this, but had seen it prior, and it is the basis for much of my own arguments against our materialistic view of reality, which atheism is grounded in. Except, it seems materialism has been debunked. The problem lies in the fact, that many in science ignore it, and the public at large are ignorant of it.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C5pq7W5yRM

            And so it seems, the scientific evidence tells us today, that consciousness creates the universe, instead of consciousness being created by matter.

            So, the universe comes into existence, when there is a consciousness that looks at it. And so, matter comes from consciousness, not vice versa.

            And this is science, not faith. And so myself and another has said here, that one day science and religion will not be enemies, but will be able to agree. Looks like that day has been here for quite awhile, and its our own refusal to accept science that is the problem. Which illustrates again, the great power of a belief in the false, which will not concede to the science.

            I find this quite hilarious, that the atheistic balloon, founded and grounded in something like faith, has been punctured, and it has blown up, destroyed.

            Materialism is apparently dead, which means all of he arguments based in it are now invalid. I just wonder how long it will take the world to catch up with what reality actually is? A creation of consciousness, of MIND. Which is the Divine Mind that all religions have believed in, even when materialism said it didn't exist at all.

            Looks like we had it right for thousands of years, as with many other things. It seems that intuited knowledge is more intelligent than some want to believe.
            Argh!!! This is just so much crap. Decoherence can occur without a human observing it. If decoherence could not occur without human observation, then humans would never exist. Not even the Bible claims that nothing existed until God mad a man to observe it. The universe existed first. You can't use the things that science proves to explain that the things that science has proved are not real.

            If you want to believe in some invisible man in the sky, go do that. Don't pretend that there is some scientific proof that the man in the sky exists because there isn't. Trying to infer God's existence by perverting what is taught by science is a waste of everyone's time.

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • #51
              Re: Science is no longer objectionable to God's existence...

              Originally posted by zip98053 View Post
              Argh!!! This is just so much crap. Decoherence can occur without a human observing it. If decoherence could not occur without human observation, then humans would never exist. Not even the Bible claims that nothing existed until God mad a man to observe it. The universe existed first. You can't use the things that science proves to explain that the things that science has proved are not real.

              If you want to believe in some invisible man in the sky, go do that. Don't pretend that there is some scientific proof that the man in the sky exists because there isn't. Trying to infer God's existence by perverting what is taught by science is a waste of everyone's time.
              Where did BD equate God with an "invisible man in the sky"?

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • #52
                Re: Science is no longer objectionable to God's existence...

                Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post
                Quantum mechanics does not debunk materialism in the slightest. It is just another natural system we are unable to currently explain fully. That it acts strangely is a good thing as to be honest if we did live in a completely explainable universe it would be depressing as what's left to discover.
                Quantum mechanics does not mean God exists any more than anything else that science can't explain it's just you putting God into the equation wherever you see even a sliver of a doubt in hard science.
                As always I await any evidence for the existence of a supreme being.
                You act like quantum mechanics is a finished field of study when in fact it's only just begun.
                You're misunderstanding. It's not that science isn't explaining something, or can't explain something, it's that the actual scientific explanation is pointing to God.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • #53
                  Re: Science is no longer objectionable to God's existence...

                  Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post
                  Europe is far from sinking and this hysteria from US conservatives is really annoying.
                  Could things in Europe be better, yep they could but we will get through this downturn as we have every other.
                  The UK and Germany are doing great and will hopefully help to drag the rest of Europe with us.

                  Europe will continue and we will continue being to the left of US conservatives and thrive despite you guys predicting our doom every 5 minutes.
                  I'm not even sure the UK will be part of Europe in a few years, let alone Europe being OK. The large advances of the UKIP demonstrates this. At least some people in the UK are smart enough to abandon a the fool's errand that is the EU.

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • #54
                    Re: Science is no longer objectionable to God's existence...

                    Originally posted by fishjoel View Post
                    You're misunderstanding. It's not that science isn't explaining something, or can't explain something, it's that the actual scientific explanation is pointing to God.
                    You think it points to God while I completely disagree and think qm is just another complex natural system.

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • #55
                      Re: Science is no longer objectionable to God's existence...

                      Originally posted by fishjoel View Post
                      I'm not even sure the UK will be part of Europe in a few years, let alone Europe being OK. The large advances of the UKIP demonstrates this. At least some people in the UK are smart enough to abandon a the fool's errand that is the EU.
                      UKIP is a protest vote and while they may get votes at local level they always fail at major and general elections as people go back to voting for one of the big 3 parties. I think any vote about the UK being in the EU will see us voting by a huge margin to stay in as leaving would be madness.

