Anti-Judeo-Christian Censorship

[Pymander]

To be faithless, is to believe anything that fits the occasion, and that's insanity.

I define faith as the absolute conviction in something that has no evidence to support its existence.

[/Quote]

[/Quote]

That is very extreme. 'Absolute conviction' is not a likely result of 'no evidence'. At the risk of repeating myself again, this usage of the word faith in this sense is absolutely devolved and absolutely devoid of meaning. Someone joining a church on this basis has other reasons.

That's what everyone of faith I've ever met tells me, that they believe in God with all their heart and soul, despite the fact that no one can prove His existence.

[/Quote]

They would be talking about reasons acceptable to science. The 'heart' is the thymus gland, the Church of Thiatira, the Anahata Chacra, roughly, attitudes and intuition in man, the Jungian element corresponding to the alchemaical and poetic element of 'air'.

Once again:

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." Albert Einstein. Beyond 'reality' there is only conjecture, ever. This is most true of the First Cause, or God, unless he creates a contrary reality by miracles to whom He chooses to reveal Himself, (with all due respect, IF HE EXISTS). Okay?

To me, that's believing something that fits the occasion, a need for something beyond what we can observe as reality.

[/Quote]

...other reasons for going to church. A necessary beginning so deemed by its founder (IHE).

Hope is more of a reality-based part of my belief system. I can hope that consciousness lives on after the death of the body, but it's not going to make me live my real life any differently. Hope gives me all the warm fuzzies that some people gain from their faith, but it's not trying to pretend that I actually KNOW something that I can't.

[/Quote]

Plainly agreed. More other reasons. For purity enough to accept, eventually, and the evidence of life lived accordingly, peace and prosperity accrued, and so forth. On the other side of the coin is disintegrated families, social chaos, revolution, and war, good reasons to question our error.

Trust is the best part of my belief system. It's based on the best available explanation of various phenomena. It's NOT believing in anything that fits the occasion, it's the exact opposite. Trust is having firm ground to walk on and not pretending that all that silly leaping makes me somehow a smarter, better person than everyone else.

[/Quote]

All we can hope for. The sun will come up again. More evidence is more trust. QED. Let me say it another way. Anyone's beliefs can never be more or even equal to the agreed upon evidence of the senses (a miracle would certainly evoke "Did you see that?!"), and may change as evidence increases. To venture beyond the senses by abstraction of the many variables of reality, only makes it become progressively less certain. Mathematics, the laws of conservation quantised, is the extreme of this:

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." - Albert Einstein

 

Bollocks

and I'm perfectly certain that I couldn't do that . But I guessed someone would be able to and would have put it on youtube, so I checked and there it was.

 

You really don't understand science do you?

You also don't understand what it means not to believe in something.

Can you repeat that experiment with the same results?Can you perform a miracle (more accurately, will God perform one for you)? Does this mean that no one can?coda. "Evidence, please." "No proof." "You haven't answered the question." "Repeating youself doesn't count." coda. Wow. Bell advised The Beatles to limit sentensed to six words in the movie "A Hard Day's Night". I'll try. Attention spans must exceed short term memory retention rates, I guess.

Edited August 12, 2012 by Pymander

[Moontanman]

A fairy ring has appeared in my lawn, no joke btw, is this evidence of the existence of fairies?

 

 

I honestly do not understand your definition of evidence, you talk of things that obviously are somewhat less than well supported, like Edgar Casey, or Astrology as though they were evidence of something real? Where do you draw the line in supernatural beliefs? Do you draw a line? How are these things related to the OT?

 

Actually in the back yard there is a fairy arc as well that is shaped like a spiral, almost perfect Fibonacci spiral, very cool, i am almost afraid to walk the spiral... I'll see if I can get some pictures of it too.

Edited August 13, 2012 by Moontanman

[Phi for All]

They would be talking about reasons acceptable to science. The 'heart' is the thymus gland, the Church of Thiatira, the Anahata Chacra, roughly, attitudes and intuition in man, the Jungian element corresponding to the alchemaical and poetic element of 'air'.

Science doesn't have to be intuitive, but it rarely has to contort itself so tortuously to fit an argument.

 

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." Albert Einstein. Beyond 'reality' there is only conjecture, ever. This is most true of the First Cause, or God, unless he creates a contrary reality by miracles to whom He chooses to reveal Himself, (with all due respect, IF HE EXISTS). Okay?

I don't think you understand what Einstein means in this context. Science isn't about proof, it's about the most likely explanations based on available evidence. It's easy to show something is false by even one bit of true evidence that falsifies it, but we don't WANT to say something is MOST TRUE, beyond a shadow of a doubt, because then we stop looking for any other answers, and that defeats the purpose of the methodology.

