The Matrix

smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 598
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
The Matrix

Hey peeps,

Since my initial controversial introduction to these forums, I've been on the lookout for more credible sources to support my beliefs. This one comes very, very close. It's David Icke, co-author of the Matrix. Now, he does go a little too far into conspiracy theories for my taste, and I also wish he had more foundation for some of the "evidence" he presents. But overall, this is extremely similar to some of the things I was trying to express when I first joined here. In my humble opinion, I don't feel he's resorting to blatant mysticism as much as he might have, and on top of that, his position is decidedly anti-religion.

http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=7590772592900521369&ei=tLb5SfrGFY3CrQLP_oGTCg&q=entendiendo%20la%20naturaleza%20de%20la%20r...

Make of it what you will. Constructive feedback welcome, as always.

Ryan


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
I call bullshit. No offense,

I call bullshit. No offense, that's just my take on the part I actually watched. Once he started talking about collective and infinite consciousness he lost any sort of credibility he may have had in my mind. When he said believing is seeing I was thinking he might be a motivational speaker or something, but then he dropped the ball and started talking new age garbage.

To make matters worse I googled him and found all manner of conspiracy theories about the Illuminati and alien reptile people / human hybrids (not even joking). I hate that combination of words by the way. It diminishes the meaning of the word theory. Not every idea deserves the title theory, no matter how much time you may have wasted on it.

After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.

The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Let me guess, another person

Let me guess, another person abusing quatum mechanics who probably can't even calculated the Energy expecation value of a system using raising and lower operators.

 

 

 


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Let me

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Let me guess, another person abusing quatum mechanics who probably can't even calculated the Energy expecation value of a system using raising and lower operators.

Google him. I dare you!

After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.

The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Seems that Adobe and

Seems that Adobe and Microsoft couldn't get WM5's IE to correctly implement Adobe's Mobile Flash Player.

I can utube and flash play,
but Not in IE on WM5.

So what elseis new...

Hmmmm....

Obama said the nations security depends upon the development of ways to fend off threats from the Internet. Guess he could have mentioned wireless too. In any case, my money is on the same icrosoft morons doing that contract.

It occurs to me that in China, Bill Gates wouldn't be one of the richest men, but he would certainly be one of the deadest men.

Oh well. Got no way to look at links or play them in WM5.
Typical Microsoft BS.


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 598
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
spike.barnett wrote:I call

spike.barnett wrote:

I call bullshit. No offense, that's just my take on the part I actually watched. Once he started talking about collective and infinite consciousness he lost any sort of credibility he may have had in my mind. When he said believing is seeing I was thinking he might be a motivational speaker or something, but then he dropped the ball and started talking new age garbage.

To make matters worse I googled him and found all manner of conspiracy theories about the Illuminati and alien reptile people / human hybrids (not even joking). I hate that combination of words by the way. It diminishes the meaning of the word theory. Not every idea deserves the title theory, no matter how much time you may have wasted on it.

Fair enough. I agree with you that he does get a little too new agey about it. Most of what he's saying makes sense to me in concept, though.

R


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:Fair enough. I agree

 

Quote:
Fair enough. I agree with you that he does get a little too new agey about it. Most of what he's saying makes sense to me in concept, though.

See, this is one of the real problems with being human.  We're suckers for poetry.  To be more precise, we have a weakness for words that are put together in intuitively pleasing ways.  Particularly when it comes to New-Age crap and mysticism, we really like the "idea" behind what someone is saying, and it's esthetically pleasing, so we are prone to give it far, far more credence than we ought.  (I'm about to explain why I used scare quotes on "idea".  Bear with me.)

Just to toss something off the top of my head, let's think about the idea of group consciousness.  I've heard New Age gurus talk about this a lot.  You see, there's this collectiveness, a oneness that focuses the energies of our thoughts and actions into a dynamic consciousness.  We're all part of it, and we all control it because we all have thoughts and feelings, and we're all part of the oneness of humanity.

That sounds pretty nice, and it hits some great intuitive and poetic hot buttons in humans.  First, humans are all about groups.  To put it mildly, for 99.9% of human history, if you didn't have a group, you would die.  Almost immediately.  We are deeply ingrained with an instinct to be part of the group.  Whatever the group might happen to be.  So when we start talking about all of humanity as a group, it touches something very deep and intuitive.  Gee... if all of humanity is a group, then I'm never alone!  How freaking awesome is that?!

Also, it talks about consciousness, which is something we value an awful lot.  We're scared of not being awake, particularly if something bad happens.  Gee, if there's a group consciousness, it's always awake and aware.  How neato!  (It's sort of like a surrogate god to watch over us and make sure everything's ok.)

And... energy?  What energy?  Is it electromagnetism?  Heat?  What kind of energy are we talking about?  The gurus are never specific enough to be pinned down.

In the end, we discover that close examination of these kinds of claims always results in a total breakdown of the "concept" that "makes sense in principle."  It's all just pretty words that resonate with the primal vibrations of human energy.  (See!  Sounds great, doesn't it!  But it's bullshit.)

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 598
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:

 

Quote:
Fair enough. I agree with you that he does get a little too new agey about it. Most of what he's saying makes sense to me in concept, though.

See, this is one of the real problems with being human.  We're suckers for poetry.  To be more precise, we have a weakness for words that are put together in intuitively pleasing ways.  Particularly when it comes to New-Age crap and mysticism, we really like the "idea" behind what someone is saying, and it's esthetically pleasing, so we are prone to give it far, far more credence than we ought.  (I'm about to explain why I used scare quotes on "idea".  Bear with me.)

Just to toss something off the top of my head, let's think about the idea of group consciousness.  I've heard New Age gurus talk about this a lot.  You see, there's this collectiveness, a oneness that focuses the energies of our thoughts and actions into a dynamic consciousness.  We're all part of it, and we all control it because we all have thoughts and feelings, and we're all part of the oneness of humanity.

That sounds pretty nice, and it hits some great intuitive and poetic hot buttons in humans.  First, humans are all about groups.  To put it mildly, for 99.9% of human history, if you didn't have a group, you would die.  Almost immediately.  We are deeply ingrained with an instinct to be part of the group.  Whatever the group might happen to be.  So when we start talking about all of humanity as a group, it touches something very deep and intuitive.  Gee... if all of humanity is a group, then I'm never alone!  How freaking awesome is that?!

Also, it talks about consciousness, which is something we value an awful lot.  We're scared of not being awake, particularly if something bad happens.  Gee, if there's a group consciousness, it's always awake and aware.  How neato!  (It's sort of like a surrogate god to watch over us and make sure everything's ok.)

And... energy?  What energy?  Is it electromagnetism?  Heat?  What kind of energy are we talking about?  The gurus are never specific enough to be pinned down.

In the end, we discover that close examination of these kinds of claims always results in a total breakdown of the "concept" that "makes sense in principle."  It's all just pretty words that resonate with the primal vibrations of human energy.  (See!  Sounds great, doesn't it!  But it's bullshit.)

 

 

Okay, but what you seem to be saying is that if it can be explained away by human evolution and sociology, that it therefore can't be true. That doesn't sound like good logic to me.

And the idea that if it sounds good, then it's too easy and therefore can't be true resonates even less for me since atheists are always complaining about those who believe in things that are too convoluted and contradictory to possibly be accurate. Correct me if I'm wrong, I may have misunderstood you, but it sounds to me like you want to have it both ways.


thatonedude
Superfan
Posts: 327
Joined: 2008-01-15
User is offlineOffline
smartypants wrote: Okay,

smartypants wrote:

 

Okay, but what you seem to be saying is that if it can be explained away by human evolution and sociology, that it therefore can't be true. That doesn't sound like good logic to me.

Occam's razor makes the cutting clean.

If a process or event has a natural explanation, why would you then ascribe a supernatural cause? Do you sit around trying to find supernatural causes for fire, water, wind, or whatever? Demonstrate some proof that item 'X' is not naturally explicable, and you'll be making a good start. Otherwise, it's just philosophical masturbation.

