Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I recommend you look at the actual science referenced in the video that my critics poo-poo as pseudo-scientific Woo because of the source that compiled it to support an agenda. You need not accept their characterizations. See for yourself what the results suggest about our reality. I was a Buddhist atheist for 18+ years prior to my encounter in deep meditation. Theravada Buddhism is birthed in the Advaita and the works of Adi Shankara. Gautama just didn't trust God or Brahma because he felt any permanent entity held out the possibility of continued Samsara. He wanted Nirvana to be an end to karma. I do not invent any scientific evidence. I plausibly extrapolate from existing science into what is disparagingly called the God of the Gaps.
Before I watch any video, would you agree with the assertion that it has been edited to make it appear that some people are saying things they are not ? Because this is not just an error if true, but obviously a deception that would cast the entire veracity of it in the toilet .
And what you consider plausible in your attempt to merge spirituality and science others see as ridiculous woo woo speculation. And you haven't presented anything substantive to alter that perception in the years I have been reading you .
Before I watch any video, would you agree with the assertion that it has been edited to make it appear that some people are saying things they are not? Because this is not just an error if true, but obviously a deception that would cast the entire veracity of it in the toilet.
I will acknowledge that their summary method of presenting the potential implications of what is said does make it appear that some people are saying things they themselves may not have extrapolated. That is a just rhetorical method that shortcuts drawing out the implications in an otherwise detailed and laborious way. I suggest you explore the implications for yourself rather than reject them because of the rhetoric employed in presenting them.
Quote:
And what you consider plausible in your attempt to merge spirituality and science others see as ridiculous woo-woo speculation. And you haven't presented anything substantive to alter that perception in the years I have been reading you .
I have admitted to my failures in that regard. Gaylen has done a much better job of elucidating the actual issues and the reasons for my attempts to extrapolate into the gaps. My off-the-cuff Synthesis using analogies and metaphors was seriously misunderstood and treated as a physics thesis instead of a philosophical presentation for a mass audience. I am satisfied that it was gratefully received by its intended recipient, Gldn.
All good and useful philosophy is grounded in science or it is just idle speculation.
Good and useful philosophy, perhaps. Stuff you just make up is neither philosophy or science.
If you actually knew anything at all about real science, you'd know that anyone should be able to get exactly the same result every time. That's science.
You remind me too much of someone who sits around and takes LSD and thinks that they have seen the whole universe.
Good and useful philosophy, perhaps. Stuff you just make up is neither philosophy or science.
And your great and expansive knowledge enables you to know this about an anonymous person on the internet that you have no actual information about, HOW?????
Quote:
If you actually knew anything at all about real science, you'd know that anyone should be able to get exactly the same result every time. That's science.
I taught and practiced scientific investigation for 30+ years as a consultant and a Professor. What particular result are you concerned about?
Quote:
You remind me too much of someone who sits around and takes LSD and thinks that they have seen the whole universe.
I did imbibe alcohol in my youth, but I am a teetotaler now and I never used any drug. I protect my mind and refuse to lose control of it to any substance.
And your great and expansive knowledge enables you to know this about an anonymous person on the internet that you have no actual information about, HOW????? I taught and practiced scientific investigation for 30+ years as a consultant and a Professor. What particular result are you concerned about? I did imbibe alcohol in my youth, but I am a teetotaler now and I never used any drug. I protect my mind and refuse to lose control of it to any substance.
Well, I sit and meditate and it's what see about you.
As a lifetime Atheist who attended Catholic schools, I agree that you cannot prove that God exists or does not exist. However, it is incumbent on those who are trying to prove their beliefs, not those who lack belief, to have the burden of proof.
Atheists are often thought to be an organized group or even a belief system for some reason. I like to look at it like this; if I go about my day and someone says that an elephant is following me all the time, I do not have to prove that there is no elephant, they do since they are making the assertion.
Look at the words I bolded in your post. If you don't understand why so many of the members here find your posts offensive, then your intellect is failing you. Instead of addressing a group of your peers (fellow human beings who happen to have found the City-Data forums), your posts come across as condescending as you talk down on those beneath you.
I peeked in on a thread in another CD forum a while back while they were discussing Mensa. I think you'd be very, very surprised how many CD members have qualified for membership. You ARE talking to your peers, in more ways than one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Thank you, mensaguy, but I am well aware that there are Mensa-level intellects in the forum. I converse with them on the Mensa specific fora as well. It is not simply a matter of intellect, it is an issue of depth of exposure to and knowledge of the many areas of science that impinge on the issues. It is also a philosophical open-mindedness that is NOT common even among Mensans. Philosophical speculation on the frontiers of knowledge requires a unique perspective and a willingness to entertain hypotheses that can plausibly be extracted from the actual science. The disdain of the video posted because of its source is indicative of the philosophical close-mindedness masquerading under a skepticism about Woo.
I am not proselytizing but I will vigorously defend my understanding of both the science and the plausibility of my extrapolations into what atheists demeaningly call the Gaps for God. I am tired of being attacked and placed on the defensive about my intellect and any perceived arrogance, hubris, or condescension which is entirely in the mind of the perceivers. Why not just reject my views? Why the need to attack me personally over any perceived grievance about my attitude? The dependence on ad hominem just validates my belief about the lack of understanding of the underlying science and the rationale that leads to my extrapolations.
You were told "If you don't understand why so many of the members here find your posts offensive, then your intellect is failing you." You responded by being offensive and accuse everybody else on the forum of not being smart enough to understand what only your intellect can understand. That is truly sad. QED.
There is nothing demeaning about it, but I believe the term sometimes used is "God Of The Gaps."
So far, you have said science, but have actually shown none.
The disdain of the video posted because of its source is indicative of the philosophical close-mindedness masquerading under a skepticism about Woo.
I have verified the source, something you appear not to have done. And once you have verified that a source is dishonest, it is not close-mindedness to mistrust that source.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
I recommend you look at the actual science referenced in the video that my critics poo-poo as pseudo-scientific Woo because of the source that compiled it to support an agenda. You need not accept their characterizations. See for yourself what the results suggest about our reality.
More misrepresentation. I never labelled the actual science as psuedo-science, I pointed out they were mixing psuedo-science in with real science.
I recommend EVERYONE looks at the videos on Inspiring Philosophy | Audiovisual apologetics, or even better, the Youtube channel (where references are given for those interested in checking).
You were told "If you don't understand why so many of the members here find your posts offensive, then your intellect is failing you." You responded by being offensive and accuse everybody else on the forum of not being smart enough to understand what only your intellect can understand. That is truly sad. QED.
There is nothing demeaning about it, but I believe the term sometimes used is "God Of The Gaps."
So far, you have said science, but have actually shown none.
" It is also a philosophical open-mindedness that is NOT common even among Mensans. Philosophical speculation on the frontiers of knowledge requires a unique perspective and a willingness to entertain hypotheses that can plausibly be extracted from the actual science." posted Mystic. We know what's hidden here. The common theist fallacy that speculations, and moreover speculation designed to prop up treasured beliefs, is thought to be 'open mindedness'. It is not, It is closing the mind to any other speculations but the one that the believer happens to like.
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Quote:
The disdain of the video posted because of its source is indicative of the philosophical close-mindedness masquerading under a skepticism about Woo.
It isn't hard to read what's behind this, too. A complete reversal of the actual thinking. The video itself wasn't woo, but the way the evidence was cobbled together to try to make it look like 'God' was. Noting the origins of the video was a pointer. Mystic's response was little more that a dismissal of this as some kind of bias, and never mind what was actually said. Where the Bias actually is will be clear to everyone but Mystic.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
