Premier Freethinkers sites? They have those?

I agree. However, I feel that you are still not fully understanding my position. I'm am not arguing that science points to spirituality or mysticism. I'm simply arguing that it can't be used to rule it out, and, that IMHO our current knowledge of physics allows for the possibility that a spiritual philosophy like Eastern Mysticism may potentially be true.

However, one thing that I am attempting to "argue" against, is the conclusion that a lot of biologists and geneticists seem to be making about the idea that it's scientifically unrealistic to speak about "information" outside of the scope of the physical world. Because, they claim that "information" has been scientifically shown to be nothing more than physical "formations". In other words, their main arguments against any sort of "spiritual world" or "spiritual dimension" is there is simply not 'place' for such a world to exist. This argument being based on the idea that it's "silly" to think that information could exist without some sort of physiccal "form".

In a very real sense, they are basically claiming that the physical world we can detect is necessarily all that exists. Because their conclusion concerning atheism depend upon this premise that information only makes sense in physical "formation" (i,e their argument is that information can only be physics "in-formation" therefore the very notion of a 'spiritual dimension' is an unscientific idea

I'm simply calling them on that claim by showing that the science of quantum mechanics actually demands that some other "dimensions" that are capable of supporting some sort of "information" necessarily must exist according to our best scientific theories and knowledge. So their claim that it's unscientific to imagine the existence of information existing somewhere beyond what we consider to be the "physical world" doesn't hold true to what science actually has to say.

That doesn't prove the existence of a "spiritual world" but it does show that what biologists and geneticists are holding up in the name of 'science' doesn't truly reflect what science has actually revealed to us.



No, I'm not claiming that it shows that this is the case. All I'm suggesting is that it leaves open the possibility that there may indeed exist a potential scientific explanation for it.



I'm not offering any "precise scientific theories" of how our ultimate consciousness might potentially have its roots and true essence in the quantum field. I'm merely suggesting that science cannot be used as an argument to rule out that possibility. Because, IMHO, until these mysterious of the quantum field are resolved the quantum field may indeed be the ultimate true essence of our being, and not the physical world that the biological and genetic atheists are claiming must be the foundation of reality.



I fully understand what you are saying here. And in all honesty I don't blame you in the least for coming to the conclusions that you come to. The conclusions that you have chosen to accept are quite reasonable. And they very well in fact may be TRUE!

For me to explain precisely why I'm not 100% convinced of this view would require far more conversation than is possible in a post.

Yes, I see what you are saying about the brain functions. There is no question about it that we "identify" with our biological brain computer and the information that is stored within it. In fact we come to believe that the "list of attributes" stored within that brain constitutes WHO we are.

I am John Doe, I was born in New Jersey, I've had these particular experiences in life that made me who I am today, blah, blah, blah.

However, this is precisely what the Eastern Mystics are talking about. That is not WHO you are, they say. The Eastern Mystics are telling you that you are not your physical brain and the list of attributes and memories that it has stored. And they even claim that you can discover this for yourself via transcendental meditation. When you transcend all of those "thoughts" that your brain is having you discover your true nature as this mysterious "perceiver" who is actually "perceiving" this experience.

Now we come back to the idea of "Emergent Properties".

You are content with the idea that a bunch of atoms evolved to the point of forming a physical brain, which then, as a large conglomeration of atoms begins to actually "perceive" the experience of having all these "thoughts"

For me that's very problematic. If atoms are idiots and incapable of experiencing things, then why should a conglomeration of atoms be able to "experience" things?

In other words, I don't believe the in the idea of an "Emergent Property of Perception" of a bunch of things that have no ability to "perceive" anything individually in the first place.

Or to put that another way; For me to believe in the "magic" of an idea of an "Emergent Property of Perception" I may as well believe in the Eastern Mystical view. One is just as much a matter of "faith" as the other as far as I can see.

Moreover, the basic "atheistic" view expect me to believe that all this matter just accidentally came from nowhere and evolved into this thing that is able to perceive it's own existence.

You may find that to be quite satisfying intellectually, but I don't.

There would still be the "Mystery" of where all this "Stuff" that can evolved into conscious beings came from in the first place.

In short, "Atheism" isn't any less of a "Mystical" believe than "Mysticism" is. They both rely on totally unexplainable crap.

So one is telling us that we are nothing more than our brains.

The other one is saying, "No, that's not true. We're actually the thing that is experiencing this physical formation."

In short, the ultimate philosophical questions are these:

Are we merely the FORM (i.e. just an emergent property as the atheist claim)

OR, are we the thing that is taking the form (i.e. as the Eastern Mystics claim).

If we turn to science for an answer, my conclusion is that we can't say one way or the other. Either one might be true. And since science has not yet, and probably never will, be able to truly close the door to the possibility of the Eastern Mystical picture, then why not consider it as a possibility?