Quote:

And the idea that if it sounds good, then it's too easy and therefore can't be true resonates even less for me since atheists are always complaining about those who believe in things that are too convoluted and contradictory to possibly be accurate. Correct me if I'm wrong, I may have misunderstood you, but it sounds to me like you want to have it both ways.

Not at all. Hamby is saying that the fact that an idea resonates on an emotional level has no bearing on whether it is true. This has nothing to do with the relative convolution or contradictory nature of the idea.

All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
smartypants wrote:Okay, but

smartypants wrote:


Okay, but what you seem to be saying is that if it can be explained away by human evolution and sociology, that it therefore can't be true. That doesn't sound like good logic to me.

That's not what he's saying.  What he's saying is that what is being talked about is utter nonsense.  They use words, yes, but they have no meaning.  What the heck would, 'the energies of our thoughts and actions into a dynamic consciousness,' mean?  It's like the technobabble on Star Trek.  They use words that exist (for the most part), but in meaningless ways.  I can string together a whole bunch of terms that sound really great together and inspire people.  Motivational speakers do this.  Hamby is simply explaining a possible reason (and quite likely the reason) why such meaningless jargon sounds so good and credible to people. 

 

Quote:
And the idea that if it sounds good, then it's too easy and therefore can't be true resonates even less for me since atheists are always complaining about those who believe in things that are too convoluted and contradictory to possibly be accurate.
It's not because it sounds good, it's because it sounds good and is patently meaningless.  As Hamby pointed out, none of these new agers can identify the energy they're talking about.  Heck, none of them have even the glimmer of a coherent definition for any of the stuff they're talking about.   And absolutely none of them have attempted any kind of science to varify the existence of the stuff they're talking about that they can't define.

Quote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, I may have misunderstood you, but it sounds to me like you want to have it both ways
You've been corrected.  hamby doesn't want 'it' both ways (and I'm not sure what it is), he's simply explaining that good sounding nonsense has an affect on people because of our evolutionary and sociological history.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Abu Lahab
Superfan
Abu Lahab's picture
Posts: 628
Joined: 2008-02-29
User is offlineOffline
David Icke

No one takes David Icke seriously.

 

His books are very amusing, though unintentional.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:Okay, but what you

 

Quote:
Okay, but what you seem to be saying is that if it can be explained away by human evolution and sociology, that it therefore can't be true.

I'm sorry, but that implication is not in what I wrote.  Perhaps you have some bias you're not aware of.

Quote:
That doesn't sound like good logic to me.

It certainly wouldn't be good logic.  Luckily, I didn't say it.

Quote:
And the idea that if it sounds good, then it's too easy and therefore can't be true resonates even less for me

Are you sure you're responding to me?  I didn't say that, either.

Quote:
since atheists are always complaining about those who believe in things that are too convoluted and contradictory to possibly be accurate.

Um... contradictory and convoluted are quite different concepts.  A thing that is contradictory cannot be true, but some things are quite convoluted and still true.  

Quote:
 Correct me if I'm wrong, I may have misunderstood you,

I can't tell if you're wrong, but you definitely misunderstood me.  You're not making very clear points.  Too much New Age literature influencing your communication clarity, perhaps...

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
The skeptical majority of

The skeptical majority of humanity is possibly also very convenient. Not being taken seriously often means to be safer and left in peace. Which is useful, if the crazy appearance is actually a cover for something.
It may be sometimes convenient if skeptics take seriously only a tiny fraction of their stream of consciousness. 15 conscious bytes per second received by the brain out of unconcsious gigabytes, that's about how skeptics allows themselves to see and hear. Therefore, I could violate as many of currently approved laws of physics as I want, and skeptics won't notice, because it is simply impossible Smiling

I can agree with most of the New agey stuff that David Icke says. According to esoteric theory, consciousness is energy, matter is energy, and thus there is nothing in the universe but energy and laws according to which it behaves. Thus the (probably) infinite cosmic consciousness might be a fact, and we would be a part of it.
By the way, if the energy is 'an ability to perform work', then what is matter? Is it ' Ability to perform work divided by light speed squared'? So, if we take some energy and divide it a lot, then it materializes? Just kidding, but half-seriously Smiling

Btw, so far I never had a reliable information on Illuminati, hostile aliens, reptiloids, etc... I don't know what to think about them. But the conspiracy is a popular method of work. Maybe if Illuminati want to work in peace, they just make sure that everyone will think that they're the guys who work with reptilians. Now they could scream it out loud on streets, and nobody even notices that Smiling

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Is this the same David Icke

Is this the same David Icke who, according to the Wikipedia article:

Quote:

In 1999, he published The Biggest Secret, in which he wrote that the Illuminati are a race of reptilian humanoids known as the Babylonian Brotherhood, and that many prominent figures are reptilian, including George W. Bush, Queen Elizabeth II, Kris Kristofferson, and Boxcar Willie.

If so, he really is not worth taking too seriously, so anything he says which may sound plausible definitely still needs to be independently researched.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


The Flying Spag...
Science Freak
The Flying Spaghetti Monster's picture
Posts: 225
Joined: 2009-06-03
User is offlineOffline
Ugh, I think Descartes is

Ugh, I think Descartes is rolling in his grave. No my friend, seeing is believing.

He's rambling on about things he has absolutely no way of proving and that he doesn't even understand. Hypothetically, let's pretend everything he's saying is correct. That would easily make him the most brilliant person...ever. He's explaining how energy is transformed not only when we die but how the different frequencies that determine our reality interact with one another. He understands the complexities of the brain. He understands inter-dimensional perception and basically how the universe operates down to a quantum level. Everything this guy spews is bullshit and an insult to real scientists because he's teaching people bad information as if it's fact. If he were instead explaining origin and how a God created us all, that's not nearly as bad because it doesn't challenge our understanding of the world and how it works, but instead our purpose. Purpose can be persuaded, but not advancing as a species robs us of our future.

Viewer beware: If a speaker mentions the word "infinity" in a repetitive fashion, he is almost certainly FULL OF SHIT. Fuck this guy, and fuck the sheeple who follow him.


 


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
The Flying Spaghetti Monster

The Flying Spaghetti Monster wrote:

Ugh, I think Descartes is rolling in his grave. No my friend, seeing is believing.


It often happens to me, that first I must be told about something, before I am able to notice it. For example, a mess to clean up, a heap of dirty socks, a jar of something edible I was sent for, and so on. Sometimes it's like these things wouldn't be there at all, even if I look at them from the distance of 1 meter. I need to search the place at least thrice, before I notice what I'm searching for. Sending me to get something is not a good idea. This is why I can well understand, that in some cases, believing is seeing and vice versa.
 

