Total posts: 2,869
Posted in:
-->
@Titanium
In a nut shell, if you have a materialistic worldview you have to argue/support your position with more than an assumption or interpretation because it's not a fact and it's not a given so just claiming a mind (or better put awareness) is not needed is an assertion not an argument. You have to explain or come up with rationale and examples of how (intelligent) processes take place without a mind or intelligent source involved. I fully understand you have an interpretation of what you think has happened but that interpretation is subjective and your personal opinion.
Most people jump right into the evolution of embodiments, creatures and humans, but what about the environment itself!? look at what we have, a vast space of galaxies, stars and planets...which make homes for life and embodiments to experience through...ask yourself why? why do these things exist, how do these processes manifest sustainable environments, then intelligence and corporeal beings?
the Creator manipulates energy and elements to create an environment where living things can exist, then creates/forms stars and galaxies.....planets and homes/places to exist, heat sources, light sources, water sources, currents, opposing forces, contrasting chemistry ect ect and then when the environment has been established then comes the evolution of forms and embodiments so that eventually we could inhabit human form, which is the highest level of conscious awareness on this planet.
So what we have, are specific processes that correlate with intelligence that manifests intelligence. If you ask yourself "what does he mean by intelligence"? just look in the mirror, look around you, look how energy operates, look at creation where it is right now and ask yourself honestly how these processes occur without a mind. The reason these processes act as intelligence to specific means is because it IS intelligence. Energy itself manifests as intelligence because it first had awareness, from there it can form whatever it wants in whatever part of the universes desired. So why deny the Creator in the very process of things?? if you must deny the Creator in the processes don't assume that proposition is supported anymore than Theism and spirituality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Titanium
You, however, are leaning on an argument that seems similar to a 'god/alien of the gaps' argument. You are objecting perhaps more to abiogenesis or life before the first cell. On this there is not a lot of great experimentation published.
Well of course not in the basic scientific field of study unless you move over more towards quantum physics and what you guys label "pseudoscience" because science is the study of what we can observe in the natural world but that's only one method and is restricted to that method and the physical nature of things.
However, the origin of creation, the soul and the nature of God has been around a long time, so there have been many propositions published actually. There's more knowledge and information about the origins of existence within the study of that nature (spirituality) than any other claims. BTW it's not gap arguments, they are proposed because it's commonsense, has been established and the logic follows. It just so happens that an intelligent Source fills the gaps because it answers the questions naturally not because it's trying to fill the gaps and make excuses.
Enough to convince myself particularly since, as Stronn pointed out. There is no evidence that a mind intervened.
You mean there is no way the scientific method (which is limited to the material observation) can produce an experiment that shows/demonstrates that there was first an intelligence or a mind lol? but...….only the mounds of evidence that exists within the experiential world of spirituality! that have been proposing things that are true about the origins of existence for a long, long time. You can ignore spiritual sources because you favor a materialistic interpretation but don't claim there's no evidence. The evidence that correlates with the nature of consciousness and the soul are overwhelming, this evidence falls within the category of religion, spirituality and transcendental experience. You can minimize and label that evidence whatever you want, even dismiss it but it's there and it has been there.
Now moving beyond the evidence, there's still commonsense, logic and rationale. Since we know minds and processes go hand in hand Occam's Razor fits with Theism quite well so there's no real reason to assume or accept that there was no mind involved. At least not from the stance of commonsense and the available evidence.
We know that from one cell humans can form in nine months via natural processes.
You mean processes, not "natural" processes. When you assert "natural" you have now made a positive claim/assumption due to your own interpretation.
A self replicating molecule is entirely likely the original start. From there it would just need environmental/selection pressures to change for the better.There is no need at this point to point to a higher being to initiate this.
Just so you guys understand a clear distinction which I pointed out above, to say there is no higher consciousness involved or that one is not needed is to make the assumption that processes occur without a prior intelligence or mind involved and since there is no way to support such an assertion (because we know through observation and direct experience that processes and minds go together) it's not enough to just claim one is not needed, that's your personal interpretation of that process it's not a fact.
The Theistic proposition is taking the position that these processes aren't just natural and can't be(obviously), they occur because there is first a manipulation involved from a higher conscious Reality that made that process possible under specific conditions and environmental factors which were prepared. Both positions/interpretations have equal footing (if I'm being nice about it), your interpretation is not better or more accurate than the other and vise versa. The scientific method and the observation of evolution are neutral studies and make no claims or assumptions about a Creator or an original Source. Those pushing a materialistic proposition might make the claim because they have no connection or observation of a spiritual transcendent origin but they are only speculating, again it's not a fact you have to be able to show that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
EternlVw #3: https://i.imgur.com/vmWxzuy.jpg
Okay if you took off the tie, added darker longer hair and maybe some kind of mysterious wide brim hat that would be dope. A long Viking beard would be nice but not a must. Sorry, just telling you my style. And....if he was a guitar slinger I'd probably have to save that pic. But if he were slingin a guitar it could be too busy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I have, to the best of my knowledge, been unwavering in what evidence I consider sufficient.
Then you have to admit you are wavering in what evidence is relevant to spirituality?
If you wish to continue plying me with anecdotal testimony you are welcome to but my standard of evidence is not going to change. If you find that irritating all I can say is that this is not my goal.
I think I've established my point enough to observe you are biased to spirituality and religion. The standard is not the problem, it's your denial of what is being observed. You aren't yet willing to observe the actual evidence available. What is applicable....
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
If you are not upset then neither of us is but your language did seem to be coming from a place of irritation or even anger. I don't think I have ever observed a cuss word in one of your posts before.
I'm irritated because you seemed to blow of my original response when it had legit answers. That's enough to cause me to cuss, because I have never dogged or evaded a question consciously only ever tried my best to answer topics and questions directly. So I admit I was irritated, but it was only because of your responses. Anger and irritation does not dictate my knowledge or experience though, it only causes me to limit my responses to you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Not that I don't like it, but it's sexual. I like intimacy, but you have to ask me in what regards. The image may make sense to me in some ways, but not others until I know your motives.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
You seem to be getting upset and taking this very personally so I think I will just remind you that rejection of your claims is not a personal attack on you and perhaps when you have calmed down we can try again.
I'm calmed and never was I not, I made all my objections without anger.... make your point after you have calmed down yourself. I have said nothing that needs further description or relevance we don't need to try again we need you to participate in what's being discussed.
If that is you still feel it is worthwhile to have these discussions with me.
I'm not getting upset at the rejection of my "claims" I feel no personal attack, but when you claim testimonial claims have no relevance I must question your own empty motives about those claims, why have you decided to ignore a method that correlates with the nature of spirituality? what is worthwhile in our discussions when you have already presupposed it's worthlessness? what is worthwhile to me, is that you understand what I'm saying and apply to yourself if it makes sense. You're not ready to accept what makes sense, you are only willing to accept your personal beliefs which happen to correlate with your bias.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Actually if you are asking me to accept a claim with no testable physical evidence then that is exactly what you are asking.
If you don't know what evidence consists of, then you don't know what I'm asking. Funny how you conveniently throw in the term "testable" lol, even though I touched on that in my posts. You won't acknowledge it though, you have a motive here obviously.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
So your saying the nature of one poorly defined term is another poorly defined term.
I'm not going to give you the opportunity to turn this discussion into shit like you always do, you will need to support your assertions. What exactly is poorly defined? in a way where it makes no sense to you? explain please...
Somehow I'm not sure that this gives me any actionable data even if I accept it axiomatically.
Somehow, you just aren't sure about anything, even when it is properly explained and defined.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
If our positions were reversed and you required a more stringent standard for what constitutes sufficient evidence I would not be obligated to adopt your standard in order to justify my own beliefs but it would be unreasonable for me to expect you to lower your standard and be offended when you do not and as a consequence remain unconvinced.
I'm not asking you to lower your standards damnit. I'm asking you to consider the nature of the Creator and all experiences associated with that reality. In this light, I'm asking you to RAISE your standards, not lower them. You are already lowering them, which is why you are limited to atheism presently.
The only thing I would be offended about is YOU not following logic and evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
You're going to sit here and tell me you don't know what the nature of something means? I didn't ask you if you could define consciousness or the soul, I'm asking you do you understand what the nature of something means? I gave examples but that apparently went over your head. Outplayz and I happen to share the same basic platform, so there is no contradiction. The perceived contradiction on your part was because you didn't understand what I posted. We would both agree on the nature of consciousness and an infinite reality as well as the implications.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
This just another place you make comments that really just appear to me as no more than hot-air-fluff lacking anyu significant meaning or content or definitive description.
Then you are dumb? I'm not the one who has an issue with relating my arguments. The hot-air-fluff comes from your unintelligible style of writing. How many people have told you they have no idea what the hell you are trying to communicate. Examples below.
"first reality" = Trumps first reality tv show?"first reality" = first time mom dropped new born on the floor or doctor slap babies behind etcOthers with hot-air-fluff has used terminaology like root, root-core, source etc.
You have awareness, then energy, then manipulation/transformation of that energy.
energy = fermions, bosons and possibly one new catagory.Why you think there can exist "awareness" without fermions or bosons lacks any rational, logical common sense. In fact it is counters any rational, logical common sense.
Where's the argument, counter points...I missed it...
I allow for ultra-brief moments equlibrium wherein there exists only gravity dark energy and one very large and very flat { seemingly 2D photon }.
Having trouble with meaning and definitive descriptions lol? stop trying to create equations and make an intelligible point.
