So, tell me, is this place mainly strong atheism?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-09-2015, 09:43 AM
RE: So, tell me, is this place mainly strong atheism?
(29-09-2015 09:29 AM)KidCharlemagne1962 Wrote:  
(29-09-2015 09:22 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Wonderful.

Where's the evidence?

You and your pesky evidence. Tongue

If he actually has it and if he actually presents it to me and if it actually holds up under controlled circumstances, I certainly wouldn't be averse to the subsequent scientific revolution having my name attached to it...

Not that I'm holding my breath.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
29-09-2015, 10:03 AM
RE: So, tell me, is this place mainly strong atheism?
(29-09-2015 09:18 AM)cjlr Wrote:  But, can I just comment on how indescribably special it is to take a failed prediction as evidence?
"I got the wrong numbers, so it must be right!"

Jesus fuck that's some strong motivated reasoning.

Angel - maybe you shouldn't make fun of this guy.
Evil_monster - maybe he shouldn't make it so fucking easy.

Undecided

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like houseofcantor's post
29-09-2015, 10:26 AM
RE: So, tell me, is this place mainly strong atheism?
(29-09-2015 09:21 AM)Obie Wrote:  ... Levitation is not a muscular activity. It is a jolt of energy. The connection with the unified filed is quite spotting at our place of development. It's like a bad cell phone reception area ...

"filed" is a typo borne of carelessness; "spotting", which was probably intended to be "spotty", is a little harder to "justify", although I believe any writer intending to be coherent has NO justification to leave intact even slight typos - and in a writing medium that permits instant editing and correction, I regard writing riven with these kinds of errors as indicative of the author's general lack of attentiveness overall, and have to consider whether response is worth the effort. In a forum, though, the audience is larger than the circle of speakers, so response can be worthwhile to make a point meant for a wide audience - here, for example, my point is intended for everyone that I, personally, do not take carelessly written posts seriously.

Likewise I can't take careless appraisal of evidence seriously. Denying that so called "levitation" is a muscular phenomenon can only be a conclusion drawn from careless observation, or by deliberate refusal to observe the details of such demonstrations because such close observation would very likely refute the desired conclusion, which is worse than carelessness and treads into dishonesty.

Further, to infer levitation indicates the existence of some vague "unified field" without ANY corroborating observations or even a coherent definition of what "unified field" is has no logical basis. It's like seeing a patron at a Cleveland restaurant ask for a cup of coffee black and infer that black must be the color of gravity when it's upset.

To continue FURTHER to the "unified field" having "spotty" reception akin to bad cell phone coverage carries the assertion all the way to incoherence. There's NOTHING there to even attempt to take seriously.

And put forth with typographical errors in it drops the coffin into the pit and heaps dirt on it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-09-2015, 10:28 AM
RE: So, tell me, is this place mainly strong atheism?
(29-09-2015 09:21 AM)Obie Wrote:  Levitation is not a muscular activity. It is a jolt of energy.

What do you think the word "energy" means, precisely? I don't think you actually understand it, because this claim is utterly incoherent.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-09-2015, 10:54 AM
RE: So, tell me, is this place mainly strong atheism?
(29-09-2015 08:58 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(29-09-2015 08:27 AM)Obie Wrote:  I have offered stories, first-hand accounts for what I have posited, including levitation, which, of course, everyone got hung up on for its phenomenal value.

As a point of interest, what, then, do you make of the numerous and varied stories of direct, first-hand accounts experienced by the believers in every major religion and most of the minor ones?

If magic feels are your gold standard then you must accept all of them.

Do you?


It would seem that we will never get beyond the levitation thing, although it is but one of an infinite array of super normal abilities.

There is an odd number of sutras - which seems to beg the need for just one more to make a certain nice round number. After my course I learned that there had been one additional sutra that was subsequently dropped - it was for invisibility. For turning one's self invisible. Which I also heard had to do with bending light rays. But as I heard, the US Department of Defense got wind and put a lid on it for very obvious national security reasons.

So one sutra was dropped.

