tar

Ringer, I had come to that conclusion, about my will and consciousness not being anymore, once I die, a long time ago. That is the basis of my personal ability to tell when a person is believing an impossible thing. The promise of the 100 virgins, or the boiling oil is a silly thing. My flesh cannot burn if it has no nerves or brain to feed the sensations to. I need not worry about those things. Not in any literal fashion. Which leaves only the figurative way I will continue, after I am dead. There are real ways, that this will occur. I have posted, I have spoken, I have built things, I have repaired things, I have followed rules and principles and conducted myself in the view of others, in ways that worked, that had meaning and purpose, and value. As Iggy said, I should carry on. In addition, I have daughters and nephews and grand nephews and neices, cousins and the like, that will carry on the genes and memes of my Grandparents. And I will be in the memories of everyone alive after I die, that I ever touched. There were two famous poems I remember reading in 5th grade. I only remember a couple of lines of each. "For whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee." and "Into the valley of death, rode the 600". On 9/11, Jeremy Glick, a person I did not know, from my town, realized the plane he was on was a guided missle, heading for a Washington D.C. target. He and his comrades brought the plane down. Who or what do you figure Jeremy Glick had faith in? Since there is nothing imaginary worth that effort and sacrifice, it must have been us, he had in mind. Regards, TAR2 I still tear up when I think of his courage and sacrifice for us. How do you thank someone who is no longer alive?

Split Infinity, Pretty quick figuring for a half asleep drunk. You must have been prepped, have thought about that before. Sort of a talking point. A very excellent one, I might add. Might add it to my repetroir of sensible things that counter the impossible beliefs of those well dressed folk. If that is all we are talking about here, then you have won the argument and I concede. Regards, TAR2 Ringer, Equivocating yes. But I still consider whether I am ready to die. Whether I have done everything I should of. Whether I am "doing it right" or not. And I currently concern myself often with preparing myself for the eventuality of my father's passing, as his heart is not as strong as it used to be, and he is nearing that last decade that people are known to normally not surpass. What is still true and valuable and meaningful, after he dies? And of that, what is still true and valuable and meaningful after I die? I do not think I am the only person to ever consider these things. I rather think there is no one, who has not. Regards, TAR2

Iggy, I have come to the same conclusions, as depicted in those excerpts. I am not arguing against those findings, I am quite arguing from them. Although I have not read all of Kant, I have read a little, and thought about it a lot. As I may have mentioned, I am on a quest to understand the meaning behind human language. We do not have definitions for things, for no reason. We do not have a common grammar for no reason. Kant's categories are the basis of a metaphysical study of human thought and reason, which in turn, in my estimation can be directly applied to the understanding of human language and the meaning behind it. And this in turn can be tried against human beliefs and a certain understanding of why and how we come to have faith in things, that as you point out, we cannot know directly, but only by the form that we have internalized. This understanding of the way things are for us, and what the rest of the universe means to us, is the basis of our use of the scientific method, to establish facts about the world around us, that "fit" with the thing, and are not wrong. We test the idea, the representation, the map, against the thing, and when it works, we can say "we are good on that". We can keep that internal form, as a useful analog representation of what actually is the case. But this operation is not limited to the study of inanimate impersonal things, not limited to the study of things of static and simple nature, it is properly applied as well to the living, breathing, changing world, outside our body/brain/heart group. By all accounts, (except Immortal's) this objective world exists, regardless of our subjectively held view of it. We as humans have found a way to internalize the world around us, in such an instanteous and complete manner, as to be able to keep a car, going 65 miles an hour, inbetween the lines, and apply the brakes when obstructions present themselves. We are good at this scientific method thing, this learning about what is outside us and what internal representations of it work, and what do not. It only gets better, when we trust other peoples information as well. When we learn that others have run the same experiment and gotten the same confirmation. Such is the basis of the faith that I have, that I am viewing the same territory that another is viewing, when we each say something about what we are viewing, and the meanings coincide. The correspondence of the thing to my model, linked with the correspondence of the thing to your model, in more than one way or manner, gives the thing position and characteristics and duration of its own, in both of our estimations. The thing is on the map. It is a true characteristic of the territory that the map is of. When I look at the stars, and you look at the stars, you can point out a characteristic that I have not noticed before and I would instantly add the thing to my model. Because its true of the territory already, and now its reflected in both our models. It is the territory itself, that thing we describe to each other in common terms, that exists for us both. It is the thing we are informed of in similar fashion, it is the territory that we map, it is the place and time in which we are positioned. Its form is our form, we are participants and members of the territory already. We can navigate through it, with our eyes closed, we know it so well. We can imagine it, even when we are not looking at it. The territory is a possesion of ours in kind and symbol, and we are a possesion of it, by circumstance. Mixing the territiory and the map is what we do. Because they are already mixed. The territory is vast and unknown and exactly Godlike in character, and personality, and capability and perfect nature. We know the territory already fits together, already works, already exists, we have faith in this being the case. And we know our maps are limited and imperfect, and our models adjust to the territory as new information occurs and the map is NEVER as complete and intricate and wonderful as the thing that is being mapped. So from what perspective, from what line of argument, from what stance, other than a human stance, can we be asking the question of whether or not, science and God can mix? Regards, TAR2 We are allowed to, it is correct to, represent the world as a true thing, because that is the way the world has presented itself to us.

