| Topic: |
Science > Philosophy |
| User: |
"Brian Fletcher" |
| Date: |
15 Nov 2006 07:54:07 AM |
| Object: |
Unrealistic expectation. |
So much is written here about the justification of atheism, agnosticism and
monotheism and there various offshoots, regarding the God question.
Sentient beings need proof and validation to function effectively, which
often involves creativity.Within such complexity is also instinctive or
subconscious behaviour.
We have now scientifically discovered "something" outside of traditional
understanding, regarding light speed for example, which will turn much
science to date "on its head"(or more accurately some scientists:-).
Before the regular sceptics start kicking and screaming, go to Nevada
University website , and look at the latest research on simultaneous photon
reactivity, or mental precognition experiences, although this is not the
point of this thread.
I'm suggesting that the conservative nature of people from all levels of
intellect is based on an egotistical attachment to their level of wisdom
(understandable after much hard work), and such evidence is likely to
"rattle" their position regarding the "big question" .
Watching geese fly half way around the world in formation, or discovering
ten or more dimensions will have no influence on this question.
If you discover reincarnation, karma, eternal life for example, why should
that suggest "God"?
I'm begining to suspect that many people are closed minded (dont see "the
ships") because by opening up to such 'realities' they may feel they are
becoming vulnerable to religious dogmas, where the opposite is the case (and
why many religious orgs. dont approve of such research).
BOfL
.
|
|
| User: "AlanS" |
|
| Title: Re: Unrealistic expectation. |
15 Nov 2006 08:27:47 AM |
|
|
"Brian Fletcher" <brianf88@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
Sentient beings need proof and validation to function effectively,
Not at all. "Sentinet beings" need convincing, not proof (unless you
mean booze, in which case I could agree), to function effectively.
We have now scientifically discovered "something" outside of traditional
understanding, regarding light speed for example, which will turn much
science to date "on its head"(or more accurately some scientists:-).
Hardly.
Before the regular sceptics start kicking and screaming, go to Nevada
University website , and look at the latest research on simultaneous photon
reactivity, or mental precognition experiences, although this is not the
point of this thread.
No link? Well, I'm lazier than thou, so I cannot be bothered. But I
have to say that "mental precognition" sounds like pure bunkum.
I'm begining to suspect that many people are closed minded (dont see "the
ships") because by opening up to such 'realities' they may feel they are
becoming vulnerable to religious dogmas, where the opposite is the case (and
why many religious orgs. dont approve of such research).
Which "realities"? If you believed they were realities, you wouldn't
put the word in quotes yourself.
Close mindedness works simply because 99% of stuff coming one's way
are plain wrong. The remaining 1% will eventually validate themselves
(unless you are of the camp that believes ideas are being suppressed.
In that case, I have a car that runs on water that the government is
hiding that I can sell to you). The risks involved with heedless
adoption of every new harebrained concept or idea are not worth the
potential benefits.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Fletcher" |
|
| Title: Re: Unrealistic expectation. |
15 Nov 2006 05:42:54 PM |
|
|
"AlanS" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:748ml29j8k78sf9ifrrt9106ttm33n6q96@4ax.com...
"Brian Fletcher" <brianf88@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
Sentient beings need proof and validation to function effectively,
Not at all. "Sentinet beings" need convincing, not proof (unless you
mean booze, in which case I could agree), to function effectively.
We have now scientifically discovered "something" outside of traditional
understanding, regarding light speed for example, which will turn much
science to date "on its head"(or more accurately some scientists:-).
Hardly.
Before the regular sceptics start kicking and screaming, go to Nevada
University website , and look at the latest research on simultaneous
photon
reactivity, or mental precognition experiences, although this is not the
point of this thread.
No link? Well, I'm lazier than thou, so I cannot be bothered. But I
have to say that "mental precognition" sounds like pure bunkum.
Your activating the very process by such thinking.
I'm begining to suspect that many people are closed minded (dont see "the
ships") because by opening up to such 'realities' they may feel they are
becoming vulnerable to religious dogmas, where the opposite is the case
(and
why many religious orgs. dont approve of such research).
Which "realities"? If you believed they were realities, you wouldn't
put the word in quotes yourself.
I put the word in " " for those who arn't too lazy to get off their
"reality" easy chair.
Close mindedness works simply because 99% of stuff coming one's way
are plain wrong. The remaining 1% will eventually validate themselves
(unless you are of the camp that believes ideas are being suppressed.
In that case, I have a car that runs on water that the government is
hiding that I can sell to you). The risks involved with heedless
adoption of every new harebrained concept or idea are not worth the
potential benefits.
Getting off such a chair is risky.
BOfL
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sammybaby" |
|
| Title: Re: Unrealistic expectation. |
16 Nov 2006 05:25:51 AM |
|
|
AlanS wrote:
"Brian Fletcher" <brianf88@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
Sentient beings need proof and validation to function effectively,
Not at all. "Sentinet beings" need convincing, not proof (unless you
mean booze, in which case I could agree), to function effectively.
We have now scientifically discovered "something" outside of traditional
understanding, regarding light speed for example, which will turn much
science to date "on its head"(or more accurately some scientists:-).
Hardly.
Good point.
Before the regular sceptics start kicking and screaming, go to Nevada
University website , and look at the latest research on simultaneous photon
reactivity, or mental precognition experiences, although this is not the
point of this thread.
No link? Well, I'm lazier than thou, so I cannot be bothered. But I
have to say that "mental precognition" sounds like pure bunkum.
That worked for people rejecting Relativity theory and Evolution. Good
job.
I'm begining to suspect that many people are closed minded (dont see "the
ships") because by opening up to such 'realities' they may feel they are
becoming vulnerable to religious dogmas, where the opposite is the case (and
why many religious orgs. dont approve of such research).
Which "realities"? If you believed they were realities, you wouldn't
put the word in quotes yourself.
Close mindedness works simply because 99% of stuff coming one's way
are plain wrong. The remaining 1% will eventually validate themselves
(unless you are of the camp that believes ideas are being suppressed.
In that case, I have a car that runs on water that the government is
hiding that I can sell to you). The risks involved with heedless
adoption of every new harebrained concept or idea are not worth the
potential benefits.
There we see the judgment and probably your fear. You see the two
extremes, closemindendness and adopting every new hairbrained idea, and
nothing else. You do not trust your own intuition, despite the logical
inconsistancies noticing that entail.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: Unrealistic expectation. |
15 Nov 2006 10:11:45 AM |
|
|
re: a water-propelled vehicle is very damne possible though repressed
by the ...establishment
Of course it's a silly, absurd paranoiac fantasy, and...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Steamer
AlanS wrote:
"Brian Fletcher" <brianf88@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
Sentient beings need proof and validation to function effectively,
Not at all. "Sentinet beings" need convincing, not proof (unless you
mean booze, in which case I could agree), to function effectively.
We have now scientifically discovered "something" outside of traditional
understanding, regarding light speed for example, which will turn much
science to date "on its head"(or more accurately some scientists:-).
Hardly.
Before the regular sceptics start kicking and screaming, go to Nevada
University website , and look at the latest research on simultaneous photon
reactivity, or mental precognition experiences, although this is not the
point of this thread.
No link? Well, I'm lazier than thou, so I cannot be bothered. But I
have to say that "mental precognition" sounds like pure bunkum.
I'm begining to suspect that many people are closed minded (dont see "the
ships") because by opening up to such 'realities' they may feel they are
becoming vulnerable to religious dogmas, where the opposite is the case (and
why many religious orgs. dont approve of such research).
Which "realities"? If you believed they were realities, you wouldn't
put the word in quotes yourself.
Close mindedness works simply because 99% of stuff coming one's way
are plain wrong. The remaining 1% will eventually validate themselves
(unless you are of the camp that believes ideas are being suppressed.
In that case, I have a car that runs on water that the government is
hiding that I can sell to you). The risks involved with heedless
adoption of every new harebrained concept or idea are not worth the
potential benefits.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Fletcher" |
|
| Title: Re: Unrealistic expectation. |
15 Nov 2006 05:44:14 PM |
|
|
"Robert Cohen" <robtcohen@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1163607105.408836.19090@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
re: a water-propelled vehicle is very damne possible though repressed
by the ...establishment
Of course it's a silly, absurd paranoiac fantasy, and...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Steamer
Silly me, I should have started a thread re water cars.
Gravity is "strong" today.
BOfL
AlanS wrote:
"Brian Fletcher" <brianf88@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
Sentient beings need proof and validation to function effectively,
Not at all. "Sentinet beings" need convincing, not proof (unless you
mean booze, in which case I could agree), to function effectively.
We have now scientifically discovered "something" outside of traditional
understanding, regarding light speed for example, which will turn much
science to date "on its head"(or more accurately some scientists:-).
Hardly.
Before the regular sceptics start kicking and screaming, go to Nevada
University website , and look at the latest research on simultaneous
photon
reactivity, or mental precognition experiences, although this is not the
point of this thread.
No link? Well, I'm lazier than thou, so I cannot be bothered. But I
have to say that "mental precognition" sounds like pure bunkum.
I'm begining to suspect that many people are closed minded (dont see
"the
ships") because by opening up to such 'realities' they may feel they are
becoming vulnerable to religious dogmas, where the opposite is the case
(and
why many religious orgs. dont approve of such research).
Which "realities"? If you believed they were realities, you wouldn't
put the word in quotes yourself.
Close mindedness works simply because 99% of stuff coming one's way
are plain wrong. The remaining 1% will eventually validate themselves
(unless you are of the camp that believes ideas are being suppressed.
In that case, I have a car that runs on water that the government is
hiding that I can sell to you). The risks involved with heedless
adoption of every new harebrained concept or idea are not worth the
potential benefits.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris H. Fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: Unrealistic expectation. |
15 Nov 2006 11:03:07 PM |
|
|
Brian Fletcher wrote:
So much is written here about the justification of atheism, agnosticism and
monotheism and there various offshoots, regarding the God question.
Sentient beings need proof and validation to function effectively, which
often involves creativity.Within such complexity is also instinctive or
subconscious behaviour.
We have now scientifically discovered "something" outside of traditional
understanding, regarding light speed for example, which will turn much
science to date "on its head"(or more accurately some scientists:-).
Before the regular sceptics start kicking and screaming, go to Nevada
University website , and look at the latest research on simultaneous photon
reactivity, or mental precognition experiences, although this is not the
point of this thread.
I went to both the websites for UN:Las Vegas and UN:Reno and searched
for the key words "mental precognition experiences". I found nothing.
Give us the URL.
This is at least the 2nd time you've done this.
I'm suggesting that the conservative nature of people from all levels of
intellect is based on an egotistical attachment to their level of wisdom
(understandable after much hard work), and such evidence is likely to
"rattle" their position regarding the "big question" .
Watching geese fly half way around the world in formation, or discovering
ten or more dimensions will have no influence on this question.
If you discover reincarnation, karma, eternal life for example, why should
that suggest "God"?
I'm begining to suspect that many people are closed minded (dont see "the
ships") because by opening up to such 'realities' they may feel they are
becoming vulnerable to religious dogmas, where the opposite is the case (and
why many religious orgs. dont approve of such research).
BOfL
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Fletcher" |
|
| Title: Re: Unrealistic expectation. |
16 Nov 2006 01:02:15 AM |
|
|
"Chris H. Fleming" <chris_h_fleming@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1163653387.287786.139490@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Brian Fletcher wrote:
So much is written here about the justification of atheism, agnosticism
and
monotheism and there various offshoots, regarding the God question.
Sentient beings need proof and validation to function effectively, which
often involves creativity.Within such complexity is also instinctive or
subconscious behaviour.
We have now scientifically discovered "something" outside of traditional
understanding, regarding light speed for example, which will turn much
science to date "on its head"(or more accurately some scientists:-).
Before the regular sceptics start kicking and screaming, go to Nevada
University website , and look at the latest research on simultaneous
photon
reactivity, or mental precognition experiences, although this is not the
point of this thread.
I went to both the websites for UN:Las Vegas and UN:Reno and searched
for the key words "mental precognition experiences". I found nothing.
Give us the URL.
Try Reid Centre for Environmenmtal Studies.
This is at least the 2nd time you've done this.
Not interesrted in the point of the thread?
BOfL
I'm suggesting that the conservative nature of people from all levels of
intellect is based on an egotistical attachment to their level of wisdom
(understandable after much hard work), and such evidence is likely to
"rattle" their position regarding the "big question" .
Watching geese fly half way around the world in formation, or discovering
ten or more dimensions will have no influence on this question.
If you discover reincarnation, karma, eternal life for example, why
should
that suggest "God"?
I'm begining to suspect that many people are closed minded (dont see "the
ships") because by opening up to such 'realities' they may feel they are
becoming vulnerable to religious dogmas, where the opposite is the case
(and
why many religious orgs. dont approve of such research).
BOfL
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris H. Fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: Unrealistic expectation. |
16 Nov 2006 04:03:02 AM |
|
|
Brian Fletcher wrote:
"Chris H. Fleming" <chris_h_fleming@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1163653387.287786.139490@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Brian Fletcher wrote:
So much is written here about the justification of atheism, agnosticism
and
monotheism and there various offshoots, regarding the God question.
Sentient beings need proof and validation to function effectively, which
often involves creativity.Within such complexity is also instinctive or
subconscious behaviour.
We have now scientifically discovered "something" outside of traditional
understanding, regarding light speed for example, which will turn much
science to date "on its head"(or more accurately some scientists:-).
Before the regular sceptics start kicking and screaming, go to Nevada
University website , and look at the latest research on simultaneous
photon
reactivity, or mental precognition experiences, although this is not the
point of this thread.
I went to both the websites for UN:Las Vegas and UN:Reno and searched
for the key words "mental precognition experiences". I found nothing.
Give us the URL.
Try Reid Centre for Environmenmtal Studies.
That would be the UN:Las Vegas which I have already searched.
UN:LV got rid of it's Consciousness Research Laboratory (which was
headed by the professional liar and conartist Dean Radin (Mr. I can
bend spoons, just not for James Randi)) in 2002.
