There is absolutely no scientific evidence to suggest that there is no reality beyond the physical ("physical" actually is code for "phi-cycle" -- which alludes to the universal phi-ratio). What's the energy -- the force -- behind the phi-ratio? The phi-ratio itself IS non-material. Its driving force is a motion that expresses a mathematical logic (a mathematical language which is direct evidence of Intelligent Design -- or in other words, Creative Evolution).
Every scientist will tell you that until the ultimate building block of "matter" is determined, there is no logical basis of disproving the quantum potential for what is currently termed "super"-natural. This is why Quantum Mechanics is so key, for its incorporation of the Consciousness factor (Sentience) has the potential to bridge the gap between "spirituality" and "science".
Everything is in constant motion (particularly the phi-ratio" motion). Nothing ever remains "material" since everything is in flux -- a dynamic also deeply related to the Uncertainty Principle. You see we are often fooled because of how consistent our world is. But if we were to really zoom continuously into "matter", all we will witness is energy in motion (e-motion) in the form of particle-waves. And this zoom process can continue into infinity.
alex claton wrote:
On the comment saying that atheism is a religion, thats complete bullshit, atheism is literally no theism or no religion... All atheists ask for is evidence, there are some who are retarded but most atheists simply ask for proof of gods that are claimed by theists to exist...
Religion doesn't necessarily have to be exclusive to theism. The word "religion" itself can be derived from religare, religio which mean "to be bound to, "to oblige to", "to bind together", "to come together", and "to rely on".
We all need to rely on something in our lives, even ourselves; when we choose to. My religion for example, is myself. I am my religion -- the Self that is. So in a very real way, I am literally my own God -- since I come to always rely on myself and I can only go through life within the confines of my own mind (I can only experience my mind).
Theism is simply a theistic religion (which is a type of religion) -- a type of reliance that is. The same can be said about atheism, as it is an approach to things. Atheists rely on "evidence", for "proof" of "God". I'll say though, that that word "God" can be broken down into so many (infinite) meanings. So such a concept can permeate seamlessly.
It's how one uses it.
alex claton wrote:
All atheists ask for is evidence
And the evidence is to be found in the form of Quantum Mechanics and Special Relativity understanding -- a deep understanding involving their processes of Scales, Angular Momentum, Time Dilation (Special Relativity), etc.. Many people are not ready for QM because of its implications with Consciousness and how difficult it is to apply the persistency laws required by it within a modern culture that forces society to always be in survival mode. So the amount of time required for an observer to see desired results would probably be far greater than what can be practically applied in a working individual's schedule and lifestyle within the system.
Nothing comes easy. There is no instant "miracles". All things happen in steps; usually very gradual steps. The amount of time and effort you put into seeing quantum results is reflected in the results. The more you put into it, the more you get out of it. Don't expect physically perceivable results overnight, or even one's lifetime in the way modern society is structured today -- people are just too busy with their jobs and family, etc. Even some tibetan monks who meditate everyday for hours believe in multiple reincarnations to accomplish the "super"-natural Buddha status...
Like I said, the evidence is already out there in the information stream and in modern physics. The real question is, are the extremists from both theist and atheist bandwagons willing to open up to information which would be otherwise counter-intuitive to their world-view? It's a huge step in a different direction which would perhaps demand sacrifices from both ends in order to incorporate the best of both approaches. It's probably a lot easier said than done -- because their egos and pride would be taking some serious hits.
madthumbs wrote:
Can you name a non detrimental religion? -I can't.
You are focusing on a man-made product. Religion is a man-made invention (a creation). It cannot function by itself. It is simply a tool. What makes religion detrimental or not (or both) are the individuals who choose to use it. What they do with religion makes all the difference.
Sure you can point out statistics and maybe show how Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc. are more violent / destructive than Atheists....but you cannot deny the fact that without people behind such actions, the religions themselves can't do anything. You are giving religion too much credit and not enough on the ability of people.
Understand, that the religions you know of are simply reflections of the mindsets that created them. Depending on the mindsets of those that create their religions, their concepts of "God" will be reflected. If it's a destructive mindset, so too will their "God" be. The opposite is also true.
Simply put, religion -- like guns -- don't kill people. People kill people.
TWE wrote:
I have the same opinion (I'm also non-religious). Religion doesn't have to be divisive and destructive, only if people want it to be.
Yep. Its what people do with them. I think attacking religions themselves is counterproductive, attacking the people who use them for division and destruction isn't. There is an organised campaign by certain groups such as "Humanist Societies" to try and move people away from Christianity in particular and alienate good-hearted religious people (even in my small town I've noticed) and no good will come of it...
TWE wrote:
Religion doesn't have to be divisive and destructive, only if people want it to be.
