Area54

If I could answer that succinctly and accurately I would be a multi-millionaire. That said, one technique I have found works is to ask questions. When we talk of rational thinking, we mean, I believe, critical thinking and at the heart of critical thinking is the asking of questions. By asking the right questions when considering anything (who to marry, what marmalade to put on your toast, ect.) we demonstrate the process. Repeat this often enough, consistently and the tehcnique is absorbed, consciously or unconsciously.

I was uncomfortable with the word "purged" in the OP. We should be telling people how to think, not what to think.

That is a neat way to avoid an apology tar. Or to avoid acknowledging that criticism of ideas is one of the functions of this forum. If you object to persistent criticism of your ideas the fault may lie with your ideas, rather than the persons making the criticism. And, for the record, that downvote did not come from me.

Your original post was well phrased and so I understood you were in "what if" mode. My questions were simply intended to highlight one aspect of that "what if". I agree the term "Cosmic Consciousness" has some unfortunate baggage tied to it, but I don't rule out the possibility of some such "thing" emerging at some point in the future, rather than already being present. I do have difficulty with your apparent desire to place humanity at the top of evolutions path. I am reliably informed that hedgehogs, e. coli and politicians consider themselves at the pinnacle. (All except the latter have a good case to make.) In short, there is no pinnacle. There is not more evoloved, or less evolved. All organisms have enjoyed the same three and a half billion years of evolution from our last common ancestor. Certainly, in terms of consciousness, there are definite differences in the degree of consciousness displayed by different organisms, but perhaps our interest and emphasis on the importance of consciousness is only because we have it in spades.

One would expect that the relative importance of these influences would be contingent on a wide variety of factors, including the species. I imagine some work has been done on this. Have you looked at potentially relevant research papers?

Even if I accept the argument that the difficulties of the world disprove a benign God (and I don't) that would not disprove an intelligent designer. A cruel and heartless world would be evidence for a malevolent intelligent designer.

@Anonymous Participant I am presidposed to accept intelligent design. A better way of stating that would be to say I would delighted if it turned out to be valid. Why? It would overturn much of our thinking and thereby offer an exciting new era of investigation and discovery. (Not that things aren't currently pretty exciting.) So I would relish even as little as a sound hint as to the validity of ID. I don't need a full blown confirmation. Equally, I don't wish to knock down a perfectly good dwelling house simply because someone has a sketch of an even grander mansion they will erect on the site. I want to see proper plans and costings. So too with ID. Rather than point out the weaknesses in current theories, or identifying areas we know little about (any fool can do that) I'd like to see some solid evidence to support the concept. You seem an enthusiast for it. I imagine you must have some solid arguments or evidence in support of it. I'm ready to read them, when you are ready to write about them.

Feel free to critique me for pointing out illogic in your thought processes. However, while you complain about that, please don't let it stop you pointing out the illogic in my thought processes. Unlike you I welcome such criticism. Feel free to ridicule any silly ideas I post. Silly ideas deserve ridicule. Ridiculing silly ideas is not the same as ridiculing the author of the ideas. That would be ridiculous. Feel free to give me an unreserved apology for implicilty accusing me of giving you or Mike negative rep. I have never given you negative rep and in this thread I have upmarked so many of Mike's downvoted posts that he made the leaderboard for reputation one day last week.

Contact a spiritualist and have them channel George Lemaitre. He'll explain.

Indeed. I always figured Jesus looked like Yassar Arafat.

The first quote follows a section where you move upwards in 'levels' of consciousness from the self awareness of an earthworm and end with the quote statement. The only alternative way I can see to read that position is that humanity is not the pinnacle of consciouness, but is at the pinnacle of consciousness, sharing it with one or more entities. All of the objections I had to your statement "humanity is the pinnacle of consciousness" apply equally and fully to "humanity is at the pinnacle of cosciousness". Are you arguing that your statement meant something else? That "most advanced form of consciousness" does not equate to "pinnacle of consciousness"? Or do you maintain that there is no more advanced form of consciousness in the universe than humanity and such other organisms as share our level? I have no interest in whatever disagreements you may feel you have with iNow. I am supporting his position in this thread because it coincides with mine. What is relevant is you made a silly remark and now are refusing to acknowledge it. That's your choice. The very widely accepted consensus in the science community is that evolution has no ultimate goal. If we pursue this "cosmic consciousness" notion does that not mean we have moved from a firm base, grounded in science, to an unrooted speculation?

This is why Studiot asked you about some very basic terms. Your ability to understand these would help us understand what level you are at and how we might best help. Even if you abandon the thread now, please look these terms up on wikipedia. It will be a start. If you are willing to answer this question please do. If not, no problem. How did you gain entry to a BA course without any academic experience?

Then, relating to the OP, you not only think religion and science cannot be reconciled, you believe they should not be reconciled?

Thank you for the clarification Ricardo. You had written what you seemed to have written, but as Strange has pointed out it is not a thought that makes a lot of sense. (Although using your imagination then checking it against reality is always a good thing.) Was there any particular reason you thought this might be happening to chromosomes, or did it just seem like a neat idea.

I'm unfamiliar with the phrase "sienso sienso" and find nothing online to explain it. Consequently I am not sure what you are asking. Are you suggesting that chromosomes are storing data more efficiently? That seems improbable, but if not that what?

Gees, you made an unwarranted assumption. The only reason the thread has been diverted from the OP is that you refused to acknowledge this. Had you simply said, "Good point iNow, it would be an assumption to assert that humanity must be the pinnacle of consciousness", we could then have moved on to more interesting points. Now there are two possibilities I am aware of to explain this disruptive behaviour*: 1) You genuinely fail to see the complete illogic of your stance. 2) You have difficulty to admit when you are in error. The first is a failure of intellect, the second of character. Neither encourage me to have any further exchanges with you. *There could be others. If any of them are valid and are pointed out by any member, yourself included I shall be happy to admit my error and apologise.

In fairness, you cannot be sure of that. You may feel it is likely, it may even be likely. It must certainly be annoying for you. But its inconclusive. It would be beneficial if Gees came forward and addressed the counterpoints offered by yourself and by me.

Point 1: You still haven't defined your hierarchy. (Fish, Men, Angels, God is not a meaningful definition). Point 2: Once it is defined then two or three days of internet searching should provide you with a "back of the envelope" estimate to validate or refute your hypothesis. You have had considerably more than three days to do this. Don't you think its time you got of your ass and actually did some work on it rather than pontificating?

Using your first argument we can state the following: There are no civilisations anywhere else in the universe. There is no intelligent life anywhere else in the universe There is no complex life anywhere else in the universe. There is no life anywhere else in the universe. These are all unwarranted assumptions as is the assertion that there is no consciousness greater than human anywhere else in the universe. We do not know whether or not any of these statements is true. Therefore to state that they are is an unwarranted assumption. This should not be this difficult tar. Your second argument is just silly/illogical. If you cannot see the illogic you have my sympathy, but no more of my time.

Whether or not that is true it has nothing whatsoever to do with my central point. I repeated it in my last post. Do you wish me to repeat it again? I have no difficulty imagining beings more intelligent than I. I am aware of many of my intellectual limitations and can therefore envisage the effect of those being overcome. Indeed, all I have to do is to look at the posts from some members here to see the reality of a greater intelligence. As far as I am concerned it has been clearly established that Gees made an unwarranted assumption regarding humanity's place at the pinnacle of consciousness. I'll entertain serious objections to this position, but otherwise I am done here. (Just to be clear, you haven't offered any serious objections.) Perhaps we can now return to the subject of the thread.

I return to my recommendations given earlier. Contact an example of the kind of company you might wish to work for and ask them. I do know that into today's marketplace many companies are looking for ways to eliminate candidates. If they have two hundred applicants chasing one job they can rarely afford to process them systematically and thoroughly. One way of countering this is to have a CV that standouts, head and shoulders, above the crowd. That is likely to negate any impact of your minor brush with the law. (If all else fails, you could always run for President where a questionable past doesn't seem to be an issue. )

Dictionary definitions explain how words are used. They are not appropriate for scientific or medical usage. Now "disease" implies abnormality. There is nothing abnormal about homosexuality. It is common in many species beside humans. It is quite possibly present in the majority of mammals. Something that is normal cannot be considered a disease. Indonesia and Malaysia are strongly influenced by the religious intolerance of Islam towards homosexuality, so there is no surprise their state run institutions reflect that. Astrology has been practiced for hundreds of years and it is unfounded nonsense whose main "benefit" is to provide income for charlatans. Since fasting limits one's energy it is likely to suppress all forms of sexual desire. If one views sexual desire as a problem then, by all means fast.

The only one so far.

No one can hope to answer this question without knowing your country of residence, since that impacts on attitudes and laws.

Interesting perspectives on how messed up many people were in the past. Are you arguing that these views should be taken seriously today? But, perhaps the first question for you to answer is this - do you view homosexuality as a disorder that needs to be cured?