There has never ever existed less than those three occupied space somethings as Uni-V-erse.
Okay dude. Whatever you say.
"omnipresent reality" = more hot-air-fluff with no descriptive definition that makes any rational, logical common sense. All you can say about it is that exists before the "big bang" and that the BB created all kinetic energy.
If you understand the nature of energy then this should be simple. It's not hot air, I'm trying to communicate how conscious awareness operates and the nature of it. Energy is everywhere because first awareness is everywhere, if energy lacked intelligence then why does it act like it in creation?? Awareness is eternal and omnipresent, there's not really much else to say about it but that it's conscious. The implications now, that's another discussion. If you want to elaborate try asking questions instead of rehearsing equations that only you acknowledge.
So inhently infer that your "omnipresent reality" --whatever that is--- is not "kinetic" { relating to or resultant of motion }.
Omnipresent means there is no place where it does not exist, what do you mean whatever it is? it's a simple description wake up mon! energy could be considered omnipresent so the concept should work for you. We could argue that conscious activity has "motion" but I'm referring to what it manifests into the universe after the bang. The "motion" or activity of consciousness is why energy exists, why it's generated. When the BiG bang took place, it created another level of kinetic energy where now we have transformation and fusion through temperature change and movement creating elements.
So, if try to actually find any rational, logical common sense in your texts we see that "kinetic" is resultant of your "omnipresent" { motion }.
You have selective reading. That's only one aspect I touched on.
What is moving? Fermions and bosons move? Does gravity and dark energy move?
Nothing in the universe is static, the very fabric of the universe itself "moves". What is your fixation on movement here? does gravity and dark energy NOT "move'?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Do you even know what I mean by "nature" of consciousness or the soul? I'm talking about what it is made up of, what it is, like the nature of your body or the nature of water. Water will always be wet, your body will always be flesh and blood and the nature of the soul is consciousness. It is what it is and it cannot be changed. Does that make sense?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Science has different goals and methods than spirituality. For example spirituality depends on anecdotal testimony as "evidence" while science dismisses anecdotal testimony as irrelevant and unreliable. Please do not falsely conflate the two.
BTW what I meant by the "science" behind it is that the nature of consciousness, the soul and the Creator have been examined, studied and articulated for many ages. It can be examined similar to how we examine things through science just of a different nature, that's because it's not a subjective reality. The science behind spirituality is pretty incredible, there's more information and facts than you might realize. I'm gonna take a guess that your study of religion is probably limited, if you do at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
odd, unless I misunderstand his claims outplayz actually claims that what people want specifically determines their afterlife. Since you cannot both be right but you could both be mistaken so how do I as a third party determine which of you is correct if indeed either of you are?
Read the whole post.
"Wants and desires only come into play with the implications of what we are dealing with"...and then.....
The point I was making is the nature of consciousness doesn't change with wants, only experiences do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
My beliefs are first based on my own experiences
Which are anecdotal
So what that is irrelevant, period. If you don't trust your OWN experiences I don't know what to tell you. I trust my observations and experiences because I have a pretty clear mind and strong intuition. My experiences are therefor something I can appeal to and even rely on.
and subject to confirmation bias.
That's your opinion of course, and while it's relevant in some instances it's not final and it's not always true, depends on what we are discussing and who we are discussing it with.
they are then reinforced/confirmed through cross examination by many sources that correlate with the nature of spirituality.
Oddly most spiritual sources do not agree with each other.
Maybe if you're just looking at the surface but again not true, that is not always the case and I'm the one who has put in the time to notice this, there are many similarities and universal truths, they may have many varying claims and aspects but it's all under one umbrella of what exists and what can be experienced. And as I pointed out, not everything in religion is accurate, so contradictions don't have to be accepted, they can be worked out by what is true and accurate. If spiritual sources don't agree with each other it does not mean it's all baloney.
You can point out how people all over the world believe in spirituality but it rather undermines your position that so many of them claim that all the others must be necessarily incorrect in their beliefs.
People will always do that and again not everyone does it, I think you are referring to mainly Christian fundamentalists which only accounts for one perception. But TBH personally I think the vast reality of spirituality and experiences are what strengthen my position, what makes it a good starting point for anyone. You have a bunch of cultures and people that are trying to interpret something that is so dynamic it's going to have some differences of opinions because we are dealing with people! But again, this is all under the umbrella of what can be experienced so there are many things to look at here.
Just as an example many Christians claim that belief in Jesus is the ONLY way to heaven and you disagree.
I don't disagree because that heaven exists on a planet. What I disagree with is that it's the only one, there are many planets and many heavens. There isn't just the Christian heaven, there are good places for all of God's creation, for all cultures and good peoples. But, I don't care what some Christians claim that does not dictate what I believe.
You CANNOT both be right but you could both be mistaken. Since the "evidence" for both claims is anecdotal in nature how do I as a third party determine which of you is correct if indeed you are not both simply wrong?
Yes we can both be right, and I just explained how. It's just that one perception is limited while the other is not. When you leave the physical world into the next world it too, has galaxies, planets and many different places to exist. So there could be countless heavens.
One has to eventually look at how vast an arena of knowledge, information and experience spirituality really is,
It really is thousands of different non-compatible beliefs mostly based on old stories written/told by humans with a limited understanding of science mathematics and medicine.
Thanks for the opinion. But if you look deeper, there are many universal truths and the purpose of religion for the soul is the same. Variations don't scare me, but obviously it scares you.
the numbers involved
Argument ad populum
Here it is relevant because it's suggested evidence.
and the science behind it
Science has different goals and methods than spirituality. For example spirituality depends on anecdotal testimony as "evidence" while science dismisses anecdotal testimony as irrelevant and unreliable. Please do not falsely conflate the two.
That's simply because science studies the physical natural world and spirituality/religion studies the transcendent spiritual world. Two methods of study, two different natures. I've explained to you why TESTIMONIAL evidence is relevant before, it's because of the nature of Theism. This should be pretty obvious. If it's not you need to think about it more. You should not dismiss it because you're reluctant to trust someone else's experience when really you do it all the time. It's just you think if it's observed or claimed by some scientist or methods of science it has to be true. When will you ever give spirituality such a free pass like you do with science?
The Creator and the higher dimensions exist independent of personal feelings and opinions so there is objectivity, but to experience them we have to go within not to science. I'll get to the rest of your post when I get back home later.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
What I'm claiming is that everything within creation has awareness. There is no place something exists where there is not awareness/consciousness. Energy is present with awareness, energy is actually a product of conscious activity as the two co-exist eternally and energy is then manipulated. What we see taking place in the universe, with energy, atoms, photons, electrons ect ect are all a product of that first reality. If you pull completely away from all elements and forms, awareness exists alone, it has no components or form it's just aware and this activity generates what we label energy. This is easy to accept because everything in creation is simulating intelligence, and what we observe is the product of an incorporeal, conscious Being or omnipresent awareness.
Energy would not exist without conscious activity, and everything that follows that would not exist without energy so there is a chain of command here. You have awareness, then energy, then manipulation/transformation of that energy.
Just so we're clear, creation/universe cannot be separate from awareness but awareness is not dependent on our universe. Before the Big bang was conscious activity, this omnipresent reality generates megatons of energy....this energy is condensed and released to create an explosion (big bang) which produces kinetic energy and elements like a gigantic molding pot where now the Creator can manipulate and form anything it wants.....stars, planets, galaxies and then of course embodiments and form to inhabit those places.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
That is very nice of you. It would be nice if my desire to believe something could make it more real but thay is not what I observe. I suppose whether you are right or I am I will someday cease to exist. Think I'm ok with that. I didn't exist for billions of years before I was born and was quite unbothered by it.
The nature of consciousness isn't about what people want, we can't change the nature of awareness or the nature of the soul it exists as it is. Wants and desires only come into play with the implications of what we are dealing with, it becomes something we cope with by experiencing life and chasing dreams. Ceasing to exist once your soul has been individualized is impossible, it's not an option....so it's your embodiments and bodily components that confine your experience to a lifetime and create the illusion that you did not exist prior to occupying this body and after but as you will see, when your body shuts off the lights you will still be conscious and you will still exist. You could be temporarily unconscious as the body shuts down because you will be observing that effect due to your soul being confined to its experience but once death is final the soul releases from the body. Nobody can escape that, it will happen to all of us.
Once another body and setting has been prepared for you according to your own Karma your next experience will again be fresh and new, you will have no idea about the transitional period before and after your lifetimes if you must reincarnate. Even if you are a new soul, you still existed prior to coming here even though you have no recollection of it, you can't be here without being sent or agreeing to it. However, if you are permitted to enter the higher realms you will be allowed to know all of your past experiences. If you have a spiritual guide they too can show you things in other states of consciousness but of course, you have to be cultivating that aspect of your being.
As long as you have no interest in spirituality you will just be like you are now, accepting and believing this is all there is, that the physical sense perception is all we got and your experiences will just be limited to the physical world. That's fine and all, but one has to wonder why you hang out in religious forums if you have no real interest.
I can't help but to be interested I guess it's just my time, so I pursue it and learn about, I apply things and make it a lifestyle and this is part of the process. Processes are good though, because you will always be growing and experiencing new things and this is what makes creation interesting. Actually from the time a soul is created as a seed, it's sent into the lowest levels of awareness to evolve itself, so to be what you are right now was a progression/evolution of your soul and all your experiences. This IS in line with what we observe in this reality, embodiments and forms evolve and so does the individualized soul with it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
it seems to me you believe in a self or soul that exists independently of the brain. i have a different view of what the self is - i compare it to the electric current produced by a dynamo. Such a 'soul' is real - it exists as long as the brain is operating, but only when it is operating.
But we know that is false, the evidence in NDE's show that consciousness can exist outside the body after brain death. The series I posted on DDO had all that information and medical facts in it. How can a person leave their body and travel outside it after the brain has shut down? or how could they have a conscious experience away from the body at all? the brain dies just four minutes after the heart stops so how is it possible to still remain conscious? well it's because the soul exists independent of the brain, that's how lol, easy stuff here. It's not absurd or ignorant either, this has been shown for ages through first hand encounters, spirituality and religious sources and confirmed through what we see with the evidence.
The soul however is comparable to electricity and energy as I explained in my first post, because both electricity and energy can take on form or power machinery and yet still exist independent of them just like consciousness. All in all, I think that a conscious being that inhabits the body is by far the most accurate and rational proposition. The weakest proposition is to claim that our conscious being is made up of impulses and neural firing through a brain. Sorry, but that blob of cells is not capable of creating conscious entities it's only a component that regulates what you experience.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Harikrish
What the hell are you posting about? I'm not arguing from only the Bible goof, I'm making claims about what is more accurate about God and spirituality. As well I have no concerns about the inaccuracies of the Bible because I don't argue for its perfection. The Bible is not always right, it contains errors as well as it's denominations and I have pointed out a few. So what exactly is your point here, you could have addressed anything in the OP specifically if you disagreed with it but instead you went on a posting Bible scripture rampage for no reason. I evaluate all religious sources and learn/observe what is correct and what is junk.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
While it is a very interesting opinion piece and is definitely worth a second read your post fail to address the question of how you know.
I didn't fail to address anything Secular. Look at your questions and read my answers I never fail to address questions the way they are posed, that's one thing I'm good at IS addressing questions and topics. How do I know what? I've told you how I know many times about what I believe. You're leery about my experience and testimonial evidence even though I would hope you do understand the nature of the Creator and the nature of all this.
My beliefs are first based on my own experiences and observation of this world, they are then reinforced/confirmed through cross examination by many sources that correlate with the nature of spirituality. One has to eventually look at how vast an arena of knowledge, information and experience spirituality really is, the numbers involved and the science behind it aren't something to just ignore. I mean it should be obvious something is going on more than peoples imaginations running wild.....could it, just could it be....because there IS an objective reality?? nooo, there couldn't be right lol?
Your very good at explaining what you believe but we've never gotten past "because claims". If I may here's an example of the language I'm talking about.
Out of all I explained and wrote for your topic questions this is what you want to point out? wow, I never would have wrote that sentence alone without all the other things I DID explain. The reason I did, is because what I did explain should have made the statement below obvious.
"they also seem reluctant to embrace Omnism but it should make sense to them, it should make sense because it's true."
It's easy to make bald assertions. Indeed that is something omnists fundamentalists and religious moderates claims all have in common.
Seriously man? Is that all you have to say about what I wrote? I'm sorry, but what exactly are you expecting when asking questions in a religious forum? I answered all you asked....I'm not sure what you want then. I am however irritated I spent the time to clearly cover your concerns only to be blown off for no real reason. You could have asked about anything I wrote, you could have argued anything you thought didn't sound right, you could have agreed ect ect but no, you just basically ignored my whole post. That's why I limit my time here because the members that participate in this part of the forum aren't serious about this. Is there any reason why I should ever participate in your topics in the future?
If this is what you are referring to below that I didn't "answer"......
If that is your belief how do you know that other religions are wrong for claiming to be exclusively right?
First I need to see the claim before I address that claim. Not all religions claim to be exclusively right Secular, that's more the followers so this is not really applicable. Out of all the religions Abrahamic religions tend to shun everyone else but generally it's the people that follow their religions making those claims not the sources themselves. If you disagree with that, please show me where all religious sources make that claim if you don't mind.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I have no doubt you believe that. I do not know how you maintain that belief in the face of the everyday observation that consciousness does not survive anaesthesia, sleep or Alzheimer's.
I actually explained this indirectly if you really read my post. The soul doesn't survive damage to the physical body or brain in terms of experiencing what the senses determine. So whatever the brain does, the driver (soul) will suffer as well. If your car get's a flat tire, you don't go anywhere unless you first fix it, or get another vehicle this is what confines your experience to this form. So while the soul temporarily suffers the effects of the physical body, it eventually leaves that body but consciousness stays in tact. And when we examine all the evidence through testimonies it should be pretty obvious that this is true.
When there is physical trauma or damage to the brain it's like the soul is looking through a glass, where their perception and observation is now distorted. Eventually the physical body can no longer maintain the energy it needs to support the soul and it has to drop, but once the soul finally disconnects from the body it's perceptions are full again, or no longer distorted. If the brain deteriorates so does the image of the user.
