Stratovarius Community
 FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register 
 Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 

True Religion
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Stratovarius Community Forum Index -> Other discussions in English
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
AAAAAAAAAA
Sr. Member


Joined: 22 Aug 2008
Posts: 3127

PostPosted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 6:26 am    Post subject: Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote

Rebel wrote:
Christ is the only way


The Holy Libel.

Hiya there mere mortals! God Almighty here. Martin Walkyier won't be writing you a Christmas blog for his MySpace profile, because I am now doing it instead. To be honest Martin's been saying far too many blasphemous things about me lately, the sinful little toe rag, so I've cursed him good and proper with 'writer's block' as a form of divine punishment. It seems that I'm getting a very bad 'rep' with the youth of today, in particular with you longhaired, tattooed types. So I thought it about time to set the record straight on just a couple of important points. Firstly, whilst I have numerous different names all over your insignificant planet, I answer to every one of them. Allah, God, Elvis, Jehovah etc., it's all the same to me matey. So sorry, but none of you are my 'chosen ones'- you're all in this shit together I'm afraid. I've already sent more than enough of my prophets down to your scruffy, little Earth over the years - Jesus Christ, Mohammed, David Icke, The Buddha and Bill Hicks, to name but a few. The only problem is you've either killed them off or got totally the wrong idea about what they were trying to say upon my behalf every time. I'm also starting to grow extremely weary of all this Father & Him malarkey by the way, because basically I am neither male nor female. I'm a pan-dimensional being easily capable of creating your entire universe, (amongst countless others), with no more effort than a mere twitch of my divine eyebrow, and therefore not bound by the narrow constraints of either species, race, gender or sexuality thank you very much indeed. I most certainly did not make you in my own image!!! I am your God and therefore I'm well sexy, (you would all instantly orgasm in your humanoid panties if you actually beheld my true loveliness). Whilst you lot on the other hand are just a load of ugly, sweaty and hairless apes. I accidentally created your entire universe whilst suffering from an evil hangover of truly biblical proportions - so just get over it! I've also heard rumours that some of you even doubt that I actually exist. No worries at all, very soon indeed now one of you puny-minded human beings will eventually discover the conclusive proof that I'm absolutely everywhere all at once - omnipotent in fact. lol. My guess is that it'll be some quantum physicist or mathematician rather than any 'holy man' or theologian who finds out my secrets first. God knows, (and I most certainly do), I've left plenty of badly hidden clues lying around everywhere for you dumb-ass, shaven monkeys to discover. If you humans either peer deeply enough down your electron microscopes or far enough off into outer space you'll find my autograph there. I've already tagged it all mate - I guess that you're sadly just too blind or stupid to read my divine graffiti at present?

Your universe was born from a point far smaller than nothing, on a very boring, rainy Sunday afternoon around 13.7 billion Earth years ago, (give or a take a week or two). It popped out with a Bang so Big that you can still hear its echo today if you listen carefully to your TV or radio detuned in-between adjacent stations. Your universe is just one amongst infinite others, a miniscule speck in a limitless multiverse which is beyond most current human comprehension. They all float together, kind of like the glistening soapy bubbles in your dishwater I guess. Each appears out from nowhere; they exist for just a fleeting instant and then eventually dissipate and move on. For such is the transient nature of all my creations. You have thankfully been blessed with an amazing universe in which to live. You've got light, matter, Space-Time and gravity just for starters - lucky buggers! They are the basic bricks and mortar from which you and everything else was made. Yours is also an energetic universe, which is a happening place to be in celestial real estate terms. You know how a piece of music is composed of numerous notes, which travel through the air to your ears? Well folks, the whole of your visible, tangible universe is constructed from vibrating energy waveforms when viewed at the sub-atomic level. In short, it's like you're each a minute fragment of a vast, living, multi-dimensional, interactive cosmic symphony or computer game - and I'm busy making it up as we go along. All rather impressive stuff don't you reckon? Though some of your top scientists may still doubt my very existence, I'm certain they'd agree with me on most of those previous statements. Your universe is a far, far weirder place than anything you could ever imagine – and I know this fact because I am your God remember. Creating sentient life forms is like cooking great Indian food from scratch. It requires an enormous time and effort. The heavy elements from which your fragile bodies are formed have already been forged infinite times before by my own hand within the hearts of myriad stars from galaxies long since destroyed. I gave you human beings a planet in the very nicest region of the most comfortable galaxy system available - with a molten hot core, its own everlasting electro-magnetic field, liquid water as well as a clean, breathable atmosphere, Godammit, and also at exactly the right distance away from the nearest star. I even threw in a moon for free on that 2-4-1 offer I was doing a while back!!! I've invested a hellish amount of patience and energy into making you chaps, and I had really high hopes for humanity as a species; I'd just kick-started your evolution and then naively trusted you to get along with it – and regrettably I must say what a horrendous disappointment you've all proven to be so far!

The Mayan peoples believed that your World would come to an end in December 2012. The way I'm feeling right now, I might well just see to it that they are proven 666% correct. I wiped-out those dinosaurs 65 million years ago because they frankly became far too big, stupid and 'bitey'. Well, the same fate awaits you humans unless you can mend the error of your ways. During a time when the planet I lovingly made for you is rapidly dying, you're seemingly all preoccupied with arguing about which name I prefer to be called by. Offering me talking Christian action-figures and Barbie Dolls wearing Muslim hijab headscarves is not the answer I'm afraid. But stopping killing one another and raping the environment would however be an excellent place to start. I most certainly do not 'speak' to any of your leaders and instruct them to wage their holy wars upon my behalf. If anyone either offends me or takes my name in vain then it's solely my job to sort them out. So stick with your Playstations and leave me alone to play God if that's OK with you lot? Just for the record, I sent my Arch Angel Gabriel down to earth with the strictest instructions to "make George W. Bush irrelevant". Sadly Gabriel's gone rather deaf lately from all that horn blowing, and he mistakenly thought I'd said to make George the president. I guess you've all realised what a truly monumental error this was by now, and hopefully you're taking steps to replace him ASAP? I'm getting sick and tired of constantly hearing those fundamental religious types blaming the World's woes and ills upon Satan, when in truth it's you humans who are responsible for creating so much of the evil that you see all around you. If you read some of the very earliest editions of my most sacred books you'll learn that Satan was originally one of my emissaries, an avenging angel whose services I hire from time to time to help-out with the 'dirty jobs' of punishing, smiting and cursing evil-doers etc. Whilst I'll agree she's not the kind of girl you should ever invite over your mother's house for a cup of tea, blaming all your earthly misfortunes upon her is just a tad unfair in my opinion. If you want my advice, (and believe me you do!), then the people that you really need to be watching-out for these days are those who falsely claim to speak on my behalf. These are the hypocritical liars whose hollow promises will only lead you all down a path to self-destruction and despair. So come along now humanity! Remember that you've only got until December 21st 2012 to get this planet fixed-up nicely and stop all this damned, pathetic bickering amongst yourselves - Or else I've got a bloody massive meteorite with your name written on it heading directly towards the Earth very soon indeed. Judge you later boys and girls! Amen. God xxx

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NeonVomit
Sr. Member


Joined: 20 Feb 2003
Posts: 4628
Location: London, UK

PostPosted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 10:36 am    Post subject: Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote

AAAAAAAAAA, in your rare moments of lucidity you are indeed a giant of intellect. You sir are a gentleman and a scholar.


Alienred wrote:
NeonVomit wrote:
Indeed. Ctrl+ C and ctrl+ V seem to be his best friends.


Peace Warrior wrote:
Alien-read is a copypastafarian Very Happy


Is that all you can say?


What you 'write' isn't really worth the effort to respond to. I mean, I like read the first few sentences and gave up.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Stratowarius
Sr. Member


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 1701

PostPosted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 10:54 am    Post subject: Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote

Laughing AMEN to the Libel, even if it is an human (an American till that Rolling Eyes )who wrote it and NOT some God. Haha! We are NOT that easily fooled. Huh!

To Alienred I will suggest, that you come to London August 4 when the Pastafarians have a meet and greet, at the Olympic (many of our members are competing in those games namely, and are at the place anyway). We will discuss some very interesting views as for example the Excessa-invasion that is supposed to occur in Dec 2012. I am sure you will be most wellcome and maybe even meet one of our experts mr Neon Vomit there.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NeonVomit
Sr. Member


Joined: 20 Feb 2003
Posts: 4628
Location: London, UK

PostPosted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 11:18 am    Post subject: Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote

Oooh what events are you planning on going to? I've got tickets for fencing, taekwondo and swimming, as well as one of the football semi-finals.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Stratowarius
Sr. Member


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 1701

PostPosted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 12:01 pm    Post subject: Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote

Smile So sorry dear, I don't share your interest for those sports (maybe fencing Rolling Eyes) and I am only in London for the "meet and greet". But I am of course looking forward to your, as usual, exellent lecture, about our "Flying Spagetti Monster", that maybe, and this is a BIG maybe, will attend.

See you there...

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mayhem-for-all
Sr. Member


Joined: 29 Dec 2008
Posts: 1907

PostPosted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 12:24 pm    Post subject: Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote

Ok so now I will have to respond too.

There are two simple arguments that make all religions pointless.

1. There is no afterlife since there is no soul that could live outside your body. How to prove this? Our mind reflects the state of our brains. We all know that brain damage can alter or erase your memory or even change your personality. How do you expect to have those things after your death when dying pretty much means the destruction of your brains?

We all know what it will be like after our own deaths. We all have experienced not existing. I am talking about the time before we were born. Interesting time wasn't it. Prepare to meet it again soon!

So the afterlife provides no need for religious behavior.

2. Religious rituals have no effect on the world we live in so there is no need for religious behavior to influence our lives either.

For example the prayer study:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/ health/31pray.html?pagewanted=all
As you can read there the patients who were prayed for had just as many complications during surgery as those who were not prayed for and if the person had been told people were praying for him there were more complications than usually due to higher stress levels.

No matter which religion is right the majority of the worlds population is wrong. The most widespread religion has only 2 billion followers (out of 7 billion) and that is when all of the very different groups inside the actual religion are counted together.

about 80-90% of all people simply assume the religion that is the most influential where they live is the right one.



<object width="420" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/zOfjkl- 3SNE?version=3&amp;hl=fi_FI"></ param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/zOfjkl- 3SNE?version=3&amp;hl=fi_FI" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/ 646545-religious-belief-a-mind-virus- that-preys-on-fear

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mayhem-for-all
Sr. Member


Joined: 29 Dec 2008
Posts: 1907

PostPosted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 1:30 pm    Post subject: Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote

And just because I started watching NonStampCollectors videos again I thought I might share this video too before Rebel comes in saying Bible is an accurate historical document. (+ it's damn hilarious just watch all the way to the end!)

<object width="560" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ RB3g6mXLEKk?version=3&amp;hl=fi_FI"></ param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ RB3g6mXLEKk?version=3&amp;hl=fi_FI" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="560" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></ object>

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NeonVomit
Sr. Member


Joined: 20 Feb 2003
Posts: 4628
Location: London, UK

PostPosted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 2:54 pm    Post subject: Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote

mayhem-for-all wrote:
Ok so now I will have to respond too.

There are two simple arguments that make all religions pointless.

1. There is no afterlife since there is no soul that could live outside your body. How to prove this? Our mind reflects the state of our brains. We all know that brain damage can alter or erase your memory or even change your personality. How do you expect to have those things after your death when dying pretty much means the destruction of your brains?


Yeah, it's pretty depressing how a few chemicals can completely alter your brain. After all, most mental illnesses are caused by chemical imbalances within the brain... what are meds, after all? A friend of mine is doing a PhD in cognitive neuroscience has told me that people can completely change after operations, he's seen it happen first hand. The human brain is still such a massive unknown... so many things happen and we actually have no idea why, which is why research is continuing. Bit by bit we are discovering more things, but just like the universe beyond our planet, it's a process of discovery that will take generations and we can't expect full answers, or even mostly complete ones, within our lifetimes.

When you look at it like that, organised religion seem less and less relevant and more and more like a means of social control. It also reminds me of the first few episodes of Red Dwarf, when the descendants of the cat-people started a civil war because they disagreed about the interpretation of the way Lister left his socks on the floor, and how they were supposed to be a message.

I mean.. IS there a god? My answer is who the hell knows? HOW can anyone know, when there are basic functions of the human body we can't sufficiently explain?

The way I see it, it all comes back to Bertrand Russell's teapot - the philosophic burden of proof lies on those making outlandish claims (such as people coming back from the dead, etc.) to prove them, rather than those who don't believe in them to disprove them.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Alienred
Jr. Member


Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Posts: 49

PostPosted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 5:36 pm    Post subject: Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote

NeonVomit wrote:



I mean.. IS there a god? My answer is who the hell knows? HOW can anyone know, when there are basic functions of the human body we can't sufficiently explain?


Denying the inner is a very unscientific attitude. So first one has hypothetically to accept that the inner exists. Secondly, one has to understand that the methodology that works for the outer cannot work for the inner. Simply because the inner is the opposite dimension, the same methods will not be applicable. You will have to find new methodology for the inner. And that's what I call meditation: this is the new methodology for the inner.
Osho

http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=a2u1g1dnKT8 - Science and the Inner Journey

I am trying to introduce scientific methods where religion has ruled for millennia.
I have been challenging religious leaders to open discussion. In the beginning, a few accepted because they had no idea what kind of man I am.

But now nobody accepts my challenge. They cannot prove anything, because all that they think is true is only a belief, and I can expose the belief very easily. They cannot disprove me, because whatever I am saying is my experience. And I am not teaching a doctrine, a philosophy which can be argued about. I am teaching only a method.

I am all for science.

The world needs a religion which is scientific, and we are creating it.
Nobody can have any dispute with my religion, for the simple reason that I don't give him any grounds to dispute.

There is no God, so we don't have to be worried about proving the existence of God. Nobody has been able to prove it.

Thousands of theologians and philosophers wasted their life in proving the existence of God. Strange - even his existence is not proved, and you are searching for somebody whose existence has not been proved in thousands of years. You are praying to somebody who is not even a hypothesis.

We don't have any God. We don't have any heaven and hell. We don't have our sannyasins walking on water and.... So there is no way to have a dispute with us. We are simply inquirers going deeper into our silence, into our joy, into our blessings - which are our birthright.

Now, joy needs no proof. Or do you think it needs any proof? Your peacefulness needs no proof.
This silence, here... as if there is nobody... is a proof unto itself. It does not need any proof from outside.

I have condensed the whole religion into a single word: meditation.

And anybody who wants to dispute will have to go into meditation, because that is our religion. If he does not succeed, that is his failure. If he succeeds, we succeed. Both the sides are ours. If he succeeds in reaching to his innermost core, he will find that what we were saying is true. And I don't think that a man of meditation will lie. It is impossible.




Osho on DEATH Evil or Very Mad


Death is the biggest surgical operation there is. No physician has ever performed an operation as big as this -- because in death there is a mechanism to transplant the entire vital energy, the prana, from one physical body into another physical body. No one has ever performed such a phenomenal operation, nor can it ever be done. We may sever one part of the body or another, or transplant one part or another, but in the case of death, the entire vital energy has to be taken from one body and entered into another.

Nature has kindly seen to it that we become fully unconscious at the occurrence of this phenomenon. It is for our own good; we might not be able to bear that much pain. It is possible that the reason why we become unconscious is because the pain of death is so unbearable. It is in our own interest that we become unconscious; nature does not allow us to remember passing through death.

In every life we repeat almost the same mistakes we have repeated in our past lives. If we could only recall what we did in our past lives, we might not fall into the same ditches again. And if we could only remember what we did throughout our previous lives, we could no longer remain the same as we are now. It is impossible we could remain the same, because time and time again we have amassed wealth and every time death has made all that wealth meaningless.

If we could recall this, we might not carry, any longer, the same craze for money within us as we did before. We have fallen in love a thousand times, and time and time again it has ultimately proven to be meaningless.

If we could recall this, our craze for falling in love with others and for having others fall in love with us would disappear. Thousands upon thousands of times we have been ambitious, egoistic; we have attained success, high position, and in the end all of it has turned out to be useless, all of it has turned to dust. If we could recall this, perhaps our ambition would lose its steam, and then we would not remain the same people we are now.

Since we do not remember our past lives, we keep moving in almost the same circle. Man does not realize that he has gone through the same circle many times before, and that he is going through it once again in the same hope he carried with him so often before. Then death ruins all hopes, and once again the cycle begins. Man moves in circles like an ox on a water-wheel. One can save oneself from this harm, but it requires great awareness and continuous experimentation.

One cannot start waiting for death all at once, because one cannot become suddenly aware during such a big operation, under such a great trauma. We will have to experiment slowly. We will have to experiment slowly with small miseries to see how we can be aware while going through them.






A man of realization knows there is no death. Death is a fiction, you have never died. Yes, you have changed your form many times. You have changed your house many times, many times. But you have never died. Have you ever seen yourself dying? It is always somebody else who dies.

~ Life and death are two phases of the same energy. Death is not the end of life. Death itself is part of life, and life goes on. You have died many times, and still you are alive. Your life is eternal. Death is a small episode here and there, when you change your house, but the essential of your being remains the same. How many times you change houses does not matter, but it is inconceivable to the mind.

This life is going to end in a few days, or in a few years. It is not something to cling to. Each moment death is coming closer; before death grabs you, you have to figure out something which is eternal, which is immortal.

All the riches that you have can be lost, can be stolen, will be lost — one day death will come and will take everything away. When somebody has come to that inner diamond that is one’s own being, death cannot take it away. Death is irrelevant to it. It cannot be stolen, it cannot be lost.

http://www.lifetrainings.com/Does- consciousness-continue-after-death.html

NeonVomit wrote:

I like read the first few sentences and gave up.


That's what Osho always does - he shocked people all his life. Everyone was always against him - politicians, religious leaders, gurus, they tried to killed him, threw knifes and shoes at him, imprisoned him and eventually governments poisoned him Crying or Very sad They were all afraid of him. When he was a student he always won all the trophies in the University at the arguing contests. He always asked the most uncomfortable questions - all his professors hated him because they could not argue.

When he became enlightened he read around 150 000 books in order to understand all the philosophies and religions of the world so he could argue with various people who were completely lost in their own minds. He caused confusion everywhere.Rolling Eyes He had around 700 books and not a single one was written - they were all recorded from his life talks. He talked on all the main subjects of human existence - loneliness, pain, depression, suffering, happiness, music, sex ,life, democracy, philosophies, anger, hate ,love. He commented almost on all of the awakened teachers (including Krishnamurti) and all the spiritual teachings.


One distinction has to be understood, the distinction between brain and mind. The brain is part of the body. Every child is born with a fresh brain but not with a fresh mind. Mind is a layer of conditioning around the consciousness. You will not remember it; that is why there is a discontinuity.

… Mind has no beginning; it has been always there with you. Then at a certain moment you drop it.
The end of the mind is enlightenment. Then enlightenment continues. It has a beginning but no end. Together they cover the whole eternity, from the past to the future.

But the brain is born every time you enter a body and it dies every time you leave the body. But its content — that is the mind — does not die; it remains with the consciousness.

That’s why it is possible to remember your past lives — even when you were animals or trees or rocks. All those minds are still with you. But because psychology makes no distinction between mind and brain, and science accepts no distinction… in the English language mind and brain are almost synonymous. That’s why sometimes I forget and instead of using brain, I use the word mind.

In each life when a person dies the brain dies, but the mind is released from the brain and becomes a layer on the consciousness. It is nonmaterial; it is just a certain vibe. So on our consciousness there are thousands of layers.
Osho


You can either love him or hate him Very Happy




I've been here for a million years
Through the joy, through the tears
But when I am gone this will go on
And the circle starts again...

I've watched the mountains rise from dust
Saw the gold return to rust
I had cried when the oceans died
And the circle starts again...

Ohhh...
Ahhh...

I was here when the world began to turn
Kissed the sun as it started to burn
The whispering at the reckoning said
"The circle starts again"

The moon was rising from above
I caught her eye and thought it was love
But she turned her back, the sky went black
And the circle starts again...

Ohhh...
Ahhh...

I danced through castles made of stone
Walked the desert sands alone
In the midnight hour you feel the power
And the circle starts again...

Now the question falls to you, my friend
No begining has no end
Will we ever learn, will the world still turn,
Will the circle start again?


Ohhh...
Ahhh...
Blackmore's Night
Very Happy :

http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=2nEyPAmMr5A

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Carcass
Sr. Member


Joined: 23 Sep 2006
Posts: 1174
Location: Finland

PostPosted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 5:53 pm    Post subject: Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote

mayhem-for-all wrote:

There are two simple arguments that make all religions pointless.

All religions pointless? Empirical descriptions of the universe. Is that what religions are to you? You show complete lack of will to understand the moral component, which, at least in my opinion, is the very core of Christianity.

I also don't buy the claim that chemicals are the biggest reason for mental problems. What we do and what others do to us is much more important than chemicals. Do you guys really think that we get depressed because of chemical imbalances inside our skulls?

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Alienred
Jr. Member


Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Posts: 49

PostPosted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 5:59 pm    Post subject: Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote

Carcass wrote:
mayhem-for-all wrote:

There are two simple arguments that make all religions pointless.

You show complete lack of will to understand the moral component, which, at least in my opinion, is the very core of Christianity.


http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=T_LNh_eeh6Q&feature=relmfu -Your Morality is Not Real

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Carcass
Sr. Member


Joined: 23 Sep 2006
Posts: 1174
Location: Finland

PostPosted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 6:03 pm    Post subject: Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote

*ignored*

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Alienred
Jr. Member


Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Posts: 49

PostPosted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 6:38 pm    Post subject: Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote

Burning Reflection wrote:

Even if love does prevail, our planet doesn't have time to wait for us to change and some of the damage done to the Earth is irreversible.

And try not to worry too much about those that don't listen...Smile


It's really reversible - we are all interconnected and as soon as we (humanity) begin to change our egoistic behavior - the earth will recover and turn into a paradise - in fact it's already recovering - we can speed up the process by changing ourselves and becoming in harmony with nature or mother-earth will force us do it. There is no way out of this. The storms, tsunamis, tornadoes, volcanoes - there are a lot of gifts in store for disobedient children. If we wont'T REALIZE that we are ONE humanity and must be united - the cancer cell will be deleted but nevertheless the remaining few will become one.

There is much more to be revealed but not right now and i cannot post it here. I am afraid will have to wait for more blows.

Thank you very much for your support Smile

browneyedgirl wrote:

Indeed. MA was the cult leader of a very intellectual New Age religious group called Heaven's Gate who all committed mass suicide in 1997, I think. They also had a huge collection of guns and such to use against anyone who tried to break-up their little party.


Mass suicide? What kind of intellect is that? Confused

It looks like they believed in aliens, spaceships and other such nonsense. A typical "very intellectual New Age group"

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Burning Reflection
Sr. Member


Joined: 22 Feb 2005
Posts: 580
Location: Los Angeles, California

PostPosted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:45 pm    Post subject: Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote

That's very nice to believe, Alienred, but it's too idealistic. I believe the world can be saved, but I'm being realistic, it can also be destroyed and we have done irreversible damage to the earth at an exponential rate: mass extinctions, ruining of top soil, desertification and salinization, foreign diseases and species destroying natural habitats, famines from environmental mismanagement, genocides...As much as I love Osho and Krishnamurti,learning does not stop there. If you like reading I'd recommend reading a book about environmental damage such as the ones (three books) by Jared Diamond.

@ Neonvomit - I agree with you and Russel's teapot argument. The fact is no one knows empirically that there is a god and I don't believe anyone has seen or knows the true God. I believe there is something loving and guiding us on a path of evolution, and all the "negative" things that happen are a result of love and freedom by God to do whatever we've desired, but it's now up to us realize we've always had this choice between being free and determined, and now it's time to follow the path of God's Highest Ideals and assume the role of God as best as we humanly can. Humans can be next to and as close to Godliness as we desire. I guess you can call me an agnostic that has faith in the Unknowable One.

I was one where religion was used as means to exploit and control, and I had plenty of reasons to denounce and loathe it, but I realized that these were people that used good teachings, ones that were supposed to free man and make kings out of all men, to fulfill their own selfish and worldly agendas (Find your Own Voice: arrogant, hypocrites, selling the key to heaven's door). The bible was written long ago by normal people like you and I, Jesus was a normal human being that transcended all borders, nations, a true Son of all Men, and I think that most of the stories like the resurrection were metaphors of their time and not meant to be taken literally. Take it as a grain of salt and take the good things and reject the bad, it's hard work, but I think if we took religion for it's core essence, it would not be thought of as a means to control but as a means to empower and free mankind from following false leaders, profits and idols.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NeonVomit
Sr. Member


Joined: 20 Feb 2003
Posts: 4628
Location: London, UK

PostPosted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 2:40 pm    Post subject: Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote

Alienred wrote:
It looks like they believed in aliens, spaceships and other such nonsense.


Quote:
and other such nonsense.


Quote:
other such nonsense.


Quote:
such nonsense.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
ÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖ
Sr. Member


Joined: 04 Mar 2010
Posts: 5087

PostPosted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 3:42 pm    Post subject: Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote

NeonVomit wrote:
Alienred wrote:
It looks like they believed in aliens, spaceships and other such nonsense.


Quote:
and other such nonsense.


Quote:
other such nonsense.


Quote:
such nonsense.





PFFFF, and he hasn't even heard of Pekka Fucking! PFFFFT...

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Alienred
Jr. Member


Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Posts: 49

PostPosted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 4:36 pm    Post subject: Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote

Burning Reflection wrote:
As much as I love Osho and Krishnamurti,


Don't forget Eckhart Tolle Wink

http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=L49yRTRkq1k -Death and The Eternal

@ Neonvomit:
Eckhart Tolle, saying the same things as Osho, even though he might have never heard of him - Hmmm - and acknowledges Krishnamurti.

Strange - isn't it? Rolling Eyes



“To transform the world, we must begin with ourselves; and what is important in beginning with ourselves is the intention. The intention must be to understand ourselves and not to leave it to others to transform themselves or to bring about a modified change through revolution, either of the left or of the right. It is important to understand that this is our responsibility, yours and mine..

“I hope that you will listen, but not with the memory of what you already know; and this is very difficult to do. You listen to something, and your mind immediately reacts with its knowledge, its conclusions, its opinions, its past memories. It listens, inquiring for a future understanding.

Just observe yourself, how you are listening, and you will see that this is what is taking place. Either you are listening with a conclusion, with knowledge, with certain memories, experiences, or you want an answer, and you are impatient. You want to know what it is all about, what life is all about, the extraordinary complexity of life. You are not actually listening at all.

You can only listen when the mind is quiet, when the mind doesn't react immediately, when there is an interval between your reaction and what is being said. Then, in that interval there is a quietness, there is a silence in which alone there is a comprehension which is not intellectual understanding.

If there is a gap between what is said and your own reaction to what is said, in that interval, whether you prolong it indefinitely, for a long period or for a few seconds - in that interval, if you observe, there comes clarity. It is the interval that is the new brain. The immediate reaction is the old brain, and the old brain functions in its own traditional, accepted, reactionary, animalistic sense.

When there is an abeyance of that, when the reaction is suspended, when there is an interval, then you will find that the new brain acts, and it is only the new brain that can understand, not the old brain” ― Jiddu Krishnamurti





Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AAAAAAAAAA
Sr. Member


Joined: 22 Aug 2008
Posts: 3127

PostPosted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 5:31 pm    Post subject: Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Alienred
Jr. Member


Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Posts: 49

PostPosted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 8:18 pm    Post subject: Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote

AAAAAAAAAA wrote:



"I think when one sees something true and beautiful, one wants to tell people about it, out of affection, out of compassion, out of love. … Can you ask the flower why it grows, why it has perfume? It is for the same reason the speaker talks."
Jiddu Krishnamurti

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Alienred
Jr. Member


Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Posts: 49

PostPosted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 11:22 pm    Post subject: Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote

AAAAAAAAAA wrote:



I wiped-out those dinosaurs 65 million years ago because they frankly became far too big, stupid and 'bitey'.


I like that part

Laughing Laughing Laughing

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GAGAGO
Sr. Member


Joined: 11 Oct 2011
Posts: 1231
Location: Granada

PostPosted: Wed Jul 25, 2012 10:54 am    Post subject: Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote

Laughing Laughing Laughing

Really funny thread. but tl/dr so I do not really know what it is all about. God?

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NeonVomit
Sr. Member


Joined: 20 Feb 2003
Posts: 4628
Location: London, UK

PostPosted: Wed Jul 25, 2012 11:47 am    Post subject: Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote

I have no idea anymore. I think it's about someone who likes copying/pasting enormous paragraphs and expects people to read them.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
mayhem-for-all
Sr. Member


Joined: 29 Dec 2008
Posts: 1907

PostPosted: Wed Jul 25, 2012 2:56 pm    Post subject: Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote

NeonVomit wrote:

I mean.. IS there a god? My answer is who the hell knows? HOW can anyone know, when there are basic functions of the human body we can't sufficiently explain?

The way I see it, it all comes back to Bertrand Russell's teapot - the philosophic burden of proof lies on those making outlandish claims (such as people coming back from the dead, etc.) to prove them, rather than those who don't believe in them to disprove them.


Well there are a lot of things we can say about gods actually. If they indeed had created the world it would reflect their own qualities.
Now the real question is how would this world be different if it hadn't been created by a god? Or even better how would this world be different if it had been created by an intelligent and morally good almighty being?
Propably it would have less suffering and pain, unjustice, wars and definately it would have less religions propably only one.

There are no plausible theodicies to fight the problem of evil so there is at least one thing we can say about god. Either:
a) he isn't omnipotent
or
b) he isn't good
or
c) There is no evil in the world and everything you can do is also allowed
or
d) all of the above
or
e) he doesn't exist


But in the end you are right. Russell's teapot backed with Ockham's razor pretty much makes it quite difficult for religions back up their claims.

Our friend alienred here for example presents us a thought of reincarnation.

alienred wrote:
But the brain is born every time you enter a body and it dies every time you leave the body. But its content — that is the mind — does not die; it remains with the consciousness.

That’s why it is possible to remember your past lives — even when you were animals or trees or rocks. All those minds are still with you. But because psychology makes no distinction between mind and brain, and science accepts no distinction… in the English language mind and brain are almost synonymous. That’s why sometimes I forget and instead of using brain, I use the word mind.

In each life when a person dies the brain dies, but the mind is released from the brain and becomes a layer on the consciousness. It is nonmaterial; it is just a certain vibe. So on our consciousness there are thousands of layers.
Osho

Now first of all I don't have any memories of being a rock.
Secondly most people don't have some either.
Thirdly There is no scientific way of memories moving immaterially between a dead being and a living one so memories from past lives aren't possible
Fourth this contradicts what he said about creating a scientific religion (which is a paradox in itself. If it is scientific it has proofs and does not need faith or believing. if it is a religion it need believing and is not scientific)
Ergo this is nonsense.

It is philosophically problematic to claim that you are the same person you were yesterday. Now you are trying to claim that I might be a same person as someone I don't share a body or personality with? And how did you come up with that? Well you just presented it with no argumentation.




alienred wrote:
That's what Osho always does - he shocked people all his life. Everyone was always against him - politicians, religious leaders, gurus, they tried to killed him, threw knifes and shoes at him, imprisoned him and eventually governments poisoned him They were all afraid of him. When he was a student he always won all the trophies in the University at the arguing contests. He always asked the most uncomfortable questions - all his professors hated him because they could not argue.

When he became enlightened he read around 150 000 books in order to understand all the philosophies and religions of the world so he could argue with various people who were completely lost in their own minds. He caused confusion everywhere. He had around 700 books and not a single one was written - they were all recorded from his life talks...

Now that is propably just his side of the story. Idolizing a person with too many positive traits. How usual for religions.

Quote:
There is no God, so we don't have to be worried about proving the existence of God. Nobody has been able to prove it.

Thousands of theologians and philosophers wasted their life in proving the existence of God. Strange - even his existence is not proved, and you are searching for somebody whose existence has not been proved in thousands of years. You are praying to somebody who is not even a hypothesis.


Now that is not actually a very good argument against the existance of anything. I can't prove that there are no goblins just by going to a forest and saying that I don't see any. Sure it indeed does make the assumptions of a god lose their foothold but it doesn't prove that there isn't a god.

Quote:
Denying the inner is a very unscientific attitude.

No it isn't. Falsificationistic science is based on proving things wrong and gaining more knowledge that way instead of proving things right.

Quote:
So first one has hypothetically to accept that the inner exists. Secondly, one has to understand that the methodology that works for the outer cannot work for the inner. Simply because the inner is the opposite dimension, the same methods will not be applicable. You will have to find new methodology for the inner. And that's what I call meditation: this is the new methodology for the inner.

Why? No argumentation here either. He simply presumes it all. I guess you will prove them by building on these foundations and then you are locked in petitio principii.

Carcass wrote:
Is that what religions are to you? You show complete lack of will to understand the moral component, which, at least in my opinion, is the very core of Christianity.

I also don't buy the claim that chemicals are the biggest reason for mental problems. What we do and what others do to us is much more important than chemicals. Do you guys really think that we get depressed because of chemical imbalances inside our skulls?


First of all religions and morale are not linked. Western morale has changed a lot over the centuries while the core of christianity has not. The bible is a terrible place to look for the essence of morale. Just look at that Video I posted.

Secondly the thing about mind and chemicals.
So we have two things: Mind and body. Now while I claim mind reflects the body you say body reflects the mind. In some cases what happens in the mind might be the cause to some things that happen in the body. But for something to change in the mind there has to have been a change in your body first.

That wasn't clear at all so I will demonstrate.
So you read what I just wrote and then become depressed. You might say that what happened in your mind changed things in your body (depression changes a lot of bodily functions) but I might note that reading this changed your brains which made you to experience the depression.

Or then we could demonstrate by issuing a lobotomy on you and checking if that changes the way your mind works. Laughing

Burning Reflection wrote:
I believe there is something loving and guiding us on a path of evolution,

Well evolution is not some active power affecting the universe. It is an invevitable and passive result of genes. It is not something that can be guided unless you mean by literally killing some creatures and leaving others alone (like we are doing by using antibiotics or having pets).
If we have a group of animals that live alongside a river and some of the group are not afraid of the crocodiles in the river and some are (thanks to mutation) it is simply propable that the ones that are afraid of the crocodiles live longer and have more children than those who aren't afraid of the crocodiles. That is evolution in it's simpliest form.

Quote:
and all the "negative" things that happen are a result of love and freedom by God to do whatever we've desired,

So you would allow your kids anything even things you don't want them to do just because you want them to have freedom? And why would you want them to have freedom Confused
+ I always wonder how christianity blames humans for all the bad in the world but also claims that were desinged by god to be this way. Isn't it kind of his fault? Especially since they claim that he as an omnipotent being already knew that we would end up doing these things and he could have made us do otherwise.
To me that simply does not make any sense.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Alienred
Jr. Member


Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Posts: 49

PostPosted: Wed Jul 25, 2012 5:52 pm    Post subject: Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote

mayhem-for-all wrote:



Now first of all I don't have any memories of being a rock.
Secondly most people don't have some either.
Thirdly There is no scientific way of memories moving immaterially between a dead being and a living one so memories from past lives aren't possible
Fourth this contradicts what he said about creating a scientific religion (which is a paradox in itself. If it is scientific it has proofs and does not need faith or believing. if it is a religion it need believing and is not scientific)
Why? No argumentation here either. He simply presumes it all.


Love is a very unscientific idea
http://oshosearch.net/Convert/ Articles_Osho/From_Darkness_to_Light/ Osho-From-Darkness-to-Light- 00000017.html


Science as such has no intrinsic value like life, like love, like blissfulness. These are ends in themselves. Science is only a means. This is the most essential thing to be understood.

Science is concerned with providing you the means to make life richer, profounder, more comfortable, more healthy. But science can do just the opposite too; it can be destructive, it can move in directions which are anti-life. Hence, science cannot be left only in the hands of the scientists. Something higher, something which is an end in itself must be the decisive factor in determining in what direction science should move, in what direction it should not move.

The concern of science is things, objects; it is not concerned at all with being. The word "being" is just nonexistential for the scientific mind. This is very idiotic because the scientist is a being himself.

He is not a thing amongst other things.

Have you ever seen a chair doing scientific research? or a table? The scientist has something which things do not have: consciousness, life, being. But the problem for the scientist is that his methodology limits him. He has a limitation, he can only work on something which he can dissect, which he can set to work upon, which he can put in a test-tube.

Now, you cannot put your own consciousness in front of yourself. You cannot divide your being the way you have divided matter - into molecules, then into atoms, then into electrons. And they go on dividing.

Being is indivisible. There is no sword which can cut it in two. There is no method by which we can experiment upon consciousness; hence, science completely denies the existence of consciousness - because to accept the existence of consciousness is to accept your impotence too. You cannot do anything about it. Then science becomes a very small thing, concerned only with things. And things are utilitarian, their whole purpose is to be used ... by whom?

Are things using things? clothes wearing clothes? food eating food? houses living in houses?

The scientist is in a real dilemma. If he accepts consciousness, being, life, then he is accepting something higher than his reach, something which is beyond his methodology. And of course a scientist, as a scientist, cannot accept anything which is not proved in his lab - not only by himself but by thousands of other scientists around the world.

When the same conclusion is reached through millions of experiments, always the same, without any exception, then it becomes a scientific truth. Only then can the scientist accept it - that too only temporarily because tomorrow new facts may be found and things will have to be changed.

It was not so in the beginning. Just a hundred years ago scientists were very adamant, stubborn, absolute about their findings, because whatsoever they were finding was without exception. But within these hundred years all that absoluteness has disappeared. Every day, new facts are being discovered which go on dismantling the old theories.

Now a new standpoint has arisen; that is, that science can only be temporarily, hypothetically accepted. Nobody can say of anything that the same will happen tomorrow. We can only say that, up to now, whatever we know, this is the conclusion out of it. Anything new being added to it is going to change the whole conclusion.

The dilemma is that science cannot accept being, life. You can cut a man in thousands of parts, you will not find life anywhere. In fact, you cannot put him back together again. Even if you glue him together again, life will not come back.

What is life? How can science accept it? It is beyond the scientist's grasp. So if he accepts it he accepts a limitation of science - and he accepts something higher than science. Then science cannot be the decisive factor in human life. This is against the ego of the scientist.

He can deny, as he has been doing up to now, or ignore, which is far better; but some standpoint has to be taken. Even ignoring it is a standpoint - you have accepted it; otherwise, what are you ignoring? Either reject or ignore: in each case the acceptance is there. If you reject it, if you simply say it does not exist, that it is a by-product .... Try to understand the word "by-product."

You mix a few things and out of the mixture a new thing arises; it was not there before. But if you take those things which you have mixed ... for example, water: hydrogen and oxygen are mixed.

Water is formed in a particular ratio, H2O: two parts hydrogen, one part oxygen, and water arises.

The water is a by-product. If you take oxygen out, or you take hydrogen out, the water disappears.

But the scientist cannot say even that, because when you put the hydrogen back, the water appears again; yes, it is a by-product. I accept that. But life is not a by-product, because when you put the parts together it does not appear again. You cut off the head, and then you fix it back - you can call Leeladhar, you can do perfect plastic surgery - but still life will not appear. Hence the scientist cannot even say that life is a by-product, that consciousness is a by-product. He will still have to prove both.

Karl Marx said that life and consciousness are both by-products. But he is not being logical, he is being simply a fanatic materialist. It is so clear. A by-product is something which arises out of a certain mixture; it will always arise whenever the mixture is made, it will always disappear whenever the mixture is taken away. That is not the case about life.

The second problem in the dilemma is that the scientist has to deny himself. The moment he denies being and says the world consists only of matter - that is, only of things - then who is he? He is a thing.

This is very strange: a few "things" are researching, finding great truths - dangerous, fatal, decisive - and other things are doing nothing. If we are all things, then perhaps while you are sleeping, your chair is trying to experiment upon you, looking into you, trying to find out what kind of thing this is. And the chairs must be publishing periodicals, research papers, getting PhDs, BScs ....

But it is strange that only men, not even animals, are scientists. Animals have life but they are not consciously alive; hence they simply go on living a biological program.

Man is the only living organism on the earth who has a totally new quality - consciousness. The walls in this room are not conscious of you. They are not conscious of themselves either. They don't know they exist, they don't know that anybody else exists. Man is very special; he knows others exist, he knows he exists.

The scientist has to deny the greatest prerogative of man. He has to say that he is also a thing among things. Strange! Scientists also when they are not scientists - because nobody can be a scientist twenty-four hours a day. It is not like religion. A person cannot be religious for a few hours in a day, or a few hours in a week. Either he is religious or he is not.

Religiousness is overwhelming, reaches to every pore of your being; it is not a profession like being a doctor, an engineer, a scientist.
Osho



Matter and Consciousness

The first thing is that in this world, matter and consciousness are not two separate things. What we call matter is consciousness asleep, and what we know as consciousness is matter awakened. In reality matter and consciousness are not different; they are different manifestations of the same thing.

Existence is one, and that one is godliness or brahman or whatsoever you want to call it. When that one is asleep it appears as matter, and when awake it is consciousness. So don’t treat matter and consciousness as separate entities; they are only utilitarian terms. They are not really different.

Even science has come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as matter. How amusing it is that fifty years ago Nietzsche declared that God is dead, and fifty years from now science will have to declare that God may or may not be dead but matter is certainly dead. As science goes deeper and deeper into matter it finds that matter is no more and only energy remains, only energy is.

What remains after the explosion or splitting of the atom is only particles of energy. And what we know as electrons, protons and neutrons are particles of electricity. In fact, it is not correct to call them particles, because particles imply matter. The scientists had to find a new word, which is quanta, which has a different connotation altogether. Quanta is both a particle and a wave. It is difficult to comprehend how something could be both a particle and a wave simultaneously, but quanta is both. Sometimes it behaves as a particle – which is matter; and sometimes it behaves as a wave – which is energy. Wave and energy are behaviors of the same quanta.

When science dug deep it found that only energy is, and when spirituality delved deep it found that only spirit or atman or soul is. And soul is energy. The time is just around the corner when a synthesis of science and religion will be achieved, and the distance that separates them will simply disappear. When the gap between matter and truth has proved to be false, the gap between science and religion cannot exist for long. If matter and consciousness are not two, how can religion and science be two? The separation of science and religion was dependent on the separation of matter and consciousness.

To me, only one is; two simply don’t exist. There is no place for duality; so the question of matter and consciousness does not arise. If you like the language of matter, you can say that everything is matter. And if you like the language of consciousness, you can say that everything is consciousness. I for one prefer the language of consciousness.

Why do I prefer it? Because, in my view, one should always prefer the language of the higher, which has greater potential; one should not prefer the language of the lower, where potential is less and less.

We are not your body, you are consciousness inside your body; your body is only a resting place, a house. One day you enter into it and one day you will have to leave it: a caravanserai, an overnight stay. You are not your body… your pilgrimage is eternal. But being in the body one can become identified, one can start thinking, “I am the body.” And this is happening more today than ever before.

Science is a good method to know about matter, but it is absolutely impotent as far as the world of consciousness is concerned. Because science can only know matter it is bound to deny consciousness; it is beyond its grasp.

If you are trying to see light through your ears you will not be able to see it, and the ears will say, “There is no light.” If you try to listen to music through your eyes you will not be able to listen, because your very method excludes it. Eyes can’t hear music, ears can’t see light, your hands cannot smell, your nose cannot taste. Every sense has its own limitation. It is perfectly valid within its own circumference; beyond it, it is utterly irrelevant.

Science says: Consciousness is illusion, body is the only reality. The truth is that the body has its own reality, and consciousness has its own reality. And the miracle is, the mystery is, that these two separate realities are together, that these two separate realities are functioning in deep synchronicity.
Osho




mayhem-for-all wrote:


Now first of all I don't have any memories of being a rock.
Secondly most people don't have some either.
Thirdly There is no scientific way of memories moving immaterially between a dead being and a living one so memories from past lives aren't possible


When a person is utterly vegetarian he can easily remember his past lives. His clarity is such that he can look into his past lives. He is not gross, his energy is not blocked, his energy moves easily. His river of consciousness can penetrate to the ancient most times; he can go backwards as much as he wants. The consciousness of a non-vegetarian is blocked -- in many ways. He has been accumulating gross matter in himself. That gross matter functions as a barrier. That's why all the three religions that were born outside India, and have remained non-vegetarian, could not come to the idea of reincarnation. They could not experience it.

Pythagoras lived in India, lived the life of a vegetarian, meditated deeply, became aware of the past lives, could see himself moving backwards. He could understand what Buddha means when he says, "Once I was an elephant, once I was a fish, once I was a tree."
Osho

http://www.messagefrommasters.com/ Therapy/ reincarnation_and_vegetarian.htm


Nature has a beautiful arrangement: with each death, a thick layer of forgetfulness comes over your memories. You are carrying all the memories of all your lives. But a small human being finds it so difficult to live with a small conscious mind of one life—if so many lives burst upon him, he is bound to be insane. It is a natural protection.
It happened….

http://www.oshoworld.com/biography/ innercontent.asp?FileName=biography5/05- 14-pastlives.txt

Scientific enquiry into rebirth is quite possible.
http://www.oshonews.com/2012/06/rebirth- osho/

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Alienred
Jr. Member


Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Posts: 49

PostPosted: Wed Jul 25, 2012 6:04 pm    Post subject: Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote

GAGAGO wrote:
Laughing Laughing Laughing

Really funny thread. but tl/dr so I do not really know what it is all about. God?


If you read it - i'll post some nice Russian heavy-metal music!Cool



So? Wink

NeonVomit wrote:
I have no idea anymore.


A Crisis in Consciousness.

http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=3EIZhToUAVY

"We were saying how very important it is to bring about, in the human mind, the radical revolution. The crisis is a crisis in consciousness, a crisis that cannot anymore accept the old norms, the old patterns, the ancient traditions and considering what the world is now, with all the misery, conflict, destructive brutality, aggression and so on. Man is still as he was, is still brutal, violent, aggressive, acquisitive, competitive and... he has built a society along these lines.''
-Jiddu Krishnamurti.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mayhem-for-all
Sr. Member


Joined: 29 Dec 2008
Posts: 1907

PostPosted: Wed Jul 25, 2012 7:03 pm    Post subject: Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote

Quote:
Science as such has no intrinsic value like life, like love, like blissfulness. These are ends in themselves. Science is only a means. This is the most essential thing to be understood


Well this is simply scratching the surface of an ageold philosophic problem: Are Knowledge and Wisdom valuable themselves or are they only ways for happiness. Some people are certain all human actions aim for happiness but I personally have sometimes difficulties explaining why I read certain books and pump myself with knowledge I will never use. Sure partly because it makes me happy but why does it do that if it has no value alone.

Quote:
Science is concerned with providing you the means to make life richer, profounder, more comfortable, more healthy. But science can do just the opposite too; it can be destructive, it can move in directions which are anti-life. Hence, science cannot be left only in the hands of the scientists. Something higher, something which is an end in itself must be the decisive factor in determining in what direction science should move, in what direction it should not move.

Well another part of science is the ethical side. One of the greatest Finnish philosophers Georg Henrik von Wright presented the technological imperative. Everything that can be done (technologically) will be done. For example most physicists whose research made nuclear weapons possible tried to prevent the creation of such things and still failed.

But science is not blind. It is guided by something. Have you ever heard of Western Philosophy? Now let me tell you there is nothing new about philosophy of science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Philosophy_of_science

Quote:
Have you ever seen a chair doing scientific research? or a table? The scientist has something which things do not have: consciousness, life, being. But the problem for the scientist is that his methodology limits him. He has a limitation, he can only work on something which he can dissect, which he can set to work upon, which he can put in a test-tube.


Not really. A lot of people consider mathematics scientifical even though it does not concern objects directly. You don't need a mathematics laboratory or dissecting.

Also while chairs don't often do scientific research, researchers don't often get sat on. Comparing non-living and living objects in this matter is not useful.

Quote:
Now, you cannot put your own consciousness in front of yourself. You cannot divide your being the way you have divided matter - into molecules, then into atoms, then into electrons. And they go on dividing.

Scientific method is a bit more advanced. This is the main limiting factor of study of mind but not an obstacle. Also why should we be so introspective? Theory of Mind is something that children learn naturally around the age of four or five.

Quote:
Being is indivisible. There is no sword which can cut it in two.

So he is only repeating what Descartes had already thought of 300 years before him. He tried separating mind and matter as different substances just because he thought they had different qualities. While it is somewhat true mind is still not separable from matter.

Quote:
There is no method by which we can experiment upon consciousness; hence, science completely denies the existence of consciousness

Non Sequitur. There is no logic behind that. Plus this guy propably hadn't heard of such tiny little things that a lot of people have put their lifework in like for example: Cognitive science, Psychology, Neuroscience, Philosophy of Mind (centuries of both a priori and a posteriori research) also linguistics, anthropology and study of artificial intelligence crosses the study of counsciousness.
And this is all is based on our current philosophical analysis of materialistic philosophy of mind (mostly Emergent, and reductionist)

Quote:
And things are utilitarian, their whole purpose is to be used ... by whom?

Now why is that?
Another assumption based on pretty much nothingness.
Again seeing purposes where they aren't... how human. Rolling Eyes

Quote:
Are things using things? clothes wearing clothes? food eating food? houses living in houses?

Do beings be (are beings?)
Does existance exist? do rocks play rock music?
Pointless play of words. Semantics has its part in linguistics too. With pure syntax you can create meaningless frases but it doesn't prove them.
So the actual content: food, clothes and houses usually don't do a lot of things.
This is quite close to how Aristotle imagined things thousands of years ago. He thought all being have a telos, something they are for. Pen is for writing and pigs are for eating. He did ask what is the thing humans are for. He separated us from all other beings by our ability to reason (which modern study suggests is not as unique as we think). Now do we think about humans? yes we do!

Quote:
The scientist is in a real dilemma. If he accepts consciousness, being, life, then he is accepting something higher than his reach, something which is beyond his methodology. And of course a scientist, as a scientist, cannot accept anything which is not proved in his lab - not only by himself but by thousands of other scientists around the world.

I can see why people didn't like him. He is jumping to false conclusions once again.
Why couldn't a scientist accept something that is not empirical? He already assumes a lot of things about his own work that didn't come from his lab. For example the thought that he can create good test results in his lab that tell things about the reality. If he accepts induction as a good way of reseach and comes up with it through induction he is once again begging the question.
Empirism has to be proved by rationalism before it can be put to use. You can't perceive the reliability of perception.

And like I already mentioned consciousness and mind are scientific terms just like molecule or energy.

Quote:
When the same conclusion is reached through millions of experiments, always the same, without any exception, then it becomes a scientific truth

Once again philosophy of science is ignored.
Scientific method is not simple induction. Plus science is more than physics. If social studies didn't have their own scientific method we would live in a positivist culture. I am glad that Positivism died a long time ago. If it hadn't I couldn't study most of the things I do.

