Free Counselling for Theists!

[Ned Kelly]

All I know of my god/s is that it/they created the laws necessary for reality. I don't know why. I don't know if it was intended.

You know fuck all, and neither does anyone else, including Swami and boxy. If you or they did, none of you would be waffling on here about it.

Just useless waffle of the one-up-man-ship variety. "I give you this fuck wit, I'll see that with some Hindu Voodoo, and raise you with another."

But do carry on with your enlightened rubbish.

[Sappho]

You know fuck all, and neither does anyone else, including Swami and boxy. If you or they did, none of you would be waffling on here about it.

Just useless waffle of the one-up-man-ship variety. "I give you this fuck wit, I'll see that with some Hindu Voodoo, and raise you with another."

But do carry on with your enlightened rubbish.

It certainly a better quality of waffle than the dribbling drivel than you dish up consistently. See above for an example of your trash.

[Ned Kelly]

You may think so Skunk but you have a vested interest in believing that shite. You know fuck all, as do the rest of ye on the topic. But, I have to admit that an entire industry and academia, and theology and other shit exits around this crap. Ye know fuck all.

Fact.

[Sappho]

You may think so Skunk but you have a vested interest in believing that shite. You know fuck all, as do the rest of ye on the topic. But, I have to admit that an entire industry and academia, and theology and other shit exits around this crap. Ye know fuck all.

Fact.

In reality, I have no vested interest. I neither believe or disbelieve. But, for the sake of the argument, I will honour the rights of others to have faith in their god/s and I hope represent their regard for faith as fairly as I can. Dring wanted for a contender to counter his views. That's how this all began.

Now go away like a good little boy and find some toys to play with.

[Ned Kelly]

Crap, Dring is of the same mind as me. None of you know, and neither do I, yet ye all waste your time while you posture 'knowledge.'

Have a look up there ^^^^^ at your Posts, Skunk. It is all useless esoteric palaver. Takes the World nowhere, takes me nowhere. It is just worthless gibber.

[AiA in Atlanta]

So you are willing to accept Wilber's statement regarding mystics and physicists when the mystic in question is J. Krishnamurti?

My venerable Chambers dictionary describes a mystic as "one who seeks or attains direct intercourse with god in elevated religious feeling or ecstasy". The wiki passage states that J. Krishnamurti was not religious which would preclude him from being a mystic.

Wilber's statement is utter bollocks and an insult to scientists.

J Krishnamurti was a 20th century mystic. The wiki is clearly unreliable in this regard. David Bohm, a Nobel-Prize-winning physcist spent hundreds of hours with Krishnamurti, a well-known mystic over a couple of decades. What do you suppose Bohm was seeking?

[boxy]

No they don't. I'm not saying that the physical laws that we atribute to nature are required to be unchanging, only that nature acts in a predictable way. Things don't just up and turn themselves around for no reason. Notice my use of the "laws of nature" as opposed to "physical laws".

Ok, you've got my interest. What is the difference between the laws of nature and the physical laws? And if you could use cloud formation as an example of that, I'd muchly appreciate.

I use it to differentiate between "reality", and our scientific models of reality. Physics is the human conceptulisation of what is actually happening in "nature" or reality.

We can never know if what we are percieving is an absolute reality, no matter how far science advances (and dont even try to claim that mysticism would do any better). However, given those limitations, the scientific method is still the stand alone philosophy for investigating what we can percieve, and for making use of that knowledge to improve our ability to interact with the universe.

And the main reason it is so powerful, is exactly because it doesn't go following useless sidetracks like "who created the universe". That is a question with no meaningful answer at this stage (probably never will have one). It doesn't help us understand this percieved reality, there is no credible evidence. Science and rationalism concentrates on what we can know, and what we can find evidence for.

[Ned Kelly]

Do you dick heads realise how absurd all of that is. You all use caveats, you admit you know jack shit, yet ye still waffle.

Wankers.

[boxy]

Yes... everyone shut up.

No talking allowed in the Arsie utopia.

[Swami Dring]

So you are willing to accept Wilber's statement regarding mystics and physicists when the mystic in question is J. Krishnamurti?

My venerable Chambers dictionary describes a mystic as "one who seeks or attains direct intercourse with god in elevated religious feeling or ecstasy". The wiki passage states that J. Krishnamurti was not religious which would preclude him from being a mystic.

Wilber's statement is utter bollocks and an insult to scientists.

J Krishnamurti was a 20th century mystic. The wiki is clearly unreliable in this regard. David Bohm, a Nobel-Prize-winning physcist spent hundreds of hours with Krishnamurti, a well-known mystic over a couple of decades. What do you suppose Bohm was seeking?

If we are using the Chambers' definition of mystic, then Bohm was seeking to stroke his ego and/or his fear. Religious people are all cowards and/or morons and/or egomaniacs. It seems we can eliminate the moron category in the case of Bohm, so that leaves the other two.