To ProperKnob
Do you think Bishops and Priests have a monopoly on honesty!
These points i raised are needed to be answered by the atheist evolutionist, or the therory remains unexsplained and incomplete.
DNA and genetic mutations, cannot function as they do (in complex ways) without the driver (intelligence) which is non material and a cousin to the spiritual.
You as a person could not exist, as well as walk, talk eat, think, reproduce etc without the spiritual component as the driver and directive.
Hey another question, you are conscious, and you are aware of your own awareness, you experience love, so how does awareness and love and feelings and emotions come about in the non spiritual world of the atheist.
Are you suggesting that intelligence, emotions, feelings, love, fear, trust, hope etc are chemical reactions?
Hey, dont think the spiritual has anything to do with religion, because religion (all religion) is a man made speculative account of life, and is erroneuos in many ways.
I am putting forward the spiritual perspective, and you might be interested to know, it deals not with opinions.
vishva
Originally posted by vishvahetuYou're hilarious!!!!!!!
To ProperKnob
These points i raised are needed to be answered by the atheist evolutionist, or the therory remains unexsplained and incomplete.
DNA and genetic mutations, cannot function as they do (in complex ways) without the driver (intelligence) which is non material and a cousin to the spiritual.
You as a person could not exist, as well as wa ...[text shortened]... piritual perspective, and you might be interested to know, it deals not with opinions.
vishva
This beauty goes into my 'Sprituality Forum Comedy Gold List' -
I am putting forward the spiritual perspective, and you might be interested to know, it deals not with opinions.
Do you even know what an opinion is?
Stuff to do now, i'll get back to this 'car crash' later.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI didn't particularly intend it to be true, I was just trying to get into the spirit of the thread.
You absolutely know this is not true.
But to be honest, I cant think of an exception. Can you?
Are there any people who understand the Theory of Evolution yet reject its validity and simultaneously have no religious reasons for not wanting it to be a valid theory?
If I made the same claim about say the Theory of Relativity, would you agree that it is likely true?
Originally posted by vishvahetuJust for you, I'll include a link which details the original neanderthal find at Feldhofer Cave - you will note that it consists of rather more than a fragmentary arm bone. This is enough to show that the website you reference is, at best, deeply misinformed, and possibly (and I suspect rather more likely) a disingenuous tissue of deceit. I would suggest that you read the rest of the article but there are some long words and complicated concepts which will, I suspect, be quite beyond your grasp.
to avalanchethecat
Are they craqckpots because of their fuzzy religious beleifs, or crackpots because they exsposed you as a fraud..
vishva
http://www.archaeology.org/9709/newsbriefs/dna.html
I wonder if you are able to discern the qualitative difference between this bulletin from an institution with international renown and the comedy websites you've evidently been 'studying'?
Originally posted by vishvahetuEvolution is not an explanation for consciousness.
All the hand shaking, is people playing politics, even those religious people, because they can be the most political on occasions.
Being an atheist you are dismissing the component that would make evolution possible, the spiritual component.
Tell me, was the consciouness in the puddle before the lightning bolt struck, or after?
You see, i want t ...[text shortened]... mes about in the species, and without knowledge of that, the therory is unsubstantial.
vishva
You seem to completely misunderstand how scientific theories and models work.
You're making evolution a proxy for all of your questions about the universe - where did it come from? how did life get here? how did consciousness arise?
Evolution answers none of these questions.
Originally posted by vishvahetuThis just more mumbo jumbo.
To ProperKnob
Do you think Bishops and Priests have a monopoly on honesty!
These points i raised are needed to be answered by the atheist evolutionist, or the therory remains unexsplained and incomplete.
DNA and genetic mutations, cannot function as they do (in complex ways) without the driver (intelligence) which is non material and a cousin to ...[text shortened]... piritual perspective, and you might be interested to know, it deals not with opinions.
vishva
Spritual perspective as driver?
What the hell is that supposed to mean?
You sound more like someone selling crystals their affect on our chakra than someone who wants to genuinely engage in debate.
DNA and genetic mutations cannot function without the driver (intelligence)?
Is an e coli intelligent?
I wouldn't have thought so, but its DNA functions perfectly well.
As for love and emotions, if you had any sort of awareness of evolutionary theory you would know that there are indeed evolutionary explanations for the existence of these facets of our consciousness.
And yes, they probably are chemical reactions.
Why is that a problem?
Does my love for my wife and children being 'only' a chemical reaction make that love any better or worse? Of course not. It's love. The foundation of it doesn't matter for me to be able to use it.
Originally posted by amannionEvery living thing has intelligence, and because you cannot see this intelligence under a microscope, you say there is none, thats not very scientific to me.
This just more mumbo jumbo.
Spritual perspective as driver?
What the hell is that supposed to mean?
You sound more like someone selling crystals their affect on our chakra than someone who wants to genuinely engage in debate.
DNA and genetic mutations cannot function without the driver (intelligence)?
Is an e coli intelligent?
I wouldn't have though Of course not. It's love. The foundation of it doesn't matter for me to be able to use it.
The spiritual potency is the unseen mover.
You cannot disect the spiritual potency in your science lab. (like a rat)
The spiritual potency is the cause behind the cause.
The spiritual potency has no cause, its the first cause.
Concsiuosness is a symptom of that spiritual potency.
Solid matter has its existence in the spiritual potency.
Solid matter is an illusion.
Material energy is a playground, for the spiritual energy to play in.
Intelligence is a cousin of the spiritual potency.
The spiritual potency has nothig to do with relative reigious beliefs.
You are that spiritual potency, without beginning or end.
Some people choose to call that spiritual potency god.
When you die, and they say he/she has gone, what do they mean?
They mean the spiritual potency, has departed from the body.
vishva
Originally posted by vishvahetuYou can't mix and match mystical mumbo jumbo and scientific explanation as you like - it doesn't work.
Every living thing has intelligence, and because you cannot see this intelligence under a microscope, you say there is none, thats not very scientific to me.
The spiritual potency is the unseen mover.
You cannot disect the spiritual potency in your science lab. (like a rat)
The spiritual potency is the cause behind the cause.
The spiritual pot ...[text shortened]... ne, what do they mean?
They mean the spiritual potency, has departed from the body.
vishva
Spiritual potency - what is it? how do you measure it? where do you find it? how does it interact with other things? what is its nature?
Obviously you can't answer these questions - I would say because spiritual potency is a load of crap, and you would say it is not measurable or determinable in any way.
You're doing the same with evolution. It's a scientific way of explaining something. It'snot religious or spiritual or airy fairy or any other way of understanding things - it's scientific.
Get over it.
Originally posted by amannionYou discern the spiritual potency, but to discern you must be qualified.
You can't mix and match mystical mumbo jumbo and scientific explanation as you like - it doesn't work.
Spiritual potency - what is it? how do you measure it? where do you find it? how does it interact with other things? what is its nature?
Obviously you can't answer these questions - I would say because spiritual potency is a load of crap, and you would ...[text shortened]... or airy fairy or any other way of understanding things - it's scientific.
Get over it.
The qualifications are>
Humility.
Submissive enquiry.
An unbiased approach to the enquiry.
Sufficient use of your intelligence.
Honesty
To be non-envious.
An open heart.
An open mind.
A depth of insight, that does not require the "eyes" to see things as the really are.
So you silly little atheist, go away and get some insight, then come back, and we may discuss.
If you come on here, barking like a puppy dog, then its the wrong attitude to begin with.
vishva
Originally posted by vishvahetuSo, in other words, you have no idea how to respond to my position and instead will just continue to spout the same rubbish you were probably indoctrinated into by your parents.
You discern the spiritual potency, but to discern you must be qualified.
The qualifications are>
Humility.
Submissive enquiry.
An unbiased approach to the enquiry.
Sufficient use of your intelligence.