The Flying Spaghetti Monster wrote:
He's rambling on about things he has absolutely no way of proving and that he doesn't even understand. Hypothetically, let's pretend everything he's saying is correct. That would easily make him the most brilliant person...ever. He's explaining how energy is transformed not only when we die but how the different frequencies that determine our reality interact with one another. He understands the complexities of the brain. He understands inter-dimensional perception and basically how the universe operates down to a quantum level.
Sure. That's simply the esoteric theory, which was less or more known for millenia, nothing new. It can be of course practiced, there is only a problem with the tools for this. The tools are the personal physical body, emotionality, intelligence, and intuition. It is necessary to increase a control over them and to improve them in that process, if you should be succesful. It doesn't take just years and decades. A simple ability and desire to meditate is a thing which is developed over at least several past incarnations. It's all a slow, painstaking process, for which the scientists have no patience. (maybe geologists) We wait for a generation of scientists patient and independent enough, that they can reproduce the esoteric theory in technology. Then, the demonstrations will be immediate. I wonder how many generations of scientists and politicians have to die out, before a change is allowed.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster wrote:
  Everything this guy spews is bullshit and an insult to real scientists because he's teaching people bad information as if it's fact. If he were instead explaining origin and how a God created us all, that's not nearly as bad because it doesn't challenge our understanding of the world and how it works, but instead our purpose. Purpose can be persuaded, but not advancing as a species robs us of our future.
If we understand our nature and purpose, we can advance as a species. For example, currently we don't understand anything and we're on a good way to destroy this planet's biosphere, including ourselves.
But he's a real bullshitter as for these reptilian aliens, that's not esoteric theory, he's pulling that out of his ass.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster wrote:
  Viewer beware: If a speaker mentions the word "infinity" in a repetitive fashion, he is almost certainly FULL OF SHIT. Fuck this guy, and fuck the sheeple who follow him.
Well, I take that word as a metaphor. Some aspects of the universe are for us as good as infinity.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


MichaelMcF
Science Freak
MichaelMcF's picture
Posts: 525
Joined: 2008-01-22
User is offlineOffline
smartypants wrote:It's David

smartypants wrote:

It's David Icke, co-author of the Matrix

 

TIt's David Icke.  This is a man that went on the tv when I was a kid and proclaimed to me, my family and the rest of these here British Isles that he was the son of god... and that we'd all be destroyed by earthquakes and floods.

 

He's a fucking nut bar.  Everything he says is suspect.  Even if you want to buy into the illuminati thing;  Even if you want to believe his Global Power diatribes; the fact of the matter is he thinks the world is run by lizard people.  Please find someone better to use as inspiration.

 

M

Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss


The Flying Spag...
Science Freak
The Flying Spaghetti Monster's picture
Posts: 225
Joined: 2009-06-03
User is offlineOffline
 Luminon wrote:It often

 

Luminon wrote:

It often happens to me, that first I must be told about something, before I am able to notice it. For example, a mess to clean up, a heap of dirty socks, a jar of something edible I was sent for, and so on. Sometimes it's like these things wouldn't be there at all, even if I look at them from the distance of 1 meter. I need to search the place at least thrice, before I notice what I'm searching for. Sending me to get something is not a good idea. This is why I can well understand, that in some cases, believing is seeing and vice versa.


Yeah, but the things you just mentioned are tangible. Believing in something you cannot see is taking shots in the dark. Frequencies can be measured, Gravity can be tested, Wind can be felt. The existence of God can only be passed from one imagination to the next. Also, your experiences of what sounds like absent-mindedness, aren’t evidence in a belief system, but simply prior experience telling you when there are messes to clean up, where to look for certain items, etc.
 
Luminon wrote:
Sure. That's simply the esoteric theory, which was less or more known for millenia, nothing new. It can be of course practiced, there is only a problem with the tools for this. The tools are the personal physical body, emotionality, intelligence, and intuition. It is necessary to increase a control over them and to improve them in that process, if you should be succesful. It doesn't take just years and decades. A simple ability and desire to meditate is a thing which is developed over at least several past incarnations. It's all a slow, painstaking process, for which the scientists have no patience. (maybe geologists) We wait for a generation of scientists patient and independent enough, that they can reproduce the esoteric theory in technology. Then, the demonstrations will be immediate. I wonder how many generations of scientists and politicians have to die out, before a change is allowed.


Be careful how you use the word “known.” It may be old, but that doesn’t mean it’s empirically accepted. No, I do not believe the physical universe is simply a reality of our conscious minds. Arguing String Theory is worth discussion but it’s still not proven. String Theorists were so excited to unleash their newly defined theory of relativity, that they forget to do the math. They’re still crunching numbers to this day to find some way of practically proving it. Saying we have 10-11 (or I’ve even heard 23) dimensions is speculation at this point. Now, as far as everything else that guy was saying…that WAS a bunch of bullshit. I can’t believe people even humor what he has to say when he brings up Reptilian people. Also, I don’t understand what you mean by “practice” esoteric theory? Are you saying if a person meditates and reaches nirvana he has proven esoteric theory for everyone else? Elaborate, please. Lastly, it has nothing to do with Scientists being impatient in regards to proving esoteric theory, it’s that people are rushing to understand the meaning of life before the Science catches up.


Luminon wrote:

If we understand our nature and purpose, we can advance as a species. For example, currently we don't understand anything and we're on a good way to destroy this planet's biosphere, including ourselves.
But he's a real bullshitter as for these reptilian aliens, that's not esoteric theory, he's pulling that out of his ass.

 

But when we define our nature and pretend as though we understand our purpose with using no evidence, whatsoever, we’re doomed. Unless we’re blessed with divine intervention, or we find some way of calculating singularity from the moment time began to the end of time, we’re never going to fully understand our purpose. Even if we can mathematically decipher the mysteries of the Big Bang, it doesn’t mean we’ll fully comprehend the entire picture. We understand the four forces and how they were split from one. We can measure the radiation and predict the expansion of the universe. But we are limited in our capabilities, and understanding the molecular world and how everything ties together may never be fully known. I don’t consider myself a Nihilist, most of the time, but that seems to be the most clear-cut explanation of our “purpose,” to me. My favorite saying that pretty much wraps it up is:

To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
Macbeth Act 5, Scene 5, 19-28


Now, as far as us “destroying the biosphere,” I’m going to call bullshit. I believe in Global Warming, but I do not believe in the Greenhouse Effect. Or at least…not so much that we’re responsible for destroying the atmosphere and increasing the temperature of the planet. The temperature on Mars has risen at the same rate as the Earth, does that mean Martians should lay off the fossil fuels, too? The Sun is getting warmer. It’s cyclical, I don’t know what’s so hard to understand about this. The Scientists who push this agenda get grants from the Government and have to say what they want. Scientists in the private sector laugh at this nonsense. There’s been an ongoing petition for said Scientists for a while:


http://www.petitionproject.org/
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm


I hope it doesn’t sound like I’m quote-mining, but I’ll let the great George Carlin explain it since his brilliance is timeless:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyxuVFzKypU


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
The Flying Spaghetti Monster

The Flying Spaghetti Monster wrote:

Yeah, but the things you just mentioned are tangible. Believing in something you cannot see is taking shots in the dark. Frequencies can be measured, Gravity can be tested, Wind can be felt. The existence of God can only be passed from one imagination to the next. Also, your experiences of what sounds like absent-mindedness, aren’t evidence in a belief system, but simply prior experience telling you when there are messes to clean up, where to look for certain items, etc.


I'd be very careful with terms like 'visible' or 'tangible'. I just mentioned how I can't see some things which others can, but it works also oppositely. I can perceive what others can't, thanks to inborn ability, ampiflied by meditations. For me, the space around and within me is not empty, it's filled with strange materia of various quality, responsive to thoughts. I am simply more sensitive than others to the energy field surrounding me, which according to the official science doesn't exist. I have this inborn ability, but it can be awakened through mental training and/or meditation. Sometimes even spontaneously, and people then think they're crazy, but they're not.
This means two things. It is obvious to me, that seeing sometimes requires to expand our senses first. Trust your senses, once you expand them. And that expanding of senses means the end of belief. I don't have to believe in things I can touch any time I want. Of course there are things for which I have a less direct evidence, but what I already know makes their existence very plausible.

As for the question of God's existence, I think it's mainly a problem of definition. Searching for the God in the universe is like Searching for the forest among trees. 

 
The Flying Spaghetti Monster wrote:

Be careful how you use the word “known.” It may be old, but that doesn’t mean it’s empirically accepted.
Sure. What do you think the esotericists are doing? They first must verify the old teachings, if they should take them seriously. Once the verifying phase is mostly done, (which my parents did years ago) we begin with practicing them. We do that usually on Fridays but sometimes on Saturdays or Sundays. Besides that, I have a Monday meditation mini-group in a tearoom.