                      You may think the EU is a bad idea but we in Europe don't and it has helped keep a continent that suffered 2 world wars in a short period at peace since 1950.

                      It's not perfect but it is better than anything else and if it is so terrible why are countries desperate to join the EU?

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • #56
                        Re: Science is no longer objectionable to God's existence...

                        I see some people here that lack an understanding of what goes on in the academic scientific community. But there is a scientist of that community that will lay it out so that you may have an insight into how even science is infected with dogma, assumptions, which are not questioned, and here is your opportunity to get exposed to it. Sheldrake is no slouch, is well credentialed, and is taking on this issue, and his latest book addresses it. He will condense it down here....

                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPccMlgug8A

                        ...if you are interested. For those who's minds are made up, for you already know the Truth, of course you will not have time for it. But for those that distrust dogma, this is for you.

                        I don't know if there are any really serious people in this thread, but I know I have read what several brains have said, and I see quite a bit of "knowers of truth" who really only have a fragmented view, and believe in dogma, no different from the religious fundamentalists. Sheldrake talks about these kind of people in this talk. But we are educated, or miseducated so it's not your fault. But it is your fault if you choose to remain so.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • #57
                          Re: Science is no longer objectionable to God's existence...

                          Originally posted by Pogo View Post
                          Where did BD equate God with an "invisible man in the sky"?
                          Yes indeed. where did I do that? Anyone who has read my thoughts on the invisible man in the sky, know that I feel that is a god created by the brain. For the brain can create 3 legged women, gnomes, gremlins, and some of the best most entertaining fiction.

                          I am kinda stuck on what people call god as being consciousness itself. For there is nothing on this earth, in the lives of man, that is more mysterious than our own consciousness. I am amazed by it every day and have been for a long, long time.

                          And not an anthropomorphic consciousness, for consciousness isn't anthropomorphic, but the ground of reality. This is just my own sense of it.

                          I also think it's existence as the ground of reality is something man has always intuited, and this gave rise to so many various religions. Now, to communicate what was intuited, one has to use language, and language is inseparable from the particular culture, and so this is where the different religions sprang from. But if one can see past the cultural interpretation, most religions are speaking of the exact same thing. When we don't realize that, we start killing one another over our religious beliefs. For we think only ours is the right one. It's absurd, even ludicrous, but it is who we are. It is the fact. And it is our history.

                          Personally, I think the most damaging philosophy ever devised is materialism. And we still have them, and Richard Dawkins is their poster boy. And it is still entrenched in academia, not because it is true, but because it is the tradition. And if you want a job, if you want to write papers and be reviewed by peers, you best believe the dogma, you best pretend you are a materialist. It reminds me of the republicans and their pointing fingers at RINOS. This is irrational human behavior, and that it comes even from men of science is the absurdity here.

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • #58
                            Re: Science is no longer objectionable to God's existence...

                            Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                            I see some people here that lack an understanding of what goes on in the academic scientific community. But there is a scientist of that community that will lay it out so that you may have an insight into how even science is infected with dogma, assumptions, which are not questioned, and here is your opportunity to get exposed to it. Sheldrake is no slouch, is well credentialed, and is taking on this issue, and his latest book addresses it. He will condense it down here....

                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPccMlgug8A

                            ...if you are interested. For those who's minds are made up, for you already know the Truth, of course you will not have time for it. But for those that distrust dogma, this is for you.

                            I don't know if there are any really serious people in this thread, but I know I have read what several brains have said, and I see quite a bit of "knowers of truth" who really only have a fragmented view, and believe in dogma, no different from the religious fundamentalists. Sheldrake talks about these kind of people in this talk. But we are educated, or miseducated so it's not your fault. But it is your fault if you choose to remain so.
                            I think you should go back and re-read what I said before making such sweeping generalizations. Especially in the context of you telling us "the Truth" given what we really know to date.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • #59
                              Re: Science is no longer objectionable to God's existence...

                              The arguement about reality is not simply bound by the definition of two camps. It is not exclussively the New Age Mystics vs the Materialists. The video itself mentions Realists who believe the universe is there and up to stuff when you aren't looking at it Paricles being waves until you interfere with them doesn't debunk materilaism either, it further defines the nature of materials. A holographic view of reality doesn't debunk realism or materialism either it simply proposes everything we are seeing isn't everything there is. Its a lot more complicated than new age mumbo jumbo pseudo science vs scientific materialism and the ppseudoscientists deppend on many people being unable to discern the differences.

                              מה מכילות החדשות?

                              Working...
                              X