Iggy, Well, you are saying two different things. I do not know whether you are challeging my understanding of the map, or my understanding of the territory. Just read an article on Dark Energy in Discover. I know, I know, I can't say anything sensible based on that, because its some laymen expression of the real science behind it which I am incapable of understanding because I can't do calculus, but it seemed to say to me, that the map is currently rather unsure. A couple of the reasons I say this. The nobel prize winning scientist expressed surprise when the graph of his type 1a supernova took a bend down rather than continuing in a straight line. (sort of like following the map, expecting to come over the hill and see the lake, and finding instead a different landscape) There have been an average of 1 theorecticl paper a day over the last number of years since the discover, floating theories that would explain the descrepency. We STILL don't know the fate of the universe. Some "think" that "one day" the universe will be torn apart in a "big rip". To me, the idea that our universe is capable of doing anything, in unison, in one day, is quite a sign of "impossible" thinking, and leads me to guess that each of the many maps being suggested, might have a rip or two of their own, to consider patching up. I do not mind learning facts about the territory, or adjusting my map to fit the facts, but I reject the notion that I cannot view the territory. I was looking at the stars, just the other night. Regards, TAR2 And I have complete faith that I will see them up there on the next clear night, I am out. I fear no eventuality that could possibly change that fact. Even if I was blinded, or dust would obscure the sky, I would know they are up there.

Iggy, Complicated answer. One aspect is that of perspective. The cosomogical standard model is a model of the cosmos, taken from our perspective. As a model, it has to fit in our brains. To be applied to reality, to match it up and make predictions, the thing we are modeling has to already be the case, already be true, and already have been the case, inorder for the stuff about it, that is forming our reality here and now, to be doing such. There and then have to exist, inorder for here and now to. But it all does not happen at once, in one place. It thusly cannot be modeled correctly and completely in one place, at one time. Which brings me to the second complicating aspect of my answer, and that is the issue of intelligence, and that of insight and knowledge. I am not as smart as many, and I do not have the knowledge and insight that everybody else has. I just have a little of it. If I were to have a little more, it would improve my map, extend the scope of my map, but not make any big changes to the territory, unless I applied such knowledge to it. I have faith in other peoples map only to the extent that I have the intelligence and knowledge to match up my map, with their map. I still retain 100 percent faith in the territory that is informing me. The territory is better than the most perfect map, we can all together come up with. It already is true. So I rebel and take issue with your insinuation that I am too stupid and ill informed to understand the standard model, and therefore have no access to the truth. It is only the map that is obscure to me. The territory is in plain view. Regards, TAR2 If I have to be an insignificant point in space and time on somebodies map, I would rather it was my map, than the map that somebody, other than me, dreamed up. No matter how smart or knowledgeable the other fellow or gal happens to be. I admit to jealousy and ignorance and inferiority and bias and such. But I am rather sure that others are subject to the same human conditions, even if they would pretend otherwise. Science does not eliminate these things, it just shifts the goal posts a bit. And knowing that there is another perspective does not actually put one in the position of having that actual perspective. Can you take a godlike perspective and not believe in god? Krauss and the scientific community seem to be saying yes, you can. I am challenging that stance, in my arguments. Believing in the existence of things, and adjusting your own model to include those things, based on ones faith in somebody elses experience and intellect, requires a certain release of control, or subjegation to a higher power, or outside consciousness. The activity is the same type of activity and only differs in scale whether you are speaking about believing your wife, or your boss, or the TV or the newspaper, or the scientific journal, or the university professor, or believing in the sense that a writer from a hundred years ago is expressing. Scientists already believe in many things, based on the combination of what is true in their own eyes, and true in the eyes of the people that they trust. And scientist already have faith in there being an even greater truth, than that which we have experienced with our own collective eyes and intellects. A truth that will reveal itself, as we look out farther, and longer, and peer in deeper and closer. An already true thing, that is already the case, we just have not quite gotten a complete handle on it yet. We have not named its every aspect, we have not measured it every movement. But there it sits, true, everlasting, intricate and wonderful, what we are made of, what we are in, and the greater thing that we all have faith in being the case. That the universe is a participitory one is quite evident to the scientist. That the universe is a participitory one is quite evident to the theist. I highly doubt the two camps are talking about a different thing.

Iggy, "You can assume that an illusion has merit, but it doesn't make it so." Sometimes yes, sometimes no. That's why we ask each other. Might not seem to fit here, to you, but consider the Fed buying 850 billion in debt every month to stabilize the bond market and keep the economy liquid. Buying it with what? Just marks on a balance sheet. Its not the same as an old lady buying a bond with money that represents a lifetime of work and effort and the adding of value to society. Its not representative of anyones risk or effort. Its money made up of thin air, with no backing but a nod and a wink and "faith" in the country. It would seem, at least in this case, that an illusion has merit, simply because it is commonly held. Sort of the same reason you will sit at a red light at 3 o'clock in the morning with no one else in sight, and wait for it to turn green. It is one of my issues with certain "scientists" who imply that human illusions have no merit, as if they are in possession of an illusion that is of a different type than human, or as if they consider reality taken from a godlike view to be of more merit, than a human view. Such a stance is of as little merit, as I can imagine. Why let someone or something else you have no understanding of, or relationship to, be your judge of merit? Regards, TAR2 It is exactly my issue with Krauss, who claims to be the first to know how the universe will end. First of all, he does not know that, second of all, its not going to matter to him, or anyone he tells, and basically it is an illusion that has zero merit. But he is allowed to have the illusion only because he showed somebody an equation, and that was enough proof to the other, to join him, in the illusion. It is not as if Krauss has now gotten ready for that eventuality. Or gotten "us" ready. Much of science is naming things, and finding the patterns and rules and laws and principles that make things work. But we only discover and name things that are already in place, already exist and find new ways to put such things together as tools to aid our survival, and enjoyment of being alive. To try and take some pain and suffering out, and put some pleasure and enjoyment back in. It would be sort of counter productive to imagine we have no business being alive, and no great stake in it. It would be sort of counter productive to reduce life to its particles and imagine you have acheived anything other than finding out how amazing and precious and totally deep and meaningful and rewarding being a conscious entity in this reality is. If science helps us get to the bottom of existence, to pick it apart, to name and understand its workings, then its the arts that help us apply our knowledge in a pleasing way, put it all together and show us how to live, and religion that gets us ready to die. Perhaps sleeping and dreaming is practice for both living, and dying. Evolutionarily built-in way we have of taking death in stride.

Ringer, Thought of a sideways way of looking at this question this morning. If God is either non existent, or existent and has no plan in mind, then what is it, that a human being is "getting ready for"? We can get ready for dinner, get ready for sex, get ready for the opera, or get ready to go to work. How do we get ready to die? Could this idea, be the underlying thing we are talking about? Not whether or not there is a god, but whether or not we have faith in the thing we are getting ready for. Having faith in the one area of live that it makes no sense to have any faith in at all, that period of life, after life. Every still has a concern if they are ready to die. If they have done everything they should have done. If the way for others has been prepared properly. It has nothing to do with God, just something to do with the need for one. Regards, TAR2

Phi for All, I agree with you on the "plan" thing, in the way you expressed it, in the previous post. I think I know what you are talking about, and its the "kind" of faith, that makes no sense to me, either. If there WAS an all powerful being ruling the universe, there is no reason to believe that it would have human type intentions, or a human timeframe, or human frailities. In fact, if a prerequisite for an all powerful, all knowing, eternal consciousness of some sort, is that he/she or it would already know how everything was going to turn out, then you could hardly call it a plan. A plan is a human thing, a planned series of actions, designed ahead of time, to be executed in reality, over a time period in the future, with a certain desired outcome in mind. A plan would be completely unrequired for a being to whom the outcome was already certain. A plan can go wrong, or be poorly executed, or be a bad plan. How could God have one of these human things called a plan? What contingentcies would he/she it, be "planning" for? What goal or outcome could a being of this sort have, or hope for? He/she or it would have nothing to accomplish, no way to fail, nobody to impress, and no one who would care one way or another about his/her or its idea. He/she or it would not have human reason or human reasons, or be subject to any reasoning at all. God would not have a way to be concerned about the future, or a way to learn something from the past. He/she or it would not have a "plan". So what meaning could "its all part of God's plan" possibly have? Nothing that ever happened, is happening, or will happen would make any difference to God. And nothing could be a surprise, or an acheivment...to God. So it makes no sense to have faith in God's plan, because there either is not all powerful, all knowing, eternal God, or there is a God with no plan. Regards, TAR2

Just not in a magical way, but in the true way that it is.

Iggy, Actually I had trouble arguing both sides of a debate, I always looked for the true parts of both arguments. I still see a reason to equate the various meanings behind a word or a phrase. I have noticed I often transfer things inappropriately, from the conscious object I am considering, and the "other" things I am worrying about. There is for instance a relationship between the position and function of the head that is on our shoulders and the head of a corporation. The analogy or metaphor is something that we consciously use, as well as subconsiously consider. Its one of the important manuvuers we use, its one of the important manuvuers we HAVE to use, if we are going to fit every grain size between a quark and a universe in the three pounds of grey matter between our ears. Its the manuvuer behind mapping and ratios and transfers and why we can consider the similarities between a hurricane and a galaxy, or build an atom and a solar system out of the same styrofoam balls. One thing stands for another in our understanding. We internally model the entire universe within the three pounds of grey matter we have. We have to be doing some equivocation, to manage the feat. And yet, and still, we know the difference between the thinking about the thing, and the thing itself. We know how to project, and add back. "it is as if" or "it is like" are phrases and manuvuers we understand often when speaking to each other, about the same "thing". When aspects of reality, that deists ascribe to their god, correspond to aspects of reality that correspond to a scientists thinking there is plenty of "difference" between the understanding of the one, and the understanding of the other, but my main argument is that the same thing is being modeled in both cases. The words each use are attempting to accurately "model" EVERYTHING, at once. That the model of a theist is false in your opinion as a scientist, is evident. That the model of a scientist, is not complete, is true in the opinion of Vedic master. I look for the mingling of magic and fact in both the minds of theists and the minds of atheists. I think both parties have somewhat of a grasp of both. It is a hypothesis, based on our similiar senses and wiring, and way of being informed of reality. And it seems reasonable to me that there MUST be some ways that we are thinking stuff, and saying stuff, about the same reality. That our "meanings" are similar on some levels, and that figurative and literal, have a required overlap, just because we HAVE to be taking the literal world figuratively, inorder to fit it between our ears. And we HAVE to be figuring that what we sense is literally true, and we are in and of a "greater" reality. Regards, TAR2 "Allegory A symbolic narrative in which the surface details imply a secondary meaning. Allegory often takes the form of a story in which the characters represent moral qualities. The most famous example in English is John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress, in which the name of the central character, Pilgrim, epitomizes the book's allegorical nature. Kay Boyle's story "Astronomer's Wife" and Christina Rossetti's poem "Up-Hill" both contain allegorical elements." Ballads, stories, myths, heroes and villians, humor and tradgedy, good and evil, patterns and growth, vibrations, timing, finishing and starting, living and dying, object and subject,...things with meaning, symbols and ideas that we are informed of, and have and project back on the world. Science can not do without math. Language can not do without symbols. Man cannot dream without poetry. Another's God is not the one you know does not exist. Its the one that is actually informing us all, that none of us can find the proper words to describe. The president has launched an initiative to study and map and better understand the most complicated three pounds in the universe. That stuff between our ears. In this endevour I am sure that science will mix with God. We can not find out much, if we look for magic numbers that will add up to consciousness. My prediction is that the stuff I am talking about, is true stuff, scientifically knowable stuff, that will not be understood, unless we discover that nature is imprinted in the structures and connections that we find. That there is an analogous thing, a timing or a pattern, or a relationship between signals and storage, that mimicks the things we know are outside, on our inside. That left and right, up and down, left and right, in and out, long and short, fast and slow, good and bad are the things we will should find. Patterns and relations, that are "like" the objects and forces we are subject to. That our relationship to the world, to the thing we are in and of, is as intimate and true as a believer in God, would have us think.