Yep. Its what people do with them. I think attacking religions themselves is counterproductive, attacking the people who use them for division and destruction isn't. There is an organised campaign by certain groups such as "Humanist Societies" to try and move people away from Christianity in particular and alienate good-hearted religious people (even in my small town I've noticed) and no good will come of it...
Very well said.
Wed Jul 14, 2010 9:28 am
alexclaton
Joined: 05 Mar 2006 Posts: 817 Location: Hell on earth
Re: Some points to consider
totalitariantiptoe wrote:
There is absolutely no scientific evidence to suggest that there is no reality beyond the physical ("physical" actually is code for "phi-cycle" -- which alludes to the universal phi-ratio). What's the energy -- the force -- behind the phi-ratio? The phi-ratio itself IS non-material. Its driving force is a motion that expresses a mathematical logic (a mathematical language which is direct evidence of Intelligent Design -- or in other words, Creative Evolution).
like wise there is no scientific evidence to suggest there is....
your saying the physical world is immaterial? why because atoms are hollow? energy IS material, hence why we can measure it and see its affects on the world around us...
mathematics is not evidence of intelligent design... hell does there even NEED to be an intelligent design or designer? if yes then why?
Quote:
Every scientist will tell you that until the ultimate building block of "matter" is determined, there is no logical basis of disproving the quantum potential for what is currently termed "super"-natural. This is why Quantum Mechanics is so key, for its incorporation of the Consciousness factor (Sentience) has the potential to bridge the gap between "spirituality" and "science".
quantum mechanics is not proof of the supernatural, specially when just about all supernatural things have already been debunked... but if you feel that you can prove that something supernatural is real james randi will be more than happy to give ya a million dollars for it. then you can buy everyone a bike...
Quote:
Everything is in constant motion (particularly the phi-ratio" motion). Nothing ever remains "material" since everything is in flux -- a dynamic also deeply related to the Uncertainty Principle. You see we are often fooled because of how consistent our world is. But if we were to really zoom continuously into "matter", all we will witness is energy in motion (e-motion) in the form of particle-waves. And this zoom process can continue into infinity.
whats your point? just because material is always moving doesn't make it any less material...
Quote:
alex claton wrote:
On the comment saying that atheism is a religion, thats complete bullshit, atheism is literally no theism or no religion... All atheists ask for is evidence, there are some who are retarded but most atheists simply ask for proof of gods that are claimed by theists to exist...
Religion doesn't necessarily have to be exclusive to theism. The word "religion" itself can be derived from religare, religio which mean "to be bound to, "to oblige to", "to bind together", "to come together", and "to rely on".
We all need to rely on something in our lives, even ourselves; when we choose to. My religion for example, is myself. I am my religion -- the Self that is. So in a very real way, I am literally my own God -- since I come to always rely on myself and I can only go through life within the confines of my own mind (I can only experience my mind).
Theism is simply a theistic religion (which is a type of religion) -- a type of reliance that is. The same can be said about atheism, as it is an approach to things. Atheists rely on "evidence", for "proof" of "God". I'll say though, that that word "God" can be broken down into so many (infinite) meanings. So such a concept can permeate seamlessly.
And the evidence is to be found in the form of Quantum Mechanics and Special Relativity understanding -- a deep understanding involving their processes of Scales, Angular Momentum, Time Dilation (Special Relativity), etc.. Many people are not ready for QM because of its implications with Consciousness and how difficult it is to apply the persistency laws required by it within a modern culture that forces society to always be in survival mode. So the amount of time required for an observer to see desired results would probably be far greater than what can be practically applied in a working individual's schedule and lifestyle within the system.
Nothing comes easy. There is no instant "miracles". All things happen in steps; usually very gradual steps. The amount of time and effort you put into seeing quantum results is reflected in the results. The more you put into it, the more you get out of it. Don't expect physically perceivable results overnight, or even one's lifetime in the way modern society is structured today -- people are just too busy with their jobs and family, etc. Even some tibetan monks who meditate everyday for hours believe in multiple reincarnations to accomplish the "super"-natural Buddha status...
how come noone who has put in the "time required" to achieve such things has come back to show us "un enlightened" folk their magical powers to control reality? probably because its bullshit...
None of this is evidence for imaginary people that were made up by religious people...
as for consciousness affecting reality, I can consciously choose to throw a rock at you and easily affect reality.