Honesty
To be non-envious.
An open heart.
An open mind.
A depth of insight, that does not require the "eyes" to see things as ...[text shortened]... u come on here, barking like a puppy dog, then its the wrong attitude to begin with.
vishva
That's great.
But not particularly useful and offers me nothing beyond idiotic mumbo jumbo.
Originally posted by vishvahetuYou are like a broken record going around sounding like, ork, ork, ork.
You discern the spiritual potency, but to discern you must be qualified.
The qualifications are>
Humility.
Submissive enquiry.
An unbiased approach to the enquiry.
Sufficient use of your intelligence.
Honesty
To be non-envious.
An open heart.
An open mind.
A depth of insight, that does not require the "eyes" to see things as ...[text shortened]... u come on here, barking like a puppy dog, then its the wrong attitude to begin with.
vishva
Everything you write is nothing more than goobly gook, and more goobly gook, and then even more goobly gook.
Originally posted by vishvahetuYou are so daft it's hilarious. You state that you can discern the spiritual, and one of the qualities that you must have to be able to do this is 'humility'. Humility is defined as this -
You discern the spiritual potency, but to discern you must be qualified.
The qualifications are>
Humility.
Submissive enquiry.
An unbiased approach to the enquiry.
Sufficient use of your intelligence.
Honesty
To be non-envious.
An open heart.
An open mind.
A depth of insight, that does not require the "eyes" to see things as ...[text shortened]... u come on here, barking like a puppy dog, then its the wrong attitude to begin with.
vishva
Humility is the quality of being modest, reverential, even politely submissive, and never being arrogant, contemptuous, rude or even self-abasing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humility
And then you go and write this -
So you silly little atheist, go away and get some insight, then come back, and we may discuss.
That's anything but humility!! That's arrogant and extrememly rude.
Originally posted by vishvahetuDNA and genetic mutations, cannot function as they do (in complex ways) without the driver (intelligence) which is non material and a cousin to the spiritual.
To ProperKnob
Do you think Bishops and Priests have a monopoly on honesty!
These points i raised are needed to be answered by the atheist evolutionist, or the therory remains unexsplained and incomplete.
DNA and genetic mutations, cannot function as they do (in complex ways) without the driver (intelligence) which is non material and a cousin to ...[text shortened]... piritual perspective, and you might be interested to know, it deals not with opinions.
vishva
Would you care to elaborate?! It sounds interesting.
This reminds me of a debate between Sam Harris, Michael Shermer, Deepak Chopra and Jean Houston.
Sam Harris and Michael Shermer being the skeptics while the other too being in favour of "new age spiritualism".
I couldn't link to it directly so you will need to go down to the section "Nightline Face-Off: Does God Have a Future?"
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/FaceOff/#
It is quite long but key points are under "Stop Using 'Fuzzy Words'" where Deepak and Jean are using new age rhetoric in a poor attempt to baffle people into believing they know what they are talking about. Michael Shermer pulls them up on it.
Sam Harris has good points under "Deepak Resents Credentials Questions" (see from 2 minutes in).
At about 3 mins Sam Harris (in response to Deepak "teaching" Quantum spiritualism) says this:
"Because Quantum Mechanics is spooky and difficult to understand and because what you say is spooky and difficult to understand it must some how be related, or must be some how mutually supportive, and that is fundamentally not true, they are arrived at by completely different methodologies and ways of thinking."
He then goes onto to explain how Deepak has used language games to merge together language involved with theoretical physics (something which Deepak knows very little about) with spiritualism.
It is worth watching the whole thing but another key one to watch is "Scientist Takes on Deepak's Science" where a theoretical physicist in the audiance talks to him from 2:30 in.
Deepak mentions at one point in trying to describe consciousness as, "a superposition of possibilities" where the theoretical physicist replies, "Well, I know what each of those words mean, I still don't think I know...<interrupted by laughter>". Where the physicist was clearly trying to point out that what Deepak was saying did not make any sense at all in this context.