Page 8 of 10 « First<678910>
Topic Options
#60156 - 10/17/11 08:29 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1647
Loc: Orlando, FL
 Quote:
but you're basically arguing with self-conscious beings who believe that they really don't exist except as stimulus/response mechanisms.


I think you are evoking a straw-man of materialism. It is impossible to disprove the purported existence of an immaterial soul, but such a claim lies outside the capabilities of easily demonstrable human certainty.

Every attempt to elaborate and describe "the soul" has failed miserably, Dr. Aquino, and your esoteric philosophy is emblematic of this problem, in that it is one of infinite, vague mysticisms glued to contradictory metaphysical accessories and tenuous "spiritual experiences". Every culture has its own unique conception of the soul that shares very little common ground, except that it exists by virtue of it existing.

I can make a claim that the soul is an immaterial ghost that exits the body after death, and is thereafter sustained by the religious devotion of its descendants while retaining a semblance of its human personality. Or I could claim that souls are uniform sparks of divinity with no anthropic attributes at all, that consist of a whole called "God" redeemed by piety. I could also claim that souls are higher spiritual beings trapped fleshly prisons by a jealous Demiurge. Heck, I might also theorize that we are all individual entities generously bestowed with metaphysical awareness by a force of isolate self-consciousness that, for some reason, is best represented as a pederastic aardvark.

How can one honestly elaborate or disprove any of the above notions with the slightest semblance of certainty?

 Quote:
Ironically, since atheists cannot otherwise comprehend or define the ba/psyche/soul, their denial of it is necessarily an act of faith, hence for them atheism is a de facto religion.


Here you are conflating materialism with Atheism. But that's an admittedly common error made by advocates as well as detractors.


Edited by The Zebu (10/17/11 08:33 PM)
_________________________
«Recibe, ¡oh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#60187 - 10/18/11 12:01 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Iskander]
Autodidact Offline
member


Registered: 01/23/10
Posts: 428
 Originally Posted By: Iskander
Well, i think we all agree that an atomic explosion is something that is not occuring under normal circumstances.


If you look up on any clear day, you will see a normal atomic explosion. Ironically, such explosions are the only reason your physical body is here.

Side note: forest fires are natural and normal. Controlling them is not "preventing sin", it's merely preventing property damage.
_________________________
An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur?

Top
#60189 - 10/18/11 01:46 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Iskander]
Autodidact Offline
member


Registered: 01/23/10
Posts: 428
 Originally Posted By: Iskander

Mental phenomenas contradict natural science in so far as they cannot be described accurate in terms of natural science like physics or chemistry.


This is the crux of your misunderstanding. As Dan, Diavolo and others have repeatedly pointed out, this may be merely an insufficiency in our understanding. You are misinterpreting that insufficiency as contradiction, and then using that "contradiction" as evidence for some other point.

The second part of that is appeal to ignorance, because you're attempting to prove a conclusion based (solely!) on a piece of evidence that's not viable. (Note that it does not matter why the first part fails.)

Considering a thing as evidence to be used in proof, based on no supporting facts, and refusing to consider any alternate explanations, is one of the hallmarks of faith.

 Originally Posted By: Iskander
Explaining changes of the self caused by actions on the material level is not enough.[...]


This stance is also a hallmark of faith. You don't like the information you have, so you start to twist facts to suit your theories, rather than twist theories to suit facts (to paraphrase Robert Downey Jr. in Sherlock Holmes). This is poor thinking, and this crowd won't stand for it.
_________________________
An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur?

Top
#60190 - 10/18/11 01:52 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
dust-e sheytoon Offline
member


Registered: 08/23/11
Posts: 206
Loc: NYC
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
...Ironically, since atheists cannot otherwise comprehend or define the ba/psyche/soul, their denial of it is necessarily an act of faith, hence for them Atheism is a de facto religion....

Dr. Aquino, I'm curious, how do you go about defining the ba/psyche/soul? Do you have a definition of it, or of what it is not? If so, what is your definition? Also, are there (unclassified) scientific theories you can point to which support your definition?

You wrote a paper which dismissed remote viewing, which I find to be tangentially related to the concept of the ba/psyche/soul. Remote viewing would entail some ability of consciousness to travel beyond what is immediately accessible to the person's physical body. It would entail an ability to transcend usual channels of information gathering. As I imagine it, the ba/psyche/soul would possess similar abilities to transcend and travel beyond the physical body, the difference being that physical-based and ba/psyche/soul-based consciousness might not be the same thing, and in fact, might have very different qualities and abilities.

If it is true that matter cannot be destroyed, it can convert to energy, then is it not possible that at death the electric field of the body might convert to another form of energy which some might refer to the ba/psyche/soul?
_________________________
Fly for your lives! A great magician comes! He summons armies from the earth itself! ~ ArabianNights

Top
#60193 - 10/18/11 02:14 PM Re: Atheism [Re: dust-e sheytoon]
Autodidact Offline
member


Registered: 01/23/10
Posts: 428
 Originally Posted By: dust-e sheytoon

If it is true that matter cannot be destroyed, it can convert to energy, then is it not possible that at death the electric field of the body might convert to another form of energy which some might refer to the ba/psyche/soul?


You are a hundred years too late. Go google Wilhelm Reich and Henri Bergson.
_________________________
An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur?

Top
#60207 - 10/18/11 09:02 PM Re: Atheism [Re: dust-e sheytoon]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2599
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: dust-e sheytoon
Dr. Aquino, I'm curious, how do you go about defining the ba/psyche/soul? Do you have a definition of it, or of what it is not? If so, what is your definition? Also, are there (unclassified) scientific theories you can point to which support your definition?

Cf. this post, as well as "The Immortality of the Psyche" in Chapter #4 of Black Magic.

 Quote:
You wrote a paper which dismissed remote viewing, which I find to be tangentially related to the concept of the ba/psyche/soul. Remote viewing would entail some ability of consciousness to travel beyond what is immediately accessible to the person's physical body. It would entail an ability to transcend usual channels of information gathering. As I imagine it, the ba/psyche/soul would possess similar abilities to transcend and travel beyond the physical body, the difference being that physical-based and ba/psyche/soul-based consciousness might not be the same thing, and in fact, might have very different qualities and abilities.

No, the ba is not an OU (matter/energy) function; it is metaphysical. My objection to the SRI "remote viewing" nonsense was that it argued for physical-sensory transmission between humans, unamplified/connected, over distances. That would be an OU process. But it was just flim-flam.

 Quote:
If it is true that matter cannot be destroyed, it can convert to energy, then is it not possible that at death the electric field of the body might convert to another form of energy which some might refer to the ba/psyche/soul?

Cf. the distinction between the L-Field (which you're talking about here) and the T-Field in my essay linked above. Within the OU, matter can convert to energy, or to nothing upon contact with an identical amount of antimatter.

This is fun stuff and leads you down the interesting and still pretty theoretical path of ZPE. Google "zero point energy" and enjoy.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#60308 - 10/20/11 09:53 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
William Wright Offline
active member


Registered: 10/25/09
Posts: 863
Loc: Nashville
Dr. Aquino, you say the ba is metaphysical. I say where is your proof that the ba, or the metaphysical for that matter, exists?

You have no proof, and therein lies the problem. You believe that the metaphysical exists, and you’re trying to convince others to believe with you. You believe that Set exists, and you’re trying to convince others to believe with you. Well, you can believe whatever you want. You can believe the sky is made of marshmallows if you want. It doesn’t make it true.

I personally don’t care about the “metaphysical”, and I don’t care about “Set”. Set can kiss my ass. You know what I care about? Me. LHP, baby. Look it up.
_________________________
In Minecraft all chickens are spies.

Top
#60310 - 10/20/11 10:50 PM Re: Atheism [Re: William Wright]
felixgarnet Offline
active member


Registered: 10/17/09
Posts: 688
Loc: UK
Maybe I'm one of a few people on this forum who has seen and conversed with a ba. This has happened on quite a few occasions without the preliminaries of a seance, meditation or whatever. The information given to me during these encounters was specific and proven 100% accurate by astonished third parties.

Now, that is enough for me to believe that an after-death-consciousness or whatever you wish to call it exists in some form independent of the material body. I don't mean I "believe" this in the way I might "believe" in Jesus Christ were I a Christian. I mean I believe in it as I believe I'm typing right now. I had sufficient proof.

As for other people, I couldn't care less whether they believe or not.
_________________________
"Here's to Artifice!" - Anton Szandor LaVey.

Top
#60311 - 10/20/11 10:57 PM Re: Atheism [Re: felixgarnet]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3934
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Originally Posted By: felixgarnet
I don't mean I "believe" this in the way I might "believe" in Jesus Christ were I a Christian. I mean I believe in it as I believe I'm typing right now. I had sufficient proof.

What's the difference?

Millions of christians swear they have had first hand experiences with jeebus, just as millions of muslims, millions of jews have claimed to talk with god, still thousands more swear they talked to the greys in their spaceship. Some even talk with elvis. Perhaps there is a common denominator, or perhaps all of these mutually exclusive things actually happened.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#60312 - 10/20/11 11:07 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Dan_Dread]
felixgarnet Offline
active member


Registered: 10/17/09
Posts: 688
Loc: UK
Yeah, they do but what I'm saying is that the dead people (for want of a better expression) with whom I spoke told me very particular things that I couldn't possibly have known which were proven accurate.

One told me in a dream he'd "done something really stupid and wondered if he was dead." I put this down to a nightmare as the guy was aged 21 ( I was 20 at the time), fit, solvent with a good family and work in the Merchant Navy. Nobody knew why he took his own life with vodka and pills but he did. At the precise time I met him.
_________________________
"Here's to Artifice!" - Anton Szandor LaVey.

Top
#60313 - 10/20/11 11:10 PM Re: Atheism [Re: felixgarnet]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3934
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Someone you didn't know then?

Sounds like you made the connection afterwards. Otherwise how would it be relevant?

Anyway, I'm not interested in robbing you of your superstitions. I;m sure it was quite real to you.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#60314 - 10/20/11 11:17 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Dan_Dread]
felixgarnet Offline
active member


Registered: 10/17/09
Posts: 688
Loc: UK
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
Someone you didn't know then?

Sounds like you made the connection afterwards. Otherwise how would it be relevant?

Anyway, I'm not interested in robbing you of your superstitions. I;m sure it was quite real to you.


No, we were friends. I was informed of his death two days later. He'd died at the time I saw him.

Yes, it was real enough for me.
_________________________
"Here's to Artifice!" - Anton Szandor LaVey.

Top
#60319 - 10/21/11 03:50 AM Re: Atheism [Re: felixgarnet]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2599
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: felixgarnet
Yes, it was real enough for me.

As the ba is not of the OU, demands that it be established through OU-proof are pointless. The references I cited will either awaken individuals to this SU reality or not; and if not, they will continue to bang their heads determinedly against the dark walls of Plato's cave.

This notwithstanding, the consciousness certainly interacts with the OU, and here are one, two, and three readings [among many others] interesting in this regard.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#60324 - 10/21/11 08:31 AM Re: Atheism [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3934
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Interesting you mention Platos cave, doc. From where I sit, you and others like you that would blind themselves to the realities of the world with religious fictions are the ones that call it home.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#60351 - 10/22/11 02:43 AM Re: Atheism [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3151
 Quote:
As the ba is not of the OU, demands that it be established through OU-proof are pointless. The references I cited will either awaken individuals to this SU reality or not; and if not, they will continue to bang their heads determinedly against the dark walls of Plato's cave.

And from where I sit it is seen as classical thinking.
When something occurs in the OU it gives impressions on the SU.
When the SU notices/interpretes something then there must have been something in the OU to trigger it.
Situations of speaking with the dead are most of the time the mind playing tricks on you or simply the brain showing missed information you somewhere picked up but didn't pay attention to.

To give it with a personal example; I had the same thing such as Felix had. But being the person who likes to investigate I came to the conclusion that the anonymous person and his friends took the same bus on a more or less regular base as I did. I didn't know them and never really give them attention. There's a great chance they talked about him, I picked it up unconsciously, dreamt about his death and later on heard about his death. Giving enough base to have detailed information about a person I didn't know.

There's always a simple reason behind the hocus-pocus.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
Page 8 of 10 « First<678910>


Moderator:  Woland, TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.028 seconds of which 0.002 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.