Okay.

Iggy, I went to a private school from 4th to 9th grade. There was an honor code, written by students and endorsed by the faculty that talked of ones responsibilities to ones team mates, ones fellow students, ones school and the greater society of the world. It had the word spirit in it. It did not have the word God in it. I can believe in the spirit. I did believe in the spirit. I still believe in the spirit. You say I must believe in a diety to believe in a spirit, but it is not true. One can believe in a "story", without pretending. The American Dream, the Human Spirit, team spirit, "till all the world is for Allah", must have some things in common with each other. Myth and story, alliegences and promises, obligations and a feeling of belonging, are not scientifically sound areas of study. They live in that "spirit" area of the human animal. Spirit, it does not have a particular weight, or size or location, or measurable objective existence. Yet we know when another has it, or not. We know when we have it, or not, and we know, based on something other than material evidence when we have faith in a common spirit, or story. Unspoken, unacted upon...until its challenged, and then we rise up in unison with the others that believe in the story, and combat the threat. Unplanned, unscripted, unspoken, but understood. There is evidence that one groups story does not correspond with another's group story. Recent pictures from North Korea, showed ranks of soldiers, ready to die in the attempt to defeat the villian. To be heroes in each others eyes. To overcome the evil threat to their way of life. Not unlike the unfortunate non correspondence of stories at the root of most conflicts. I do not think there is a way to scientifically prove that my story and spirit is superior in scientific truthfullness, to the story and spirit going on in the mind and body of a North Korean. I can think of plenty of ways that they are not following my script, but they can evidently see plently of ways I am not following theirs. Either that, or they are human spirits, yearning to be free, subjigated and lied to, and ruled by an evil crazy dictator, and as part of my script, I should look for ways to remove the bastard from the scene, to prevent stupid and unrequired war and nuclear destruction. But I can hope there is a spirit in the world, a concensus, that would work to make my story the winner, and keep North Korea from achieving weapons that kill and destroy life. Does that mean I believe in God? Or just my story, just this unsubtantiated "spirit" of mine, and yours, and hopefully most of the free world. My framing of the creation myth in scientifically possible terms, is still a myth, until we would get the details ironed out, and see exactly how, in reality, it is scientifically known and explained, how life and consciousness has emerged. The results are known. That we are made of universe material, is unquestioned by science. By definition, this means that universe material can and does think and feel, and know things, and is able to make judgements, at least in our case. We are no better than the universe, nor worse, nor "other than" the universe, by all evidence. If I should "believe in us", us very particular jumbles of quarks, as well as the jumble of quarks we are standing on, as well as the energy streaming down upon us from above, and that would seem a little like what people that believe in God believe in, and you would say, why call it God, when you are really talking about reality...I would say...duh...thats my point. Regards, TAR2

PeterJ, Guesswork, maybe. I cannot know what is going on in someone elses mind, but I can try and put myself in their shoes. I am not as knowledgeable or as smart as many, but I can make a vague guess at what must be, or very well could be going on, in someone else's mind. It is amazing similar, the way two human brains are put together. We are quite alike. I understand people's arguments about qualia, and reluctance to consider that anyone else can be experiencing the same things as they are, but I have some very large amount of experiences that tell me there are things people feel and think, that are close. When the same roar of exhaltation, or the same roar of disapproval comes out of the mouths of thousands of people simultaneously at a sporting event, responding instantly in unision to the witnessing of a event on the field, it tells me we have simiiar stuff, going on in our heads. Same senses, same basic wiring, same chemicals. We respond to endorphins in a similar fashion, we respond to pheremones in a similar fashion, we all get hungry and tired and thirsty and feel urges and discomfort for similar reasons in similar situations. You yourself know we are alike. Enough to think that you can tell whether or not I ever experienced what a Monk might experience. If I told you I had, you would think I could not have, because I didn't follow the recipe, I didn't know how to OM myself into the right chemical state. To which I would say, you don't know my history, my own epiphanies, my own run ins with powerful insights and emotions and thoughts and "states of mind". Be assured, that I have had my share. Enough to know what you are talking about. And I am as sure as sure can be, that there is a difference between feeling at one with reality, and being one with reality. We are already, by definition, one with reality, there is no other option, no other way to be, if you discount your life, if you discount the separate state, the unique time and place, that a human finds themself. But "you" cannot do both. "You" can actually do neither. You cannot be dead, and you cannot be in another place and time, than the moment you are in. Except in your imagination. I know this is true of me. I know this is true of you. Because its obvious, and pertains to every human I ever met, talked to, dreamed with, loved, hated, read about, or was told about. I have witnessed many people "thinking" they were in a state of mind that transcended reality. In all cases, the state did not "truely" exist. Not as truely as as reality exists. Everybody, comes back to their senses, goes crazy, or dies. There are no examples of where someone has actually "transcended" reality, and found themselves no longer bound by the laws of physics, and no longer bound to their physical body/mind/heart group. It is an impossible thing to achieve such a state. Therefore, I can say with certainty that a Monk can think they have transcended reality, but they really have not left us behind, a whit. Regards, TAR2 Smartest man I ever talked to was a Prussian Professessor of Philosophy and Religion. He solved integrals for fun and relaxation, and could do it WHILE he was talking to you on several different levels at once. I don't pretend I can know what was going on in his head. But he never was able to walk through walls or float in the air, or go very long without supper and a drink. And unfortuneatly he died, and is no longer able apply his genius to our problems. He left us behind alright, but had to die to do it. The world without Professor Zucker, has lost a bit of the adult supervision it had while he was alive. I do not miss Moses or Mohammed, or Jesus or dead Monks, quite so much as I do him. Having him alive would make a difference to the world. Having a Monk reach Nirvana, does not add anything to my existence. Just the Monk feels it. Hey, I found that there is at least a peice of Dr. Zucker I can share. I don't have membership to get the paper, and I have had the benefit of listening to his lectures and speaking with him on many occasions in social settings, so I know a little, what he would say...but read this abstract, it pertains to the discussions we have been having here. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2164-0947.1966.tb02397.x/abstract I can't be as smart as Dr. Zucker, or as loopy as a Monk, but I can know what it is they are talking about. And I can tell the difference between reality and and myth, and know very well when I am talking sensibly and when I am talking about impossible things. Being human, I can count on being a little smart, and a little loopy. Enough to imagine what it might be like to be less or more smart, and less or more loopy. I suppose we need to set up some sort of truth table, to decide when people are smarter than they think they are, or not as smart as they think, and when people think they are crazy and when they are crazier than they think. Some Monk once said, you have not gotten anywhere until you get tired of being tired of being tired. (or something like that)