Or at the very least, refrain from deeming people who consider it to be "Silly". IMHO, it's no more "silly" than believing that we're some sort of "emergent property" of a bunch of atoms that can't perceive or experience anything themselves.



Well, I'm in agreement with you here too. And thus if people want to cerebrally masturbate in the belief that they are something more than an "Emergent Property" of a bunch of atoms then why not give them a little respect for coming to their Mental Ecstasy?

All I'm objecting to are atheists who claim that it's scientifically absurd and silly to imagine any sort of spiritual essence to life at all. I'm just saying that science had not indicated that this must be our conclusion, and to call people 'silly' for considering a philosophy like Eastern Mysticism, is, IMHO, to do nothing more than display an ignorance of both; our knowledge of science, and of the actual philosophy behind Eastern Mysticism.

That's all I'm tying to say.

Respect me for being a "mystic" and I'll respect you for being an "atheist".

Sounds fair to me.

Cowboy,

Can you not see the problem with this? Even you begin your "defense" of this fable by saying, "Different Bible's translate this verse differently."

Well, that's probably true of every verse in the whole cannon of stories. Therefore, even if there was some sort of basis that these ancient fables had started out as the "Word of God" they most certainly can't be trusted to be that today.

In order to continually defend these ancient stories as the "Word of God" you need to bend over backwards all the time, right to the point of saying what you are saying here, which basically amounts to, "Well, we can't be sure what the hell these authors actually meant because we don't have a single dependable source for a transcript of these stories"

That should be enough right there to toss them into the fire for having been so horribly contaminated and tainted by men.

As I've already told you, I personally don't believe that a supposedly all-wise supreme being would behave the way these ancient Hebrews describe. I don't believe he could condone the things they claim that their "god" condones.

I don't believe in a judgmental God who would automatically dismiss people for rejecting this ancient convoluted collection of tales as being totally ungodly.

The whole premise behind this religious mythology is that if you refuse to believe in it, then you are "rejecting God".

That's a red flag right there, as far as I'm concerned.

You continually preach from the point of view that you are holding the "indisputable Word of God" in your hands and that this therefore means that if you claim to be relaying what's in that book then you too, are speaking for "God".

So you constantly attempt to make out like anyone who refuses to believe that this book came from God is therefore "rejecting God".

But that's utter nonsense in and of itself. To not believe that something is the "Word of God" is not anywhere near the same as "rejecting God". In fact, this is precisely why it's utter nonsense that such a God would pass judgment against "nonbelievers".

That very tenet of this religion basically proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that it's nothing more than a brainwashing scheme of men. They started out recognizing that people would fall for this crap and just continued to build upon it until it evolved into the ungodly "religion" that it has become today.

I don't believe in a Male-Chauvinistic "Father" who can't forgive sins unless a purely innocent man is first nailed to a pole.

With all due respect, IMHO, Christianity is the most utterly absurd religion on planet Earth. It's an insult to both mankind, and to our creator, if we even have one. I just can't put it in any plainer terms than that.

========================================
Well, that's probably true of every verse in the whole cannon of stories. Therefore, even if there was some sort of basis that these ancient fables had started out as the "Word of God" they most certainly can't be trusted to be that today.
========================================

The wording may be different, but the meaning of it still remains the same. As in, I could say this water is hot or I could say this water is boiling. Two different translations...... same meaning.
-----------------------------------------------

=========================================
I don't believe in a judgmental God who would automatically dismiss people for rejecting this ancient convoluted collection of tales as being totally ungodly.
=========================================

Refusing God's word is refusing God. And if you refuse God, it is not God who dismissed the people, it is the people that dismissed God.
-------------------------------------------------

===========================================
But that's utter nonsense in and of itself. To not believe that something is the "Word of God" is not anywhere near the same as "rejecting God". In fact, this is precisely why it's utter nonsense that such a God would pass judgment against "nonbelievers".
===========================================

So if the bible tells you that it's god is yours and everyone's god and you refuse to believe what is there in the bible. Would that not be refusing to believe in our father for the bible tells us who our father is?
-------------------------------------------------

===========================================
I don't believe in a Male-Chauvinistic "Father" who can't forgive sins unless a purely innocent man is first nailed to a pole. whoa
===========================================

Oh but God can and did. Sacrificing is a huge part of Christianity for one reason. When sacrificing something it shows where your heart truly is. If you willingly sacrifice something in your life and or something about you for someone else, that person can see that you do truly love them. Words are just words, they mean nothing. The word LOVE is just that, a word unless you show it other wise. And God didn't HAVE Jesus nailed on a cross. Jesus knew the outcome of it, just as you and I Jesus had free will and could have backed out any time he wished. But he did not do as such. Jesus was sacrificing himself in every way so that we may share the joy of heaven. So stop blaming God for the crucification. In all honesty it is our fault Jesus was put on that cross. We're the ones that nailed him to the cross. If it wasn't for us and our sins to our father there would have been no need for the crucifixion.

