It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by filosophia
The ultimate seer of all the things and events can only ever watch as the drama appears to happen. It has no control, and also the happenings have no meaning. We don't know what moves heaven and earth, but we have no choice to move with it. We can however stand in awe and wonder at the beauty of the patterns.edit on 12-4-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)
Tardigrades are able to survive in extreme environments that would kill almost any other animal. Some can survive temperatures of −273 °C (−459 °F), close to absolute zero,[5] temperatures as high as 151 °C (304 °F), 1,000 times more radiation than other animals,[6] and almost a decade without water.[7] In September 2007, tardigrades were taken into low Earth orbit on the FOTON-M3 mission and for 10 days were exposed to the vacuum of space. After they were returned to Earth, it was discovered that many of them survived and laid eggs that hatched normally.[8]
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by filosophia
Premise 1 equates 'goodness' to 'power'...so apparently all powerful things are good. Apparently that means an atomic bomb is a lot better than a kitten.
Premises 2,3, and 4 are unsupported and merely stated as fact though there's no verification
Premise 5 is wrong on several levels...aside from the fact that 'wisdom' is not a thing in and of itself, there's no reason to separate the mind from the body. The mind is a construct of the body through and through.
Premise 6...how is a human inferior to a planet? How is a planet inferior to a star? They're different things. A planet cannot write a symphony, a star cannot support life on its surface. The comparison is odd.
Premise 7 ignores what I'm talking about. I'm talking about applicability in a physical way. If all knowledge brings peace and awareness then you've simply added another layer of utility to all scientific data, not something new to your unsupported ideas.
8 and 9 are straw men. Seriously, that's just dishonest.
Everything I said is not "new" it is 1500+ year old philosophy and metaphysics,
society has just simply ignored it because it is no longer "mainstream" which is why people have psychological problems: they don't meditate and attune to the higher spirit.
It also is the reason why religious wars are waged: because people have lost sight of the true God (within).
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Creationism...doesn't do jack.
Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by filosophia
There is a dream. No dreamer. An experience of a dream. The dreamer and dream is watched. This watcher can not be seen, for it is seeing. This watcher has no control, it watches movement, life flowing, it sees a character fussing over the perils of life, the character believes he has control, but will one day see that he has no control.
Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by filosophia
The seer sees but does not move. Appearances appear and disappear, they move. You (the seer) never moves, always in the centre of your experience. Notice that things are not solid and fixed, only your point of reference is fixed.
Originally posted by filosophia
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by filosophia
Premise 1 equates 'goodness' to 'power'...so apparently all powerful things are good. Apparently that means an atomic bomb is a lot better than a kitten.
According to your governments it is.
Political power only leads to insecurity: America is the greatest nation but has the most problems, so obviously power is not Goodness, but the power that creates everything has no equal. So it is good, as in "great, superior, outstanding, perfect."
Premises 2,3, and 4 are unsupported and merely stated as fact though there's no verification
Your entire premise is a brush off of my premise with no verification given
Premise 5 is wrong on several levels...aside from the fact that 'wisdom' is not a thing in and of itself, there's no reason to separate the mind from the body. The mind is a construct of the body through and through.
If consciousness were simply electrical impulses in your head you would be incapable of rational thought. All thoughts would be based on electrical impulses and the only reason would be which way the blood would flow.
The idea of even contemplating a science becomes nonsensical under this mouse-maze type of view of the world.
Premise 6...how is a human inferior to a planet? How is a planet inferior to a star? They're different things. A planet cannot write a symphony, a star cannot support life on its surface. The comparison is odd.
Planets contain humans.
Stars keep planets alive. I thought you would know that one.
How is a human superior to the earth? How is the earth superior to the sun?
Premise 7 ignores what I'm talking about. I'm talking about applicability in a physical way. If all knowledge brings peace and awareness then you've simply added another layer of utility to all scientific data, not something new to your unsupported ideas.
The practical application of yoga is peace and serenity, if you tried it and found it doesn't work, then that is your fate, but if you haven't even tried it on what grounds are you speaking from?
I didn't say all knowledge brings peace, only spiritual knowledge of the absolute, not say, knowledge of bombs or guns, or even knowledge of horticulture may bring happiness but not complete fulfillment.
8 and 9 are straw men. Seriously, that's just dishonest.
Care to prove how it's dishonest or should I just take your word for it? I thought science was all about "explaining"
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Class, who can tell me what the point of science is?
...nobody? Oh, I'm typing out a thread, not talking to anyone. Ok, the point of science is to explain the universe around us in a manner which we can then put to use. Scientific theories are supposed to have explanatory power. Creationism has no explanatory power...it merely has a single answer that helps us with nothing.
Evolution helps us understand the way life works. It helps us provide more appropriate and varied doses of antibiotics to prevent antibiotic resistance evolving in bacteria, it provides us with all sorts of helpful insights into agriculture and husbandry, and it just generally helps us understand biological systems. I mean, this is really why I find the people arguing against evolution more and more ridiculous the more I learn about how evolution is actually applied daily. If people are actually doing useful things with a scientific theory, it's a pretty good indication that it works.
Creationism...doesn't do jack. If a 'creator' 'created' life, what are the uses of it? What are the predictions of such a theory? Does a 'created' world have certain properties? Can we gain anything from exploiting them? No? Alright then, scrap the idea. It's useless.