Overtone, Well, I think that is true, but the larger context, is always just one step up...so to speak. All encompassing would only pertain to the largest expanse of reality that you could claim ownership of, or knowledge of, or association with. To illustrate, consider this. One might consider being realistically responsible for what happens in their home or neighborhood, or company or country, or even on the entire planet Earth. It would matter to them and their children and their childrens children. But how many generations should one consider important and real? How far out, in time, and how far out in space, is our responsibiltiy? How big is the all, in all-encompassing? How many years into the future is your domain? Sometimes at work, on a particularly stressful or frustrating day, I utter something I heard once. "In a hundred years, nobody will remember, know or care, what happened here today". Its mostly true, and maybe a little false, in the sense that what you did that day, maintained something, started something, corrected something, broke something or otherwise made an impact on the world and its future, but mostly true, in that you most likely won't be around to remember, and no one is likely to ask. (Unless something Earth shakingly wonderful or horrible happened that day. So how many years into the future is "all-encompassing", and how many lightyears out? When a human being has an epiphany, or a religious moment, or touches timelessness and spacelessness and selflessness, it has bearing only on the one doing the touching. The "touched", in reality, is not tickled to the extent that the toucher imagines. This became obvious to me with the consideration of the effect on reality, that a monk on a mountaintop, reaching Nirvana, has. About zero, was my calculation, when just considering the rest of the planet as the ALL in all-encompassing. No mountains were moved, no illnesses cured, nobody noticed, nothing else noticed or was affected. Maybe someone he/she told later, or someone reading the manuscript he/she wrote after the event, but at the time of the incident, the Monk's reach, was not quite as far as he/she imagined. He/she, sensed the thing, knew the thing, but did not encompass it, did not become it. It remained intact and separate from the Monk...in reality. The Monk is in and of the thing already, before the Monk notices. The noticing is an aspect of the Monk, not an all encompassing aspect of reality. Regards, TAR2

Iggy, But we are on a section of a talk board, placed to discuss the rational foundations of religion. We are in a thread, trying to determine if you can mix Science and God. Spinoza is in play, Kant is in play, Moses is in play, Jesus is in play, Einstein is in play...everybody on this board is in play, everybody accross the board is in play. I cannot not have incorporated the sound ideas of the people I have read during my life. I cannot not entertain the ideas and theories, and the accomplishments and efforts and stories of other conscious humans that have come before me, and that surround me. I do not take your impatience with me, your desire that I get off the fence, stop pretending and argue from my heart, as a personal attack, it is the ideas, and the truth, the meanings behind my opinions and thoughts, that you and I are both "after". And in that I am fair game, and have offered my story up for inspection, to determine where the sense and meaning is, and where it is not. But I am 59 years old, I am capable of learning, and changing my mind, but do not run anymore. I am not looking to run to the campfire of others, I look for sticks and logs to throw on my own, to keep me warm, and do not mind a bit, in fact welcome the fact that others have kindled the flames I feed, and others share the warmth and feed the flames. When I reread my last post this morning, and your reply about me pretending and you not reading a rehash of what you have heard so much from me, I was a little disheartened that you missed my attempt to frame religious ideas in terms of the actual scientifically discovered facts of our existence. Molder, molded and mold, are evidently what living humans are. It is probably not coincidence that the trinity Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, ring true in the mind, body and heart of a human. An uncle of mine, back in the 50s and 60s, was one of the people that worked to established YMCA camps in PA, NJ and NY. The important things to build and strengthen in a young man, in their determination, were Body, Mind and Spirit. The three are real aspects of our existence. No single aspect works alone. A total human can not be considered, if any of the three are left out of the mix. Regards, TAR2 Or perhaps Teacher, Student, and principle. You cannot teach, without knowing a principle you endeavor to endow the student with. You cannot learn without being taught a principle or be a student without a teacher. And neither student or teacher are much without the principle in question.

Iggy, So let me ask a question. If I would start the realist pantheist wing of the reformed Atheist camp, would I be alone at the campfire, or would there be any other semirational human that would find any warmth there? My manifesto would read something like this. Life emerged on Earth when probable chemical combinations, similar in kind to the growth of crystals, responding to the ebbs and flow of heating and cooling caused by the sun's absence and presence as the Earth turned, and the tossing of the seas by the wind and weather and pull of the moon, caused various bubbles and collections of certian combinations of chemicals to clump and associate, and retain the energy of the Sun for a time, in a pattern that was repeated the next day. In sync with the cycles of the enviroment and the shape of the pools and crevices of the Earth, regular, repeating patterns formed and certain characteristics of density, and chemical compostion emerged, urged by the environmental effects of the crystal concentrations below and the regular cycles of movement and energy above. What was, one day, created the possibilities for the next day, and certain arrangements, certain patterns with discernable characterisics, took hold, and established themselves, and found a way to continue the pattern, to leave a seed, a start, for the same form to emerge again and grow into the same pattern, with the same characteristics, the same shape, the same basic relationships and compositions as was before, with slight variations as the environment changed its character, and chemical combinations were accumulated or dispersed. What fit, fit again, what did not fit did not occur. Life emerged and grabbed form and structure and stored energy, and passed the pattern onto the next generation in a universe otherwise tending toward entropy. And so we continue our own pattern and use the seed, given to us by our parents to grow into the pattern that we are, that fits with our environment, and we pass that pattern on, to the next generation. We are alive, and conscious of it. Not only our own pattern, but the environment that our form fits. We each are the mold, the molded, and the molder. And such is conscious human life, in and of reality. Exactly fitting, yet a unique pattern, with a life of its own. What we make of it, who or what we associate with, love and protect, maintain, and promote, and who or what we separate ourselves from, hate, destroy, consume, eliminate or use to our advantage, depends a lot on what works, to survive, and carry on the pattern, that we call our own. Regards, The outcast atheist.

So my Atheist club card has been revoked? Do not know how to respond to that. I didn't think that was something that could happen. I do not recall being issued the card, I thought I printed it up myself. And I was not aware of a set of bylaws that I was required to follow. Thought I just had to not believe in the existence of supernatural deities. I do not believe, literally in Moses' God, or the garden of Eden, or the creation of Man occuring by the hand of this character 4000 years ago.. Nor do I believe that Jesus was the Son of this character. Nor do I believe that Mohammed was the final bearer of messages from this character. Nor do I believe you can petition this character with prayer, or are subject to the whims, blessings, punishment, judgement and guidance of this character. I do not believe in him. He is not real. He is impossible, non-existant. and to anyone that believes in him, I am rightly labeled a dis-believer, an unbeliever, an Atheist. And I have not resorted to the belief in any other supernatural diety to take Moses's place, as my creator, sustainer, and purpose. So forgive me if I align myself with the word Atheist, and call myself one. I think it an appropriate label under the circumstances. This however does not mean I do not believe in reality, or nature, or science, or philosphy, or love, or dreams, or friendships and promises, or music and poetry, or high ideals, or laws and principles, of man and nature, or the objective judgement of my person and my actions, by my actual environment. It does not preclude me from being in sync with the rest of reality, and feeling responsible for it, and responsible to it. It does not preclude me from fighting wars to maintain my way of life, against those and that, that would challenge the way I would like to see things proceed. I am the great Satan to many, an imperialist American, deserving death, to hoards of North Koreans, a capitalistic pig, a supporter or dupe of the military industrial complex, a pawn in the games that Hollywood, and big business, and the sports and entertainment industry play...at least allow me to be all these things, and an atheist as well. Maybe you could give me a guest pass? Regards, TAR2

PeteJ, Well perhaps there is the issue. One cannot have the "no division" state, if one tries to say anything about it. If you must use a category to say anything about something, to think anything about something, you must be in a state other than a "no division" state, inorder to say or think something. I extend this condition, to actually applying to our human condition. We are a self, exactly because we are not the all. It has its correlary in Genesis where eating from the tree of knowledge, knowing the difference between good and evil, expelled man from the Garden. The fall of man from the all, the distinction of self from all, and the introduction of sin, or evil. My contention is, that the trip back, can only be made hypothetically, or imaginarily, WHILE you are alive. You cannot dismiss yourself without the loss of the distinctions that make yourself, and the application of categories of thought, possible in the first place. So, the only reasonable answer, to me, is that we never fell from grace, but are currently partaking in it. We can see the entire universe, points of light trillions of miles away, representing immense stars and galaxies of stars, from here and now, exacty because we are the size and place and moment we are, as mortal humans. We cannot be anything else, but human, until we lose the distinction. At which point, the categories would no longer apply, because we would be deceased, and no longer alive, and no longer able to talk and think. What is interesting to me, what I find the most "like" god, is the fact that we are all in the same now, all us humans in the same here, defined by the extent of the Earth. We are in sync with each other. There is only one instance of PeterJ extant at the moment. And only one of TAR. Even though TAR has been knocking around, and doing and thinking many different things, and making various judgements, in various places, from New Jersey to Japan, from Germany to Delaware, from Maine to Florida, from Newark to the Yucatan or Hawaii or California or Texas, over the past 59 years, there is only one instance of me, and it corresponds exactly, to the one instance of you. We could plan to meet, at a particular place and time, and shake hands and both "selves" would be distinctly there, and exist in no other place at that moment. To me, THAT is reality, THAT is God, the fact that we are all of and in the same immense and longlived thing, sharing the same moment, and able to say something about it. Regards, TAR2

PeterJ, Not so much a wild guess, as a vague approximation, or an estimation. In an effort, not so much to argue that my way of looking at it is correct, but in an effort to determine if we are talking about the same thing, or not. There is a fall-back principle that I operate under, that states that as far as "true" things go, true things that apply to both you and me, we MUST be talking about the same truth. Talking about the same instance of a true thing. As such, the thing must fit in both your understanding, and in my understanding, inorder for it to be a common truth. If it is a true thing, we can find the mapping of my experience of it, to your experience of it. And a true thing, will already exist, and fit perfectly when you look at it another way. That is, if it is an objective truth, it will be true, it will fit, it will work and be the case, anyway you look at it, any aspect of it you focus on, it will be true, not ONLY in the way you mean it to be true, but in other ways as well. In efforts to comprehend our existence we no doubt each come up with private claims and test them against reality. We each know best, when the claim is falsified, or when it continues to work, continues to fit, and continues to be a good guestimate. Personally, I have ruled out anthropomorphic gods, and secret gods, and therefore figure that if you and I are talking about the same truth, it must be accessable and understandable to the both of us. And be true, not only to me, but to you, all the time, and stand up to any test we wish to try against it. Regards, TAR2 After all, whether you are an Atheist or a Theist, a realist or an idealist, there are still flowers. They are true and beautiful even to a bee.

Splitinfinity, In the Tankity Tank joke, faith in the impossible was successful. Surprisingly the stategy backfired as the enemy impossibly countered. It speaks to Phi's OP. It supports Phi's OP. Why have faith in the most impossible thing you can think of. As the joke shows, once you are into lala land, all it takes is someone also into lala land to trump you. Like playing rock paper scissors. Your solid rock is covered and defeated when paper is thrown. And the paper, while stronger than rock, can't stand up to the scissors, which is broken by the rock. My God is better than your God, seems to be the biggest problem we Atheists have with the thinking of Theists. Praying is an internal conversation as far as an Atheist is concerned. While there is evidence that internal strength can be summoned, there is no evidence that an external force can be contacted and petitioned, by having an internal conversation. Except maybe in the sense that a prayer may associate with actual real powers that one can allign themselves with, and affect reality, by unspoken pact and alignment with such. I read the Koran, twice. Once to get the gist, and once for comprehension, after the 9/11 attack, to get an understanding of why such evil as was evident to me that morning, watching the pillar of black smoke rising from lower Manhattan, could have been spawned by a book. (After learning that a believer in Allah had purposely orchestrated the destruction and death). My take a way, was that Mohammed had usurped the power of Allah, and associated himself with it. This is on the one hand, perfectly understandable, as that we all are associated with this power, this greater reality thing that created us, that we are in and of, from which we have emerged, and to which we will return...BUT on the other hand, our internal association with it gives us no unique link, and Mohammed's insistence that disbelieving in the messenger was the same as disbelieving in Allah, was the underlying mark of insanity, or irrationality, or impossibility, that showed me the flaw that ultimately brought down my twin towers. The ALL, by definition, is on everybody's side. There are no chosen people, there are not believers and unbelievers, there are no Secrets of the Vedas, there is not a special key held by any one man. Religions define "a way". They say this way is THE WAY. It is evident to me, being the Great Satan standing in the way of all the world being for Allah, that someone has gotten their wires crossed. Someone has faith in an impossible thing. And its not me. Regards, TAR2

PeterJ, What I argue against, is the unfunctionalbily of sophistry. My favorite joke in college, while I was a Philosophy major, was that I wanted to start a Sophists Club. My favorite joke, when I was interviewing for jobs, was that no Corporations had a resident philosopher position opened. Point being, that it is both true that we are capable of imagining "no divisions" and true that it is impossible to actually acheive such a state. Not while being a living human. The mere fact of being a living, conscious human, separates us from the rest. For real. The reuniting with Brahman idea, does not work out, while you are alive. It has to be something you can sort of hold in your back pocket, 'til later. An ace in the hole, so to speak. But "you" can never play the card. Not really. "You" cannot find comfort in being dead. "You" cannot find truth, without a "you" to be informed of it. So while there is no "other" source and destination, than "the all", it is not a hidden, secret, mystery thing, available only to those who have forgotten themselves. It is rather the obvious truth, that we only know because we are alive, and separate from it, and have an Atman to do the noticing and remembering, and forgetting, and "listening to the silence" with. Or so it is that I have figured. Chances are, that for me, things will be, when I die, much as they were before I was born. Meanwhile, being TAR2 is the ONLY thing I can be...for real. Any suggestions to the contrary, are baseless fantasies. Regards, TAR2 One of my favorite current jokes is "everywhere I go...there I am". But it is not possible for me to go anywhere without taking me along for the ride. You say otherwise, but I strongly disagree. I think you are making such a disolution of your self, up. Nirvana will have to wait, until you are in no condition to enjoy it...OR you can enjoy the view, now, from here, while you have such a vantage point. Seems realistic to me. We can only know of, and appreciate a "greater" reality, from here and now. From this Atman vantage point. In this sense, it is our job, for the moment, to forget we are Brahman. And by the looks of things, its going to be quite a while 'til the universe pulls itself back together. I don't think that eventuality is anything we need be concerned about, at present. We'll just have to save that for later.