I've never seen "God's Word".

I have absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe that a bunch of ignorant Hebrews speak for God.




I have absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe that a bunch of ignorant Hebrews speak for God.




I have absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe in the Christian mythology.

I've shown countless reasons why this mythology is utterly absurd, totally inconsistent, and undependable.

You have even concurred even though you don't seem to realize it.



By your own admission the bible cannot be trusted to be a consistent and trustworthy document anyway.

Thanks for the heads-up.

Although, I have always been aware of this. It's not news to me.

============================================
I have absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe in the Christian mythology.

I've shown countless reasons why this mythology is utterly absurd, totally inconsistent, and undependable.

You have even concurred even though you don't seem to realize it.
==============================================

You have shown nothing my friend. All the inconsistances you've tried to show or undependable have been shown to be consistant and dependable. So nice try but no cigar.
-------------------------------------------

===============================================
Different Bible's translate this verse differently.


By your own admission the bible cannot be trusted to be a consistent and trustworthy document anyway.

Thanks for the heads-up.

Although, I have always been aware of this. It's not news to me
==================================================

Never said anything like that. Yes they translate it differently, but don't come up with a different translation. Again i will give another example.

Someone says - It's raining cat's and dog's outside.
Translations -
1. It's pouring rain outside
2. It's storming like crazy outside
3. It's like a monsoon outside

See my point? All TRANSLATED DIFFERENTLY, but nevertheless same translation.

By your own admission the bible cannot be trusted to be a consistent and trustworthy document anyway.

Thanks for the heads-up.

Although, I have always been aware of this. It's not news to me
==================================================

Never said anything like that. Yes they translate it differently, but don't come up with a different translation. Again i will give another example.

Someone says - It's raining cat's and dog's outside.
Translations -
1. It's pouring rain outside
2. It's storming like crazy outside
3. It's like a monsoon outside

See my point? All TRANSLATED DIFFERENTLY, but nevertheless same translation.


You're obviously in denial.

[color]
Exod.32:14 And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.


This verse clearly states that the LORD was having thoughts of doing evil unto his people.

So no matter how you translate it your God has evil thoughts.

When it rains it pours.

I want no parts of any religion that worships a God that has evil thoughts.

Moreover, my original point in all of this is that Albert Einstein's statement that the Biblical God is portrayed as having "human frailties" stands.

Also, don't forget that as a Christian, your Jesus taught that to have an evil thought is the same as doing the evil thing. So the mere fact that "His Father" had an evil thought makes "His Father" a sinner.

Do you see how this religion is constantly in conflict and contradiction with itself?

Trying to twist this religion into anything that even appears remotely sane is impossible. This is why people like Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan and myself, recognize that it can't be anything more than a false man-made mythology. It's just riddled with contradictions from the beginning to the end.

It isn't even remotely consistent or sane.

You're obviously in denial.

[color]
Exod.32:14 And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.


This verse clearly states that the LORD was having thoughts of doing evil unto his people.

So no matter how you translate it your God has evil thoughts.

When it rains it pours.

I want no parts of any religion that worships a God that has evil thoughts.

Moreover, my original point in all of this is that Albert Einstein's statement that the Biblical God is portrayed as having "human frailties" stands.

Also, don't forget that as a Christian, your Jesus taught that to have an evil thought is the same as doing the evil thing. So the mere fact that "His Father" had an evil thought makes "His Father" a sinner.

Do you see how this religion is constantly in conflict and contradiction with itself?

Trying to twist this religion into anything that even appears remotely sane is impossible. This is why people like Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan and myself, recognize that it can't be anything more than a false man-made mythology. It's just riddled with contradictions from the beginning to the end.

It isn't even remotely consistent or sane.



Shows no such thing. Repenting doesn't just pertain to evil actions. Repenting is a generalized word usually refered to not sinning, but nevertheless is a generalized word. And God has all the right to destroy us all if he wishes and it not be evil. We are pretty much nothing but clay in his hands to do with what he wants and it not be evil as you say. You forget,

I'm not the one who called it "evil", the author of the Bible called it "evil". Are you questioning the author of the Bible?

Besides, if you were to ask for my opinion, I would disagree with your opinion above. You suggest that simply because God is the Creator that absolves him from any sense of morality when it comes to killing humans. But that's not true. You must be thinking of Zeus.

You see, Zeus was allowed to kill you for any reason at all. If he merely didn't like the way you looked at him he would be justified in killing you. No one claimed that Zeus was a "righteous God".

However, the Biblical God is supposed to be "righteous", so he can't go around killing people just because he feels like it.

Being a creator does not absolved a God from being "Righteous" if the fable that describes the God claims that the God is "righteous".

So the Biblical God is not above our judgement. On the contrary if the Biblical God does things that we deem to be unrighteous then guess what? That would make him an unrighteous God.

So your "defense" for this fable that this God can just do whatever he so desires without any responsibility for his actions simply doesn't fit in with the premise behind the fable that this God is supposed to be a "righteous" God.

Take that away from him, and he just becomes another Zeus.

So no, you're wrong. The biblical God is not automatically absolved of unrighteous acts simply because he's the creator. That kind of defense doesn't hold up to the premise of what this God is supposed to be like. This God can't kill people just because he feels like it. Even he must satisfy righteousness and justify his every act and decision. This God cannot be "above" judgment because of the very claim that he's a righteous God.



So you're wrong when you claim that this God can do anything he wants and it not be "evil". You are the one who is forgetting that this God must be righteous. He cannot do just anything he so desires without justifying his actions.

In fact, when people ask, "Who are you to judge the Biblical God?", you should simply reply, "Well I have moral standards, and if the Biblical God doesn't live up to them then IMHO he is an unrighteous God, and that violates what this fable claims that he must be, therefore if the Biblical God can't even live up to my moral values then he isn't a very righteous God, IMHO"

And you'd be perfectly correct.

In fact, that's definitely my position. I totally disagree with many of the decisions and actions that were taken by this God according to this fable, from my point of view they were totally immoral acts. Therefore, in my eyes, the God described in the fable isn't even as moral as me, let alone being "Supremely Moral".

So it's a given that this fable must necessarily be false, the God in this fable doesn't even live up to what I consider to be good moral behavior much less exceeding it. So this God is clearly an unrighteous God. The stories in the fable aren't consistent with what the fable claims the God should be like.

That's more than enough reason, for me, to reject this fable as being every bit as false as the mythologies of Zeus.

No, no where does it claim God said "I'm righteous according to abracadabra"

Just because you don't see it as righteous or moral doesn't make it so. And who are you to Judge God? There is a chain of command....... God, Jesus, us. See how we're at the bottom? That would mean we have no power over Jesus or God, but they have complete power over us in every way.

Going with the same set up of a chain of command, you don't see citizens running around saying Judge Judy is guilty of ..... and then that civilian puts Judy in jail...... no that doesn't happen for it is not our job to judge the judges it is theirs to judge us and give penalty according to what we have done and the judgement they have made.

It doesn't matter what it claims that God "said".

The authors of this fable are telling me that the God they are describing is "righteous". I disagree with those mortal men in their assessment of their God.

You keep acting as though I should believe these idiots before I question them. That's not the way I work.

I question things first then then I decide whether or not they have any merit.

You apparently work the other way around. You first assume that it's the Word of God and then leave yourself no room to decide whether or not it has merit.

You need to convince me that this story is even remotely divine, before you start claiming that it's the "Word of God".

Otherwise, this is a moot conversation. You're just asking me to "Believe the BS first" and then "Ask questions later", based on the premise that I already BELIEVE that this is the "Word of God".

I don't work like that. Sorry.

You need to convince me that this story is righteous before I'll bow down to the so-called "authority" of your false judges.

If you're looking for someone who can be 'brainwashed' into believing first and asking question later, then you're wasting your time trying to sell these myths to me. I don't fall for that kind of brainwashing technique, thank you.

I am returning this topic for now. Please remember to keep the debate civil at all times.

Kim

WORD of God says:

Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

"create evil"

Hebrew, "ra" translated "sorrow," "wretchedness," "adversity," "afflictions," "calamities," but never translated sin. God created evil only in the sense that He made sorrow, wretchedness, etc, to be the sure fruits of sin.

WORD of God says:

Exodus 32:14 "And the LORD repented of the evil
which he thought to do unto his people.

"repented"

The Lord is not confessing evil but is withdrawing the curse.
Ps 106:44, Jer 18:05, Joel 2:12.
Of course He knows the end from the beginning and has not made a mistake 1Sam 15:29, Isa 46:09, Is 55:11.

These verses should shed light on your misunderstanding. I would advise that whole paragraphs and even the chapters be read...IF...
you truly want to understand.

==========================================
You need to convince me that this story is even remotely divine, before you start claiming that it's the "Word of God".

Otherwise, this is a moot conversation. You're just asking me to "Believe the BS first" and then "Ask questions later", based on the premise that I already BELIEVE that this is the "Word of God".
===========================================

I need to convince you of nothing. When and if you let Jesus in your heart, he will show you all truths you ever wanted to know about him and the father.

Sounds a lot like Pelozi's statement that "you need to pass the bill to find out what's in it". Hey, that worked out so well...