The Flying Spaghetti Monster wrote:
No, I do not believe the physical universe is simply a reality of our conscious minds. Arguing String Theory is worth discussion but it’s still not proven. String Theorists were so excited to unleash their newly defined theory of relativity, that they forget to do the math. They’re still crunching numbers to this day to find some way of practically proving it. Saying we have 10-11 (or I’ve even heard 23) dimensions is speculation at this point.
Well, the physical universe is not an illusion, just the way we see it is an illusion. And most importantly, we see only a tiny percentage of it.
As for the String Theory, I admit, I don't understand it, the dimensions, I mean. I know that the esoterically known universe consists of dense-physical part, etheric-physical part, astral, manasic, buddhic, atmic, monadic, logoic, and I am aware of that etheric-physical part right now. But this is a differentiation of matter by various atomic vibrations. It is a lot of "worlds", seemingly dimensions, but only one frequency scale, thus one more dimension. I don't know how do they mean the 10, 11 or 23 dimensions.


The Flying Spaghetti Monster wrote:
  Now, as far as everything else that guy was saying…that WAS a bunch of bullshit. I can’t believe people even humor what he has to say when he brings up Reptilian people.
Yes, that's weird. I'll have to search why he's so obsessed with the reptilians.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster wrote:
Also, I don’t understand what you mean by “practice” esoteric theory? Are you saying if a person meditates and reaches nirvana he has proven esoteric theory for everyone else? Elaborate, please. Lastly, it has nothing to do with Scientists being impatient in regards to proving esoteric theory, it’s that people are rushing to understand the meaning of life before the Science catches up.
Esoteric theory introduces a certain way of understanding the world. Why things are as they are, and what are they behind their illusory appearance. It is related to anything you can think of. Whatever you do, knowing the inner nature of things helps to do it for the greatest good of all.
Esoteric theory applied on medicine produces the alternative medicine. In agriculture, it produces an 'alternative' methods of farming, like these practiced in the Findhorn community, etc.
The reason why meditation is so important, is that the man or woman here is not the whole human. The human being is threefold as the theory says, and the secret of being a genius, a person who changes the world, is in making a contact with the higher part of oneself, unlocking one's higher potential. Meditation gradually builds that contact, and we can watch how the meditator's character flaws are replaced by more intelligence, love and personal strength. (of course, it is also possible to meditate incorrectly and thereby awaken some mental disease)
As for the nirvana or enlightenment, that's a waypoint in the process of unification of human being. There is several of them, and for some traditions the nirvana is 3rd, for some 4th, or whatever. It's interesting to study these small details, but not very useful.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster wrote:

But when we define our nature and pretend as though we understand our purpose with using no evidence, whatsoever, we’re doomed. Unless we’re blessed with divine intervention, or we find some way of calculating singularity from the moment time began to the end of time, we’re never going to fully understand our purpose. Even if we can mathematically decipher the mysteries of the Big Bang, it doesn’t mean we’ll fully comprehend the entire picture. We understand the four forces and how they were split from one. We can measure the radiation and predict the expansion of the universe. But we are limited in our capabilities, and understanding the molecular world and how everything ties together may never be fully known.
Here I think you exaggerate that ad absurdum. It is not about knowing everything, or nothing. We can only know why are we here and now, not why the whole universe is here. We can only care for that small part of the great "WHY", which is about us. And we can gradually add small pieces of information to the mosaic of the answer. Some things are incomprehensible, as long as we're limited by the human form.
It is possible to evolve faster than others around and to discover why are we here. People who did it tried to pass this knowledge further to their disciples, and in that process, it inevitably gets less precise. This is why we have many teachings of various quality. For the broad masses, there must be a lot of similes, metaphors and heroic stories from local mythology. There also must be a lot of do's and don't do's. For the more evolved disciples, there's more of dry information and less of the emotional stuff. Today, the esoteric writings are almost in a scientific style, but other books are all about vague love, vague good feelings, angels and so on, for the simple-minded people.

But it is always a given information. It doesn't come with evidence. The example of verification may be like that: "Well, I'm gonna start to regularly meditate by that special group method, and thereby I should become aware of my etheric body, chakras, and scientifically unknown energy flowing through them. When that happens, I'll know that the esoteric theory was right about this part, and maybe it is right about other things as well. After several years of going out and trying what works and what not, I might know something."


The Flying Spaghetti Monster wrote:
I don’t consider myself a Nihilist, most of the time, but that seems to be the most clear-cut explanation of our “purpose,” to me. My favorite saying that pretty much wraps it up is:

To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
Macbeth Act 5, Scene 5, 19-28

Well, obviously mr. Shakespeare wrote a play about someone, who never heard of reincarnation, never underwent the regression therapy, and never had an out-of-body experience.
In my opinion, the idea of reincarnation explains in reasonable way why are we here, without that, the life indeed gives only very little sense. Equipped with the above mentioned experiences, I am the last person to quote Macbeth. I'll quote someone else instead:
"I died a mineral, and became a plant. I died a plant and rose an animal. I died an animal and I was man. Why should I fear? When was I less by dying?"
Rumi, Jalal-Uddin


The Flying Spaghetti Monster wrote:
  Now, as far as us “destroying the biosphere,” I’m going to call bullshit. I believe in Global Warming, but I do not believe in the Greenhouse Effect. Or at least…not so much that we’re responsible for destroying the atmosphere and increasing the temperature of the planet. The temperature on Mars has risen at the same rate as the Earth, does that mean Martians should lay off the fossil fuels, too? The Sun is getting warmer. It’s cyclical, I don’t know what’s so hard to understand about this. The Scientists who push this agenda get grants from the Government and have to say what they want. Scientists in the private sector laugh at this nonsense. There’s been an ongoing petition for said Scientists for a while:
It is not just about temperature. It is also about deforestation, and the greatest killer of all: the pollution. And specially, the pollution with radiation. And specially, the radiation unleashed by a worldwide nuclear conflict between the haves and have-nots. As you see, we're going to destroy ourselves in a few ways, if we won't radically change all our way of living.
The reason why our politicians can work in their comfortable offices while others fight and die is, that we commit a crime of separation. We think we're not interconnected, because we're not tied with visible ropes. But we are, and if majority of people suffers, then everyone is in great danger.


http://www.petitionproject.org/ - LOL. I suggest the scientists who wrote and subscribed this, should spend a day in a room together after they had a dinner of cooked beans, lentil and peas. As for the hindering of the science and technology, that's nonsense as well. Currently the majority of our "science and technology" is to dump the toxic waste into the nature, because it's cheap. Why can't the science develop a really efficient, cheap and ecologic technology? Because it would close down whole kinds of industry and the richest and most powerful people of this planet would lose their chairs, both in industry and governments. Our own market and greed is killing us.

According to my information, only 20% of the global warming is natural. The rest is excessive, man-made, and dangerous. I just heard that tornadoes were seen above a near river. And now we've got a windstorm and rainstorm every day. The weather had really gone crazy, so quickly that it's unnatural, within two or three generations. And it's still getting worse.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster wrote:
I hope it doesn’t sound like I’m quote-mining, but I’ll let the great George Carlin explain it since his brilliance is timeless:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyxuVFzKypU

I'm afraid that I can't appreciate Carlin's uninformed kind of humour. It would be all nice if George Carlin is right, but I doubt the planet likes the earthquakes caused by underground nuclear tests. We were here earlier than we think and we will have to stay here longer than it seems now, so it would be nice to not destroy our habitat. There is no fundamental difference between the humanity, nature and the planet. Complex life is the most important thing on this planet, it is here to make a platform for life on all levels of development and most importantly, the intelligent life. It would waste billions of years if we'd sterilize the planet's surface by our nuclear arsenal. The planet would end up less or more with minerals, which have a minimal intelligence, minimal diversity within their structure. A living organism is extremely complex yet organized, which is a partial goal of evolution, but a mineral is very simple. Yes, some species are supposed to die out naturally, but not all of them at once, that's a difference.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


cervello_marcio
Superfan
cervello_marcio's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2009-05-19
User is offlineOffline
 So far in this thread you

 So far in this thread you sound like David Carradine in "Kung-Fu." Hopefully for the remainder of the thread you will sound like David Carradine in a Bangkok closet.

