2 of 3
2
Universal Core Values
Posted: 29 January 2009 03:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1221
Joined  2008-07-20
Pixidis - 29 January 2009 06:13 PM

Can you point me to an example where a court, a scientist, an insurance company or anyone else has accepted evidence that was not physical and measurable? Is there some non-physical evidence you could point me towards that Sam might have been alluding to?

You’re kidding us, right?  How about these:

“Do you remember what he said after that?”

“Why did you shoot Mr. Smith?”

“Widow Jones, do you miss your husband?”

“Did you believe that Mr. Carter would pay you for your labor?”

How many more do you want, because if you like, I’ll just start uploading transcripts.

And what’s with this?

Pixidis - 29 January 2009 02:52 PM

2.) I agree, if someone says rocks roll uphill, they need to offer proof that can be quantified in the realm of physical science, because that’s where the rock exists.

While the “rock exists” in the physical world (which is what I assume you meant to say by “in the realm of physical science), “uphill” does not.  “Uphill” is a linguistic construct, describing (which is what language is so good at) the spacial relationship between 2 or more objects.  So the rock’s movement in relationship to the linguistic construct “uphill” is not significantly different that the functioning of an individual brain and that brain’s perception that the individual desires “love, peace, freedom and personal fulfillment.”

The missing link in the rock-uphill case is the theory of gravity, which would appear to be violated, making the appearance of a rock rolling uphill an event so improbable as to call into question whether it was in fact a rock or it was in fact rolling uphill.

The missing link in the brain-desire case is neurobiology, making the “desire for love” pedestrian, commonplace, and hardly worth remarking upon.  Unless you’re a rabbi looking to bullshit a bunch admiring schmucks.

 Signature 

“I am one of the few people I know who has argued in print that torture may be an ethical necessity in our war on terror.”  Sam Harris October 17, 2005

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 January 2009 03:56 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2927
Joined  2006-12-17
Jefe - 29 January 2009 06:23 PM
Pixidis - 29 January 2009 06:16 PM
Salt Creek - 29 January 2009 03:49 PM
Pixidis - 29 January 2009 02:52 PM

2.) I agree, if someone says rocks roll uphill, they need to offer proof that can be quantified in the realm of physical science, because that’s where the rock exists.  If someone says inner experiences (what humans want most from life) are invalid, and tries to argue this position using the tools of quantifiable science, they are out of bounds

Naah, they’re just in another realm. You know, the one where non-material rocks roll up non-material hills. What humans want most from life is the subject of opinion polls. Don’t waste my time with opinions, which span a range. What this human being wants is for you to take your head out of your ass. It’s all for your own good.

How come the New Atheism makes so many references to the human ass? Hasn’t the human ass been around for quite some time now? Biologists, can you provide some insight?

Pix

How come so many religious types like to build up the New Atheism Strawman to use as a punching bag?
Are we not individuals with our own feelings, motivations, desires, and such?

 

And our own core values.  BTW, what happened to the apple core after Adam did his thing?  Was it presented in evidence in the heavenly court?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 January 2009 05:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5404
Joined  2006-09-27
burt - 29 January 2009 08:56 PM

And our own core values.

I see a brightly-colored gumball the size of the Meteor Crater at Winslow, Arizona rolling right this way.

I’d love to be the happy well-adjusted fellow that Tom is, but fear that whatever juju has done it has also forced him to write piles and piles of treacly gibberish into his blog. I may be a grouchy old atheist, but I have as much fun with it as the next guy has with treacly gibberish.

[ Edited: 29 January 2009 05:49 PM by Traces Elk]
 Signature 

INVEST in cynicism!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 January 2009 08:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3765
Joined  2007-03-11
Salt Creek - 29 January 2009 10:39 PM

treacly

Our Salt Creek word for the day: treacly (treek-lee) - cloyingly sweet or sentimental.

In a sentence: “I have as much fun with it as the next guy has with treacly gibberish.”

Never heard or read the word before. Another reason not to miss out on the Sam Harris Forum.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 January 2009 02:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  30
Joined  2008-12-02
Pixidis - 29 January 2009 01:09 PM

If something cannot be tied to a specific spatial geography it cannot be measured. (Intuitively it makes no sense to say we are 25.7 in love or 98.6 peaceful.)...........When science admits to the value of, and commits to prioritizing the illumination of human truth—subjective, inner experiences wholly beyond numeric quantification and spacetime itself—thereby accepting and realizing the limitations of its own paradigm, truly productive discussion can begin between science and religion.

Any measurement requires the appropriate tool. Just because the tools aren’t presently available doesn’t mean these things are beyond science. Subjective data presents difficulties but I think it will be managed. All this blah about discussions between science and religion will cease with the end of belief in magic (I’m optimistic) and the advancement of neuroscience. If we ever doubt the progress of science just think of how many things have been discovered in our own lifetimes.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 January 2009 06:53 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  9
Joined  2009-01-28
Unbeliever - 29 January 2009 05:35 PM
Pixidis - 29 January 2009 01:09 PM

You can apply this to god as well, if someone tells you that there is a god, who hears our prayers. Thats an objective question to which we must demand evidence.
“God came to me and told me venting gas is immoral”, screenshot or it didn’t happen.

Thanks for the response. Answering these questions piecemeal might be better served by posting an essay and taking it from there. So here goes.

Sam introduces a fatal flaw in the “show me the proof of God” argument in The End of Faith, by observing that the human body is set up to neurologically filter practically every external stimuli it receives. This line of thinking, pursued rigorously by open-minded scientists asking probing why questions, could liberate natural science from its paradigm blindness.

You argue that you want a “screenshot”—visual evidence—that God exists, yet the human eye can’t even detect 1/100,000 of the visible electromagnetic spectrum. So much faith you place in your limited senses and their “objective” reality, when the evidence reveals they are woefully inadequate even to reveal the truth about the physical world around you, much less God.

Physics, for example, reveals that every object has a wave component spread out over the cosmos. This property of nature is absolutely intrinsic to all physical matter. Yet not one of our senses can detect it directly. For 200,000 years we as a species were completely oblivious to the knowledge of it, and are still completely blind to this fundamental truth of physical reality all around us.

Sam makes three critical points in his book: 1.) Our senses are giving us a woefully incomplete picture of physical reality 2.) That physical reality (the universe) is “intent on killing us” as he says. 3.) Our brains can be tuned differently.

There are other ways to see. The mystics saw things four thousands years ago physical science has just verified in the last hundred years—see Fritjof Capra’s The Tao of Physics.

Given that nature is fatally hostile towards our species, is it not a myopic and dangerous position to wholly rely on a paradigm—natural science—that relies on one finite tuning of the human nervous system for its evidence?  No matter what science discovers “our there,” it has to come “‘in here” through our senses.

If our brain can be tuned differently, as Sam asserts, and we’re not investigating how to do this, nor correctly denying the comprehensiveness of the data we are receiving, aren’t we like soldiers in Vietnam unwilling to change our radio station from Hanoi Hannah’s constant stream of propaganda? And in fact, perpetuating this narrow data stream as scientific canon?

Sam says “Your brain is tuned to deliver the vision of the world that you are having at the moment.” The perfect definition of a propaganda machine.

The evidence trail back to the big bang suggests nature wired a relatively small handful of fundamental constants from the beginning of the creation of the universe. Yet humans drop dead every day downstream from the outcome of these constants: earthquakes, floods, disease, and a host of other natural disasters.

We have a clear smoke trail all the way back to the big bang smoking gun.

If you woke up in the middle of a video game as one of the characters, and discovered the entire game was coded from the beginning, yet all your friends were suffering and dying all around you, would you still appease its programmer—nature in our case—with such unquestioning loyalty?

Like Einstein did to the scientific canon of his field, modern biologists must now do to the scientific canon of their own. Einstein overthrew Newton’s dogma that had reined for 200+ years by questioning Newton’s tenets down to the core. With a childlike sense of wonder. Visual creativity. Rigorous science. Asking why questions over and over again like a little kid.

Darwin saw the wasp inject is unhatched young into the caterpillar, then made the observation; “I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created [parasitic wasps] with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars”.

Can we investigate his observation differently? Certainly atheists have argued the position that “therefore God must not exist.” But what about the “Then who or what did create the parasitic wasp?” especially given that the constants that produced it were hard-wired into the universe billions of years ago?

We can also observe that our own true core values are different from the value system that produced the parasitic wasp. We don’t want the caterpillar’s fate.

An FBI agent would suggest if you’re part of a scenario where lots of people are suffering and dying you might want to consider it a crime scene. To treat your environment as hostile, not the neutral source of endless intellectual exploration.