Quote:
alex claton wrote:
All atheists ask for is evidence
Like I said, the evidence is already out there in the information stream and in modern physics. The real question is, are the extremists from both theist and atheist bandwagons willing to open up to information which would be otherwise counter-intuitive to their world-view? It's a huge step in a different direction which would perhaps demand sacrifices from both ends in order to incorporate the best of both approaches. It's probably a lot easier said than done -- because their egos and pride would be taking some serious hits.
modern physics is not evidence for god(s), also modern physics is incompatible with quantum mechanics because gravity doesn't work the way its supposed to in the quantum. this is why they are coming up with a new ma thematic equation to try and get the 2 to work together so we can actually get farther in understanding the universe...
Quote:
madthumbs wrote:
Can you name a non detrimental religion? -I can't.
You are focusing on a man-made product. Religion is a man-made invention (a creation). It cannot function by itself. It is simply a tool. What makes religion detrimental or not (or both) are the individuals who choose to use it. What they do with religion makes all the difference.
Sure you can point out statistics and maybe show how Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc. are more violent / destructive than Atheists....but you cannot deny the fact that without people behind such actions, the religions themselves can't do anything. You are giving religion too much credit and not enough on the ability of people.
Understand, that the religions you know of are simply reflections of the mindsets that created them. Depending on the mindsets of those that create their religions, their concepts of "God" will be reflected. If it's a destructive mindset, so too will their "God" be. The opposite is also true.
Simply put, religion -- like guns -- don't kill people. People kill people.
this was the hole point atheism has been making, religion is just made up bullshit... and you are correct people use these religion as an excuse for their ridiculous behavior towards others... hence why we think religion should be done away with... also there are plenty of good people without religion so there is no logical reason to keep religion around...
Also religion attracts people who don't know how or want to think for themselves, its this reason that the religious mind set in general is a bad one...
Quote:
TWE wrote:
I have the same opinion (I'm also non-religious). Religion doesn't have to be divisive and destructive, only if people want it to be.
Yep. Its what people do with them. I think attacking religions themselves is counterproductive, attacking the people who use them for division and destruction isn't. There is an organised campaign by certain groups such as "Humanist Societies" to try and move people away from Christianity in particular and alienate good-hearted religious people (even in my small town I've noticed) and no good will come of it...
TWE wrote:
Religion doesn't have to be divisive and destructive, only if people want it to be.
Yep. Its what people do with them. I think attacking religions themselves is counterproductive, attacking the people who use them for division and destruction isn't. There is an organised campaign by certain groups such as "Humanist Societies" to try and move people away from Christianity in particular and alienate good-hearted religious people (even in my small town I've noticed) and no good will come of it...
Very well said.
Tts funny you still haven't named 1 non detrimental religion...
And by the way, the fact that religion is man made does not make it any less detrimental...
The above statement is simply a reworded version of an earlier statement from an earlier post you made:
alex claton wrote:
atheism is literally no theism or no religion...
Funny thing is, I already responded to that statement:
My earlier response:
self wrote:
Religion doesn't necessarily have to be exclusive to theism. The word "religion" itself can be derived from religare, religio which mean "to be bound to, "to oblige to", "to bind together", "to come together", and "to rely on".
We all need to rely on something in our lives, even ourselves; when we choose to. My religion for example, is myself. I am my religion -- the Self that is. So in a very real way, I am literally my own God -- since I come to always rely on myself and I can only go through life within the confines of my own mind (I can only experience my mind).
Theism is simply a theistic religion (which is a type of religion) -- a type of reliance that is. The same can be said about atheism, as it is an approach to things. Atheists rely on "evidence", for "proof" of "God". I'll say though, that that word "God" can be broken down into so many (infinite) meanings. So such a concept can permeate seamlessly.
It's how one uses it.
You see, the most common tactic of a denialist is the repetition of an opinion using rewording. Denialists believe that if they simply redress their statements as many times as they can, that the scientific evidences which have been consistently put forth in front of them would just get lost in the shuffle...
Here's another example of you redressing a repeated statement of denial. The statement below is one you made in your post above:
alex claton wrote:
.ike wise there is no scientific evidence to suggest there is
That statement is a redressed version of an earlier statement you made in an earlier post as well:
alex claton wrote:
All atheists ask for is evidence
And I responded to that statement with the following already:
As you see, I have already given you scientific evidence from highly respectable academic peer-reviewed sources. But you continue to redress your question while ignoring the studies at face value. Like I said, your (now) exposed strategy as it pertains to this discussion is nothing more than a common method used by denialists to redress moot points; in the hope that the sources of relevant evidences get lost in the long shuffle of posts.
My question to you now is....will you continue to redress your (already addressed) question and pretend these highly respected peer-reviewed academic sources don't exist or are "non-scientific"?