 

......too soon?

"Do not, as some ungracious pastors do, show me the steep and thorny way to heaven. Whiles, like a puff'd and reckless libertine, himself the primrose path of dalliance treads. And recks not his own rede."


The Flying Spag...
Science Freak
The Flying Spaghetti Monster's picture
Posts: 225
Joined: 2009-06-03
User is offlineOffline
Luminon, thanks for your

Luminon, thanks for your replies. I think esoteric theory is too underdeveloped as one central, and widely agreed upon idea for me to accurately debate against. I am ignorant to a lot of the information without further research, and feel there's too much of an emotional (or spiritual, if that's the correct word to use) connection on the other side of the argument, to objectively describe the details for the scientific community to understand. In other words, while I think it taps into things we do not fully know but also cannot completely deny, I do not consider it a credible source of information. If you feel like you've grown stronger from your experiences with esoteric theory (whether through meditation or applied thinking), I won't take that away from you, because as said...there is a mystery to our existence, and an undeniable force behind our abilities. Whether that's God, a globally shared consciousness, or human perseverance, I don't know. Thanks for your insight, thus far.

 

 

 



Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
The Flying Spaghetti Monster

The Flying Spaghetti Monster wrote:

Luminon, thanks for your replies. I think esoteric theory is too underdeveloped as one central, and widely agreed upon idea for me to accurately debate against. I am ignorant to a lot of the information without further research, and feel there's too much of an emotional (or spiritual, if that's the correct word to use) connection on the other side of the argument, to objectively describe the details for the scientific community to understand. In other words, while I think it taps into things we do not fully know but also cannot completely deny, I do not consider it a credible source of information. If you feel like you've grown stronger from your experiences with esoteric theory (whether through meditation or applied thinking), I won't take that away from you, because as said...there is a mystery to our existence, and an undeniable force behind our abilities. Whether that's God, a globally shared consciousness, or human perseverance, I don't know. Thanks for your insight, thus far.

Thank you, for giving me an opportunity for self-expression. As you noticed from the lenght of my texts, I enjoy it. I appreciate that you're aware of what you studied and what not, not everyone can do that.
I think the reconciliation of esoteric theory and science is possible and needs only an attention of the officially blessed scientists. Someone can do the work (like that guy on that link) but it needs an official blessing from the academic community, otherwise no scientist will touch that subject not even in a rubber gloves.
http://www.esotericscience.org/article5a.htm
In that article you can notice two things by a brief glance. Firstly, some latest scientific and older esoteric concepts are shown as identic. Secondly, there are multiple esoteric schemes shown in comparison to each other. Some are more in-depth, some are more general, but they all describe the same thing - thus they are objective. An esotericist should be able to put an individual experiences (no matter how mystical) into objective esoteric terminology, because this is what they are. I should spread the idea, that esoteric theory is not vague, or mystical or whatever, it can be specific and systematic enough to be compared to the scientific theories and even united with them, to the degree that science today can reach.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 598
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:smartypants

Thomathy wrote:

smartypants wrote:

 

Okay, but what you seem to be saying is that if it can be explained away by human evolution and sociology, that it therefore can't be true. That doesn't sound like good logic to me.

That's not what he's saying.  What he's saying is that what is being talked about is utter nonsense.  They use words, yes, but they have no meaning.  What the heck would, 'the energies of our thoughts and actions into a dynamic consciousness,' mean?  It's like the technobabble on Star Trek.  They use words that exist (for the most part), but in meaningless ways.  I can string together a whole bunch of terms that sound really great together and inspire people.  Motivational speakers do this.  Hamby is simply explaining a possible reason (and quite likely the reason) why such meaningless jargon sounds so good and credible to people. 

 

Quote:
And the idea that if it sounds good, then it's too easy and therefore can't be true resonates even less for me since atheists are always complaining about those who believe in things that are too convoluted and contradictory to possibly be accurate.
It's not because it sounds good, it's because it sounds good and is patently meaningless.  As Hamby pointed out, none of these new agers can identify the energy they're talking about.  Heck, none of them have even the glimmer of a coherent definition for any of the stuff they're talking about.   And absolutely none of them have attempted any kind of science to varify the existence of the stuff they're talking about that they can't define.

Quote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, I may have misunderstood you, but it sounds to me like you want to have it both ways
You've been corrected.  hamby doesn't want 'it' both ways (and I'm not sure what it is), he's simply explaining that good sounding nonsense has an affect on people because of our evolutionary and sociological history.

Just because what he's saying has no meaning for you does not make it nonsense. I'm actually shocked that you'd so blatantly steal the "if I don't understand how eyeballs work, then it must be god" argument from the ID people. I have no problem understanding what he's talking about, so obviously it's intelligible on some level. Whether or not I agree with it is a different story altogether.


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 598
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:smartypants

Sorry my wireless is screwing up...


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 598
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:

Hambydammit wrote:

 

Quote:
Okay, but what you seem to be saying is that if it can be explained away by human evolution and sociology, that it therefore can't be true.

I'm sorry, but that implication is not in what I wrote.  Perhaps you have some bias you're not aware of.

Quote:
That doesn't sound like good logic to me.

It certainly wouldn't be good logic.  Luckily, I didn't say it.

Quote:
And the idea that if it sounds good, then it's too easy and therefore can't be true resonates even less for me

Are you sure you're responding to me?  I didn't say that, either.

Quote:
since atheists are always complaining about those who believe in things that are too convoluted and contradictory to possibly be accurate.

Um... contradictory and convoluted are quite different concepts.  A thing that is contradictory cannot be true, but some things are quite convoluted and still true.  

Quote:
 Correct me if I'm wrong, I may have misunderstood you,

I can't tell if you're wrong, but you definitely misunderstood me.  You're not making very clear points.  Too much New Age literature influencing your communication clarity, perhaps...

Actually the implication that human social groups gave rise to the (false?) belief in collective unconscious is explicitly spelled out in your reply. It's a perfectly valid explanation and I believe it's correct, but that doesn't mean there aren't other phenomena at work here.

Oh, so you weren't saying that the poetic sounds good to us and can therefore obscure the truth?

And I steer clear of New Age literature as a rule, so I've been influenced by it very little.


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 598
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:The skeptical

Luminon wrote:

The skeptical majority of humanity is possibly also very convenient. Not being taken seriously often means to be safer and left in peace. Which is useful, if the crazy appearance is actually a cover for something.
It may be sometimes convenient if skeptics take seriously only a tiny fraction of their stream of consciousness. 15 conscious bytes per second received by the brain out of unconcsious gigabytes, that's about how skeptics allows themselves to see and hear. Therefore, I could violate as many of currently approved laws of physics as I want, and skeptics won't notice, because it is simply impossible Smiling

I can agree with most of the New agey stuff that David Icke says. According to esoteric theory, consciousness is energy, matter is energy, and thus there is nothing in the universe but energy and laws according to which it behaves. Thus the (probably) infinite cosmic consciousness might be a fact, and we would be a part of it.
By the way, if the energy is 'an ability to perform work', then what is matter? Is it ' Ability to perform work divided by light speed squared'? So, if we take some energy and divide it a lot, then it materializes? Just kidding, but half-seriously Smiling

Btw, so far I never had a reliable information on Illuminati, hostile aliens, reptiloids, etc... I don't know what to think about them. But the conspiracy is a popular method of work. Maybe if Illuminati want to work in peace, they just make sure that everyone will think that they're the guys who work with reptilians. Now they could scream it out loud on streets, and nobody even notices that Smiling

I think the Freemasons are a little bit creepy, and who knows what they're up to. But yeah, reptilian alien overlords? That's really pushing it.


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 598
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
The Flying Spaghetti Monster

The Flying Spaghetti Monster wrote:

Ugh, I think Descartes is rolling in his grave. No my friend, seeing is believing.