Split, A platoon was taking wave after wave of attacking soldiers and running low on ammo. A young recruit, out of bullets stood, pointed his finger and said bang. An enemy soldier fell. "Bang, Bang, Bangity, Bang, and four more enemies fell. His comrades watched in amazement as another wave of attackers fell, "Bang, Bang, Bangity, Bang". One enemy did not fall, and ran right over the young recruit, chrushing him. Those close, reported hearing the breaching enemy uttering "Tank, Tank, Tankity, Tank. Regards, TAR2

Iggy, Welll of course. "I am an Atheist" seems to be somewhat in doubt. But here is my logic. I am typing words that have meaning to me, which others comprehend to some extent. This proves to me, that I am not the only consciousness on the planet. There are "other" minds and wills and opinions and purposes, outside TAR. Whatever limitations I have, in terms of senses and mind, are also to be found elsewhere than TAR. For real. Whatever capabilities I have, in terms of senses and mind, are also to be found elsewhere than TAR. For real. There is no fictional aspect to this evident case. It proves to me, and it should to all minds, that for each of us, there is an objective reality, that has consciousness, mind, opinion, life and purpose. In other words, it is evident, that the rest of the world is just as capable as TAR, when it comes to "being", and your just above average intelligence type human, of which there are millions if not billions, are similarly outfitted and placed by reality on this Earth. These are unargued facts. Not fictional in nature. So the question of belief in God, becomes somewhat a question of where one draws the line, between oneself, and others. That is, what do we consider outside our consideration and control, on an individual basis. What "other" consciounesses do we consider "us", and what other consciousnesses do we consider he/she/them/it. About 15-20 years ago, as an Atheist, I made a determination, that when God is referenced, it must be a common understanding that a group of people together hold, that there is a common, greater than individual human, consciousness that one can reference. A "collective" consciousness, that is behind "Christmas Spirit", and "Human Spirit", and "Karma". Something that I could "in reality" understand and agree with, when in the company of "religious" folk. Belief in the "real attributes", without belief in any actual lone, conscious "entity" that would have these attributes, or be waiting for us, or guiding us, or judging us, in some magical or unreal or supernatural way. But here I use the word "us", assuming that my understanding applies, as fact, to everybody else...which it does not. My insights have little to do, with the insights of others...even though they "might", given that everybody has the same "evidence" to work with, as I do. So I equivocate a bit, because I know my understanding is not the last word...but I assume that even all human thought, and all the smartest "we" have, all put together, can not have an "insight" that is greater than the sight itself. We can "know" reality from here and now. We can study its past and predict its future, but we remain subject to it, and not a one of us, or any group of us, or all of us put together, can claim to be other than it, or outside it, or better than it, or able to match its immense and longlived capabilities. "It" remains something "like" God, that science names and tries to understand. And forces me to state that it seems that Science and God have already mixed. Regards, TAR2

Iggy, People that are dead, are still concerns of ours. They built our world, and its ours to carry on. If every morning, we started over from scratch, with no memory of what came before...with no stories, with no way of considering what was done on our behalf the day or week or year or decade, or century or millenium before, and no concern for the next generations to follow us...then I would agree with you, that dead is dead. But it is not that way. Not in my life, not in my family, not in my town or state or country, and not even that way, in the world of a scientist. It is well known that those of us who discover new helpful things, are standing on the shoulders of giants. Dead giants. Of whom you cannot say that "dead is dead". Its simply not so. Science, the Law, Governments, Religions, Philosophies, technologies, processes, human capabilities of all sorts are carried on, on behalf of the dead guys and gals that paved the way, and applied the lessons learned from their ancestors, maintained and improved it, and passed it on to their children. Let's say you and I started to build a small dam to turn a swampy part of a lower field where we kept getting the tractor stuck in the mud, into a fish pond, we intended to stock and eat from, and to swim in after working in the fields on hot summer days. And I died. Would you finish the dam? Would you perhaps include my initials in the cement cap? Or is dead dead? Regards, TAR2 Perhaps I consider that I am a part of something (life on Earth) that started long before my conception, and will continue long after I am dead. I benefit from previous and current life, especially recent human life that made effort to maintain the world in such a way as is consistent with my way of life. I feel responsible for carrying on the traditions and ways that prepared the place for me. Why do you draw the line so hard and fast, as to pretend the past is of no concern of yours? And how far into the future do you consider worthy of concession, sacrifice and concern? Is every moment, a new situation, with no ties to the past and responsibilities for the future? Consider the Humanist desire to find a normative morality. The mere thought is quite unrealistic on several counts, by all evidence, different groups of people and different personalities within those groups differ on their opinions of what is good and bad. Some people are OCD and others don't ever wash. Some people think anal sex is abhorent, and others see it as a human right and a civil liberty issue. "Good" Americans think everybody wants freedom, the rule of law, human rights and prosperity. "Good" North Koreans might have a different set of moral values. "Good" people have endeavored to "play god" and reengineer corn and wheat and soy to be pest and drought resistent, and other Good people, like Green Peace in Europe, fight against the spread of the "altered" genes. I am an Atheist, but that does not mean I should be against the real things that are considered, as if there is a greater consciousness at play, then just TAR. Because there are larger stories, than just my life. And the stories tend to run into each other. The Pheonix rising from the ashes is a real thing that happens all the time. Life continues, in the face of death, and sets the stage for the next generation. If we were to all die at once, then dead would be dead. Otherwise...life goes on.

Deal with it? I don't think I lost a close family member, other than a fish or a turtle 'til I was in my late teens. Lucky perhaps to have an intact world of relatives to base myself on, for so long. And perhaps why I continue to consider those people, alive in my youth, who are no longer alive, still important. Remember my Grandfather, as he grew older, having fewer and fewer close friends, as they one by one passed away. 'Til he felt like he was being left alone in the world. Deal with it? Depends on what you are basing "it" on.