scaning the brain of the Dali Lama, meditation does produce positive results for your mental and physical health and well being, Could you tell me the session of meditation of an Atheist?
When I was younger I met a Hindu that told me I didn't believe in God because I never experienced Him. I agreed, and he told me if he could teach me how to do it I would. It took three yes of daily meditation to achieve the tunnel with the bright light at the end and feeling absolute peace of mind. He may think it was God, but I say it was a figment of my imagination. Go figure. This was all in my mind and not in reality which means it is BS. :pidu: Solitary
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_Buddhism
This is the kind of Buddha taught and not all the various schools of Buddhism that have been corrupted by other religions. :wall: Solitary
I am still trying to understand the question.
Meditation is a practice that can religious or secular, kind of like singing.
You are annoying.
Quote from: Solitary on May 22, 2014, 04:12:52 PM
When I was younger I met a Hindu that told me I didn't believe in God because I never experienced Him. I agreed, and he told me if he could teach me how to do it I would. It took three yes of daily meditation to achieve the tunnel with the bright light at the end and feeling absolute peace of mind. He may think it was God, but I say it was a figment of my imagination. Go figure. This was all in my mind and not in reality which means it is BS. :pidu: Solitary
If it's in your mind, it's real. It's, like, really in your mind, man. (http://i.imgur.com/FRWIn.gif)
A couple of months ago I got into a sensory deprivation tank exactly like this one (minus the babe, dammit)
(http://hotyogatherapy.biz/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/rest_pod_43.png)
It lasted an hour and I really enjoyed it. Supposedly after only a few sessions or so you can get your brain to produce the same theta waves that it takes monks years to achieve.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolation_tank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolation_tank)
Meditation is the practice of learning to stop doing.
You first learn to cease thinking thoughts. How long can you go without thinking a single thought? Maybe 2 seconds for most. If you can get to the point where you can hold that state of zero thought for around 5 minutes, interesting things begin to happen. You will forget where your hands are situated. You may forget you have a body at all.
There is a point during meditation in which you find that you exist as nothing but a point of awareness floating in an infinite void. From this state your intent is extremely effective. So many beneficial things can be achieved from this state. You have effectively let go of physical reality.
There may soon arise a sensation of intense vibrations. It may feel as though you are being electrocuted but in a slightly pleasurable way. You may find yourself floating or standing in your room staring at your physical body that is meditating. You may decide to soar through the ceiling and through the dark attic and through the roof and up over your neighborhood and look down at a familiar world from an unfamiliar perspective. You may soar at the speed of light up away from earth into space towards the stars and past the galaxies and solar systems and into a glowing white tunnel which takes you back to the infinite void. You may find that floating in front of you is being of light that is telepathically communicating with you. A being which seems to be made out of pure love. You may ask it questions and instantly receive mind blowing answers. You may come to know the true nature of reality and experience the indescribable truth that truly we are all one. You may writh in the ecstasy of knowledge and experience, vibrating with love and understanding, a feeling of excitement and truth like you've never experienced until a single thought sneaks in... am i still meditating?
And then you open your eyes. You look at your hands and remember where they were positioned in just that way. You feel heavy and groggy and your eyes are hard to open. And you try to remember what the being told you but it's slipping away from memory faster than a dream. You can't hold onto it. Your brain doesn't seem to be able to handle it. THere are not sufficient symbols to store it with. You might get up and stumble to the bathroom and drink a glass of milk in the kitchen and think to yourself, "Was that all just a product of my brain? Was that all just BS?"
And it perhaps it was.
Quote from: Berati on May 22, 2014, 10:51:20 PM
A couple of months ago I got into a sensory deprivation tank exactly like this one (minus the babe, dammit)
Well, with the babe inside the tank I can't imagine a lot of sensory deprivation going on... then again, sensory deprivation is overrated :)
Sensory depravation maybe...
Quote from: ApostateLois on May 22, 2014, 10:16:57 PM
If it's in your mind, it's real. It's, like, really in your mind, man. (http://i.imgur.com/FRWIn.gif)
He! He! Solitary
Quote from: Casparov on May 23, 2014, 12:21:44 AM
Meditation is the practice of learning to stop doing.