He's rambling on about things he has absolutely no way of proving and that he doesn't even understand. Hypothetically, let's pretend everything he's saying is correct. That would easily make him the most brilliant person...ever. He's explaining how energy is transformed not only when we die but how the different frequencies that determine our reality interact with one another. He understands the complexities of the brain. He understands inter-dimensional perception and basically how the universe operates down to a quantum level. Everything this guy spews is bullshit and an insult to real scientists because he's teaching people bad information as if it's fact. If he were instead explaining origin and how a God created us all, that's not nearly as bad because it doesn't challenge our understanding of the world and how it works, but instead our purpose. Purpose can be persuaded, but not advancing as a species robs us of our future.

Viewer beware: If a speaker mentions the word "infinity" in a repetitive fashion, he is almost certainly FULL OF SHIT. Fuck this guy, and fuck the sheeple who follow him.

Please don't misunderstand me: there's a lot of things he says I find VERY suspect, and I'm by no means a "follower" of any doctrine. The point is, though, that philosophy, whatever rhetorical form it takes, is not about hard science. It's about thinking through the nature of our reality by logic alone. This question is epistemological. 

And yes, I wish he had better evidence to back up what he's saying. But his world view, minus all the alien reptile nonsense, explains a lot of things I already believed to be true.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Logic alone will tell you

Logic alone will tell you nothing useful about reality, it is only a tool for making sure our conclusions are valid. It is essential but not sufficient to reach useful conclusions about reality For that we need empirical data and investigation. Philosophy is just about ideas, all logic can do is check that those ideas are consistent with your other assumptions, not whether those assumptions are objectively true in reality.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 598
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
The Flying Spaghetti Monster

The Flying Spaghetti Monster wrote:

 

Luminon wrote:

It often happens to me, that first I must be told about something, before I am able to notice it. For example, a mess to clean up, a heap of dirty socks, a jar of something edible I was sent for, and so on. Sometimes it's like these things wouldn't be there at all, even if I look at them from the distance of 1 meter. I need to search the place at least thrice, before I notice what I'm searching for. Sending me to get something is not a good idea. This is why I can well understand, that in some cases, believing is seeing and vice versa.


Yeah, but the things you just mentioned are tangible. Believing in something you cannot see is taking shots in the dark. Frequencies can be measured, Gravity can be tested, Wind can be felt. The existence of God can only be passed from one imagination to the next. Also, your experiences of what sounds like absent-mindedness, aren’t evidence in a belief system, but simply prior experience telling you when there are messes to clean up, where to look for certain items, etc.
 
Luminon wrote:
Sure. That's simply the esoteric theory, which was less or more known for millenia, nothing new. It can be of course practiced, there is only a problem with the tools for this. The tools are the personal physical body, emotionality, intelligence, and intuition. It is necessary to increase a control over them and to improve them in that process, if you should be succesful. It doesn't take just years and decades. A simple ability and desire to meditate is a thing which is developed over at least several past incarnations. It's all a slow, painstaking process, for which the scientists have no patience. (maybe geologists) We wait for a generation of scientists patient and independent enough, that they can reproduce the esoteric theory in technology. Then, the demonstrations will be immediate. I wonder how many generations of scientists and politicians have to die out, before a change is allowed.


Be careful how you use the word “known.” It may be old, but that doesn’t mean it’s empirically accepted. No, I do not believe the physical universe is simply a reality of our conscious minds. Arguing String Theory is worth discussion but it’s still not proven. String Theorists were so excited to unleash their newly defined theory of relativity, that they forget to do the math. They’re still crunching numbers to this day to find some way of practically proving it. Saying we have 10-11 (or I’ve even heard 23) dimensions is speculation at this point. Now, as far as everything else that guy was saying…that WAS a bunch of bullshit. I can’t believe people even humor what he has to say when he brings up Reptilian people. Also, I don’t understand what you mean by “practice” esoteric theory? Are you saying if a person meditates and reaches nirvana he has proven esoteric theory for everyone else? Elaborate, please. Lastly, it has nothing to do with Scientists being impatient in regards to proving esoteric theory, it’s that people are rushing to understand the meaning of life before the Science catches up.


Luminon wrote:

If we understand our nature and purpose, we can advance as a species. For example, currently we don't understand anything and we're on a good way to destroy this planet's biosphere, including ourselves.
But he's a real bullshitter as for these reptilian aliens, that's not esoteric theory, he's pulling that out of his ass.

 

But when we define our nature and pretend as though we understand our purpose with using no evidence, whatsoever, we’re doomed. Unless we’re blessed with divine intervention, or we find some way of calculating singularity from the moment time began to the end of time, we’re never going to fully understand our purpose. Even if we can mathematically decipher the mysteries of the Big Bang, it doesn’t mean we’ll fully comprehend the entire picture. We understand the four forces and how they were split from one. We can measure the radiation and predict the expansion of the universe. But we are limited in our capabilities, and understanding the molecular world and how everything ties together may never be fully known. I don’t consider myself a Nihilist, most of the time, but that seems to be the most clear-cut explanation of our “purpose,” to me. My favorite saying that pretty much wraps it up is:

To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
Macbeth Act 5, Scene 5, 19-28


Now, as far as us “destroying the biosphere,” I’m going to call bullshit. I believe in Global Warming, but I do not believe in the Greenhouse Effect. Or at least…not so much that we’re responsible for destroying the atmosphere and increasing the temperature of the planet. The temperature on Mars has risen at the same rate as the Earth, does that mean Martians should lay off the fossil fuels, too? The Sun is getting warmer. It’s cyclical, I don’t know what’s so hard to understand about this. The Scientists who push this agenda get grants from the Government and have to say what they want. Scientists in the private sector laugh at this nonsense. There’s been an ongoing petition for said Scientists for a while:


http://www.petitionproject.org/
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm


I hope it doesn’t sound like I’m quote-mining, but I’ll let the great George Carlin explain it since his brilliance is timeless:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyxuVFzKypU

I think this is the first time since I joined this forum that I've heard anyone even hint that s/he doesn't KNOW IT ALL. I have the utmost respect for you for that and thank you for restoring my 'faith' [lol] that this site isn't just a bunch of self-righteous 20-something year olds with delusions of grandeur.

As far as your theory that humans haven't contributed to the destruction of the planet, I must protest, and I highly recommend you read Biomimicry: http://www.amazon.com/Biomimicry-Innovation-Inspired-Janine-Benyus/dp/0060533226/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1244938393&sr=8-1


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 598
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Logic alone

BobSpence1 wrote:

Logic alone will tell you nothing useful about reality, it is only a tool for making sure our conclusions are valid. It is essential but not sufficient to reach useful conclusions about reality For that we need empirical data and investigation. Philosophy is just about ideas, all logic can do is check that those ideas are consistent with your other assumptions, not whether those assumptions are objectively true in reality.

Except that I'm talking about the aspects of our reality where empirical data is either unavailable at this point or by its very nature permanently inaccessible. In those cases we have nothing but pure logic to root us down to the truth. It's what has made Metaphysics an ongoing discipline.

As much as in a room full of evangelists I'd like to hear some explanation that didn't come from the bible, in here I'd love to hear an explanation that didn't come from or resort to the power of the almighty laboratory.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
smartypants wrote:BobSpence1

smartypants wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Logic alone will tell you nothing useful about reality, it is only a tool for making sure our conclusions are valid. It is essential but not sufficient to reach useful conclusions about reality For that we need empirical data and investigation. Philosophy is just about ideas, all logic can do is check that those ideas are consistent with your other assumptions, not whether those assumptions are objectively true in reality.

Except that I'm talking about the aspects of our reality where empirical data is either unavailable at this point or by its very nature permanently inaccessible. In those cases we have nothing but pure logic to root us down to the truth. It's what has made Metaphysics an ongoing discipline.