Years later, I came into contact with a guy from California. A fellow meditator who had learned the sutra and who then shared it with me. It made perfect sense in its design compared with the other sutras, and when I practiced it, I had a pronounced inner reaction, but of course, I didn't turn invisible. It doesn't work manifestly just as levitation also has very insignificant outer results. Our wiring is too shabby at present to produce pristine results. But there is always an inner response - which is, of course, non-transferrable and thus, not objectively provable.

All of what I have stated hinges on the existence of the unified field and in our ability to map to it through our consciousness. I believe I have had several experiences of this phenomenon, as they have defied all forms/avenues of objective knowing.

As I have also stated, the father of quantum physics, Max Plank, back in the early 1930's declared the unified field and consciousness to be one in the same.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-09-2015, 10:58 AM
RE: So, tell me, is this place mainly strong atheism?
(29-09-2015 10:54 AM)Obie Wrote:  It would seem that we will never get beyond the levitation thing, although it is but one of an infinite array of super normal abilities.

Well, you'd better hurry up and prove it, then. You've got a ways to go.

(29-09-2015 10:54 AM)Obie Wrote:  But there is always an inner response - which is, of course, non-transferrable and thus, not objectively provable.

Ah. So it doesn't work, then. Why didn't you say so?

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-09-2015, 10:59 AM
RE: So, tell me, is this place mainly strong atheism?
(o_O)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Nishi Karano Kaze's post
29-09-2015, 11:01 AM
RE: So, tell me, is this place mainly strong atheism?
(29-09-2015 10:54 AM)Obie Wrote:  
(29-09-2015 08:58 AM)cjlr Wrote:  As a point of interest, what, then, do you make of the numerous and varied stories of direct, first-hand accounts experienced by the believers in every major religion and most of the minor ones?

If magic feels are your gold standard then you must accept all of them.

Do you?


It would seem that we will never get beyond the levitation thing, although it is but one of an infinite array of super normal abilities.

There is an odd number of sutras - which seems to beg the need for just one more to make a certain nice round number. After my course I learned that there had been one additional sutra that was subsequently dropped - it was for invisibility. For turning one's self invisible. Which I also heard had to do with bending light rays. But as I heard, the US Department of Defense got wind and put a lid on it for very obvious national security reasons.

So one sutra was dropped.

Years later, I came into contact with a guy from California. A fellow meditator who had learned the sutra and who then shared it with me. It made perfect sense in its design compared with the other sutras, and when I practiced it, I had a pronounced inner reaction, but of course, I didn't turn invisible. It doesn't work manifestly just as levitation also has very insignificant outer results. Our wiring is too shabby at present to produce pristine results. But there is always an inner response - which is, of course, non-transferrable and thus, not objectively provable.

All of what I have stated hinges on the existence of the unified field and in our ability to map to it through our consciousness. I believe I have had several experiences of this phenomenon, as they have defied all forms/avenues of objective knowing.

As I have also stated, the father of quantum physics, Max Plank, back in the early 1930's declared the unified field and consciousness to be one in the same.

Mocking and joking aside for a minute, I'd like to ask you a serious question.


Why the fuck are you still here? You're obviously not going to be convincing anyone that anything you have to say holds the slightest amount of merit. Why not just move on and try somewhere else?

Excuse me, I'm making perfect sense. You're just not keeping up.

"Let me give you some advice, bastard: never forget what you are. The rest of the world will not. Wear it like armor, and it can never be used to hurt you." - Tyrion Lannister
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-09-2015, 12:04 PM (This post was last modified: 29-09-2015 12:40 PM by Obie.)
RE: So, tell me, is this place mainly strong atheism?
(29-09-2015 10:26 AM)Airportkid Wrote:  
(29-09-2015 09:21 AM)Obie Wrote:  ... Levitation is not a muscular activity. It is a jolt of energy. The connection with the unified filed is quite spotting at our place of development. It's like a bad cell phone reception area ...