Such things persuade me that the self is a product of a functioning, intact brain. I can't prove that, but you can't prove 'consciousness survives physical death'. Research, not rhetoric, is how we'll find out who is right.
Surely there are many things I can't "prove" to you here and now....but I can articulate experience and knowledge and I can point you to the obvious evidence available that correlates with this type of nature. I can explain to you the nature of consciousness and the soul in a coherent manner. What you should be persuaded by is that you are first a conscious being, not a series of impulses and neural firing that come and go lol. You are simply looking through a mask, if you pulled away from the material body you would still be a conscious YOU. Your brain has activity because you are occupying it and the body has to have conduits and components that are alive not dead, so that is why we need the neural and energetic components to be able to be alive and sense things in this environment. The body must be able to sustain a conscious entity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Even though my pic has beauty and peace (which I like), I thought it was slightly generic. So if you really make me explain what I didn't find appealing that would be all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Ok so how do you know all the other religions (besides yours) got things wrong?
They are allowed to believe whatever they like, that's what makes beliefs and religions worth pursuing for them. Some people might perceive perfection in their religions or scriptures but it's simply not so however it does keep the soul interested and creates passion for them, gives them a sense of purpose and self worth. There doesn't even need to be perfection that's not necessary. What is necessary is that the soul has a source to learn from and collectively exist with at all levels and I'll explain below where my opinion is relevant to the topic.
This includes those who think all religions are "a little bit" right or that they all secretly somehow agree with each other. If that is your belief how do you know that other religions are wrong for claiming to be exclusively right?
Lol the definition you are searching for is Omnist….Omnism " is the recognition and respect of all religions; those who hold this belief are called omnists (or Omnists)."
But an Omnist doesn't have to like or respect everything within religion, nor is an Omnist obligated to follow religion at all....it just takes the position that religions are the study of the spiritual nature of the soul and creation and they all can have useful information or they may have very little useful information. One can learn from a variety of sources just like one can read an abundance of books about a single topic, then embrace what is useful and what works and discard what is useless. Spirituality comes into play here and helps the individual observe what is useful through application and participation. Most things are more obvious than not IMO.
The soul is not obligated to follow religion, but if the soul is interested in what the nature of the Creator and the soul are, and if they wish to congregate and exist collectively with others like-minded than this is what makes a variety of religions useful for a variety of individuals. It can be viewed like as a family or a unit, where collective societies are not just limited and bound to our earthly experience here but they continue on with out experience. Those that love their families, traditions and cultures get to express those desires and beliefs in the created worlds (multiverses) and chase their passions and interests. Their usefulness is their individual impact on the environment they exist within and the souls around them. People might not understand that when a soul leaves their physical body they still have a life a purpose and meaning for their existence, they still have places to go and things to do, dreams to pursue, desires not yet met.... you get the point hopefully.
How have you determined that one religion really isn't top dog?
Well within my beliefs (Omnism in this case) and my understanding of it there actually could be but it's unlikely. A better way to put it would be maybe one religion operates at a higher conscious level of awareness than another, meaning there could be one religion which has more knowledge and a higher spiritual perception as well as less useless or inaccurate information. This can be seen or observed through the teachings themselves and the contents within, what motives they have ect ect. They don't all have to be equal, and is doesn't have to be just one over the other. They all are unique and have something to offer the soul.
So in a sense you could look at religions like spiritual "detectors" and each detector could be of higher or lower quality, picking up deeper knowledge or just surface level knowledge. Spirituality has no real limits even though everything works within the realm of logic and commonsense so there could actually be a type of hierarchy of religions and spiritual sources. The created worlds are so vast and includes so many features and layers of understanding and discovery no one religion could ever tough such a vast and dynamic reality. So religions are limited to what their originators know and observe and that could be higher or lower on the scale of spiritual knowledge. Yes, this puts their followers on the same scale but no soul is limited to any religion, rather the soul chooses what it desires and what it wants to follow and limits itself, if an individual finds beauty in their beliefs they get to obtain what it is that they truly believe is good if they too are good. This is where you see Karma come into play, because once the soul enters into creation and a dualistic environment they become accountable for all they do whether good or bad, and experiences can be both good or bad.
But the point I want to make is that even the lowest level religion could have some interesting facts you just never know until you dig in, each path has something for the soul and it's followers and there are all types of souls and followers.