As much as in a room full of evangelists I'd like to hear some explanation that didn't come from the bible, in here I'd love to hear an explanation that didn't come from or resort to the power of the almighty laboratory.

But if we have no empirical data, we can only speculate. Logic is not going to generate any new information, any new truth. At best it might suggest new areas worth investigating scientifically.

Which is why I don't regard metaphysics as a serious discipline. IMHO, it gives the illusion of knowledge with little or no substance, as with much philosophy.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:Oh, so you weren't

 

Quote:
Oh, so you weren't saying that the poetic sounds good to us and can therefore obscure the truth?

I was saying that poetic language tends to break down humans' desire to critically examine claims.  The good scientific mind eliminates poetry and gets down to precise, falsifiable definitions.

Poetry is great for art.  It's very bad for science.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
smartypants wrote:It's not

smartypants wrote:

It's not because it sounds good, it's because it sounds good and is patently meaningless.  As Hamby pointed out, none of these new agers can identify the energy they're talking about.  Heck, none of them have even the glimmer of a coherent definition for any of the stuff they're talking about.   And absolutely none of them have attempted any kind of science to varify the existence of the stuff they're talking about that they can't define.


We can't identify the energy, because we don't have the correct words and technology! All we know is, how does it feel like, but we know that very well.
How can you describe electricity (for example), without electrotechnic terms? A biting worm hidden in cables, or what?
The energy can have any form, like stream, ray, field, waves, and so on, and when the energy is invoked in meditation, it can be a pretty damn strong stuff. The organs managing the input and output of this 'energy' are the chakras. So it can feel like my forehead chakra is impaled on a white-hot vortex of fire reaching into the skull, where it spreads through neck to the rest of the torso. It also produces a characteristic hissing noise, heard inside of head. It is not unpleasant or painful, but it's an unusual feeling and may be very intense. Right now have no means to measure the energy, only in minutes for which we maintain the necessary focus in ajna chakra and thus let the energy flow through us.
As for the science, we have our own history of being rejected, trivialized and ridiculed by the all-knowing scientific authorities, personally and even in media. I know of one good neurologist in a laboratory in Los Angeles, (a daughter of one of our people) but their laboratory has their own schedule of tests and tasks, there is no place in their budget for these experiments.

smartypants wrote:

I think the Freemasons are a little bit creepy, and who knows what they're up to. But yeah, reptilian alien overlords? That's really pushing it.

As for the freemasons, my information is that they're after the same thing that any esotericist is. I mean, stuff like perfecting ourselves spiritually, morally and so on. They just do it in their own lodges, with their rituals and symbols, but they're not interested in the literal rule of the world.

Why I and people like me then don't become freemasons or members of a similar order? Well, for our taste their order is too strict and traditionalistic. I mean, somewhere there are rules to "always tread rightly", and practically it means that people must approach the altar in hall by traversing the hall in right-angles only. I can appreciate the symbolic moral message within this, but I won't walk around the hall in right angles like idiot. They're really pushing it.
Esoterically speaking, they're a 7th ray tradition, my tradition is 2nd ray, that's a bit different approach.

smartypants wrote:

I think this is the first time since I joined this forum that I've heard anyone even hint that s/he doesn't KNOW IT ALL. I have the utmost respect for you for that and thank you for restoring my 'faith' [lol] that this site isn't just a bunch of self-righteous 20-something year olds with delusions of grandeur.

Yes, I noticed that as well and once again, I appreciate it. Good job, FSM!


BobSpence1 wrote:

But if we have no empirical data, we can only speculate. Logic is not going to generate any new information, any new truth. At best it might suggest new areas worth investigating scientifically.

Which is why I don't regard metaphysics as a serious discipline. IMHO, it gives the illusion of knowledge with little or no substance, as with much philosophy.

All right, then have a look at this article. http://www.esotericscience.org/article2a.htm
Take a look, flip the pages through, examine the schemes and diagrams. This is the metaphysics. One of my favorite schemes is this: http://www.esotericscience.org/diagrams/Names%20of%20the%20seven%20planes.jpg
I wonder when the science will be advanced enough to add another column with terms of it's own. (I'm most familiar with the Theosophic column)

 


Hambydammit wrote:

 

Quote:
Oh, so you weren't saying that the poetic sounds good to us and can therefore obscure the truth?

I was saying that poetic language tends to break down humans' desire to critically examine claims.  The good scientific mind eliminates poetry and gets down to precise, falsifiable definitions.

Poetry is great for art.  It's very bad for science.

When the terminology is built, we start with poetic language. Did you know, that 'electron' is an amber in Greece? It might seem to a Greek person that we think there are little ambers flowing in the wire. 'Atom' is 'indivisible', and yet we divide it commonly in the nuclear power plants. 'Virus' is 'poison' in latin, and yet viruses are not a poison, but little particles of genome, which attack the cell on genetic, not chemical basis. A mediterranean guy from medieval ages would surely consider the whole contemporary science as a bunch of nonsenses and poetic names for metaphysical illusions. And to be honest, local people are just as educated in metaphysics as this hypothetic person would be in science. Just hearing out a few terms here and there out of the theory's context is not a study of the theory.

 

 

 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


The Flying Spag...
Science Freak
The Flying Spaghetti Monster's picture
Posts: 225
Joined: 2009-06-03
User is offlineOffline
smartypants wrote:I think

smartypants wrote:

I think this is the first time since I joined this forum that I've heard anyone even hint that s/he doesn't KNOW IT ALL. I have the utmost respect for you for that and thank you for restoring my 'faith' [lol] that this site isn't just a bunch of self-righteous 20-something year olds with delusions of grandeur.

As far as your theory that humans haven't contributed to the destruction of the planet, I must protest, and I highly recommend you read Biomimicry: http://www.amazon.com/Biomimicry-Innovation-Inspired-Janine-Benyus/dp/0060533226/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1244938393&sr=8-1

Well part of me wants to undeniably say the guy in the video is full of shit, and dismiss all of his claims. However, some of his conclusions stem from the mystery of things we don't fully understand. When someone makes a claim about God (in the organized religion, sense) I feel comfortable denying it's origin based off of an understanding of mankind and our history. But when speaking about other dimensions, perspective of reality, and capabilities of the mind, I cannot make definitive claims like him because there's still too much unknown. In general I try to keep an open mind, though, so thanks Sticking out tongue


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
smartypants wrote:Just

smartypants wrote:
Just because what he's saying has no meaning for you does not make it nonsense. I'm actually shocked that you'd so blatantly steal the "if I don't understand how eyeballs work, then it must be god" argument from the ID people. I have no problem understanding what he's talking about, so obviously it's intelligible on some level. Whether or not I agree with it is a different story altogether.
You have a talent for complete misunderstanding.  I never said anything about what was said having no meaning for me.  (Why am I using italics?)  I mean that, literally, he is talking nonsense.  It's perfectly understandable.  That is, I can understand his language.  ...Oh, fuck it!  I'm not patient enough for this.

Hambydammit wrote:

And... energy?  What energy?  Is it electromagnetism?  Heat?  What kind of energy are we talking about?  The gurus are never specific enough to be pinned down.

In the end, we discover that close examination of these kinds of claims always results in a total breakdown of the "concept" that "makes sense in principle."

Thomathy wrote:
[...] [W]hat is being talked about is utter nonsense.  They use words, yes, but they have no meaning.  What the heck would, 'the energies of our thoughts and actions into a dynamic consciousness,' mean?  It's like the technobabble on Star Trek.  They use words that exist (for the most part), but in meaningless ways.

I'm not borrowing arguments from Creationists.  An examination of the claims reveals that it is so much vacuous language.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:I'm not

Thomathy wrote:

I'm not borrowing arguments from Creationists.  An examination of the claims reveals that it is so much vacuous language.

This language is vacuous, until you experience these things on your own skin. Then you'd understand, that in today's english language there are no suitable terms, only a metaphorical, poetic description.
I suspect that we are satisfied with such a description even in science. For example, the "electric charge" is a circular description. What is the charge? It is, what causes electric phenomena. What are the electric phenomena? Phenomena, caused by electric charge! This very definition can be dissected deeper into the fundamental nature of matter, which we still don't understand. Therefore, we basically don't know what it is, we only have a name for it and we know at least some things it can do. (hopefully I won't have to spend an evening by translating an article or two from the magazine, which I won't be able to debate against in mathemathic terms)

So what is the spiritual energy? It is, what causes the phenomena in astrology, acupuncture, reiki, meditation, etc. What causes the phenomena in astrology, acupuncture, reiki, meditation, etc.? The spiritual energy 

 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:This language

Luminon wrote:
This language is vacuous, until you experience these things on your own skin. Then you'd understand, that in today's english language there are no suitable terms, only a metaphorical, poetic description.



So what is the spiritual energy? It is, what causes the phenomena in astrology, acupuncture, reiki, meditation, etc. What causes the phenomena in astrology, acupuncture, reiki, meditation, etc.? The spiritual energy 

So ...oh never mind; there's no fun in insulting you.  Carry on, crazy.  Actually, I'm really bothered by the obvious flaw in your description of the energy which merely references itself.  You make Jean Chretien look like a master of logic.  'What is the energy?  The energy is what causes these things.  What causes these things?  The energy!' >> 'A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven.'

I can't experience what doesn't exist, Luminon.  Neither can you.  Come back when you have an actual definition and some referent in this universe. *facepalm*

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:So ...oh

Thomathy wrote:

So ...oh never mind; there's no fun in insulting you.  Carry on, crazy.  Actually, I'm really bothered by the obvious flaw in your description of the energy which merely references itself.  You make Jean Chretien look like a master of logic.  'What is the energy?  The energy is what causes these things.  What causes these things?  The energy!' >> 'A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven.'

So you're not satisfied with my circular logic, (neither with my sense of humour Smiling ) but you have no problem with the circular logic in case of the electric charge definition.  As for the spiritual energy, it was of course a joke, not so much for the electric charge. The truth is, that we've got tied hands! The very terms necessary for a reasonable definition are unofficially, but practically forbidden. I can not say "ether" as a medium for spiritual energy, neither can I say the same forbidden word to describe the electric charge. The official doctrine of powerful and rich elite is to produce (their) mathemathic theory and then build a huge technologic complex (from our money) to prove it. There are spent countless billions on research of exotic (thus useless) particles, but nothing on research of the most common thing in universe, the ether.

Thomathy wrote:
I can't experience what doesn't exist, Luminon.  Neither can you.  
I agree. This is why the unusual energetic phenomena which all our people perceive do exist.

Thomathy wrote:
Come back when you have an actual definition and some referent in this universe. *facepalm*

 I think the "spiritual energy" (and countless kinds of it) is basically an energy on the level of matter with higher atomic vibration than the dense-physical. Therefore, it does not visibly or directly interact with the dense-physical world. It is known as "dark" (or better said, missing) energy and matter. It is not dark nor missing, only for our monkey senses and 100% dense-material measuring devices. Feeling it is only a question of training or participating in a correct kind of meditation, because all life primarily exists on the level of higher atomic vibration and it only secondarily precipitates a dense-physical form. 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:Thomathy

Luminon wrote:

Thomathy wrote:

So ...oh never mind; there's no fun in insulting you.  Carry on, crazy.  Actually, I'm really bothered by the obvious flaw in your description of the energy which merely references itself.  You make Jean Chretien look like a master of logic.  'What is the energy?  The energy is what causes these things.  What causes these things?  The energy!' >> 'A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven.'

So you're not satisfied with my circular logic, (neither with my sense of humour Smiling ) but you have no problem with the circular logic in case of the electric charge definition.  As for the spiritual energy, it was of course a joke, not so much for the electric charge. The truth is, that we've got tied hands! The very terms necessary for a reasonable definition are unofficially, but practically forbidden. I can not say "ether" as a medium for spiritual energy, neither can I say the same forbidden word to describe the electric charge. The official doctrine of powerful and rich elite is to produce (their) mathemathic theory and then build a huge technologic complex (from our money) to prove it. There are spent countless billions on research of exotic (thus useless) particles, but nothing on research of the most common thing in universe, the ether.

Thomathy wrote:
I can't experience what doesn't exist, Luminon.  Neither can you.  
I agree. This is why the unusual energetic phenomena which all our people perceive do exist.

Thomathy wrote:
Come back when you have an actual definition and some referent in this universe. *facepalm*

 I think the "spiritual energy" (and countless kinds of it) is basically an energy on the level of matter with higher atomic vibration than the dense-physical. Therefore, it does not visibly or directly interact with the dense-physical world. It is known as "dark" (or better said, missing) energy and matter. It is not dark nor missing, only for our monkey senses and 100% dense-material measuring devices. Feeling it is only a question of training or participating in a correct kind of meditation, because all life primarily exists on the level of higher atomic vibration and it only secondarily precipitates a dense-physical form. 

...I know you're serious.  I ...just ...It's ...

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2388
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Lunch??????

 

 

 

 

      Thomathy have you ever noticed  I  do not respond to Luminon, not once not ever. You need to relax and never take Luminon seriously. You need a good lunch; I know of a Montana's  right at #10 & Eglington; I'll pay.  If I have to come down town   you will pay.   Any interest?    Not a gay request but a rational request;  maybe we can get Latincanuck to drive down #10 and join us.

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


crazymonkie
Silver Member
crazymonkie's picture
Posts: 336
Joined: 2009-03-09
User is offlineOffline
Ya know- that lunch request

Ya know- that lunch request almost makes me want to live in Canada.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Jeffrick wrote:     Not

Jeffrick wrote:

 

    Not a gay request but a rational request;  maybe we can get Latincanuck to drive down #10 and join us.

 

 

I'm curious what side of the canoe do you paddle on?

 

 

 

 


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
The shape-shifting

The shape-shifting reptilians are real! DOCUMENTED PROOF!

 


 


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 598
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:The

Gauche wrote:

The shape-shifting reptilians are real! DOCUMENTED PROOF!

 


 

LOL As I said, the reptilian stuff he's talking about is a bit idiotic and I'm very skeptical about some of his "proofs." That doesn't mean I can't see wisdom in some of the other things he says.


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 598
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:smartypants

Thomathy wrote:

smartypants wrote:
Just because what he's saying has no meaning for you does not make it nonsense. I'm actually shocked that you'd so blatantly steal the "if I don't understand how eyeballs work, then it must be god" argument from the ID people. I have no problem understanding what he's talking about, so obviously it's intelligible on some level. Whether or not I agree with it is a different story altogether.
You have a talent for complete misunderstanding.  I never said anything about what was said having no meaning for me.  (Why am I using italics?)  I mean that, literally, he is talking nonsense.  It's perfectly understandable.  That is, I can understand his language.  ...Oh, fuck it!  I'm not patient enough for this.

Hambydammit wrote:

And... energy?  What energy?  Is it electromagnetism?  Heat?  What kind of energy are we talking about?  The gurus are never specific enough to be pinned down.

In the end, we discover that close examination of these kinds of claims always results in a total breakdown of the "concept" that "makes sense in principle."

Thomathy wrote:
[...] [W]hat is being talked about is utter nonsense.  They use words, yes, but they have no meaning.  What the heck would, 'the energies of our thoughts and actions into a dynamic consciousness,' mean?  It's like the technobabble on Star Trek.  They use words that exist (for the most part), but in meaningless ways.

I'm not borrowing arguments from Creationists.  An examination of the claims reveals that it is so much vacuous language.

This doesn't even justify a response, really. Seriously, figure out what it is you're trying to say and leave your anger management issues at the door. I'm trying to have constructive dialogue. I feel like I'm dealing with a Fundie, which was the last thing I expected in here.