immortal

It seems you're problem is with the second postulate of General Relativity and you're directly contradicting what Einstein said. Second postulate of GR states that - "In the vicinity of any point, a gravitational field is equivalent to an accelerated frame of reference in the absence of gravitional effects." Let me ask you a simple question why does in a space ship or in a lift under acceleration a light beam from a torch appears to bend downward? There is no gravitional field anywhere near it, no gravitional force exists and yet the light bends downwards, why? You are still sticking with the Newton's theory of Gravitational attraction and one of the advancements made by Einstein's theory of General Relativity is that there is no gravitional force of attraction. Your conclusion is incorrect too based on the available experimental evidence and observations. Can you try again?

Winter Simulation Conference is a good place for anyone to learn about any simulation applications. Just go to their WSC archive and search for any keyword of your choice say 'weather simulation models' and it will list a series of full pdf papers concerned with the keyword. WSC is sponsored by six technical societies.

Take Heinrich Himmler of the Nazi army for example, he always used to hold a copy of Bhagavad Gita with him so that he can remove his guilt of killing innocent people in gas chambers as Krishna forces the warrior Arjuna to stand up and do war against his own brothers on the basis of non-doership of actions as expounded in Bhagavad Gita. Now do Heinrich Himmler goes to heaven since he killed innocent people with an attitude of non-doership saying that God did it? No, never. No religion or any god ever say or order to kill innocent and righteous people, Arjuna was a warrior it was his duty to do war and he will go to hell if he refuses to kill people in the battlefield. Even Heinrich Himmler was a warrior and he only has the authority to kill people in the battlefield as it is his duty to do so but he has no authority whatsoever to kill innocent people and if anyone thinks that angels will be waiting for them in heaven even after slaughtering innocent people then there is no one more deluded than them. How can someone call themselves as Aryans when they say that their race is superior than others? How can they call themselves as noble? Aryans always taught us to be humble and in fact they never performed any rituals for personal reasons or for a particular country, they always used to perform rituals for the good of the whole world, they taught us that the God of light shining in us is the same light shining in a prostitute, in a black man, in a servant etc. This is the culture of the Aryans. Hitler's master race should never be called as the Aryan race, it should be called as Hitler's Non-Aryan Race. This kind of extremism should not be tolerated when someone kill innocent people in the name of God. The same is with the misinterpretation of the scriptures of the Abrahmic God and the Sharia law of the muslims, no religion ever say to kill innocent people and it can never be a justification for killing innocent people. So who's fault is all this? I think it is no one's, people who kill innocent people are in ignorance and I believe that we don't have free will so a person shouldn't feel guilty if he ends up as an evil ignorant person and in the same way a person shouldn't feel pride if he ends up as an innocent righteous person because evil is in the nature of things we can't do much about it, we have to fight it. I don't believe in free will but I would act as though I have one and uplift myself and this thought of mine was predestined.

I think you can safely ignore scholars and physicists turned philosophers who mix science with religion. Religion has nothing to do with science.

If you turn on your tv I find people like Barry Smith, Paul McGuire, Grant Jeffrey etc preaching 24*7 about this. As Moontanman says there are people out there who really want this to happen. I didn't find the video in anyway interesting. However in a popular prophesy book called A Yogi's Prophetic vision an english translation says that the messaih who fix everything will be born in a Parsi nation also called as the Greater Iran.

You don't get it, do you? Read Valentinian Monism. There is no such thing as evil everything resides in the pleroma of the Father. Who do you think the God of the Advaita is? It is the Sun God and if the Father of the Valentinians shows an astonishing degree of similarity to the Sun God then what must be concluded? The 'Immortal Perfect One' is the Sun God. These are not baseless assertions. This is not preaching. Valentinian Monism is well established by reputed scholars like Elaine Pagels and others and it is these Gnostic scholars who have established the cosmogony of the Holy Father and this cosmogony as an astonishing degree of similarity with the cosmogony of the Sun God. Yes, the Sun God resides in every living thing. The Gospel of Philip argues that "Christ has each within him, whether human being or angel or mystery" (Gospel of Philip 56:14-15). Are you sure?

It depends on the kind of immortality which you wish to have. There were early Christians who believed that they didn't had to wait till the last resurrection day to achieve salvation and believed that they could become one with Christ in their life time. This is the highest form of immortality. This means that irrespective of whether you transmigrate to an another physical body or to a spirit world you're still subject to the forces of nature and you're still in bondage and who knows when is the last judgement day and so it is said that those who don't resurrect while they are alive they receive nothing once they have died. Rising the dead This is different from physical bodily resurrection since the body still exists and many people in history after Jesus have witnessed or claimed to have raised people back to life after they have died. Resurrection of the dead For the ancients the world was made up of just five basic elements, they didn't knew about quantum physics, it is said that they used to give back those five elements which constituted their bodies to nature and asked them back at any place they wished to have it in this way they used to achieve teleportation. Remember ontology is still a problem we still don't know what the world is made up of and they didn't had to worry about the transfer of states of millions of atoms used to achieve quantum teleportation like the way scientists have to do because for them elements of modern science do not exist in the external physical world, even in quantum teleportation the original state is destroyed. Jesus might have been the first one to resurrect from the dead and came back with new flesh and bones, we don't know. Its not impossible. So even those who believe in the last day resurrection and who wish to have physical immortality should not be disappointed.