If it’s a crime scene, leaving out questions of motive and purpose—why questions—is a naïve and dangerously slow way to uncover the truth of your situation. (One of the core premises of the show Bones.)

In this forum you can actually find people cautioning readers against asking why questions. Only the ego would be compassionless enough to look around, observe catastrophic suffering in the world, and not ask why. “Concern for man and his fate must always form the chief interest of all technical endeavors,” Einstein said.

To finish up our filtration argument. The mystical evidence is clear that revelation is a process of total communication. Oneness. Wholeness. Unity. These are the words mystics use to describe union with God. A totality of communication. Is it unreasonable to postulate that God could be a holistic intelligence—a non-dimensional being—Who would communicate totally, that is, external to physical dimensional filtration, and we would simply not get it behind our wafer-thin sensory Spam fIlters?

Especially since the evidence is that our universe began from a non-dimensional singularity, and there is no evidence that our consciousness was added after that singularity exploded a bubble of spacetime.

Is it unreasonable to consider that a loving, massively intelligent being would not crash through our dimensional Spam filters—known as holographic boundaries in modern physics—but would respect them, shining His light through only when people were willing to listen?

Abraham Maslow said “peak experiences” (the numinous experiences which Sam admits are real) happen to everyone, but most people repress or deny them. Maslow said the more technically minded people are, the more likely they are to treat peak experiences as evidence of insanity. So there is clear evidence of filtration of the numinous signals that do get through.

Who is willing to ask why? Where is the dogma-challenging Einstein of biology?

There is far more compelling evidence to suggest we live inside a gigantic Spam filter (explore the idea of holographic boundaries in Scientific American) than there is we are wholly receptive beings soberly assessing the complete and total evidence.

Sam has introduced a line of thinking that can ultimately lead you to question the objectivity of the very biology you so proudly trumpet as evidence of God’s non-existence.

“Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,” Carl Sagan said.

No matter how frustrated we all get with organized religion, that doesn’t change the facts, or the integrity of the scientific method.

To claim otherwise, is to undermine the scientific method, which, through its history, has proven that “because we have no evidence” is absolutely non-predictive of future discovery—even to things like germs or radio waves that have existed on and through the very noses of our faces since time immemorial.

God could exist on our nose right now, and we may not discover it for another 200,000 years.

That is the evidence.

Pix

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 January 2009 07:20 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2492
Joined  2008-04-05

Yes, no current explanation for natural phenomena does not make that phenomena supernatural.

We do not understand everything there is to know about open dissapative thermodynamic systems. Because of our ignorance there, we don’t have a great understanding of bio-chemical reactions of nucleotides, peptides etc., ij realtion to our biosphere. Because we lack ‘some’ understanding for abiogenisis to occur, does that make it supernaturally intelligntly designed? Of course not.

Those kinds of things are the REAL quantum leaps.

 Signature 

‘Every reflecting mind must acknowledge that there is no proof of the existence of a Deity’

‘If ignorance of nature gave birth to gods, knowledge of nature destroys them’

Percy Bysshe Shelley

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 January 2009 10:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1891
Joined  2007-12-19
Pixidis - 30 January 2009 11:53 AM

You argue that you want a “screenshot”—visual evidence—that God exists, yet the human eye can’t even detect 1/100,000 of the visible electromagnetic spectrum. So much faith you place in your limited senses and their “objective” reality, when the evidence reveals they are woefully inadequate even to reveal the truth about the physical world around you, much less God.

Where does the word and concept of ‘God’ come from?

We hardly rely on our senses alone anymore to ‘reveal the truth’ about the physical world. Yet, anyone in the food & beverage industry will tell you that one of the best and final safety checks to identify rotten food is to look at it and smell it.

Given that nature is fatally hostile towards our species, is it not a myopic and dangerous position to wholly rely on a paradigm—natural science—that relies on one finite tuning of the human nervous system for its evidence?  No matter what science discovers “our there,” it has to come “‘in here” through our senses.

How is it hostile? We’re alive. Our little natural niche is supportive to our species, for the time being. Learning how to negotiate it is an ongoing process. Our discoveries ‘out there’ and ‘in here’ begin from ‘in here’.

 Signature 

“This is it. You are it.”


- Jos. Campbell

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 January 2009 10:18 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1646
Joined  2008-04-02
Bruce Burleson - 30 January 2009 01:00 AM
Salt Creek - 29 January 2009 10:39 PM

treacly

Our Salt Creek word for the day: treacly (treek-lee) - cloyingly sweet or sentimental.

In a sentence: “I have as much fun with it as the next guy has with treacly gibberish.”

Never heard or read the word before. Another reason not to miss out on the Sam Harris Forum.

I’ve learned much from reading Salt’s posts. This forum provides better Continuing Education than my local Cow Patty University. The only tuition is enduring insults when I write something stupid. However, even that has a certain learning value.

 Signature 

Real honesty is accepting the theories that best explain the actual data even if those explanations contradict our cherished beliefs.-Scotty

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 January 2009 10:59 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1646
Joined  2008-04-02

“Pixidust”
Sam introduces a fatal flaw in the “show me the proof of God” argument in The End of Faith, by observing that the human body is set up to neurologically filter practically every external stimuli it receives. This line of thinking, pursued rigorously by open-minded scientists asking probing why questions, could liberate natural science from its paradigm blindness.

You argue that you want a “screenshot”—visual evidence—that God exists, yet the human eye can’t even detect 1/100,000 of the visible electromagnetic spectrum. So much faith you place in your limited senses and their “objective” reality, when the evidence reveals they are woefully inadequate even to reveal the truth about the physical world around you, much less God.

Physics, for example, reveals that every object has a wave component spread out over the cosmos. This property of nature is absolutely intrinsic to all physical matter. Yet not one of our senses can detect it directly. For 200,000 years we as a species were completely oblivious to the knowledge of it, and are still completely blind to this fundamental truth of physical reality all around us.

There simply was not much selective pressure for sensing spectra that had little effect on organisms prior to reproduction. Infrared may be a partial exception; however the heat can be sensed if it is at levels that are immediately harmful. Humans figured this out and started wearing protection over their heads a while back. Teleology is not necessary. You are welcome to listen to Marianne Williamson all day if it helps you to deal with your existential angst. Ativan is faster. NOMA really just means that trying to discuss magic and science in the same breath is a waste of time and energy. There are scores of scientists who would love to make a name for themselves by creating some new paradigm. Unless you come up with something like plate tectonics, don’t be surprised if scientists aren’t asking for your autograph.

Given that nature is fatally hostile towards our species, is it not a myopic and dangerous position to wholly rely on a paradigm—natural science—that relies on one finite tuning of the human nervous system for its evidence?  No matter what science discovers “our there,” it has to come “‘in here” through our senses.

If our brain can be tuned differently, as Sam asserts, and we’re not investigating how to do this, nor correctly denying the comprehensiveness of the data we are receiving, aren’t we like soldiers in Vietnam unwilling to change our radio station from Hanoi Hannah’s constant stream of propaganda? And in fact, perpetuating this narrow data stream as scientific canon?

It is dangerous to assume that the “other guys” are disseminating propaganda while we only fight for “truth and justice.” Are you suggesting that scientists don’t use data collected by instruments that are more reliable than our nervous system? Are you suggesting that we magically claim to use some type of mystical sensing instrument that cannot be verified or objectively repeated? Let me know how that works out for you.

Sam says “Your brain is tuned to deliver the vision of the world that you are having at the moment.” The perfect definition of a propaganda machine.

The evidence trail back to the big bang suggests nature wired a relatively small handful of fundamental constants from the beginning of the creation of the universe. Yet humans drop dead every day downstream from the outcome of these constants: earthquakes, floods, disease, and a host of other natural disasters.

We have a clear smoke trail all the way back to the big bang smoking gun.

If you woke up in the middle of a video game as one of the characters, and discovered the entire game was coded from the beginning, yet all your friends were suffering and dying all around you, would you still appease its programmer—nature in our case—with such unquestioning loyalty?

If you perceive that others are looking at the shadows on the cave wall, then perhaps you should question your own perceptions as well. Be careful. You know what happens when one becomes too open-minded.

Like Einstein did to the scientific canon of his field, modern biologists must now do to the scientific canon of their own. Einstein overthrew Newton’s dogma that had reined for 200+ years by questioning Newton’s tenets down to the core.

Einstein added to Newtonian physics. He did not “overthrow Newton’s dogma.” Histrionics like that make for effective propaganda. It works on many. Perhaps you are fishing in the wrong pond. Have you tried the Dawkins forum yet?

[ Edited: 30 January 2009 11:02 AM by Beam]
 Signature 

Real honesty is accepting the theories that best explain the actual data even if those explanations contradict our cherished beliefs.-Scotty

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 January 2009 11:45 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5404
Joined  2006-09-27
Beam - 30 January 2009 03:18 PM

enduring insults when I write something stupid.

If you should decide to write something treacly
You will get dissed in a manner Salt Creek-ly

Ativan is faster.

Relax, Beam. Pixidust (love it) is just another in a long line of post-structural-synthetist New Age Christian Cosmic String Theory woo heads. Not an original thought to his name. Andy Ross is in the same boat. Pan-sick-ism.

[ Edited: 30 January 2009 11:51 AM by Traces Elk]
 Signature 

INVEST in cynicism!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 January 2009 01:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2927
Joined  2006-12-17
Salt Creek - 29 January 2009 10:39 PM
burt - 29 January 2009 08:56 PM

And our own core values.

I see a brightly-colored gumball the size of the Meteor Crater at Winslow, Arizona rolling right this way.

In Canada it gets cold in the winter.  Gotta keep your core temperature up, else you might freeze and die then thaw out in the spring rotten to the core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 January 2009 04:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  9
Joined  2009-01-28
McCreason - 30 January 2009 12:20 PM

Yes, no current explanation for natural phenomena does not make that phenomena supernatural.

We do not understand everything there is to know about open dissapative thermodynamic systems. Because of our ignorance there, we don’t have a great understanding of bio-chemical reactions of nucleotides, peptides etc., ij realtion to our biosphere. Because we lack ‘some’ understanding for abiogenisis to occur, does that make it supernaturally intelligntly designed? Of course not.

Those kinds of things are the REAL quantum leaps.

I challenge the definition of “natural” itself. It is not natural to have a wasp inject its eggs into a caterpillar and have the larvae eat the caterpillar alive from the inside out. It is a supernatural spectacle wholly out of alignment with ordinary human values, much less spiritual ones. And yet that’s what Darwin observed. And that’s the nature you bow before with unthinking allegiance.

Inspired leadership, which science is currently lacking, means making responsible choices about avenues of exploration in the best interest of humanity. This may include rigorously challenging the entire paradigm because the single-greatest observer of that paradigm, acknowledged in virtually every poll of his peers as one of the top two or three scientists of all times (Einstein), calls that reality an “illusion, albeit a persistent one.” And our individual self-identity an “optical delusion of our consciousness.” And the difference between past, present and future a “stubbornly persistent illusion.”

How many times does he need to say the word illusion before science scratches its head and says, “Hmm, what does he mean by that?” Einstein came and went, and back to sleep science went; hitting the snooze button for who knows how long.

Only by challenging your beliefs to the core—to the very definition of what you regard as natural —will you come to realize that the universe you observe around you is supernaturally out of alignment with what you truly value in your own heart. With who you really are.

Einstein said the ultimately causal laws that underlie all of nature may be located outside of spacetime. That means wholly beyond the purview of the entire discipline of observation-based science. Obviously, this does not prove that God exists, simply that the framework you are using to assess reality may not just have holes or gaps or discontinuities in it, but may, in fact, be far more analagous to a Spam filter allowing only a trickle of truth to creep through; literally blinding you to the very truth of who you are.

Ignoring what people truly want—love, peace, freedom—by asserting inner experiences are a worthless yardstick of reality (as this blog does repeatedly, and atheism does in general) is bad enough, but to ignore the observations that the universe is an illusion, offered multiple times by the greatest scientific observer of that universe shows a bald-faced lack of ethical responsibility to the people of this planet.

Does the average person know that quantum mechanics clearly revealed that the human mind is somehow connected to the way energy—the very building block of the entire cosmos—manifests in spacetime? That was discovered nearly 100 years ago now. Don’t you think that little gem of liberating wisdom might be critical for every person on the planet to know?

It would if science had the orientation of a savior.

You chastise What the Bleep in this forum, but at least they are taking the responsibility of bringing critical scientific discoveries to the average person. I agree with you, the way they did it is not the way it should be done—misrepresenting the science—but I sure as hell don’t see any other scientists explaining quantum mechanics to the average person.

And if they do, they always couch it in such breathless wonder instead of bottom-lining it: “There is a good chance everything you see around you in nature—which means all the natural stuff that kills people—is tied into our observations of it.”

Instead, some Darwinian biologists have wrapped themselves in the fatal illusion like a proud cloak, then, bizarrely, use the mechanics of the illusion to attack those who seek to escape it. The very definition of a prison-blind appeaser. I suggest you all read Hampton Sides’ Ghost Soldiers, paying close attention to the character Colonel Duckworth.

Yet upon his escape from the prison he realized his error—and you will to. There is a glimmer of hope. I see it in Sam’s book, even if you don’t yet. Science can turn the tide and accomplish everything it seeks to correct in religion if it is simultaneously willing to challenge its foundations to the core. Why don’t you show them how to challenge their fundamental assumptions about God by a willingness to challenge your own, starting with the overall scientific orientation that this universe of ours is a vast, neutral laboratory for endless discovery, inside of which no urgency to escape its grasp should occupy the mind of science, nor the public?

When will the basic orientation of science—the observer—become the basic drive of the savior?

Read the Buddha and Jesus and they are radically clear; follow me now. Transcend physical reality now. The Dalai Lama says the Buddha never answered questions about the origin of the universe because he felt it did not directly pertain to liberation.

To him it would be like studying urinal cakes in the middle of a building fire. There is a Buddhist koan about a man wanting to know a laundry list of detail about an arrow in his back before allowing the surgeon to remove it.

Read the Buddha and Jesus and you get their sense of urgency; like firefighters in a rescue scene. I am the way, the truth and the life. Follow me out of here right now.

I appreciate that all of you are challenging the non-productive thought processes of religion. You’re asking them to jettison the entire core of their beliefs—God. Every bit as much work as they have to do in overthrowing their mistaken God image and its violent consequences, you have to do in overthrowing your blind acceptance of nature as one big, happy science project. Merely to challenge it’s fundamental wiring, I am confident, will open up whole new realms of discovery.

That means holding your representatives to high standards. Could someone in this forum please provide the biology textbook name(s) and page number(s) where RIchard Dawkins’ biological theories are discussed? I couldn’t find his name indexed in my son’s AP high school biology textbook. Yet he is the representative of science in matters of God? A man who fails to make the index of a textbook in his own field thirty years after his discovery?

David Bohm is rolling in his grave.

Dawkins has the audacity to suggest Carl Jung was crazy, but I can most certainly point you towards the textbook names and pages where his theories are still being discussed. Wolfgang Pauli explored with Carl jung—over a period of 25 years—the similarities between Jung’s theories of the mind and the discoveries of modern physics. I’ll take the Nobel prize hanging around Pauli’s neck and his professional stature among his own peers as evidence of the soundness of Jung’s mind.

To conclude, I challenge to the core the definition of what “I” and “natural” mean. Again, Sam’s point is that it is wholly possible to throw off the definition of “I.” We are our core values, and this sad, decaying body is a sham; a sadistic joke in a sadistic programmer’s universe.

One who thought it a natural idea to evolve a species that would literally eat another alive from the inside out.

Take the red pill, Neo.

Pix

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 January 2009 04:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5404
Joined  2006-09-27
Pixidis - 30 January 2009 09:12 PM

We are our core values, and this sad, decaying body is a sham; a sadistic joke in a sadistic programmer’s universe.

You’re talking a lot, but you’re not saying anything

When I have nothing to say, my lips are sealed.
Say something once, why say it again?

Psycho Killer,
Qu’est-ce que c’est?

Does the average person know that quantum mechanics clearly revealed that the human mind is somehow connected to the way energy—the very building block of the entire cosmos—manifests in spacetime? That was discovered nearly 100 years ago now. Don’t you think that little gem of liberating wisdom might be critical for every person on the planet to know?

You’re not even wrong, pal. You’re a blithering idiot offended by critical review of your core fantasies. Stick to your porn.

[ Edited: 30 January 2009 04:37 PM by Traces Elk]
 Signature 

INVEST in cynicism!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 January 2009 04:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5404
Joined  2006-09-27
Pixidis - 30 January 2009 09:12 PM

Why don’t you show them how to challenge their fundamental assumptions about God by a willingness to challenge your own, starting with the overall scientific orientation that this universe of ours is a vast, neutral laboratory for endless discovery, inside of which no urgency to escape its grasp should occupy the mind of science, nor the public?

When will the basic orientation of science—the observer—become the basic drive of the savior?

The guy’s asking for help, Jefe. He wants scientists to sign up for his little “eternal life” project. Chalk up another one for the narcissistic twits.

Urgency to escape its grasp? What’s this guy want? A ride on a comet? Heaven’s Gate, Part Deux?

 Signature 

INVEST in cynicism!

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 3
2
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed