immortal

Perhaps you read only what you want to read.

No, how can a theist worship God if you keep calling them broken? Theists cannot worship god without believing in some higher entity. If there is evidence found that the existence of God is more likely then worshipping is one of the best ways to test god for a theist. Yes, there are compelling reasons and evidences with in the exact sciences to investigate gods because there is a hypothesis for a non-physical mind to solve the measurement problem and we theists think its very likely that such a non-physical mind is the product of a divine god. If neuro-imaging and recording equipment convinces one about the indirect empirical effects from the numinous then there is no better equipment than your mind to measure the existence of an anthropomorphic god. Why should I let go my beliefs if they are based on scholarly evidences in religion supported by sound arguments from theoretical physicists.

All I want you to do is just make a machine think, the last time I came up with an algorithm all by myself was for to check whether a number is an armstrong number or not (for example :- 153 = 1^3 + 5^3 + 3^3). So perhaps if you give this example to a machine and tell the machine to come up with an algorithm to determine whether a number is an armstrong number or not all by itself then we can at least say a machine has an understanding and also is thinking. “A majority of contemporary mathematicians (a typical, though disputed, estimate is about two-thirds) believe in a kind of heaven – not a heaven of angels and saints, but one inhabited by the perfect and timeless objects they study: n-dimensional spheres, infinite numbers, the square root of -1, and the like. Moreover, they believe that they commune with this realm of timeless entities through a sort of extra-sensory perception.” “And today’s mathematical Platonists agree. Among the most distinguished of them is Alain Connes, holder of the Chair of Analysis and Geometry at the College de France, who has averred that “there exists, independently of the human mind, a raw and immutable mathematical reality.”… Platomism is understandably seductive to mathematicians. It means that the entities they study are no mere artifacts of the human mind: these entities are discovered, not invented… Many physicists also feel the allure of Plato’s vision.” - Jim Holt One of my main reasons for believing in gods is because I think intellect exists in platonic realms and if you need to come up with a machine capable of strong AI you need to embody this intellect into the machine to make it think and access mathematical truths but science cannot get beyond mere appearances of phenomena to do that. Sounds like a fair enough deal to me. This answers all your questions. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=MqPNsj1we50 This answers your question.

LoL, why do you continue to make a fool of yourself? Why do you continue to make the same common mistakes that people do without knowing the view of the Acharays who gave us the doctrine of Advaita to the world? Schroedinger didn't go too far down the rabbit hole.

Yes, for example Esotericism. https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CD0QFjAB&url=http://www.lists.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A3=ind1202a&L=PSYART&E=base64&P=652049&B=--14dae93404139e87ec04b851fddd&T=application/pdf; name="Esotericism and the Academy.pdf"&N=Esotericism and the Academy.pdf&attachment=q&ei=LCDQUKKqMcLOrQfQoYC4DA&usg=AFQjCNFhz2K6AFbyfOR0hy3V3-pHtfZAiw&sig2=ZVL6uayGCZ42wVD2tkYj7A&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.bmk Empirical method in the study of esotericism. http://www.alpheus.org/html/articles/esoteric_history/Empirical method in the study of esotericism.pdf Yes, in recognizing that a non-physical mind exists and also an intellect exist in the platonic realm and we take much pride in having discovered such esoteric secrets about our cosmos and this is the reason why physicists have not yet been able to solve the measurement problem and come up with a model of the mind simulating human conscious thought and if they continue ignoring these sciences they never will. At least they will prevent crazy shoot outs on innocent people. Every science is useful in its own way and it isn't fair to completely demolish such a science and at the same time expect fruits from the same science. How much has the west investigated in these sciences?

Common mistakes that people do while studying eastern religions - 1. Put western philosophy and western thought on a pedestal without realizing that Asian thought isn't positivistic. 2. Make Advaita atheistic without realizing that the traditional view takes the existence of gods very seriously. 3. Ignore the minor philosophical differences between Advaita and Buddhism. 4. Epistemologically link quantum physics and Advaita without realizing that they are based on two completely different epistemology and are incompatible with one another. I am from the local and I know the truth and these religions should be understood with in their own milieu and obviously that annoys a lot of people because I state things as they are without showing any double standards. Modern science is very new but its foolish to ignore the history of mankind and ignore other sciences which has been rejected by the western academy. Why do you think I can single handedly drive you away from this forum? But don't piss me off by saying Advaita is atheistic.

I have been thinking about this question for quite a while and want opinions from mathematicians, programmers and others. http://denninginstitute.com/pjd/PUBS/AmSci-1990-2-thinking.pdf I want to specifically discuss about this question. We know mathematicians prove theorems, for example Alan Turing proves that no algorithm exists to solve the halting problem and he arrives at an algorithm which shows what algorithms cannot do but my question is did he arrived at that algorithm in a computable way or to put it in an another way is there an algorithm which generates other algorithms or did he just discovered it in a non-computable way. Even programmers come up with new algorithms for various problems and when we are in the process of generating a new algorithm do our brains really invent them or do we directly access insights from some where? In other words in order to show that machines can think does a machine need to come up with a new algorithm all by itself, an algorithm which generates new algorithms, is a neural network aware of what it is doing to acquire such an understanding of the problem and generate an algorithm to solve that problem? What is thinking?

There must be an objective justifiable reason before concluding anyone as broken and that criteria should be empirical evidence and actually my position is very much defensible, develop a machine capable of strong AI and that's a challenge to the atheistic scientific community and unless and until, allow practitioners to worship gods. Honestly speaking scientists should have abandoned physicalism or even scientific realism by now and theistic scientists will do realize it and abandon it and shift their line of research into investigating the gods. I don't believe in gods just because that belief easily gets a pass, its because we have genuine, reasonable scientific reasons for that belief, just because you don't understand a concept it doesn't mean such a concept is childish or wrong, that's quite a common accusation when the claim is counter-intuitive to normal experiences but many of the well accepted scientific theories are also counter-intuitive. Its double standards and foolish to say we are working on consciousness and we will understand it say by another 200 years and ignore all evidences with in the exact sciences as well as from psychological studies in bio-feedback research which forces one to question such a line of research and at the same time insult practitioners world wide as broken who at least know that science and the scientific method is not all there is and who are honestly working to demonstrate that a non-physical mind exists questioning the basic assumption that the empirical universe exists independent of the human mind. There aren't a lot of places over the internet where I can honestly discuss this because no one seems to care for scholarly evidences in religion as well as evidences from the exact sciences and everyone are so hooked up with their false beliefs they just doesn't want to let that go.

Nope, they are anthropomorphic gods with which you can have a dialogue with and they exist in the Pleroma(western neo-platonic Christianity) or the Agnisoma Mandala(eastern religions). The Vajrayana Tradition of the Tibetan Buddhists which is the culmination of all Buddhist teachings and the Smarta tradition which is the culmination of all Vedic teachings takes the existence of gods very seriously and the non-dual truth is based on the existence of these gods. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=kY-STjNnHRQ If you take this line of reasoning - http://www.holosforum.org/v4n1/rosenblum.html and if you dig deeper http://www.centerforsacredsciences.org/publications/the-mystical-core-of-the-great-traditions.htm if you go more deeper then this line of reasoning will inevitably lead to the conclusion that "gods are real and these gods are everywhere in all aspect of human existence and all aspect of human life." - James Hillman

You guys aren't anything different from Bishops who did not wanted to look through the telescopes and let go their beliefs, right? Its atheists who are showing double standards.

If nature has made us special then we have to simply accept it and not discard it. Mathematics has shown that human beings can answer questions for which no algorithm exists showing that human thinking is non-algorithmic and Green, E.E., Biofeedback for mind/body self-regulation, healing and creativity, in Academy of parapsychology and medicine (1972) show that human beings are indeed special. They have it. Anyone who has studied molecular neurobiology knows that there is no place for such a model in the physiology of the human brain but such a model is easily feasible if we consider eastern philosophical models of the mind where they have continuously asserted that intellect exists in a platonic realm and that we intuitively access already existing truths and Neoplatonism is a religion and one cannot take away the religious element from such an idea. It might wake you up if you are aware of the recent developments in these fields. Actually its their very investigation which have made them to believe in a theistic universe.

I think you should watch them because not only you will understand my point as to why the conclusion should have been more open but also recognize the point which I said that its not my belief in gods which led me to this conclusion, its this conclusion which led me to believe in gods. I think you have misunderstood me, I have never talked about Mother Teresa on sfn. I was actually talking about St. Teresa of Avila(1515-1582) and not Mother Teresa(1910-1997). The one whom I am talking of is she, my real hero - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teresa_of_Ãvila http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.mountainrunnerdoc.com/stteresaofavila.html So your questions are based on a complete misunderstanding. Even if you say St. Teresa of Avila is a catholic why shouldn't I not revere her? Sorry I don't hold any fundamental beliefs. Actually the religions I am interested in which are basically esoteric religions, they are all dead, I guess, perhaps only followed here and there. Perhaps this quote might show you how esoteric and liberalistic the Vedic Aryan religion actually is. "Aum Bhur Bhuvah Svah" the Viyahritis shall have to be concerted. The three planes of Bhur Bhuvah Svah that constitute the whole universe shall have to be brought into focus. In other words, it must be established in mind that I belong to no particular country but am a dweller of the whole universe. In this way those who are Aryans, find themselves established in the Sun, Moon, the Planets, and the stars at least once a day, and thus renew their unbreakable ties with manifest universe" - Rabindranath Tagore, on the meaning of Gayatri Mantra. My interests of study are completely different and to answer this question Does this religion also view suffering as a good thing? even though it was irrelevant is, yes, much of views are based on stoic philosophy so they see goodness in all works of nature whether there is a bloodshed or a great harvest.

When I was 16 I was told that the biggest mystery facing biology today is this: What is consciousness? Questions which atheistic scientists sidelined and ignored. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUXhKmiJQ10 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7G6DgP9Zfg Rather than putting forward such crazy ideas if scientists study religion then they will find the answer. “The multiplicity is only apparent. This is the doctrine of the Upanishads. And not of the Upanishads only. The mystical experience of the union with God regularly leads to this view, unless strong prejudices stand in the West.” (Source: WHAT IS LIFE? By Erwin Schrödinger Pg. Cambridge University Press) “There is no kind of framework within which we can find consciousness in the plural; this is simply something we construct because of the temporal plurality of individuals, but it is a false construction… The only solution to this conflict insofar as any is available to us at all lies in the ancient wisdom of the Upanishad.” (Source: Mein Leben, Meine Weltansicht [My Life, World View] (1961) Chapter 4) What did the people of Upanishads believed in? So the questions which atheistic scientists sidelined and the double standards that people who think that Schroedinger is there hero showed led me to conclude if Schroedinger needs to be right then it is inevitable that these gods need to exist.

Its not my belief in gods which led me to this conclusion, its this conclusion which led me to believe in gods.

Yeah, quite a reasonable belief based on facts established from experiments and not devoid of evidence. "The message would be that the purpose of life is not to eat and drink, watch television and so on. Consuming is not the aim of life. Earning as much money as one can is not the real purpose of life. There is a superior entity, a divinity, le divin as we say in French that is worth thinking about, as are our feelings of wholeness, respect and love, if we can. A society in which these feelings are widespread would be more reasonable than the society the West presently lives in." - Bernard D'Espagnat Its obvious that they are since I have been saying from the beginning that things are not as simple as that especially when the philosophical doctrine of a hypercosmic God which resides at the kernel of all religions is what contemporary physics is also pointing to which is testimony to the fact that religious traditional people are neither worshipping a unicorn or puff the magic dragon. One doesn't need extra-ordinary evidence to show the dreams of fantasy of false analogies which you guys are living in.

Yes, I am on Wallace's side and yes I maintain your second point as well. Actually the core concept is similar and both his previous contemporaries and he accept about karma and rebirth but only there are minor philosophical differences in how they view it but the process and the beliefs are the same. You took me back to my past readings. Honestly speaking both his contemporaries of Hinduism and Buddha accept this but differ philosophically which we cannot decide who is right or wrong without we ourselves knowing the ultimate truth. No, I welcome someone if he refutes Buddha, if he calls himself an atheist and says I disagree with Buddha for so and so reasons then I deeply respect his position because he has genuine reasons to discard the doctrine of Buddhism but what I don't like are near enemies who call themselves Buddhists and only accept those things in the religion which suits them and reject the other and even go on to put forward it as the orthodox traditional view and go by prejudices, that's double standards, its highly unacceptable. “If traditional religion is absent from the public arena, secular religions are unlikely to satisfy man’s quest for meaning. … It was an atheistic faith in man as creator of his own grandeur that lay at the heart of Communism, fascism and all the horrors they unleashed for the twentieth century. And it was adherents of traditional religions – Martin Niemöller, C.S. Lewis, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Reinhold Niebuhr, Martin Buber – who often warned most clearly of the tragedy to come from attempting to build man’s own version of the New Jerusalem on Earth.” - Hugh Heclo, former professor of government at Harvard University. I like to keep the debate between the traditional view which is supported by scholarly consensus vs atheists and I don't like someone undermining the traditional view by putting forward his own views as views of Shankara or Buddha which leads atheists to say "even theists don't agree to a common definition of god" and the entire discussion will be unworthy of debate. How much scientists will be angry if someone misrepresents evolution by natural selection? I hope this answers your question.

I have had the opportunity to study both these eastern religious traditions as well as science since I hail from the east. Don't make me to show my anger on sfn. http://www.mandalamagazine.org/archives/mandala-issues-for-2010/october/distorted-visions-of-buddhism-agnostic-and-atheist/ There is nothing wrong in being a secular humanist or claiming oneself to be an atheist but what's inexcusably wrong is to claim oneself to be a Secular Buddhist and distort the views of these traditions and projecting one's own views as views of Buddha. When the reality in these religions shatters atheism openly then next try making an appeal to authority, but that doesn't work to hide the ignorance of secular Buddhists.

Its foolishness to throw them into the dustbin of human history when the stage has been set to reconsider them.

I didn't claimed others works as mine and I never have. If a work is in quotations then it is understood that its not my works.

I guess you don't realize that if your paper From Metaphysics to mysticism or your proof needs to be valid then this world-view of Aurobindo needs to be true because if this world-view turns out to be false then your proof doesn't apply to this cosmos where you try to prove that the universe is a unity. That's what I don't like about metaphysics it might guide us but it doesn't tell us what its implications are. So where as you have taken a different approach than me, I am investigating the very heart of the problem so that either we abandon such forms of thinking as soon as possible because its very much mentally disturbing or take them very seriously.

As I have said many times the wisdom inherent in religion are not so ordinary either so that it deserves intolerance and be dismissed as fictions of a feeble mind. That's not a vision, a hallucination or an epiphany. That's a serious empirical phenomena which deserves further investigation and might show that humans are truly made in the image of god if they have such powers inherent in them to shatter the whole room. I have watched the documentary of the Dover's controversy of evolution vs creationism and the main problem for creationists in accepting evolution by natural selection seems to be it says humans evolved from other primates and a creationist even went on to say that that it was a slap to his face because religion says humans are truly made in the image of god. Its wrong to not to understand evolution by natural selection and also it is wrong to not to understand what is our relationship with god via wisdom literatures and other ways of knowing and present and historical accounts like such of St. Teresa of Avila are compelling reasons to investigate them seriously and be open to alternative world-views. You don't have to lose your heads for that. What you mean to say is we must assume that God does not exist in the absence of evidence. I understand your statement. But as you can see much of the debate is whether these indirect evidences actually do point towards the existence of god or not. Do not accept any of my words on faith, Believing them just because I said them. Be like an analyst buying gold, who cuts, burns, And critically examines his product for authenticity. Only accept what passes the test By proving useful and beneficial in your life. The Buddha (Jnanasara-samuccaya) Do you know what's insulting? Its insulting to equate works of late antiquity which religious scholars dedicate their entire life trying to understand each syllable to works of Harry Potter. That's what insulting is not the truth claim which I made. Investigate them or critically examine them. The main point which I am arguing here is I doesn't want opinions or statements which has a confirmation bias, I need explanations which can account for these phenomena and the reason why I hold on to this position is simply because I believe such a thorough investigation has not yet happened. I know INow will disagree with me on this here, because he has already decided that we should no longer entertain such beliefs in our society and that religion has been given enough time to prove itself and has been given many such free passes in the past and that's where the main problem lies to me here. Perhaps we should discuss on this more rather than going off topic. You mean I cannot participate in this thread and question the conclusion as a member of sfn? Isn't it more likely that they all were able to access a reality which we have not yet made an effort to access to? No, they are not. I didn't accused them of dishonesty just because I disagree with them because their frequent analogies and statements do fall in the category of false analogies and overgeneralization which are termed as common forms of intellectual dishonesty.

Yes. Religion understands good and evil as something which exists with in your Self and teaches one to transcend both good and evil. With in orthodox Christianity itself there is this concept of light and dark forces and angels. Seems like a fascinating sport. Perhaps they have the necessary skills to create new forces of light. Its their sport. No, its not.

You both use false analogies and equate God with unicorns, Puff the magic dragons etc and overgeneralise the different forms of theists that exist and put all of them in the same boat. I don't know you guys deliberately do it or you're just mistaken because I don't know what's going on in your minds and aren't those two examples enough to qualify you both as being dishonest.

That's what I am criticizing about his conclusion from the post #1205 to #1225 of this thread. That the conclusion should have been more open rather than intolerance towards religion. The empirical evidence to support a god hypothesis is evidence like these throughout the history of mankind. "St. Theresa of Avila almost shattered the whole room so much that the nuns came running to see what happened to her." If that doesn't sound like empirical then what is empirical evidence, so why don't we investigate such things and study them rather than showing confirmation bias. There are different positions Gnostic theists, agnostic theists and agnostic atheists. Based on the current evidence the default position seems to be to have no position at all. If there was such an universal default position then I wonder why some atheists change their minds and become theists and why some theists change their mind and become atheists, tell me what's going on. Are each one interpreting the evidence differently, a confirmation bias? INow's accusation on some people that they some how show double standards and apply weak screening mechanisms especially when it comes to the topic of god doesn't apply to the whole of theistic community, all religions are not faith based belief systems, some religions force one to test the claims of its own religion before asking one to accept it. The very fact that they have investigated the all of religion while atheists just like to pretend that they have and arrived at a different conclusion that a god hypothesis is not something which should be dismissed as childish shows that they are as much interested in knowing what the truth is and are applying the same screening mechanisms which they apply in their normal life. As I said if it is so important in labelling some group as broken rather than giving them the benefit of the doubt and knowing what the truth is then I am definitely not in for such a thing, perhaps there is something broken in them. I have better evidences to investigate rather than trying to prove someone as a liar or labelling someone as broken.

I am someone who strive for intellectual honesty and if we both(I and INow) have investigated all of religion and arrived at different conclusions then we both have to give reasonable reasons as to why we have arrived at that conclusion and I think I have done just that and you simply think I have not supported my assertion. A God hypothesis is a competent hypothesis for the origin of our cosmos and there are ample evidences to suggest that such a hypothesis cannot be dismissed so easily and based on this I do accuse him for his dishonest conclusion and his conclusion is quite evident in the position that he has taken in this thread. Actually it does, it does make your or my statements a lie depending on what the empirical evidence is actually saying. That's what my problem is.