You first learn to cease thinking thoughts. How long can you go without thinking a single thought? Maybe 2 seconds for most. If you can get to the point where you can hold that state of zero thought for around 5 minutes, interesting things begin to happen. You will forget where your hands are situated. You may forget you have a body at all.
There is a point during meditation in which you find that you exist as nothing but a point of awareness floating in an infinite void. From this state your intent is extremely effective. So many beneficial things can be achieved from this state. You have effectively let go of physical reality.
There may soon arise a sensation of intense vibrations. It may feel as though you are being electrocuted but in a slightly pleasurable way. You may find yourself floating or standing in your room staring at your physical body that is meditating. You may decide to soar through the ceiling and through the dark attic and through the roof and up over your neighborhood and look down at a familiar world from an unfamiliar perspective. You may soar at the speed of light up away from earth into space towards the stars and past the galaxies and solar systems and into a glowing white tunnel which takes you back to the infinite void. You may find that floating in front of you is being of light that is telepathically communicating with you. A being which seems to be made out of pure love. You may ask it questions and instantly receive mind blowing answers. You may come to know the true nature of reality and experience the indescribable truth that truly we are all one. You may writh in the ecstasy of knowledge and experience, vibrating with love and understanding, a feeling of excitement and truth like you've never experienced until a single thought sneaks in... am i still meditating?
And then you open your eyes. You look at your hands and remember where they were positioned in just that way. You feel heavy and groggy and your eyes are hard to open. And you try to remember what the being told you but it's slipping away from memory faster than a dream. You can't hold onto it. Your brain doesn't seem to be able to handle it. THere are not sufficient symbols to store it with. You might get up and stumble to the bathroom and drink a glass of milk in the kitchen and think to yourself, "Was that all just a product of my brain? Was that all just BS?"
And it perhaps it was.
That is an excellent presentation of what happens. It took me three years to reach that level. When I showed my wife how to do it she flew out the window and it scared her and she wouldn't do it again. I can do it very easily now in about 7 minutes. There are machines now that enable you to do it instantly. We have a psychedelic chemical in our bodies that can cause it in near death episodes, or under extreme stress. Solitary I should warn people that it can be a hellish experience also.
Quote from: Casparov on May 23, 2014, 12:21:44 AM
There may soon arise a sensation of intense vibrations. It may feel as though you are being electrocuted but in a slightly pleasurable way. You may find yourself floating or standing in your room staring at your physical body that is meditating. You may decide to soar through the ceiling and through the dark attic and through the roof and up over your neighborhood and look down at a familiar world from an unfamiliar perspective. You may soar at the speed of light up away from earth into space towards the stars and past the galaxies and solar systems and into a glowing white tunnel which takes you back to the infinite void. You may find that floating in front of you is being of light that is telepathically communicating with you. A being which seems to be made out of pure love. You may ask it questions and instantly receive mind blowing answers. You may come to know the true nature of reality and experience the indescribable truth that truly we are all one. You may writh in the ecstasy of knowledge and experience, vibrating with love and understanding, a feeling of excitement and truth like you've never experienced until a single thought sneaks in... am i still meditating?
And then you open your eyes. You look at your hands and remember where they were positioned in just that way. You feel heavy and groggy and your eyes are hard to open. And you try to remember what the being told you but it's slipping away from memory faster than a dream. You can't hold onto it. Your brain doesn't seem to be able to handle it. THere are not sufficient symbols to store it with. You might get up and stumble to the bathroom and drink a glass of milk in the kitchen and think to yourself, "Was that all just a product of my brain? Was that all just BS?"
And it perhaps it was.
There is a way to test if the experience was real, but only if the results of the test are positive. If the results are negative, it is a clue that the experience was imagined, but not proof that the experience was imagined. There is no way to prove it was imagined; only that it was real.
The experiment. Set up a separate room from the subject and write some random sentences on easels within that room. Have the person claiming the out of body experience soar through the walls, retrieve the information from the other room, then return to their body and tell you what they read.
Repeat this several times with different people.
This type of experiment has been available for a long time now and no one has ever been able to perform this very simple task repeatedly. Repeatability is an absolute necessity in science.