[Pymander]

A fairy ring has appeared in my lawn, no joke btw, is this evidence of the existence of fairies?

 

 

I honestly do not understand your definition of evidence, you talk of things that obviously are somewhat less than well supported, like Edgar Casey, or Astrology as though they were evidence of something real? Where do you draw the line in supernatural beliefs? Do you draw a line? How are these things related to the OT?

 

Actually in the back yard there is a fairy arc as well that is shaped like a spiral, almost perfect Fibonacci spiral, very cool, i am almost afraid to talk the spiral... I'll see if I can get some pictures of it too.

Well ignored unless disproven. Unsupported by education and media. Supernatural without God is impossible. Nothing is impossible, only improbable. Ignoring evidence doctors statistical conclusions. What's OT? That's a circle. The spore landed at the centre. The magic, not the pot of gold. Graph this, real to complex:(((1+sqrt(5))/2)^x-((1-sqrt(5))/2)^x))/sqrt(5). A growing helix, like your DNA.

[Moontanman]

Well ignored unless disproven. Unsupported by education and media. Supernatural without God is impossible. Nothing is impossible, only improbable. Ignoring evidence doctors statistical conclusions. What's OT? That's a circle. The spore landed at the centre. The magic, not the pot of gold. Graph this, real to complex:(((1+sqrt(5))/2)^x-((1-sqrt(5))/2)^x))/sqrt(5). A growing helix, like your DNA.

 

 

Have you asserted anything that is supported by empirical evidence yet? Anything? Just because you can't show something to be impossible doesn't make it real. If that was true then UFOs are alien space craft, Reptilian aliens run the world, and fairy rings are portals into the world of the supernatural... You can't judge reality by what is impossible to prove doesn't exist is real...

[iNow]

Pymander reminds me profoundly of the title I gave to a thread a short while back.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/65651-people-who-believe-in-god-are-broken

[Pymander]

Have you asserted anything that is supported by empirical evidence yet? Anything? Just because you can't show something to be impossible doesn't make it real. If that was true then UFOs are alien space craft, Reptilian aliens run the world, and fairy rings are portals into the world of the supernatural... You can't judge reality by what is impossible to prove doesn't exist is real...

Have you read the Bible KJV, a representative selection of Edgar Cayce's readings and books based on them, Greek and Roman Mythologies, Books on Astrology and the Tarot, The Upanishads, The Bhagavad Gita, the Serpent Power and other works of Arthur Avalon, the Silmarilion (fiction based on Norwegian folklore), the Quabala, the works of E.A Wallace Budge, curator of Egyptian antiquities at the Brittish Museum. I even read the Book of Mormon to enable discussion, but they never came back. This was after studies in Science and attempts at AI programming (Western and Chinese Chess). This is also empirical evidence. Less cut and dried is all. I don't think we can put spirit (consciousness) in a machine. The order of spirit in man is creative. We have never been threatened by the possibility of chimpanzees fashioning a stone axe. Why? Our spirit is of another order, and supernatural power is also therefore unique to man. We are both 'angel' and beast, as the Revelation says, and also the Divine Pymander of unknown antiquity. The heioglyph for a God was an axe.

 

Rome sank to the level of the beast. The Jews produced Albert Einstein and many, many who have ennobled the human race, by God's hand. Read the book. Deny they exist. Explain their success, even their survival. Read Patience Worth's "Sorry Tale". About Tiberius' Rome and Christ. It can be downloaded from Wiki. It defies explanation. So does Cayce. Both had an eighth grade education. They (Pearl Curran channeled PW) had no conscious idea of the information they produced. This is evidence ignored. Research it and explain it. Explain the Great Pyramid and Sphinx. The Bimini Road Cayce predicted as the first portions of Atlantis to rise again in 1968 - 69, when he died in '45. Explain why a breast feeding child can breath and drink at the same time, an ability it must lose to aquire speach. Explain how the endocrine system is described as to evolutionary function in ancient Indian writings and in the Revelations (24 psychic discourses by Cayce laid this bare). Okay? We don't know everything, and until we perfect, the spirit of Truth, and the powers confered, are closed to mortal man. Therefore the Christ is the Truth, the Light and the Way. Without God, none of this makes any sense.

 

Science doesn't have to be intuitive, but it rarely has to contort itself so tortuously to fit an argument.

 

 

I don't think you understand what Einstein means in this context. Science isn't about proof, it's about the most likely explanations based on available evidence. It's easy to show something is false by even one bit of true evidence that falsifies it, but we don't WANT to say something is MOST TRUE, beyond a shadow of a doubt, because then we stop looking for any other answers, and that defeats the purpose of the methodology.

I don't disagree at all, that's actually good to hear. What I'm saying is MOST TRUE, and this can only apply to deduction, not inductive hypotheses, is that God is the greatest abstraction from manifest reality possible, the bottom line for all things, mind and matter, and their connection acording to:

"The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible." - Albert Einstein

Einstein actually said that the universe may not have an existence INDEPENDENT of the observer, which on two separated levels, makes us both enjoyer and creator of the manifestation. This in "The Divine Pymander" is stated thus:

 

12. These things I understood, seeing the word of Pymander; and when I was mightily amazed, he said

 

again unto me, "Hast thou seen in thy mind that Archetypal Form, which was before the Interminated and

 

Infinite Beginning?" Thus Pymander to me."But whence," quoth I, "or whereof are the Elements of Nature

 

made?"

 

Pymander : "Of the Will and Counsel of God; which taking the Word, and beholding the beautiful World

 

(in the Archetype thereof) imitated it, and so made this World, by the principles and vital Seeds or Soullike

 

productions of itself."

 

Thus in the image of God made He man is an echo in KJV. The superconscious mind, or consciousness on the other side, can only speak through dream symbolism and intuition, to the mind of the conscious physical life in man. Psychology absolutely refuses to follow such assertions, or any from hypnosis concerning the psyche and psychic abilities or past life memories, much less Edgar Cayce's gift of reading the Akashic record of all souls and channeling the Universal Mind (last Chapter Daniel prophecy).

Edited August 13, 2012 by Pymander

[mooeypoo]

!

Moderator Note

The bible on itself is not evidence of anything other than being written in a book that is viewed, by some, to have cultural significance. Its use in the context of evidence is restricted to that context, Pymander.

This is a science-minded and science-driven forum, even its religion and philosophy subforums (and *especially* in the speculation forum).

We require adherance to logic, substantiation of claims and proper evidence. Reciting biblical texts is proselytizing and will not be accepted.

If you don't like our rules, you can go to a theology forum and preach to the choir. As it goes, if you stay to debate here, you will need to do better.

Please stop saying that what you say is true just because what you say is true. it's getting tiring, and it's against our rules.

Don't make things worse by replying to this note. It will be deleted if you do so.

!

Moderator Note

Also, those of you who are on the other side of the attempted proselytizing, please try not to fall into preaching traps. It doesn't help keeping the thread on the discussion *you* intended it to go, and, quite frankly, you're better than that.

Please get back on topic.

[Pymander]

I hope this is no replying to the moderator. I am a novice on forums. I had perhaps better finish by saying thank you to all who have been good enough to converse on this topic. Did I lay traps? I don't think so. It's just my mindset, I guess. I do tend to dominate a conversation. Time to go. Prefer rock'n'roll to a chior, and I'm not a creationist.

Edited August 13, 2012 by Pymander

[iNow]

It's just my mindset, I guess. I do tend to dominate a conversation.

You didn't dominate as much as you refused to listen, failed to present logical/coherent arguments, and chose instead to move forth with repetitious, annoying, and frankly asinine proselytizing about your personally preferred fairy tale. If I said you'll be missed, I'd be wrong.

Edited August 13, 2012 by iNow

[mooeypoo]

I hope this is no replying to the moderator. I am a novice on forums. I had perhaps better finish by saying thank you to all who have been good enough to converse on this topic. Did I lay traps? I don't think so. It's just my mindset, I guess. I do tend to dominate a conversation. Time to go. Prefer rock'n'roll to a chior, and I'm not a creationist.

You were warned several times, Pymander, against the same type of issues.

 

We welcome varying opinions and points of view in this forum, but there are still rules. If you want to start over with a new posting attitude, try to notice when you evade questions and stop posting wall-of-biblical-texts, you are more than welcome to continue the discussion.

 

~mooey

[John Cuthber]

It seems to methat this wasn't so much censorship- where someone is prevented from speaking- as much as it was just someone with nothing to say (from a scientific point of view).

[Pymander]

You were warned several times, Pymander, against the same type of issues.

 

We welcome varying opinions and points of view in this forum, but there are still rules. If you want to start over with a new posting attitude, try to notice when you evade questions and stop posting wall-of-biblical-texts, you are more than welcome to continue the discussion.

 

~mooey

Thanks Mooey, I do really appreciate that. I'm just too far gone, and the rules are too tight for me. But when there's something more earthy to discuss, and after slapping myself around a bit for not behaving - see you then.