CRL was nothing but a fancy name for the Bigelow Chair of Consciousness
Studies, which was nothing but a chair position funded by a real estate
tycoon so rich he has most of the University buildings named after him.
The situation with Princeton and PEAR is a similar situation. These
scam artists have no real place in academia and are unable to get
regular funding, but they can attract the wallet of the occasional
loose marbled, rich donor.
The chair position was bogus and that money is now better spent funding
scholarships.
This is at least the 2nd time you've done this.
Not interesrted in the point of the thread?
Not if it's based upon false propositions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Fletcher" |
|
| Title: Re: Unrealistic expectation. |
16 Nov 2006 05:18:17 AM |
|
|
"Chris H. Fleming" <chris_h_fleming@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1163671382.345620.140260@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Brian Fletcher wrote:
"Chris H. Fleming" <chris_h_fleming@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1163653387.287786.139490@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Brian Fletcher wrote:
So much is written here about the justification of atheism,
agnosticism
and
monotheism and there various offshoots, regarding the God question.
Sentient beings need proof and validation to function effectively,
which
often involves creativity.Within such complexity is also instinctive
or
subconscious behaviour.
We have now scientifically discovered "something" outside of
traditional
understanding, regarding light speed for example, which will turn much
science to date "on its head"(or more accurately some scientists:-).
Before the regular sceptics start kicking and screaming, go to Nevada
University website , and look at the latest research on simultaneous
photon
reactivity, or mental precognition experiences, although this is not
the
point of this thread.
I went to both the websites for UN:Las Vegas and UN:Reno and searched
for the key words "mental precognition experiences". I found nothing.
Give us the URL.
Try Reid Centre for Environmenmtal Studies.
That would be the UN:Las Vegas which I have already searched.
UN:LV got rid of it's Consciousness Research Laboratory (which was
headed by the professional liar and conartist Dean Radin (Mr. I can
bend spoons, just not for James Randi)) in 2002.
CRL was nothing but a fancy name for the Bigelow Chair of Consciousness
Studies, which was nothing but a chair position funded by a real estate
tycoon so rich he has most of the University buildings named after him.
The situation with Princeton and PEAR is a similar situation. These
scam artists have no real place in academia and are unable to get
regular funding, but they can attract the wallet of the occasional
loose marbled, rich donor.
The chair position was bogus and that money is now better spent funding
scholarships.
This is at least the 2nd time you've done this.
Not interesrted in the point of the thread?
The spontanious reaction of lasers is well documented.
Not if it's based upon false propositions.
The basis is that phenomena does not equate to God/no God awareness,
regardless of the level or sophistication..
BOfL
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris H. Fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: Unrealistic expectation. |
16 Nov 2006 05:19:15 AM |
|
|
Brian Fletcher wrote:
"Chris H. Fleming" <chris_h_fleming@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1163671382.345620.140260@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Brian Fletcher wrote:
"Chris H. Fleming" <chris_h_fleming@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1163653387.287786.139490@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Brian Fletcher wrote:
So much is written here about the justification of atheism,
agnosticism
and
monotheism and there various offshoots, regarding the God question.
Sentient beings need proof and validation to function effectively,
which
often involves creativity.Within such complexity is also instinctive
or
subconscious behaviour.
We have now scientifically discovered "something" outside of
traditional
understanding, regarding light speed for example, which will turn much
science to date "on its head"(or more accurately some scientists:-).
Before the regular sceptics start kicking and screaming, go to Nevada
University website , and look at the latest research on simultaneous
photon
reactivity, or mental precognition experiences, although this is not
the
point of this thread.
I went to both the websites for UN:Las Vegas and UN:Reno and searched
for the key words "mental precognition experiences". I found nothing.
Give us the URL.
Try Reid Centre for Environmenmtal Studies.
That would be the UN:Las Vegas which I have already searched.
UN:LV got rid of it's Consciousness Research Laboratory (which was
headed by the professional liar and conartist Dean Radin (Mr. I can
bend spoons, just not for James Randi)) in 2002.
CRL was nothing but a fancy name for the Bigelow Chair of Consciousness
Studies, which was nothing but a chair position funded by a real estate
tycoon so rich he has most of the University buildings named after him.
The situation with Princeton and PEAR is a similar situation. These
scam artists have no real place in academia and are unable to get
regular funding, but they can attract the wallet of the occasional
loose marbled, rich donor.
The chair position was bogus and that money is now better spent funding
scholarships.
This is at least the 2nd time you've done this.
Not interesrted in the point of the thread?
The spontanious reaction of lasers is well documented.
Not according to google.
Not if it's based upon false propositions.
The basis is that phenomena does not equate to God/no God awareness,
regardless of the level or sophistication..
Sure, I'll buy that. Considering the kind of God that God would have to
be given the universe we live in.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