Quote:
It was not so in the beginning. Just a hundred years ago scientists were very adamant, stubborn, absolute about their findings, because whatsoever they were finding was without exception. But within these hundred years all that absoluteness has disappeared. Every day, new facts are being discovered which go on dismantling the old theories.

Another scratch of a surface of an old philosophical problem. The advancement of science. Thomas Kuhn has however dealt with this problem quite well. Have you ever heard paradigms?

Quote:
Now a new standpoint has arisen; that is, that science can only be temporarily, hypothetically accepted. Nobody can say of anything that the same will happen tomorrow. We can only say that, up to now, whatever we know, this is the conclusion out of it. Anything new being added to it is going to change the whole conclusion.

Great... Here comes David Hume's "just because sun has risen every morning so far it doesn't mean it will rise tomorrow" Rolling Eyes

Nothing new. For example proving gravitation true is pretty difficult too. How do you prove objects will keep falling to the ground (toward a greater mass) every single day in the future too.

Quote:
The dilemma is that science cannot accept being, life

As far as I know majority of the branches of science are based on it. Biology, psychology all of social studies...

Quote:
You can cut a man in thousands of parts, you will not find life anywhere. In fact, you cannot put him back together again. Even if you glue him together again, life will not come back.

He wouldn't have been much of a scientist. The definition of life might seem a bit tricky. Still the meaning of life isn't as big as it thought of. We exist because of our genes and we live only for them. The only goal life has put to us is to help our genes (and nowadays more and more often our memes too) to survive.
Life itself, Deoxyribonucleic acid. It is there. Well actually DNA itself is pretty much dead but is the key to evolution and continued existence of life.


Quote:
What is life? How can science accept it?

Life can be defined in multiple ways.

Actually I could have replaced the last few chapters with a definition from wikipedia (not that I place trust on such authority. If the definition would have sucked I would have replaced it with my own.)
wikipedia wrote:
Life (cf. biota) is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes from those that do not,[1][2] either because such functions have ceased (death), or else because they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate.[3][4] Biology is the science concerned with the study of life


Quote:
It is beyond the scientist's grasp. So if he accepts it he accepts a limitation of science - and he accepts something higher than science. Then science cannot be the decisive factor in human life. This is against the ego of the scientist.


I just don't understand how existence of something greater than science would make science lesser than it is. Err how about the reality it studies? Even though knowledge might be valuable science still exists for us and because of us (Instead of us existing for it)

Quote:
I accept that. But life is not a by-product, because when you put the parts together it does not appear again. You cut off the head, and then you fix it back - you can call Leeladhar, you can do perfect plastic surgery - but still life will not appear. Hence the scientist cannot even say that life is a by-product, that consciousness is a by-product. He will still have to prove both.


Again old scientific information. It is quite possible to create life from materia. I am quite exited about synthetic meat actually. And how about organs that you can grow back on yourself? I think that is quite cool.

Quote:
Karl Marx said that life and consciousness are both by-products. But he is not being logical, he is being simply a fanatic materialist. It is so clear.

Yeah great don't insult the argument insult the person. Ad Hominem is one of the most despised argumentation forms among philosophers. This is it in it's purest form. Basically it goes like this:
Person A gives an argument
Person B notes about some quality in person A and then igores the argument completely because of the quality in the person.

I might demonstrate that on you. You are an idiot so you are wrong no matter what you just said. Of and feel free to take this demonstration out of context. It's the next worse thing you can do.

Quote:
The second problem in the dilemma is that the scientist has to deny himself. The moment he denies being and says the world consists only of matter - that is, only of things - then who is he? He is a thing.

Yes. I am materia. I am a body made of matter. I am physical and chemical processess in my brains.
Now whats wrong with that?
Argumentation please!

Quote:
This is very strange: a few "things" are researching, finding great truths - dangerous, fatal, decisive - and other things are doing nothing. If we are all things, then perhaps while you are sleeping, your chair is trying to experiment upon you, looking into you, trying to find out what kind of thing this is. And the chairs must be publishing periodicals, research papers, getting PhDs, BScs ....

Non Sequitur. We are also animals but that doesn't mean we can breathe underwater like fish. One thing in common (being material) doesn't mean a lot of things in common (mind). How am I like a chair?
We are both matrial but we are both different.

Quote:
But it is strange that only men, not even animals, are scientists. Animals have life but they are not consciously alive; hence they simply go on living a biological program

Ah great more Descartes Rolling Eyes
You know the guy used to cut rabbits just to demonstrate they don't have human feelings.

Quote:
Man is the only living organism on the earth who has a totally new quality - consciousness. The walls in this room are not conscious of you. They are not conscious of themselves either. They don't know they exist, they don't know that anybody else exists. Man is very special; he knows others exist, he knows he exists.


This is actually also true of many non-material beings (as in the third world of Karl Poppers three worlds)
Art knows it is art and philosophy knows it is philosophy (in the third world)

Quote:
The scientist has to deny the greatest prerogative of man. He has to say that he is also a thing among things. Strange! Scientists also when they are not scientists - because nobody can be a scientist twenty-four hours a day. It is not like religion. A person cannot be religious for a few hours in a day, or a few hours in a week. Either he is religious or he is not.

Not really.
So here he assumes Religiousness is permanent? a constant stable state? A lot of people change their opinnions. Don't get me wrong science and religion don't have lot in common but this certaintly not what separates them.

SO:
Quote:
Religiousness is overwhelming, reaches to every pore of your being; it is not a profession like being a doctor, an engineer, a scientist.

Whoa he realised nouns and adjectives are different! Shocked

Quote:


Matter and Consciousness

The first thing is that in this world, matter and consciousness are not two separate things. What we call matter is consciousness asleep, and what we know as consciousness is matter awakened. In reality matter and consciousness are not different; they are different manifestations of the same thing.

Existence is one, and that one is godliness or brahman or whatsoever you want to call it. When that one is asleep it appears as matter, and when awake it is consciousness. So don’t treat matter and consciousness as separate entities; they are only utilitarian terms. They are not really different.


So once again a religious structure - no argumentation.
He just says this is how things are bacuse they just are. Presumptions from nothingness. Ockham's Razor does fine on these.

Quote:
Even science has come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as matter. How amusing it is that fifty years ago Nietzsche declared that God is dead, and fifty years from now science will have to declare that God may or may not be dead but matter is certainly dead. As science goes deeper and deeper into matter it finds that matter is no more and only energy remains, only energy is.

While science is still defining what matter exactly is it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Just like it has been said: From philosophys standpoint it doesn't matter wheter matter is waves or energy or particles as long as it is matter.

Quote:
What remains after the explosion or splitting of the atom is only particles of energy. And what we know as electrons, protons and neutrons are particles of electricity. In fact, it is not correct to call them particles, because particles imply matter. The scientists had to find a new word, which is quanta, which has a different connotation altogether. Quanta is both a particle and a wave. It is difficult to comprehend how something could be both a particle and a wave simultaneously, but quanta is both. Sometimes it behaves as a particle – which is matter; and sometimes it behaves as a wave – which is energy. Wave and energy are behaviors of the same quanta.

When science dug deep it found that only energy is, and when spirituality delved deep it found that only spirit or atman or soul is. And soul is energy. The time is just around the corner when a synthesis of science and religion will be achieved, and the distance that separates them will simply disappear. When the gap between matter and truth has proved to be false, the gap between science and religion cannot exist for long. If matter and consciousness are not two, how can religion and science be two? The separation of science and religion was dependent on the separation of matter and consciousness.


Oh no it's pseudo-science crap! Run for your lives Shocked
This is even worse than the time a "quantum physicist" proved how quantum physics allows twins to read eachothers minds Confused

Quote:
To me, only one is; two simply don’t exist. There is no place for duality; so the question of matter and consciousness does not arise. If you like the language of matter, you can say that everything is matter. And if you like the language of consciousness, you can say that everything is consciousness. I for one prefer the language of consciousness.

and now children it is Spinoza time. Mind and matter are different wrinkles in the same carpet hurrah! Rolling Eyes

Quote:
If you are trying to see light through your ears you will not be able to see it, and the ears will say, “There is no light.” If you try to listen to music through your eyes you will not be able to listen, because your very method excludes it.

Oh how very perceptive...
I just wonder where all this is leading. Most of what he says seems to be similar to the rhetorics of populist politicians. No need for argumentation when you can say things that either sound nice intuitively or are so damn Tautological...

Quote:
Science says: Consciousness is illusion, body is the only reality

More misunderstanding of science. If science would ignore consciousness then what are all the branches of science studying it for?

Quote:
When a person is utterly vegetarian he can easily remember his past lives. His clarity is such that he can look into his past lives.

More like when person is insane. There is no medical or physical possibility of that simply pseudo-scientific mysticism. Our brains record memories. Storing as much data as thousands of past lives should be visible in the way the brains work. (also such vast amount of content is evolutionarily useless and would not propably have been created and I am not stepping into begging the question: evolution has a lot of proof.)

Quote:
He is not gross, his energy is not blocked, his energy moves easily. His river of consciousness can penetrate to the ancient most times; he can go backwards as much as he wants. The consciousness of a non-vegetarian is blocked -- in many ways. He has been accumulating gross matter in himself. That gross matter functions as a barrier. That's why all the three religions that were born outside India, and have remained non-vegetarian, could not come to the idea of reincarnation. They could not experience it.

Oh but you underestimate religions. There are estimately three religions born every day and vegetarian CULTURES have existed everywhere on earth. Actually cavemen used to be vegetarian and didn't actually live in caves. There are surprisingly accurate estimates about when early humans started eating meat.
AND I have no idea how being a vegetarian could influence the capacity of your brains and funtionality of your memory system neither do I know a reason WHY it would affect it. Pure rubbish if you ask me.
Quote:
Pythagoras lived in India, lived the life of a vegetarian, meditated deeply, became aware of the past lives, could see himself moving backwards. He could understand what Buddha means when he says, "Once I was an elephant, once I was a fish, once I was a tree."

Sure a lot of people talk to pink elephants too. The pink elephants also told them you are wrong. See how easy it is to bring in the supernatural argument. Not very plausible but still.

Quote:
Scientific enquiry into rebirth is quite possible.
http://www.oshonews.com/2012/06/rebirth- osho/

Laughing Oh great. The scientific community just doesn't know about it yet. This is pure pseudoscience.
OR if you are certain that they are right prove yourself and earn a couple of millions in the process. No one has been able to do so yet but you seem certain.

http://www.skepdic.com/randi.html

Since you won't bother reading it I will copypaste it here (You shouldn't have a problem with copypasting)

Quote:
James Randi, a.k.a. The Amazing Randi, magician and author of numerous works skeptical of paranormal, supernatural, and pseudoscientific claims has for about ten years offered "a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power."

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mayhem-for-all
Sr. Member


Joined: 29 Dec 2008
Posts: 1907

PostPosted: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:13 pm    Post subject: Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote

There You Go I read your whole message and commented it. Now would you please stop copypasting longer and longer messages and actually comment on it. Otherwise this thread is going to see the biggest copypastewar this forum has ever seen. This is your last chance to co-operate and communicate.


Now I might be a bit harsh but reading through all that crap is quite exhausting Rolling Eyes

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Alienred
Jr. Member


Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Posts: 49

PostPosted: Wed Jul 25, 2012 9:31 pm    Post subject: Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote

mayhem-for-all wrote:



Scientific method is a bit more advanced. This is the main limiting factor of study of mind.


As far as I know majority of the branches of science are based on it. Biology, psychology all of social studies...


You don't understand what he means by "being" and Consciousness! Being has nothing to do with the mind or philosophy or science.It's another dimension beyond mind, beyond space and time which can never be reached by science - it's impossible! But nevertheless you can have a taste of it.

You misudestood everything because of this. And you argued just for the sake of arguing.

mayhem-for-all wrote:
There You Go I read your whole message and commented it. Now would you please stop copypasting longer and longer messages and actually comment on it. Otherwise this thread is going to see the biggest copypastewar this forum has ever seen. This is your last chance to co-operate and communicate.


I am really grateful that you have read it!

Now. let me ask you something:

Right now try to close your eyes and stop thinking for at least 1 minute completely - no thoughts at all.

Just stop!


Complete silence.


Try to listen to it (silence) - no thoughts at all just for 1 minute - Ok?




















Did you manage to do it?




"Looking at a sunset, just for a second you forget your separateness: you are the sunset. That is the moment when you feel the beauty of it. But the moment you say that it is a beautiful sunset, you are no longer feeling it; you have come back to your separate, enclosed entity of the ego. Now the mind is speaking. And this is one of the mysteries, that the mind can speak, and knows nothing; and the heart knows everything, and cannot speak. Perhaps to know too much makes it difficult to speak; the mind knows so little, it is possible for it to speak.
Osho
"
-


That's what "Being" means


If you have fallen in love with someone, there are moments with your beloved or your lover when thinking stops. Just sitting by the lake, doing nothing, holding hands, looking at the moon or the stars, or just gazing into the darkness of the night, sometimes thoughts stop
Osho

That's what "Being" means

sometimes I wonder why the years go
by, and in the end we always die
but when I held you close, time almost
froze, they say it's life
but no one knows
Wink
http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=5mEfenOUUKA


Listen to this - Ritchie Blackmore expressed it in his playing - you can feel the "being"

http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=Kco_TGz5sQA

CAN YOU PROVE WHAT YOU FEEL?

PROVE IT!!!
Very Happy

Quote:
He just says this is how things are because they just are


Because he experienced them.
Krishnamurti and Eckhart Tolle experienced the same, that's why they are all talking about the same things.

If there was just a little bit of "being" left in you would have understood it.

But I am afraid you are completely lost inside your mind.

http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=j42cTkiGdXY
Please watch the video and try to feel the silence between the words of the speaker...




To discover the new, the eternal, in the present, from moment to moment, one needs an extraordinarily alert mind, a mind that is not seeking a result, a mind that is not becoming. A mind that is becoming can never know the full bliss of contentment; not the contentment of smug satisfaction; not the contentment of an achieved result, but the contentment that comes when the mind sees the truth in what is and the false in what is. The perception of that truth is from moment to moment; and that perception is delayed through verbalization of the moment.

Transformation is not an end, a result. Transformation is not a result. Result implies residue, a cause and an effect. Where there is causation, there is bound to be effect. The effect is merely the result of your desire to be transformed. When you desire to be transformed, you are still thinking in terms of becoming; that which is becoming can never know that which is being. Truth is being from moment to moment and happiness that continues is not happiness. Happiness is that state of being which is timeless.

That timeless state can come only when there is a tremendous discontent - not the discontent that has found a channel through which it escapes but the discontent that has no outlet, that has no escape, that is no longer seeking fulfilment. Only then, in that state of supreme discontent, can reality come into being. That reality is not to be bought, to be sold, to be repeated; it cannot be caught in books. It has to be found from moment to moment, in the smile, in the tear, under the dead leaf, in the vagrant thoughts, in the fullness of love.

Love is not different from truth. Love is that state in which the thought process, as time, has completely ceased. Where love is, there is transformation. Without love, revolution has no meaning, for then revolution is merely destruction, decay, a greater and greater evermounting misery. Where there is love, there is revolution, because love is transformation from moment to moment.
Jiddu Krishnamurti

Freedom From the Known
http://www.jiddu-krishnamurti.net/en/ freedom-from-the-known/1968-00-00-jiddu- krishnamurti-freedom-from-the-known- chapter-1

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
adrian9
Sr. Member


Joined: 04 Aug 2004
Posts: 1678
Location: VENEZUELA!!!

PostPosted: Thu Jul 26, 2012 12:04 am    Post subject: Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote

<img alt="http://i1.kym-cdn.com/entries/ icons/original/000/006/707/nothing-to- do-here-template.jpg.scaled500.jpg" src="http://i1.kym-cdn.com/entries/ icons/original/000/006/707/nothing-to- do-here-template.jpg.scaled500.jpg">

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Alienred
Jr. Member


Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Posts: 49

PostPosted: Thu Jul 26, 2012 12:34 am    Post subject: Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote

adrian9 wrote:
<img alt="http://i1.kym-cdn.com/entries/ icons/original/000/006/707/nothing-to- do-here-template.jpg.scaled500.jpg" src="http://i1.kym-cdn.com/entries/ icons/original/000/006/707/nothing-to- do-here-template.jpg.scaled500.jpg">







I'm dreaming awake, My thoughts won't let me go

Feels like my mind has turned into my foe


The fear of tomorrow, The fear of today I'm trying to stay, I'm trying to run away
My life is at stake, My time is running out Feels like I live my life in constant doubt The fear of tomorrow, The fear of today I'm trying to stay, I'm trying to run away

Each moment shall pass, Will never return Your fate is what you make of it So seize your day

I live for this moment alone Let me tell you my friend, All things come to an end Forever is today So don't delay

I will waste no more time, Leave my worries behind I live for this moment alone Let me tell you my friend, All things come to an end Forever is today So don't delayWink


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Stratovarius Community Forum Index -> Other discussions in English All times are GMT + 2 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 2 of 5

 
Jump to:  You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group