This experiment CANNOT PROVE that OBEs are only imagined. It can only prove that they are real. This is because a test of the hypothesis that OBE's are real is possible as the one above, while there is no test possible that can prove that they are only imagined. (hint; same reason why you can't prove god is only imagined)
Casparov, do you understand why there is no way to test a claim that something is only imagined and (briefly) explain why this is?
If you disagree, then give please give me an example of evidence that would prove to someone that they were only imagining the OBE.
Quote from: Berati on May 23, 2014, 05:21:32 PM
This experiment CANNOT PROVE that OBEs are only imagined. It can only prove that they are real. This is because a test of the hypothesis that OBE's are real is possible as the one above, while there is no test possible that can prove that they are only imagined. (hint; same reason why you can't prove god is only imagined)
Casparov, do you understand why there is no way to test a claim that something is only imagined and (briefly) explain why this is?
If you disagree, then give please give me an example of evidence that would prove to someone that they were only imagining the OBE.
The experiment you describe has been done several times. First by Charles Tart, then by Karlis Osis, then Robert Morris, then Robert Monroe who was not a scientist just a wealthy and curious individual who employed scientists. I assume it has been done countless other times more recently. The results are not 100% but are statistically significant.
Perception is always representative according to the interface theory of perception, what we see is not a direct representation of an objective reality but a subjective representation of interpreted data. What we perceive is not necessarily what is actually there. How perception works during an OBE is anyone's guess, but I don't think it should be surprising that the experiences can be subjective and different depending on the person experiencing them. What someone perceives and how someone interprets data has a lot to do with a person's state of mind. If I am in an extremely fearful state of mind I might see a shadow and interpret it as a demon, this might cause me to actually visualize and see a physical demon in an obe state, my interpretation of the data produces the experience. If on the other hand I am in an extremely cheerful state of mind I might see that exact same shadow and interpret it as a friend, this might cause me to actually visualize and see a physical representation of a person who I think of as a friend in an obe state, my interpretation of the data produces the perception, but it is the exact same data in both cases. Consciousness produces the interface by interpreting data and the subjective interpretation produces what we perceive. This process is much more pronounced in dreams and obe's. I think more important is if these experiences are meaningful and informative.
I do agree that research on this phenomena is lacking, however personal independent research is always possible. There is no superior proof than direct personal experience.
Quote from: Casparov on May 24, 2014, 05:51:08 AM
The experiment you describe has been done several times. First by Charles Tart, then by Karlis Osis, then Robert Morris, then Robert Monroe who was not a scientist just a wealthy and curious individual who employed scientists. I assume it has been done countless other times more recently. The results are not 100% but are statistically significant.
They are not statistically significant. You just made that up.
The fact that a very easy test has produced no results would convince someone who is not biased. It will always leave doubt in those who are biased.
QuotePerception is always representative according to the interface theory of perception, what we see is not a direct representation of an objective reality but a subjective representation of interpreted data. What we perceive is not necessarily what is actually there. How perception works during an OBE is anyone's guess, but I don't think it should be surprising that the experiences can be subjective and different depending on the person experiencing them. What someone perceives and how someone interprets data has a lot to do with a person's state of mind. If I am in an extremely fearful state of mind I might see a shadow and interpret it as a demon, this might cause me to actually visualize and see a physical demon in an obe state, my interpretation of the data produces the experience. If on the other hand I am in an extremely cheerful state of mind I might see that exact same shadow and interpret it as a friend, this might cause me to actually visualize and see a physical representation of a person who I think of as a friend in an obe state, my interpretation of the data produces the perception, but it is the exact same data in both cases. Consciousness produces the interface by interpreting data and the subjective interpretation produces what we perceive. This process is much more pronounced in dreams and obe's. I think more important is if these experiences are meaningful and informative.
I do agree that research on this phenomena is lacking, however personal independent research is always possible. There is no superior proof than direct personal experience.
You did not answer my question. Why is it possible to prove OBEs are real, but not possible to prove they are not real? I'll give you a hint: why is the statement "there are no black swans" not provable? Can you attempt an answer?
Research is not lacking. It has been performed and the results do not support your conclusion.
The problem is always the same. You start with an assumption that your belief is true and dismiss evidence to the contrary because you fail to grasp the significance of the question posed above.
Quote from: Berati on May 24, 2014, 08:26:03 AM
They are not statistically significant. You just made that up.
The fact that a very easy test has produced no results would convince someone who is not biased. It will always leave doubt in those who are biased.
I am not necessarily interested in arguing that out of body experiences are real, but you accuse me of just making up the fact that the experiment you describe has actually been done and produces statistically significant results is quite insulting. I did not just make it up, the exact experiment you suggested was completed by Charles Tart with results 100,000 to 1 against chance. The experimenter correctly reporting random 5 digit numbers obtained via out of body experiences was indeed statistically significant: http://www.psywww.com/asc/obe/missz.html (http://www.psywww.com/asc/obe/missz.html)
You can just go to the wikipedia page on out of body experiences and see a list of experiments and studies that have been done, the paragraph about the experiments completed by Michael Persinger for instance states that: "Individuals with no knowledge of the nature of the study rated Swann's comments and drawings as congruent with the remotely viewed stimulus at
better than chance levels."
There have been several studies conducted by the CIA that have been released to the public and all report statistic significance.
http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_10_1_puthoff.pdf (http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_10_1_puthoff.pdf)
QuoteRegardless of one's a priori position, however, an unimpassioned observer cannot help but attest to the following fact: Despite the ambiguities inherent in the type of exploration covered in these programs, the integrated results appear to provide unequivocal evidence of a human capacity to access events remote in space and time, however falteringly, by some cognitive process not yet understood. My years of involvement as a research manager in these programs have left me with the conviction that this fact must be taken into account in any attempt to develop an unbiased picture of the structure of reality.
And subsiquent studies that cooberate the CIA studies:
http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_02_1_vallee.pdf (http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_02_1_vallee.pdf)
QuoteOur results tend to validate Puthoff and Targ's experiments and strongly indicate that remote viewing techniques are deserving of further scientific attention.
Again, I don't have any interest in arguing with you about whether or not OBE's are real. I'd instead urge you to find out for yourself via direct experience if you are truly interested. But please do not accuse me of making things up without at least first doing a quick google search.
QuoteYou did not answer my question. Why is it possible to prove OBEs are real, but not possible to prove they are not real? I'll give you a hint: why is the statement "there are no black swans" not provable? Can you attempt an answer?
What is this? Why are you insisting I jump through your hoops? I will answer it once but I will not repeat myself: A positive assertion is subject to the burden of proof, and a negative claim is not. "Materialism is false" is not a provable claim, because it is a negative claim, and therefore is not subject to the burden of proof. "Materialism is true" is a provable claim, because it is a positive claim, and therefore is subject to the burden of proof.
Positive proof of a negative claim is impossible. Consider your hoop jumped through, now please speak to me like an adult from here on out.
QuoteResearch is not lacking. It has been performed and the results do not support your conclusion.
You make a bold statement and provide no sources. Am I supposed to just take you at your word? Where is this research that has been performed and what are the results?
QuoteThe problem is always the same. You start with an assumption that your belief is true and dismiss evidence to the contrary because you fail to grasp the significance of the question posed above.
lol I am constantly being accused of dismissing evidence that has never been presented. What evidence did you provide that I have dismissed? Did I miss it?? You sound suspiciously like you are projecting your own flaws onto me....
Quote from: Casparov on May 25, 2014, 03:20:02 AM
I did not just make it up, the exact experiment you suggested was completed by Charles Tart with results 100,000 to 1 against chance. The experimenter correctly reporting random 5 digit numbers obtained via out of body experiences was indeed statistically significant: http://www.psywww.com/asc/obe/missz.html (http://www.psywww.com/asc/obe/missz.html)
LOL What's that crap?
From the link you posted:
Quote
Laboratory Procedure
I was able to observe Miss Z in my sleep laboratory for four non-consecutive nights, over a period of approximately two months. The procedure was essentially the same on all nights, and will be described here.
Only four nights? Does the author really think it's a statistically significative sample?
Quote
Description of EEG, REM, BSR and other recording equipment
OK, no particular remarks here.
QuoteThe sleep laboratory consisted of two rooms, each lined with acoustic tile for sound attenuation. A large window was between the rooms for viewing, but in this experiment it was covered with a Venetian blind in order that the subject's room could be reasonably dark for sleeping. This blind allowed enough light to come through so that the subject's room was dimly illuminated, but not enough to disturb sleep. The polygraphs were located in the second room, and the door was kept closed.
And here we're already in amateur land. No direct visual observation of the subject? No filming? LOL
QuoteAn intercom system allowed hearing anything the subject said. I monitored the recording equipment throughout the night while the subject slept and kept notes of anything she said or did. Occasionally I dozed during the night, beside the equipment, so possible instances of sleep talking might have been missed.
MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA No audio recording, just taking notes except when the bozo dozed.
QuoteThe subject slept on a comfortable bed just below the observation window. The leads from all electrodes were bound into a common cable running off the top of her head, and terminating in an electrode box on the head of the bed. This arrangement allowed her enough slack wire so that she could turn over in bed and otherwise be comfortable, but did not allow her to sit up more than two feet without disconnecting the wires from the box, an event which would show up on the recording equipment as a tremendous amount of sixty cycle artifact. Thus her movements were well controlled.
Well controlled my backside. The subject could have well used a mirror and a small lamp mounted on a telescopic rod to read the number. Did I say the "researcher" was a bozo? Scratch that, he was at best a complete imbecile.
QuoteImmediately above the observation window (about five and a half feet above the level of the subject's head) was a small shelf (about ten inches by five inches). Immediately above this shelf was a large clock, mounted on the wall. Each laboratory night, after the subject was lying in bed, the physiological recordings were running satisfactorily, and she was ready to go to sleep, I went into my office down the hall, opened a table of random numbers at random, threw a coin onto the table as a means of random entry into the page, and copied off the first five digits immediately above where the coin landed. These were copied with a black marking pen, in figures approximately two inches high, onto a small piece of paper. Thus they were quite discrete visually. This five-digit random number constituted the parapsychological target for the evening. I then slipped it into an opaque folder, entered the subject's room, and slipped the piece of paper onto the shelf without at any time exposing it to the subject. This now provided a target which would be clearly visible to anyone whose eyes were located approximately six and a half feet off the floor or higher, but was otherwise not visible to the subject.
So the subject was in the same room when the idiot was putting the target in place? Did I say he was a complete imbecile? Scratch that, a tomato has a higher IQ then him.
QuoteThe subject was instructed to sleep well, to try and have an OOB experience, and if she did so to try to wake up immediately afterwards and tell me about it, so I could note on the polygraph records when it had occurred. She was also told that if she floated high enough to read the five-digit number she should memorize it and wake up immediately afterwards to tell me what it was. My conversation with Miss Z after I had prepared the target was, of course, minimal and could not have given her any clue as to the target number. In future experiments, however, it would be preferable for a second experimenter, who had had no contact at all with the subject, to prepare the targets.
So, why didn't the idiot provide a second experimenter straight away?
Casparov, your intellectual dishonesty is disgusting. Posting such a piece of unscientific crap as "evidence" for your deranged fantasies of OBEs is an insult to the intelligence of anyone with at least a working brain cell.
And before you ask: no, I'm not going to check the other links you posted. The "evidence" you gave with your first link is more than enough. Go away.
perhaps this is as simple as evolution...consider please.....IF all life evolved through the basic molecular then cellular stages, we, they, everything has a "history" of each step so to speak. Why could NOT the brain produce the same effects of drugs if they were brother and sister a billion years ago? Why could not the brain adapt the ability to produce the wanted and desired or needed images that the higher brain level asks for? Why is dreaming so under-appreciated while so called "out of body" or "white light experiences" given some special credibility when we already understand the brain can produce some pretty fucking AWESOME dreams eh? And why do we think, even for a moment, the we alone, the human animal have the only ability to do this?
Quote from: DunkleSeele on May 25, 2014, 05:18:53 PM
Casparov, your intellectual dishonesty is disgusting. Posting such a piece of unscientific crap as "evidence" for your deranged fantasies of OBEs is an insult to the intelligence of anyone with at least a working brain cell.
And before you ask: no, I'm not going to check the other links you posted. The "evidence" you gave with your first link is more than enough. Go away.
The experiment was conducted in 1966, I included it originally because it was the first recorded experiment that exactly matches the type of experiment Berati proposed had never been done before. I don't particularly think this experiment is convincing myself, but it's existence refutes the idea that the experiment Berati proposed had never been conducted and never produced results.
The CIA research is much more convincing, but as I have stated multiple times, I am not interested in this debate. I don't care to prove OBE's are real to anybody. Whoever is truly interested will find out for themselves, no studies are going to supercede direct personal experience.
Quote from: Casparov on May 25, 2014, 11:42:23 PM
The experiment was conducted in 1966, I included it originally because it was the first recorded experiment that exactly matches the type of experiment Berati proposed had never been done before. I don't particularly think this experiment is convincing myself, but it's existence refutes the idea that the experiment Berati proposed had never been conducted and never produced results.
The CIA research is much more convincing, but as I have stated multiple times, I am not interested in this debate. I don't care to prove OBE's are real to anybody. Whoever is truly interested will find out for themselves, no studies are going to supercede direct personal experience.
Bollocks, personal experience is the crappiest form of evidence possible. Only independent observation in a controlled environment can produce real evidence. Then again, it takes some intellectual honesty to see that.
QuoteThat is an excellent presentation of what happens. It took me three years to reach that level. When I showed my wife how to do it she flew out the window and it scared her and she wouldn't do it again.
Sounds like the time when I had to have an infected tooth removed when I was a kid, and they gave me nitrous oxide. I felt myself rising off the dentist chair and floating out into the hallway. It was great! I would love to do any kind of meditation that gave me that feeling again. I still wonder if I would have floated out of the building and into the parking lot. :lol:
QuoteQuote
You did not answer my question. Why is it possible to prove OBEs are real, but not possible to prove they are not real? I'll give you a hint: why is the statement "there are no black swans" not provable? Can you attempt an answer?
QuoteWhat is this? Why are you insisting I jump through your hoops? I will answer it once but I will not repeat myself: A positive assertion is subject to the burden of proof, and a negative claim is not.
This is only a partial answer.
I didn’t ask why it doesn’t need to be proven (burden of proof); I asked why it is not provable. Even if we come to an agreement that we must both accept the burden of proof, we cannot proceed in a scientific manner if there is no way to falsify an assertion
whether positive or negative. "There are no black swans" being unprovable has to do with falsifiability and is the most common illustration of that principal. There is no way to falsify the statement therefore it can never be denied even if ifalse.
Think about it, and see if you can come up with any test or experiment that would prove the "There are no black swans" statement true.
However, “All swans are white†is falsifiable and even though we can never prove a universal generalization such as this, it is at the very least logically possible to falsify it by observing a single black swan.
Quote"Materialism is false" is not a provable claim, because it is a negative claim, and therefore is not subject to the burden of proof. "Materialism is true" is a provable claim, because it is a positive claim, and therefore is subject to the burden of proof.
This is why I wanted to know if you understood falsifiability and its application to either negative or positive claims.
“Materialism is false†IS a provable claim. However, “Materialism is true†can never be proven to be true but it can be falsified.
For example; an actual, repeatable out of body experience is evidence that “Materialism is false†is a true statement since we would have evidence of a consciousness separated from a material brain. Or, a person who could penetrate the so called illusion of materialism with his consciousness and walk right through a solid object would be proof that “Materialism is falseâ€.
Proof that “materialism is false†is conceivable and is therefore what must be proven even if it’s a negative statement.
“Materialism is true†is a positive statement just like “I am innocent†is a positive statement, but neither has the burden of proof because neither is ultimately provable. The burden of proof has to rest on the opposite side of the coin which is “Materialism is false†and “you are guiltyâ€.
Think about it, and see if you can come up with any test or experiment that would prove that "Materialism" is true.
.
QuotePositive proof of a negative claim is impossible
This is simply not true. It is a rule of thumb used because of the inherent weakness of inductive arguments. It is very often true, but not always.
For example five is not equal to four is a negative that is easily proven.
Also, In logic, the rule of non contradiction (i.e. that "A is B" and "A is not B" are mutually exclusive) can be used to easily prove a negative by simply proving A is B which automatically negates A is not B. Just google “you can prove a negative†and you will find many proofs. In fact, just look at the examples I gave above that would prove “Materialism is false†to be true.
The point here is that Burden of proof works hand in hand with falsifiability. You have to understand both.
If you want to rely on the scientific method, you need to know the rules. I know your cognitive dissonance will never allow any of this to sink in, but others may read this post as well.
http://youtu.be/ZlZNmwCD1pA
Quote from: Casparov on May 29, 2014, 05:05:33 AM
http://youtu.be/ZlZNmwCD1pA
LOL William Buhl(shit)man? Really? A crank who's never given any shred of objective evidence other than his "extensive personal experience"?
FUCK OFF!
I did some research on this guy. His resumé consists of the following:
-4 decades of work with so-called "out of body experiences."
-Author of several books on the subject.
-A certified hypnotherapist.
The first has no basis in science.
The second is meaningless for our purposes.
The third can only be used to change behaviors and implant false memories. It has jack all to do with anything else.
I don't even need to watch the video at this point.
I'm not watching an hour and a half of complete nonsense. I already tried to watch God's Not Dead and I ended up getting violent diarrhea. The diarrhea was more likely from the salmon I ate earlier that day, but still. Everytime I get diarrhea, I'm going to think of God's Not Dead.
If a person thinks that mental events caused by physical events are as real as physical events themselves they are delusional. Subjective experiences are not reliable for a search of the truth. Even the great skeptic The Amazing Randi had an out of body experience and was convinced it was real until his friends proved he didn't. I've had them and have to admit they seem very real, and I know they are a result of my brain creating reality by data we receive from the world of reality, and also from our memories, or body sensations, and are not really real. But objective reality is real because it doesn't go away. Solitary
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on May 29, 2014, 01:47:36 PM
I did some research on this guy. His resumé consists of the following:
-4 decades of work with so-called "out of body experiences."
-Author of several books on the subject.
-A certified hypnotherapist.
The first has no basis in science.
The second is meaningless for our purposes.
The third can only be used to change behaviors and implant false memories. It has jack all to do with anything else.
I don't even need to watch the video at this point.
Some time ago I already had the misfortune of reading something written by that conman. No way I'm taking seriously anything that crank is saying.
http://youtu.be/BKTgGxEHVUo
Casparov, like theist do, you make quotes and leave out what else is quoted to support your arguments. This is being intellectually dishonest.
Religious views of Albert Einstein
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
QuoteAlthough he did not believe in a personal God, he indicated that he would never seek to combat such belief because "such a belief seems to me preferable to the lack of any transcendental outlook.
Spinoza is the greatest of modern philosophers, because he is the first philosopher who deals with the soul and the body as one, not as two separate things.
From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist. ... It is always misleading to use anthropomorphical concepts in dealing with things outside the human sphereâ€"childish analogies. We have to admire in humility the beautiful harmony of the structure of this worldâ€"as far as we can grasp it, and that is all."
You have a quote from Einstein at the bottom of your posts:“The Fanatical Atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures whoâ€"in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"â€"cannot hear the music of other spheres.†- Albert Einstein .
But you leave out the top quote that goes with it. And he made the bottom quote that from the view point of a Jesuit priest he is an atheist. Those are fallacies by omission. :naughty: Solitary
Quote from: Solitary on May 30, 2014, 12:11:40 AM
But you leave out the top quote that goes with it. And he made the bottom quote that from the view point of a Jesuit priest he is an atheist. Those are fallacies by omission. :naughty: Solitary
From the viewpoint of a Jesuit Priest I am an Atheist too Solitary! I am not a Christian, I do not believe the Bible is true, I do not believe that yahweh exists. I believe these are childish superstitions just like Einstein did. I agree that organized religion is childish! Religious people consider me an Atheist! My own grandparents and my entire family think of me as an Atheist I assure you! Even in full context with no omissions, nothing is subtracted from the point Einstein was making about Atheism.
I agree with Einstein that Atheism is "due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth." I think he was dead on when he said Atheists are truly creatures who, "in their grudge against traditional religion as the 'opium of the masses' - cannot hear the music of other spheres."
The opium of the Atheists is there grudge against religion! It is the drug of intellectual superiority over others that Atheism delivers straight to the veins of the ego. It is addictive! It must feel so good to be able to show how stupid creationists are. It must feel so good to feel smarter and more liberated than the great majority of humans(the religious). It is that pure hit of intellectual ecstasy straight to the ego that keeps you coming back. It is community based on rampant tyrannical intellectual superiority.
But in truth, you are no more intelligent or less fearful or more free than any of those sad creationists trapped in there tiny self constructed box of acceptable beliefs and assumptions and preconceptions. You've just traded one box for another and you steal the accomplishments of science and use them as weapons to intellectually assault your indoctrinators and the slave owners from whom you feel you have broken free. This sense of liberation from enslavement and intellectual superiority is your own opium that blinds you from your own harbored absurdities and dogmatisms which you cling to just as religiously as any sad fearful creationist. You are still a slave only to a new master: Materialism. You still dogmatically cling to an unprovable belief: Materialism. You still have a world view that lacks any empirical evidence: Materialism. You are still ignorant, and you are still fearful, and you are still trapped in a self created box you feel comfortable in. You don't even respect science, you abuse it only when it suites you to, and you abandon it the second it no longer serves your agenda and reinforces your beliefs.
Einstein's accurate statements about Fanatical and Professional Atheists are not diminished by the fact that he and people like me are both considered Atheists by Religious peoples. Whether Einstein was an Agnostic or Pantheist, his statements about Fanatical and Professional Atheism remain very clear, and I agree whole heartedly with his sentiments.
Read this until you understand what he actually meant: "such a belief seems to me preferable to the lack of any transcendental outlook. What do you think he means by transcendental outlook? He meant in the sense of being philosophical---in other words: beyond the contingent and accidental in human experience , but not beyond all human knowledge. Is that what you believe? God is beyond any human knowledge, but so is a unicorn, or the tooth fairy. Subjective reality is something that goes away, but objective reality doesn't, and that is where knowledge comes from and can be tested. Solitary
Quote from: Solitary on May 30, 2014, 03:39:22 PM
Read this until you understand what he actually meant: "such a belief seems to me preferable to the lack of any transcendental outlook. What do you think he means by transcendental outlook? He meant in the sense of being philosophical---in other words: beyond the contingent and accidental in human experience , but not beyond all human knowledge. Is that what you believe? God is beyond any human knowledge, but so is a unicorn, or the tooth fairy. Subjective reality is something that goes away, but objective reality doesn't, and that is where knowledge comes from and can be tested. Solitary
The question of God is less important than being open minded and skeptical enough to arrive at the most accurate description of reality possible and behave accordingly.
That you exist is what never changes, the entire "objective" world goes away every night when you fall asleep. Whether you are in a dream, in a virtual reality, in an objective material reality, in the matrix, or having an extremely vivid DMT trip, what never changes is that you exist. You are the constant which does not vary. You are the only thing which never goes away, everything else is temporary, it is all just "the passing show," even "objective" reality goes away, but you will not.
You have identified with what is exterior and fleeting, calling the unreal and temporary the real and never leaving, and you have ignored what is permanently doing the seeing, calling the unchanging and real the unreal and vanishing. You are suffering from a complete reversal of the subject/object relationship.
Have I missed anything important?
*sees Casperov's word salad*
I'll take that as a no. Carry on.
Quote from: Casparov on May 31, 2014, 02:38:41 AM
The question of God is less important than being open minded and skeptical enough to arrive at the most accurate description of reality possible and behave accordingly.
That you exist is what never changes, the entire "objective" world goes away every night when you fall asleep. Whether you are in a dream, in a virtual reality, in an objective material reality, in the matrix, or having an extremely vivid DMT trip, what never changes is that you exist. You are the constant which does not vary. You are the only thing which never goes away, everything else is temporary, it is all just "the passing show," even "objective" reality goes away, but you will not.
You have identified with what is exterior and fleeting, calling the unreal and temporary the real and never leaving, and you have ignored what is permanently doing the seeing, calling the unchanging and real the unreal and vanishing. You are suffering from a complete reversal of the subject/object relationship.
You have a very self-centered world view.
Quote from: the_antithesis on May 31, 2014, 12:17:17 PM
You have a very self-centered world view.
"
Arming himself with discipline, seeing everything with an equal eye, he sees the self in all creatures and all creatures in the self." -
The Bhagavad Gita Chapter VI 6:29