If you understand that religions are just interpreting the nature what they observe, and there is no culture or religion that the Creator favors over another and rejects everything else then this should be blatantly obvious. But this is a good thing, atheists and non-believers hate fundamentalism and religious extremism and they also don't want to be forced to accept stupidity like killing animals or stoning gays. But they also seem reluctant to embrace Omnism but it should make sense to them, it should make sense because it's true. When one looks at religions like I just explained they can see it for what it is, a vast range of information and the available body of knowledge and facts (as well as inaccuracies) that correlate with the nature of Theism. One can examine this body of knowledge and acquire useful information that is relevant for the full scope of their experience.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
Lol, if people only knew the brain is simply a component/conductor! but in this world it's meant to be that way because it restricts peoples attention to certain roles and dreams that are both wanted and needed here. Without the brain, we would literally be disconnected from the experience in this physical plane, but consciousness survives physical death.
I was actually a little disappointed with the video, which initially made claims that secular science does in fact have more information about the nature or origin of consciousness than we might think and then proceeded to make the very same, few claims we've already heard that are weak.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
I personally think he is trying to take a philosophical topic and water it down. I feel this is a bit short sighted or at the very least on a Consciousness 101 level.
The brain is not creating consciousness period, ever, it's outlining your individual perceptions so your attention is confined to the physical brain and body while in this bodily form. So, your conscious experience is being forced through the conductor that is the brain so that what you experience is limited through the physical sense perceptions including the nervous system. But there is no neural activity or culmination/arrangement of physical senses that can create your actual conscious awareness (being), they only give you a conduit/channel to have an experience through sense perception in certain forms, but they're not consciousness itself.
These types of secular videos that speculate on the nature of consciousness always focus on what activity is taking place within the brain itself and what our physical senses perceive, but it's just like observing electricity within a circuit board/panel, you can say electricity is doing this and that, and it's components allow this and that by measuring that activity ect ect but electricity is only being harnessed and restricted/confined to that panel, the activity within the circuit board is not creating electricity so this is a very limited approach. The physical sense perceptions are not creating consciousness, they are actually simulating, they simulate a cage or a type of confinement for conscious awareness which exists independent of form and physical sense perception to channel through.
The video is correct in one sense (because we can measure physical activity through physical medium/instrument), that what we are experiencing THROUGH the brain is a controlled hallucination confined by the brain because obviously the brain would be the medium or receiver of the physical body to the soul. Because our brains act as a conduit of our conscious being, our brain acts just like a component on a circuit board and our experience is confined to it and we can measure that activity. However, like most materialistic propositions this can only propose what takes place within those conductors or components (physical senses/brain) they can't truly articulate what creates your actual being or awareness they can only say "hey, we can hook up instruments to the body and measure some activity and assume that the activity we can measure creates your consciousness" but that is only one limited observation.
What tricks people is what they are perceiving through the brain and physical senses, but there must be an observer that perceives the experience for there to be any perceiving to begin with. There is no experience without an observer and there is nowhere something exists without awareness it's impossible. You are the one observing the experiences/senses like as if you were operating or controlling a vehicle, you're the one driving the vehicle but you are not the vehicle itself, the vehicle and the material body are only a vessel to navigate through.
You know you're not your thoughts because your thoughts continually change, they are just a product of the mind (which is inanimate), a categorization or reaction to what you experience, remember or desire.. what you thought an hour ago may be different from what you're thinking right now, but the one observing the thoughts is the same observer, it never changed it just observed what you were thinking. You know you're not your feelings and emotions because when your girlfriend dumped you years ago you were crushed but your feelings changed, you got over it you were only experiencing those feeling they did not create your consciousness. You're not the mind, the mind is not an entity it's where thought generates, memory is stored and experience and opinions categorized but your consciousness illuminates the mind and observes thought....the mind does not create your conscious being.
Just the same you're not your nervous system and physical senses because they change from moment to moment all your sense perceptions are just a successions of experiences they are one thing one moment and another thing the next. What you felt an hour ago or last year when you stubbed your toe, is not what you feel right now but the one observing always was and is the same, you only felt pain because your nervous system was a conduit of your conscious experience and your conscious experience is confined to a nervous system but it doesn't create your awareness. Cells, which make up every part of the physical anatomy and body (including the brain) continually regenerate and renew! Physical sense perceptions as well as what makes up the material form are constantly changing, coming and going but the one observing the senses is constant.
The brain, is simply a temporary conductor that confines your conscious experience to this bodily form. When you depart this form your consciousness will no longer be limited to the brain or the physical body. Anyways the point I'm obviously making is that your conscious awareness is not a product of something but your temporary perceptions and senses are, two different things. Sometimes I friggin ramble to make a point sorry.
There is no real difference between the nature of energy and the nature of awareness/consciousness, it exists independent of form but creates form so that sentience and consciousness can experience through. This is a process of course, we see that through what we observe through evolution and quantum physics...but evolution never created consciousness and awareness was never a product of evolution, rather awareness/intelligence was manifesting and evolving physical embodiments (energy) through this physical plane so that we can be in this world.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
I've found meditating in complete darkness is the key for me. It's just hard to get that time without any external distractions. But i had my place to myself just recently... it was complete darkness in the house. Probably would have scared the shit out of anyone that came in... i was in the middle of the house in complete darkness lol But hey it worked.
LMBO, that's funny because I like to meditate in complete darkness too, I'll sit in the most usual and dark area like the staircase. This is good though, because you want to get comfortable with yourself alone. You come into this world alone and you leave it alone and so is the nature of consciousness and the Source. A lot of people don't want to meditate or be alone, it causes them to self reflect and think deeper and I've seen people get really freaked out by quietness and being completely alone. As you practice this, that feeling of wanting to run away from it subsides and you gain confidence.
Yeah his dad had an influence on my childhood in regards to interest in fighting
Yeah me too, well martial arts anyways. But notice how incredibly intelligent and aware he was, at such a young age. I always say his eyes remind me of God, not sure how that works but that is what I think when I see them.
, but Brandon... that a different level. It's almost spiritual that was his last movie not to water down that character...
Wow, I don't think I would have said that. Besides my mentor you're one of the few people that can catch me off guard to think from another angle because I would have never thought of it like that. Kudos to you.
I'm just glad i watched it before some people said i look like him... bc it's perfect i didn't have any expectations going into that movie. It was cool tho after of course. But man... that movie, it's beautiful. I still haven't seen a movie that left me in suspense, action, sadness, crying my eyes out, getting angry, then feeling like god. It's just a piece of art.
I was the Crow at least five or six times for Halloween lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
If it's any consolation, the character Beast is supposed to be quite intelligent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I was a little nervous lol, but he pulled through on mine. Sorry about yours!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
That's acceptable actually. Not too bad, I like the peace behind it.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Lol
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
You're paranoid dude, I always capitalize my I's. Pay more attention, after following me around for 8 years I expect better from you.
Created:
-->
@Goldtop
Try again sweety.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
- What 'feel' do you want the image to have?
Seriousness
- What trait do you admire more between being severely appealing and severely elusive.
Reword that
- If you were on a desert island and ended up pitted between the option of being the alpha male/female or the cuck/loser what would you be on the food chain between the two?
Provider
- Are you someone who enjoys competition or wishes it wasn't a part of life?
I like it, but don't like confrontation much lol
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
He just needs to come out of the closet and admit he is a softie
Lol, some people need to be coaxed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I've actually paid attention to his personality, I think I get it. He doesn't really offend me, under all that steel he's a softy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Is Madman really this volatile??
Created:
Posted in:
I'm not going to tell anyone but I'd be damned good at this game lol
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Uh ohhh, too late I signed up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Wow, not feelin it lol. I'm more of a greaser than an emo
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Alright Mad Hatter let's see what ya got. I'm not easy to entertain so make it good.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Well I'm going to assume it's for fun, even though my feelings run deep I'm gonna be a good sport I guess...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Haha is that the best you got? I do like to analyze but my looks aren't nerdy lol. I'm more of a rebel type...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Okay Supa, dare I ask? I have to mention though I don't like cartoon images...
Created:
-->
@Goldtop
Yet, your belief system is by far one of the most ridiculous ever presented on a public forum.
Haven't seen nothin yet. Barely scratched the surface!!
You've almost got Scientology beat for being ridiculous.
Almost? guess I have to work harder on that for ya....
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
he knew the Crow is my favorite movie
Another thing we have in common of course. Man I miss his father though, two people I would love see finish their course here. Bruce Lee was always one of my favorite people as well as his son Brandon.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
I wish i could tell you. Meditation some times helps, but that's when my mind just wants to turn off. Most the time i meditate i can't get into it bc my minds just on. Maybe i should go to some guru or something that's figured it out... but, i don't think it's possible. It's just who we are. Here, this intro says it best... the line is actually pretty brilliant.
Actually on a serious note the mind is just a tool, a mechanical library/storage area it really has no being to it other than storing information and memory. If you want to shut off the mind simply stop thinking or chasing thoughts, this of course is harder than just saying it. I know we were just kidding around about thinking but this can be practiced. If you learn or practice to stop thinking and chasing thoughts your mind becomes a non-grasping mind, meaning it cannot control your output, content or actions. The other extreme would be someone who is completely controlled by the content and activity of the mind.
First comes consciousness, which then projects through the mind and in return reinforced through emotions. Same with the infinite consciousness, which projects what is known as the universal mind....out of which all individualized minds originate.
It is who we are to think and analyze though, it's the very nature of conscious activity. But, thoughts are controllable and so is the mind because it's inanimate, it's consciousness that illuminates the mind.
It ends dark but damn those words...
Cool words though. I like that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
My best friend in High School had this picture up as his wallpaper and i asked him why... and he said, it's you. Lol.
It looks like a version of the crow... perhaps the Crane lol.
Created: