A Dire Metaphysical Warning to all Atheists!

reply to post by DragonriderGal


I edited my post above a bit after you replied.

I've been trying to save it, the humor, FROM death.

Basically I've been trying to get people to REFRAME it from the perspective of the eternally unfolding present nothing as the domain of infinite possibility (everything), and in so doing recognize (re cognize) death, and the eternal nothingness of death, as nothing at all, and therefore most certainly nothing to worry about, but not for the atheist reason, that we will "be" dead (whatever THAT means).

Only the gnosis of eternity as our already always condition allows for the restoration of this humor of understanding. How can that be effectively communicated..?

I've done my best. Will keep trying though, because I love all people.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


I didn’t say I believed it, I was just reporting what a Buddhist had to say on the subject.

It seems consistent within the “logic” of his belief system that those who are the most sceptical - who are the least likely to hold on to some belief system simply out of fear or ignorance or whatever reason have an easier time in the land of the dead (assuming such a place is real)

According to this Buddhist, been an atheist gives you an advantage of coming to terms with new situations more quickly and with greater clarity than someone who’s world view is coloured by a belief system

As for what I think:
I was born into this reality with no preconceived ideas about what to expect and so far I have managed to be here without disappearing or falling off and I suspect I will manage to be dead with equal success

I also don’t have an concern about being dead – there might be some kind of continuation or not, I am happy to wait and see what happens when I get there (dead that is)

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by DragonriderGal

 

I edited my post above a bit after you replied.

I've been trying to save it, the humor, FROM death.

Basically I've been trying to get people to REFRAME it from the perspective of the eternally unfolding present nothing as the domain of infinite possibility (everything), and in so doing recognize (re cognize) death, and the eternal nothingness of death, as nothing at all, and therefore most certainly nothing to worry about, but not for the atheist reason, that we will "be" dead (whatever THAT means).

Only the gnosis of eternity as our already always condition allows for the restoration of this humor of understanding. How can that be effectively communicated..?

I've done my best. Will keep trying though, because I love all people.

edit on 8-9-2011 by NewAgeMan because: insertion of the word (everything) to better distinguish nothing at all.

It may be one of those things that really can't be explained. It is based more on a kind of an epiphany than logical reasoning, I think. People locked in fear, for sure, aren't going to get it. That level of thinking is cut off. Everything becomes here and now and what can be done to solve the problem that is causing so much fear. Anxiety and stress are counter productive to the relaxed almost meditative state need for an epiphany, from my experience.

So maybe a thread title that proclaims "Death---or the idea of Death---really the last joke" or some such. I'm not sure. But scaring them more, for sure, isn't going to help. And well, atheists will either swing in to debate about that or not. I don't think you can selectively finger point as to who you think needs or deserves or should hear this.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by racasan

 

Well that's good news then, but I wasn't aware that atheists were the least bit open to notions of life after death or a domain of spirit which can transcend the material world.

If this thread has served in some way, however small, to open the atheist door even just a crack, towards such possibilities, then it's served its purpose, because I was growing rather concerned about the potential for a loss of.humor.

You're not opening any doors, you're closing them.

But, maybe unjustly on my part, I suspect that the 'saving' of a 'soul' here and there is the real motive for the highjackings.

Not a genuine wish for a theist/non-theist real dialogue

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
Re: The scientific basis for God - tried to quote it, but a lot it didn't carry over. Here's the whole post

post by NewAgeMan

 

Wow! I am speechless.

I am not sure whether to congratulate on demolishing your own argument through the links you posted or feel sorry for you that after listening to such beautiful and sublime explanations as presented in the videos, all you can come out with is a pathetic summarisation that is the complete opposite of what is stated in them.

First off, Dr. Goswami is not attempting to prove the primacy of consciousness or God using QM. He was saying that a concept of God as consciousness from which everything including matter arises would be completely consistent with Qunatum Mechanics and he is right. In other words, he is proposing a third interpretation for Quantum Mechanics apart from the two existing ones, the Copenhagen Interpretation and the Multiverse Interpretation and just like the other two cannot be verified at the moment. It is a brilliant interpretation in that it actually bridges science and spirituality, at least some versions of it, and is completely scientific.

Second, even in his interpretation, the consciousness that turns the possibility into actuality is the primordial or the "God-consciousness" from which everything comes and not the consciousness of the individual. Hence what an individual believes or projects has absolutely no bearing on the actuality, personal or external.

Yes, if we can find conclusive evidence of non-locality that would prove this interpretation. Perhaps we may not find conclusive evidence of the non-locality precisely because the others are afraid of discovering this interpretation to be true and may not take the interpretation seriously enough for enough scientists to conduct experiments that show evidence of non-locality. But that of course will change with time. Younger scientists who have not invested as much in the traditional interpretations and do not have as much to lose if this interpretation is proven to be valid may be drawn to conducting such tests as the old order retires.

Thanks for the links.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


Concerning your later post with 'authority-based' argumentation, here's a few comments:

Quote from Bernard Haisch: ["I will indentify the Absolute with God. More precisely I will call the Absolute the Godhead"]

This person may be a good scientist, but as a philosopher and semantist, he's at highschool level (at best). Setting out for a 'proof' of something, and then defining this something as an initial part of the reasoning-chain.....geeeez.

(If it's any consolation in the black/white worldview of theism, I've seen a famous reductionist materialist scientist do the same app. 10 years ago).

Don't you UNDERSTAND the content of what you are using as supportive sources.

Next example....

Quote on or from Lazlo: ["In his view, the zero-point field (or the Akashic Field, as he calls it) is quite literally the "mind of God".]

Again the same confused semantics. And in any case...what on earth has the akashic field to do with any alleged 'god'?

The rabbithole gets deeper and deeper; to no avail except creating the impression of: 'This is bosh'.

reply to post by Observor


I'm technically unable to look at web-videos.....and generally unwilling to have any debate, where this forum is reduced to being a directory to various 'authorities', which a tread-author not understanding much of the subject himself, refers to instead of carrying a dialogue.

But I take it, that you got the essense of the videos and their interpretation right (if I get the time, I'll try to follow it up, if I can find any texts).

What appears to be the 'methodology' on this thread is the misconception, that two working hypotheses (theism and cutting-edge science) will make one good theory. And if even that isn't enough, the gaps can be patched semantically.

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by Observor

 

I'm technically unable to look at web-videos.....and generally unwilling to have any debate, where this forum is reduced to being a directory to various 'authorities', which a tread-author not understanding much of the subject himself, refers to instead of carrying a dialogue.

But I take it, that you got the essense of the videos and their interpretation right (if I get the time, I'll try to follow it up, if I can find any texts).

What appears to be the 'methodology' on this thread is the misconception, that two working hypotheses (theism and cutting-edge science) will make one good theory. And if even that isn't enough, the gaps can be patched semantically.

What is presented in the videos is not a methodology to patch, but an interpretation from which both modern science and spirituality of certain flavours (decidedly non-Abrahamic in nature) remain consistent. I ignored the parts that I didn't know much about or looked too far away from the basics. He states his motivations for choosing the approach, but they too can be safely ignored without affecting the validity of the approach.

But one problem elegantly addressed is how consciousness can affect matter. In the monist materialist interpretation (including the Copenhagen Interpretation), consciousness merely projects possibility as an actuality and does not impact material reality in anyway, something that is quite contrary to a spiritualist's perception of the world where our conscious decisions are not predetermined and do impact the outcome of events thus leading to a concept of responsibility of the individual. In this interpretation everything including the possibilities stem from the consciousness and hence consciousness as a causal agent is very much consistent with material causal agents. In other words, there are several causal agents of reality all stemming from the same source, matter being only one of them. He refers to an experiment that successfully demonstrated that the consciousness as a non-local causal agent that impacted the EM potentials. Of course, one experiment is not conclusive evidence. However, that experiments can be devised to verify this interpretation is what makes it a scientific hypothesis.

reply to post by Observor


Thanks for your additional information (and I hope my recent post to you wasn't taken as criticism, quite the contrary).

I get rather well along with what you present in your post above and will add my own favourite of FTL quantum entaglement, indicating a trans-cosmic existence-level.

That mankind presently only have the option of labelling this trans-cosmic existence as 'consciousness' doesn't bother me in a rational context. That label can and will be changed if evidence points in the direction of such a need.

But what DOES bother me is any effort of skipping from a purely semantic concept into those weird theist pseudo-reasoning chains, where the label is taken as a justification for further speculations on semantic lines.

*********

The only other 'evidence' (if I can use that word so freely) we have of trans-cosmic existence is the 'direct-experiences' ('mystic', transcendent) from different sources. But...

a/ Such experiences are far from examined seriously, nor are they uniform to such an extent, that even tentative overall conclusions can be made.

b/ The 'consciousnes' experienced in such (alleged) trans-cosmic direct-experiences is very different from the 'consciousness' manifested in mundane, cosmic existence.

*********

Btw am I rather sceptical to the populistic use of 'the trousers of time'-model (parallel cosmoses). The 'observer-creation' part is grossly exaggerated for the simple reason, that the hypothesis (ref. Schroedinger's cat) of 'observance' actually isn't restricted to 'observance' from a self-aware consciousness. The proper word would be 'interaction' or 'relating', which makes quite a difference.

Originally posted by Hydroman
So what? We cease to exist, and that's that. We won't care after that.

edit on 1-9-2011 by Hydroman because: (no reason given)

You have the rationality of an animal. A truly advanced person would have concerns over what comes after this life. Do you really believe that human intelligence and sentience is a fluke? Why is it that we of all the creatures that live on this planet are the only sentient beings that can read, write and speak? We are the only beings on this planet that can make art, and know what art is and have appreciation for it. We are the only beings on this planet that can make complex machinery like automobiles and cellphones, radios and rockets that go into space? Why is it we are the only beings on this planet that can build sky scrapers and homes that have electricity in them and microwave ovens that warm our food? Why is it we look up at the stars at night and wonder if we are alone in the universe? How did a creature that was made from a freak fluke of nature grow to the point where we can build telescopes to view distant stars and galaxies, and send probes to other worlds. Why is it that all of a sudden out of nowhere mankind went from dwelling in caves and living in tents to building cities with huge pyramids and great libraries?

Logic clearly states that none of this could occur on its own as a fluke, someone or something had to have guided us to this point. You don't just get human civilization out of a band of random primates. The first man did't wake up oneday and think "i think i'll build a city" they didnt even knpow what the hell a city was much less buildings or even had a concept of math. Someone or something had to show us. For some people these beings were space aliens, for other people they were angels sent from God or God himself. If you can honestly see all the things we achieved and still say:

So what? We cease to exist, and that's that. We won't care after that

Then truly you are nothing more than an animal and unfit for the intelligence (or lack of) that inhabits your brain.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


You wrote:

["A truly advanced person would have concerns over what comes after this life."]

Depending on the degree of obsession with the subject alternatively a very neurotic person.

Quote: ["Why is it that we of all the creatures that live on this planet are the only sentient beings that can read, write and speak?........ etc.etc.etc."]

Because we are the most intellectually developed.

Quote: ["Why is it that all of a sudden out of nowhere mankind went from dwelling in caves and living in tents to building cities with huge pyramids and great libraries?"]

....all of a sudden....?

Quote: [" Logic clearly states that none of this could occur on its own as a fluke, someone or something had to have guided us to this point."]

You presented an irrational scenario as the basis for this question, and now you want 'logic' included to give the only optional answer your question-orchestration allows.

Quote: ["Then truly you are nothing more than an animal and unfit for the intelligence that inhabits your brain."]

You have a quite colourful way of trying to ward off opposition, you can't handle rationally.

reply to post by bogomil

Because we are the most intellectually developed.

Really? How did we get that way? Evolution right? RIIIGHT. So of all the millions of species on this planet only one of them managed to"evolve" all on its own to accomplish all of this? Gee bogy, is that the best you can come up with?

I hate to tell you this little fact of evolution bogy, but according to evolution, species are always evolving, and there is never specifically one species that is supposed to evolve over all the others because according to evolution, when one creature evolves and becomes a better hunter, then its prey also evolve to have better defenses or to be clever enough to not get eaten as much or they die off completely. Instead we have one species over all the others that can adapt to any situation, that doesn't happen in evolution friend it just doesn't or every animal on the planet would have evolved that ability in order to compete with this omnivorous and seemingly omnipotent advanced super species.

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by Observor

 

Thanks for your additional information (and I hope my recent post to you wasn't taken as criticism, quite the contrary).

I don't even know how that could have been construed as negative criticism. No worries there

I get rather well along with what you present in your post above and will add my own favourite of FTL quantum entaglement, indicating a trans-cosmic existence-level.

That mankind presently only have the option of labelling this trans-cosmic existence as 'consciousness' doesn't bother me in a rational context. That label can and will be changed if evidence points in the direction of such a need.

Of course. I suspect there is more than one such level, but that is not important. What is important is the possibility of a non-local communication channel akin to Quantum Entanglement.

But what DOES bother me is any effort of skipping from a purely semantic concept into those weird theist pseudo-reasoning chains, where the label is taken as a justification for further speculations on semantic lines.

Doesn't bother me any less either. Of course, if the basic premises were accepted among the group participating in the discussion as happens during a group of like-minded people, it is understandable. But on open discussion channels like this, it reeks of dishonesty especially when inviting and challenging those of opposing viewpoints to the discussion.

The only other 'evidence' (if I can use that word so freely) we have of trans-cosmic existence is the 'direct-experiences' ('mystic', transcendent) from different sources. But...

a/ Such experiences are far from examined seriously, nor are they uniform to such an extent, that even tentative overall conclusions can be made.

b/ The 'consciousnes' experienced in such (alleged) trans-cosmic direct-experiences is very different from the 'consciousness' manifested in mundane, cosmic existence.

Direct experience is insufficient as evidence for any rational discussion unless it is common enough that few would dispute it.

Dr. Goswamy was referring to a detailed experiment where an attempt to communicate non-locally by one when person changed the EM potentials on a EEG of the other, where as no such change was observed when no such attempt was made. I am not sure how credible the experiment is or how warranted the conclusions were, but that is a step in the right direction. To attempt to demonstrate scientifically the concept of non-local communication that can be predicted directly from the theory.

Btw am I rather sceptical to the populistic use of 'the trousers of time'-model (parallel cosmoses). The 'observer-creation' part is grossly exaggerated for the simple reason, that the hypothesis (ref. Schroedinger's cat) of 'observance' actually isn't restricted to 'observance' from a self-aware consciousness. The proper word would be 'interaction' or 'relating', which makes quite a difference.

Well, the parallel cosmoses is one interpretation and has very few takers (I know one ardent fan of it, but it is understandable since his Ph.D was on it ). You are not the only one that finds it less than comforting. The Copenhagen interpretation does not of course require a self aware consciousness. But it doesn't require interaction either. It only means that reality is nothing more than a projection of the possibility by a consciousness, of any kind. It is not the attempt to interact and measure that results in the uncertainty. If there were no conscious observer, there is no reality, only a possibility. This is the fundamental difference between classical and quantum mechanics.

Neither of the interpretations is quite compelling and the reason why professional physicists don't attach much importance to which interpretation is "correct", since neither makes any verifiable/falsifiable predictions. They worry about verifiable predictions that can be made from the theory, for example, Quantum Entanglement, Casimir Effect etc.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


You wrote:

["Really? How did we get that way? Evolution right? RIIIGHT. So of all the millions of species on this planet only one of them managed to"evolve" all on its own to accomplish all of this? Gee bogy, is that the best you can come up with?"]

This may be your ideal of a conversation. You speak on behalf on everybody involved, and if needed fill in on their answers too. You are here referring to something I didn't say, something I initially carefully refrained from saying.

Are there other things I haven't said, you want to comment on? Feel free.

Quote: ["I hate to tell you this little fact of evolution bogy, but according to evolution, species are always evolving, and there is never specifically one species that is supposed to evolve over all the others because according to evolution, when one creature evolves and becomes a better hunter, then its prey also evolve to have better defenses or to be clever enough to not get eaten as much or they die off completely."]

I know.

Quote: ["Instead we have one species over all the others that can adapt to any situation, that doesn't happen in evolution friend it just doesn't or every animal on the planet would have evolved that ability in order to compete with this omnivorous and seemingly omnipotent advanced super species."]

If this alleged species* your fake-'god' belongs to is real, then Jahveh and his ilk are predators on mankind, stealing bio-energy. So mankind wouldn't be on top of the pyramid in that situation.

(* Jahveh is what's in christian terms is called a 'demon').

Do you think you can find your way back to topic, from this little peculiar sidestep into biological evolution-theory.

We had some interesting things going.

reply to post by Observor


Re: Non-locality - See Bell's Theorem and the Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen paradox. Non-locality is a mathematically proven fact.

Individual consciousness and primordial God-consciousness, absent ego or judgement, is the same consciousness, and the choosing self prior to judgement is ALSO a non-local phenomenon..

It's also concievable that quantum reality is discontinuous, or that it's fresh or re-booted from the absolute at every instant, which puts a new spin on the idea that we must forgive as we are forgiven ie: it's always a clean slate, and thus, the vital importance of learning, and evolving, and entering into new spheres of possibility in ever increasing congruent alignment with the truth and reality at it is, not as it "was". So what we're looking at is a continual, evolving process of being and becoming, and since it's all one now and forever, sharing the same common source, there is no reason to think that death terminates our own evolving trajectory. Precisely what happens or what it looks like who can say, but to declare it as light's out eternal non existence, with certainty, based on a purely materialist interpretation of reality, is absurdly presumptuous if not arrogant.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by Observor

 

Re: Non-locality - See Bell's Theorem and the Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen paradox. Non-locality is a mathematically proven fact.

Also called Quantum Entanglement. Please don't try to teach QM to those who already understand it and have demonstrated that they do so much better than you can. It is proven for entangled particles like those in pair-production.

The kind of non-local communication Dr. Goswamy was referring to isn't proven.

Just throwing words and phrases around may impress ignorants, but irritates knowledgeable people. Unless you know exactly what you are talking about it is best not to appear knowledgeable. But I have a feeling you will continue your silly ways.

Individual consciousness and primordial God-consciousness, absent ego or judgement, is the same consciousness, and the choosing self prior to judgement is ALSO a non-local phenomenon..

That garbage is not worth commenting on. So I will let it pass.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


You wrote:

["Individual consciousness and primordial God-consciousness, absent ego or judgement, is the same consciousness, and the choosing self prior to judgement is ALSO a non-local phenomenon.."]

This is the part of your argument written with very small letters, and sneaked in amongst the rest as if it's axiomatic. I have already on a couple of occasions pointed this out, and I'm afraid that I will continue to do so until you address this tricky circle-argument directly.

That you on top use a really bad version of inductive reasoning doesn't make it more digestible.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


In a later post you wrote:

["It's also concievable that quantum reality is discontinuous, or that it's fresh or re-booted from the absolute at every instant, which puts a new spin on the idea that we must forgive as we are forgiven ie: it's always a clean slate, and thus, the vital importance of learning, and evolving, and entering into new spheres of possibility in ever increasing congruent alignment with the truth and reality at it is, not as it "was"."]

Where in the midst of this 'clean slate' do the semi-absolutes of "vital importance" come from.

A little comfortable niche for your theistic postulates perhaps, excepted from the general syncretistic mish-mash?

reply to post by bogomil


Ok Spock, I'll try harder..