Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : The Philosophical Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rarebird who wrote (184)	8/10/2005 3:13:04 PM
From: LLCF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 26251

Don't mean to be annoying, sorry. I have pointed out numerous times that everything I post is "JMO". The arguement was clearly getting circular IMO AND I think the statement makes a lot of sense. It's not 'my' idea, spirituality itself revolves around that permise, hence the Buddhas assertion to "experience", not talk about or read about... because the truth can't possibly be in words. Or as Dr. Hawkins {who I pointed to in many of the points I made} translates that: You can know all about a 'cat'... but to know 'cat' you have to BE a cat. One can know about intellectually... but not know intellectually. Any, not to digress... as I said IMO there was to be no 'winner' in the circle, it was getting contentious... and everyone was to take from it based on their own viewpoint anyway. <If there was an all-powerful God, he would have made sure that young children didn't die of cancer.> That's based on your egoic idea of what god should be... of course, as is my idea of god. That is proof only to you... that's YOUR truth. So one really should but the JMO on the end of that one. <My view is that if there is no evidence for it and if you are unsure, then forget about it, don't do it.> But isn't all of human 'advancement' based on a curiousity {or whatever one wants to call it} that one doesnt' just 'forget about'? Wouldn't everyone think the world was still flat? Beyone that, remeber that in much of this discussion we're simply talking about an 'spriritual' body beyond the physical, you don't need god for that. I think Crick's last work was to try to prove that the human experience comes from neuronal activity??? In other words no 'energy' body apart from the physical at all. It sounds like that is you stance, and Crick is certainly historically good company... but even the existance of his attempt to prove such is not "forgetting about it" for lack of "evidence". <In regard to religion (and politics), people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth much.> I agree about 'religious' people... that would not include those that use teachings which the religions are based on for inquiry into conciousness and other topics {including god} that have come up. In fact, some scientists insistance on ignoring relevant info BECAUSE it is considered by him/her to be religious, is ignorance IMO. As you may know... many of the most accomplished in science/philosophy/medicine, etc... were believers in god, although probably not a dogmatic Catholics version. <Let's try to keep the religious God crappola to a minimum.> I agree... religion has done much damage to 'god's' reputation. :)) <If you sincerely think that God is at the foundation and root of everything, you probably don't belong on a philosophical thread like this unless you have decided to question (which could, in turn, strengthen) your beliefs.> But scientists all over the world are working on a theory explaining substrate to the universe right now... and many mystics have stated that it is concious... that it is god. So..... do I think there is a unified field? YES! Am I willing to question that... yes. Am I willing to admit that it might be 'god'.. yes. Am I willing to admit it's not god... yes. Am I willing to admit there is some other god that is not defined like the unified field {ie. do anthropomoriphic gods or god exist}... that's a stretch. DAK