"filed" is a typo borne of carelessness; "spotting", which was probably intended to be "spotty", is a little harder to "justify", although I believe any writer intending to be coherent has NO justification to leave intact even slight typos - and in a writing medium that permits instant editing and correction, I regard writing riven with these kinds of errors as indicative of the author's general lack of attentiveness overall, and have to consider whether response is worth the effort. In a forum, though, the audience is larger than the circle of speakers, so response can be worthwhile to make a point meant for a wide audience - here, for example, my point is intended for everyone that I, personally, do not take carelessly written posts seriously.

Likewise I can't take careless appraisal of evidence seriously. Denying that so called "levitation" is a muscular phenomenon can only be a conclusion drawn from careless observation, or by deliberate refusal to observe the details of such demonstrations because such close observation would very likely refute the desired conclusion, which is worse than carelessness and treads into dishonesty.

Further, to infer levitation indicates the existence of some vague "unified field" without ANY corroborating observations or even a coherent definition of what "unified field" is has no logical basis. It's like seeing a patron at a Cleveland restaurant ask for a cup of coffee black and infer that black must be the color of gravity when it's upset.

To continue FURTHER to the "unified field" having "spotty" reception akin to bad cell phone coverage carries the assertion all the way to incoherence. There's NOTHING there to even attempt to take seriously.

And put forth with typographical errors in it drops the coffin into the pit and heaps dirt on it.

What you attribute to carelessness I would attribute to poor typing skills - which I effort to correct, but as I had to leave to go back to work upon completing the post, I hadn't the chance to correct them. Maybe you wish to go back through all my posts to see if you can find any errors, and then see what you have to say.

I'm confused about your confusion regarding levitation. I was also trained in the technique. So I speak from personal experience.

I'm sure you've heard of Albert Einstein? Whose name is synonymous with unified field theory? Not sure what you are espousing. I claim no originality here. I have pointed people to a video by Dr John Hagelin for a much more erudite synopsis of what I am alluding to, but of course, no one will spend the time to view it.

This is an atheist website. It balances discussions of theism vs atheism. The theistic argument supposes a universal singularity in the form of a being which, in and of itself, explains and accounts for all that exists. To my mind, it is a very easy lift to argue against such a dynamic. To me, atheism does not go beyond itself to account for all that exists in a singular way - which is fine, but it isn't where I am in my understanding as I submit that there is a unified field that may well explain the existence of everything. I felt it worthwhile to present it here as it ties so directly in with discussions of theism. Apparently the possibility of a universal singularity is outside the lines of discussion here. As everyone here can only hold in their minds what they can hold in their hands.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-09-2015, 12:28 PM
RE: So, tell me, is this place mainly strong atheism?
(29-09-2015 08:27 AM)Obie Wrote:  I have offered stories, first-hand accounts for what I have posited, including levitation, which, of course, everyone got hung up on for its phenomenal value.

That's part of the problem Obie. You offer stories. No demonstrable occurrences. And no evidence for such ability outside of these stories.

I could just as easily tell a story about my love affair with Scarlett Johansson and I doubt anyone would believe that eater without the proper evidence. (No matter how much I wish is was true.)

(29-09-2015 08:27 AM)Obie Wrote:  "Knowing" involves a relationship between the knower and the object of knowing - a dichotomy, as it were, as they seemingly exist apart from one another. The technology of what I speak attends to the knower side of the equation - and to the fact that the knower has the innate ability to access "all knowing" through the ability to map our consciousness to the unified field where all is known already - and where knowing, as well as creating, becomes merely a function of pushing a button. I would think that as this website extols exoteric knowing to the max, that it might find it unusually appealing to suggest that there is an esoteric aspect to knowing, especially as epistemology is like a religion to most here.

Personal experience stories can't be dis-proven. This applies for Alien encounters, Ghost's encounters, Big Foot Encounters...you get the idea. But with lack of evidence it can never be proven ether.

Luck for you we live in an age of technology. All you would have to do is video tape using your phone, or video recorder. Just video tape yourself levitating and we could have a basis for this belief. But also know that wont protect you from skepticism. or counter arguments, being disproven. But it would be more then a story.

Don't Live each day like it's your last. Live each day like you have 541 days after that one where every choice you make will have lasting implications to you and the world around you. ~ Tim Minchin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Commonsensei's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: