Atheism As A REJECTION OF--Not Disbelief In--An Evil God (mythology, bible, quote)
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 didn't say I was 'actively seeking truth'; what I said was, I value learning i.e. education and intelligent discussion (which is why I rarely check into this forum, lol).
Careful that you do not get trapped in the NoMan's Land of "enough knowledge to be dangerously arrogant but not enough to know what you do not know."
Absolutely; there's a big difference between an open mind vs. manipulating science (and language) to fit one's personal narrative.
For someone who professes a philosophical bent, your phrasing seems oddly antagonistic to philosophizing that employs extant scientific knowledge to extrapolate into the fringes and unknown aspects of our Reality.
I think Man has been evolving all along. (No one on this forum has been, of course, lol -
that wasn't a snipe - it's called playful or joking around.)
Sure, one day he will wake up to amazing things.
I sure have..and I'm a nobody!
Gregg Braden sure is working lots harder than Crowley to bring
it about (an educator on many youtubes).
Will simple faith, the power of belief and the power of the heart and mind one day be positively
identifiable through science? I believe it already has.
Ref:
Candace Pert, PhD, neuroscientist
Gregg Braden
Dr Caroline Leaf
Dr Joseph Murphy
and a bunch of quantum physicists
Bruce Lipton -The Biology of Belief
I've never heard of Gregg Braden (I'll do a search on YT), but Crowley's influence is still being felt throughout culture. If there's a particular Gregg Braden video you'd like me to check out, let me know.
Much of what you say sounds like New Age ideas. Do you consider your worldview to be "New Age spirituality"?
For someone who professes a philosophical bent, your phrasing seems oddly antagonistic to philosophizing that employs extant scientific knowledge to extrapolate into the fringes and unknown aspects of our Reality.
I didn't say I have a 'philosophical bent' (nor am I antagonistic to any belief); I simply enjoy the study (and discussion) of knowledge, reason, the mind, language and so on (in the same way I enjoy interpretation of law or business). At the end of the day, Philosophy has everything to do with logical and integrated reasoning; and if one can't apply knowledge in a precise (and effective) manner to a specific train of thought or point, it's meaningless. It's for this reason I don't appreciate links and lengthy quotations as representative to people's viewpoints (or discussion of specific philosophers for that matter).
I place far more interest in re: integrated reasoning and critical thinking skills; everyone knows the lack of science and measurability of a god to the point of it being (beyond) redundant.
Absolutely; there's a big difference between an open mind vs. manipulating science (and language) to fit one's personal narrative.
totally true CC.
and both sides do it. so what can we do to help people see through the cloud of smoke?
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.