I claimed that its wrong to conclude that it was all made up by goat herders not that they could not have been written by goat herders. Ancients believed that God was in control of every aspect of their human life so even if it came from God it is the prophets who have to write it in the end. I am not claiming that it came ready made from outside of space-time. Just because the ancients used story telling to convey their thoughts and ideas don't under estimate their knowledge and thinking. Hidden behind those stories are reality based claims which give knowledge about the numinous world and its nature. So even if those stories were made up by them these claims about the nature of reality questions us to know the source of their knowledge. It could be revelation from God or pure imagination or false experiences, there is an equal possibility that it could be from anything. They might be wrong but do you consider the possibility that you might be wrong, do you? You're mistaken, that was not the theme of the Hebrew wisdom literature. The Message of the Hebrew Wisdom Literature There were agnostics like Agur who questioned the above message of the Hebrew wisdom literature. The Wisdom Literature of the Old Testament Just because religious people believe in God its not the end of all form of human enquiry, even religion fails to explain questions of the 'why' type. All creation myths very well explain how the world came about but they go silent when we ask why did the world came about, what is its purpose? It would be wrong to think that if one accepts belief in God it would end all exploration for further knowledge and investigation. Another example is the Gospel of John which is considered to be a mystical work by scholars. The pharisees could not understand what Jesus was talking about. Now whether the ancients made such claims directly or through the mouth of Jesus (in the form of a story) is irrelevant because we know they have indeed made such reality based claims and it definitely doesn't look ordinary to me either they were mentally ill or they knew something or access to knowledge which we don't have. This is just one religious tradition out of the many world religions and if you see the similarities in the claims of other religions then these goat herders do look like extraordinary humans and when you study their claims it doesn't look very unlikely. There are different kinds of people- 1. Some people rely on astrologers and spend all their earnings based on their advice in order to solve and fulfil their problems and desires. 2. There are parents who throw babies from a third storey builiding where two people will be standing down holding a mat to catch the babies and they think that by doing this it increases God's grace upon their children. (Imagine what would happen if something goes wrong and the babies broke their bones) 3. There are people who under go painful body piercings, run on burning charcoal, fall on a thorny plant from a height etc all originating from their belief in their tribal Gods. 4. Some people motivated by rational religious scholars want to worship god and want to experiment with methods and rituals passed on by ancients in order to know whether he exists or not. They don't have to preach it to anyone, they don't have to convince anyone and its their personal enquiry into the nature of reality. So if someone wants to worship a God let them worship. What's wrong with that? Its important to figure out what is ignorance, what is harmful and what need to be minimized in society. The first three acts of commitment can be criticized as it is harmful and as there are no rational basis for such acts but I think its wrong to criticize the latter kind of people. They might be wrong, so what? Its their life and they want to dedicate their lives for the benefit of the humans. Saying to them in a harsh way to stop dedicating their life in their imaginary friends is like saying stop building particle accelerators and stop doing experiments. They never say not to put theist's heads on fMRI scans or say stop investigating on neuro-cortical affects of religious beliefs so isn't it wrong on atheists to say to them in harsh way to stop dedicating their life on Gods in the name of eradicating ingnorance creeping in our society. Just because there is no evidence of Higgs and we have not discovered yet doesn't mean that it does not exist similarly just because there is no evidence of God doesn't mean that he does not exist. The universe works the way it is depending on the truth irrespective of we discover the truth or not. Its silly to expect Higgs to reveal itself and say "Hey humans, I'm here" in the same way its silly to expect God to reveal himself for reasons which we might not know. Let people worship their Gods and let science investigate on the objective origin of religion and let us see what the truth is.

What is childish and ridiculous for you might be a source of great wisdom for religious scholars and psychologists. Those are your just personal opinions not a scientific fact. Both religion and science has every potential to reduce the other into itself. Just as the scientific community has earned respect for some people so do some religious scholars have earned the respect. The ideas of religious scholars do need to be addressed seriously and not ridiculed as childish. Its disappointing when people state their personal opinions as fact in a science forum. The intolerance of New Atheists towards religion will not be tolerated. If reincarnation research proves that reincarnation is a scientific fact then it drastically changes the way we view the world and its origins. This is not childish. This is just a small chunk of a reservoir of ancient wisdom hidden behind religions of the world. A search for the truth of past life regression

There is no such thing as absolute evil or absolute good. Both good and evil originates from the Father. If you call yourself a Gnostic and believe in Jesus then you need to accept this if not you're going against the words of Jesus himself. Your Heavenly Father resides in everyone(not in Heaven) and who ever sees him becomes him. We are all Gods, sons of the most high. Jesus was a monist not a dualist. If you want eternal life you need to become the Father, eternal life doesn't come by faith. If you seperate the people, the world and the Father then you're a dualist which is contradictory to what Jesus taught. Do you really want to go against Jesus, the one whom you believe by stating that world is evil? It seems you know nothing about your heavenly father and you know nothing about my God and what Jesus taught.

Is there a rule that a mathematician or a physicist shouldn't do farming? That they shouldn't fill empty stomachs.

They might not use their specialized knowledge for the rest of their life but why do you think they are lunatic? That statement needs an explanation. India depends on its agriculture and if there are educated people residing in farms with a good foundation in science they can educate the people in the remote areas about organic farming and remove the fear of GM crops from their minds and such knowledge is not always useless. You're right to a certain extent here, its not the percentage of students that are passing out is what is important its the level of standards of the students that passout is what is important. I think after the 12th grade students should be subjected to self-assesment test and counseling to evaluate their weaknesses and strengths corresponding to their interests. Once they specialize themselves in a particular field measures should be taken that they are employed and their knowledge is utilized to its highest potential and that they serve their country. Students who are not interested in higher studies can spend their time in doing what they are interested in rather than wasting four years or seven years for doing engineering or medical respectively and end up jobless. Make science more interesting for students. My friend made a joke the other day that if you throw a stone anywhere in India it either hits a street dog or an Engineer.

Positivism of Science is the accepted consensus adopted by practicing physicists, its not a popular belief, they have simply accepted that they don't know, you are the one who is claiming something new and the onus is on you to show that we can know the 'nature' of space-time and the kind of experiments to know the attributes of space-time. I am welcoming your ideas but what you're not understanding is that Science doesn't work by Logical Positivism, Science goes by observations and only the observations are treated as real. What I'm criticizing is your way of doing science, you need to make predictions and come up with experiments to show that space-time indeed has certain attributes. You're not doing this but instead you're restating the same thing again and again which is very annoying. You need to come up with experiments if you want the mainstream scientists to take your ideas seriously. Don't make such conclusions about me, you don't know that I have argued against the Positivism of Science else where in this forum, your assumptions about me is plainly wrong. In Science we make models, they are mere representations of external reality, it should not be assumed that things will be exactly in the way out there as it is decribed in the models, asking can space be really curved is same as asking like do photons really have the attribute of polarisation or are they just mere concepts extrapolated from our model? We don't know what space-time actually is and hence we actually don't know what it is that really gets curved. You're making a strawman argument, the scientific consensus is that we don't know the nature of space-time, they have not concluded that space really gets curved. If this is your stand then I don't see what your criticisms are, you've misunderstood the accepted consensus. They are not living in a luxury. I agree.

Gnostics don't believe in the evil or the Devil. Evil == Ignorance. For them everything is good as said by Plato and that includes this world too. Seeing the world as evil sounds more like typical Buddhism. I did read John 8 sometime back and it is considered to be an important chapter where Jesus reveals his own identity and the identity of the Father. But the orthodox Christians interpret it differently. They think he called the Satan as the Devil and not the Abrahamic God. What are your thoughts on it? What if you're wrong? 'The pleroma of God' is the Kingdom of the Perfect One present in everyone of us, the heaven of the Perfect One is not above the sky but present in each of us, this is the basic teaching of the Gnostics, the sons of the Perfect One or the aeons exist in each one of us. This whole pantheon of aeons guided by the 'Perfect One' is the pleroma of God. Angels exist in us not in heaven above the sky. This is the worldview of the Gnostics, a view which drastically changes the way think about our place in the cosmos. I believe in a higher power but I don't think anyone can say that this God is good or this God is bad. There are hardly a few people in the history of mankind who have reported to have made an ascent to heaven and you claim that you've met the Abrahmic God? How was he like? Why do you commit me to hold on to a particular belief? I told you I don't have any fundamental belief. Faith doesn't give you everlasting life.

Daniel Dennet is absolutely right, I think such a study is very much necessary. There are many software tools and databases like the NCBI for molecular biologists in genomics and proteomics and even for physicists to interpret the data and test different hypothesis at the same time but scholars and the public don't get the same advantage to retrieve information from a single portal in religion. Many times to discover commonalities and differences across different cultures the geography, linguistic, anthropology, iconography, specialization in the teachings of these different cultures is required to make inferences and to test a hypothesis, a scholar can not be an expert in all thse fields so we need to develop software tools to make the work of these scholars more easier so that they can test different hypothesis objectively based on observable evidence. If we don't find contrary information against our beliefs which are normally the ones which we wish to be true we tend to think that our beliefs are accurate and never really try to know the truth. Once we have studied it we can then introduce it in schools.

You're mistaken, irrespective of whether the aryans came from the steppes of Russia or the Indo-Germanic or from the Indus-Valley civilization itself whose origins are unresolved till date, women had equal freedom in every aspect of their life competing with man and they did not discouraged women. Yajnavalkya gave all his assets to his wife before he left to the forest. The aryans weren't nomadic, Misogyny came into existence at a later time when the aryan culture started to deteriorate.

How Physics and Neuroscience Dictate your free will:Scientific American

The teachings and the wisdom in the religious scriptures are not so ordinary either to conclude that they were made up by goat herders or to call it childish. I don't believe that a default position exists.

Even the Brahmin priests do a ritual called as Upanayana whose purpose is same as the Sacrament of Baptism i.e to born again or for liberation. How many of todays Church Fathers or the Brahmin Priests can make us experience the rebirth or can show the Christ in us? So it is said... One enters the Kingdom of God through knowledge and not through ignorance or through blind faith just by believing that Jesus died for our sins or goes to hell for disbelief. So why did Jesus had to die and undergo so much suffering? This idea is based on comparative religion, there have been many virtuous men according to religious literature who have deliberately undergone such suffering to save the world. Jesus knew the kind of death that he was about to face, he was never betrayed, he himself ordained to hand him over to the pharisees. God had foreordained it. He said he came to save the world. He came to save the world by deliberately taking up suffering on himself and yes he came to give eternal life but not by dieing on the cross for our sins. Early Christians never believed in sin.

Isn't it that God is going to punish them in hell anyway so why should people stone them to death. Who are we to judge? Are we really pure than the others? Its okay to keep them out of the city if the purity of the land is what it is to be maintained but the explicit teachings of the Abrahamic God ordering people to stone them to death is a bit outrageous. This is what Jesus did. Its probable that Jesus came to save the world from a catastrophe which could have been caused due to changes in the numinous world and not so much to die for our sins so that we can keep committing sins again and again thinking that God will forgive us.

I didn't quoted you to convince you, I quoted to prevent a strawman of a philosophical doctrine, its not that difficult for me to cite Shankara's works itself. There is a lot of difference between advaita vedanta and buddhism. For someone who keeps denying that he is not misinformed I can't do much about it. "For Shankara, the universe is not created "out of nothing" (ex nihilo) but out of Brahman." Now its your chance to cite where Shankara said that nothing exists and we will know who is wrong and who is not. Shankara always said that Self is all that exist and the only thing which is real. There is always a noumena, the ground of all phenomena which exists eternally. It is a positive metaphysical position.

That's not what advaita says, it doesn't accept nihilism. It positively says that something exists. The correct view of advaita is [brahman is real, the empirical world is an illusion, the noumenal world is real and everything in that noumenal world is Brahman.] IMO.

Yes and there are a gooooogle views about this so just wanted to know the correct view. I thought that such teachings were allegorical or symbolical like sophia returning back to the arms of Jesus but these explicit teachings of a physical bridal chamber is an utter disbelief. Why is the Jesus of the Gnostics worshiping the nature and teaching an innocent sexual practice rather than directly worshiping the Father. There should be other ways of directly worshiping the Father which can achieve the same goals but why an occult sexual practice was followed. Its not the highest form of philosophical thought IMO. Who were these Gnostic Christians, it seems as though that they weren't Christians at all but the Gospel of Mary and Thomas is considered much older and one question goes unanswered did Jesus really taught these things?

What is Bridal chamber and what does this ritual mean?

Okay, Jesus never said that he is the son of God. So what must be interpreted by the statement of Jesus in Luke 22:69 But from now on the Son of Man shall be seated at the right hand of the power of God.” Is he rebelling against the Abrahamic God? or Who is he refering to as the power of God? Is it the Abrahamic God or the Perfect One (Father)? astrocat5, saying that the Abrahamic God is the evil one is very much in tone with the Gnostics which implies that you don't completely accept the New Testament, but you don't completely accept the Gnostic view either and say much of it is garbage so why do you call yourself as a Gnostic. The Gnostics don't see the Perfect One as a Heavenly Father, they talk of him in terms of his pleroma with his Aeons and Jesus is conidered as one of his Aeon, he is the son of the Father and they also talk about Sophia and Carl Jung says that these archetypes exist in us as a pyschological part of humans and not as something existing in a Heaven completely detached from the Humans. Why can't you see this astrocat5?