These are direct scientific evidences for the Quantum Mechanics supporting Consciousness. And just to put this discussion in perspective as well --> we got peer-reviewed studies on one side as opposed to redressed opinions from online pseudonyms such as "alex claton" and "madthumbs", etc.......... lol (both of which almost always post in consecutive fashion on the same hour on the same day in an online community that rarely gets many authentic participants on a daily basis -- excluding the fake "newly registered" members that seem to constantly join but never post or post once and then disappear forever... *jokes* .
Anyways you can claim you "broke my I win button" and that may serve to flatter you (or your online pseudonym(s?) on some level . But you have not displayed any scientific approach to seriously debunk (or even challenge) the evidence provided by these academic sources regarding Consciousness-influenced random systems.
Until you scientifically address these sources, the rest of your post (including all your other posts) will remain nothing more than the works of a denialist who rewords his posts with different endless comebacks without actually accomplishing anything. There is no "I win button" to be pressed. I'm simply a student of Quantum Mechanics.
So please, backup what you say and really try to break this "I win button".
alex claton wrote:
just because material is always moving doesn't make it any less material
Define matter? A rock? The chair you're sitting on? That's matter? Ask any scientist and they will tell you that inside each of these "material" things, if you continue to zoom in, you will run into ever decreasing scales of "particles" and "waves" and "space/time". There is no ultimate building block of matter found yet. That claim I just made is a universally known fact in all scientific establishments, circles, and schools of thought. Your belief that matter exists is no less a concept as the imaginary people conjectured up by the religious folk you criticize.
In fact, the only official addressal for the "ultimate building block" by scientific establishments is the so called "Planck's Constant". And that is a fundamental aspect of Quantum Mechanics. So even your position in all of this is inconsistent with itself -- due to the fact that you don't even realize that you're actually agreeing with Quantum Mechanics.
Though Quantum Mechanics in itself is not only highly credible, and the most respected and successful physical theory to date, it is still in a state of evolution (like all other sciences). The irony is, removing the limit which came to be known as Planck's Constant, will only reinforce the implications of Quantum Mechanics.
I'm a student of QM and will forever be. Unlike an atheist, I'm open-minded to the infinite probabilities implied by mathematics -- nor do I instinctively close the door (nor belittle) Consciousness (something I know I'm experiencing all the time). Saying this or that is "bullshit" is not only revealing of a non-scientific approach, but is indicative of a condescending attitude that assumes a position of intellectual authority without the room for learning new ideas. Please refer to Religious and Atheist arrogance as well as Mindsets create the extremism that we see for related information.
alex claton wrote:
modern physics is incompatible with quantum mechanics because gravity doesn't work the way its supposed to in the quantum.
Modern Physics IS Quantum Mechanics. Gravity works the same way in the macro as is in the micro. M-Theory is a developing theory within the general QM science which attempts to explain the multiverse and Quantum Gravity. The key to understanding this is through scales. The wave-particle "duality; the de Broglie Waves signature is so small from your ordinary frame of reference that you don't see it.
Q: So how come when I look at a bowling ball, I don't notice it acting in a wavelike manner? You said that everything is affected by wave/particle duality.
A: Think about what the wavelength of the bowling ball would be. According to de Broglie, the wavelength is equal to Planck's constant divided by the object's momentum; Planck's constant is very, very, very tiny, and the momentum of a bowling ball, relatively speaking, is huge. If you had abowling ball with a mass of, say, one kilogram, moving at one meter per second, its wavelength would be about a septillionth of a nanometer. This is so ridiculously small compared to the size of the bowling ball itself that you'd never notice any wavelike stuff going on; that's why we can generally ignore the effects of quantum mechanics when we're talking about everyday objects. It's only at the molecular or atomic level that the waves begin to be large enough (compared to the size of an atom) to have a noticeable effect.
Like I said.....
alex claton wrote:
this is why they are coming up with a new ma thematic equation to try and get the 2 to work together so we can actually get farther in understanding the universe...
Yes and it involves the Grand Unified Field Theory, which is an attempted upgrade of Quantum Mechanics + Classical Physics + M-Theory + Relativity (Refer to: http://physics.about.com/od/quantumphysics/f/uft.htm]. This is all part of the evolutionary process of Science come to think of it. Scientists don't discard QM -- which is actually the substrate of all the other major physical sciences. They simply build on it (QM) and others. However you're (deliberately?) confusing this with the myth that scientific establishments are getting rid of QM all together. You couldn't be more wrong, sorry to say.
Your instinct to isolate QM and discard it completely as "religious" or "bullshit" is not only very ignorant, but a byproduct of your strong attachment to atheism. Keep in mind that atheism is not even an officially recognized science, unlike Quantum Mechanics, which is -- as I already mentioned before -- "the most successful physical theory" to date: http://www.siue.edu/~evailat/pdf/qm-intro.pdf (source: Southern Illinois University).
.
