The Astral Pulse
News: Acceptable Use Policy for the forums. Please read and ensure that you respect these policies. Thank you.

Please note that due to the amount of spam posts we have been receiving over the past few months, we have switched Registration to require you to be approved by a moderator.  We will go through the approval list as often as we can, but if it's been 24 hours and you haven't been Approved yet or you've received a rejection email, please email myself or one of the moderators immediately so we may correct the application.

We apologize for any inconveniences this may cause, but it's the last resort we have to fighting the spam for now.
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register. July 24, 2017, 21:44:52

Login with username, password and session length

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 85
76  Astral Projection & Out of Body Experiences / Welcome to Out of Body Experiences! / Re: Is this real? or are we fooling ourselves. on: January 06, 2016, 13:13:32
I think probably something in the middle.

I think all the astral flying, the other beings we meet, the places we go... all of that is happening in our heads. I have not experienced anything that convinces me otherwise. If you think very carefully about it, it only makes sense.

Why is it that the slightest shock or emotion can place us right back into our body?

Why is the world we experience out there so much like our own subconscious brain's view of reality?

Why do we continue to have the hopes and desires and fears of a human person?

Why are the beings we meet generally so much like our own minds?

Why do we experience the world with senses very similar to those of a human person?

Isn't it more likely that we never left, and were in something like a dream-state?

Put another way... let's suppose we actually were leaving our body, and traveling elsewhere. How does that make sense? Where would we go? If we were traveling to a realm beyond time and space, why would we have to travel to get there? Couldn't we just close our eyes and be anywhere at all in this space without space? Isn't that what actually really happens in practice, in the projection experience? People just will themselves into other mental spaces. So if there is no travel involved... we never really left to begin with.

Projection is an experience where our conscious mind looks inward and visits our subconscious mind. This has been my view of the projection experience for many years. But that doesn't mean that it is a worthless experience. At the very worst, it allows us to explore our own subconscious in a way we never get the opportunity to otherwise. And I also believe the projection state puts us in a "state of receptivity", where we may have closer than usual access to the greater realities outside of our sphere. If you really think about it, that isn't much different than what most people here want projection to be.

People want projection to be an experience where we visit a realm outside the confines of our body. I think it is something more along the lines of, we stay in our body, and we are given the opportunity to commune with the world outside... sort of like we are both doing now, with these computer screens. We are both looking at text on screens. Yet we are both convinced that we are connecting with one another across time and space, and that there is a reality beyond the text, which the text is only hinting at.
77  Astral Chat / Welcome to Astral Chat! / Re: Interdimesional travelling on: January 06, 2016, 02:17:42
Most likely there is some mundane explanation... such as that the manager you spoke with was not authorized to divulge security information under any circumstances. Or perhaps the manager you spoke with was actually hired after the monitors had been removed.
78  Astral Projection & Out of Body Experiences / Welcome to Astral Consciousness! / Re: Third Eye on: January 04, 2016, 10:14:35
It isn't a metaphor. There is a physical organ inside the brain that has nerve connections with receptors in your eyes. Some older animals on this planet such as lizards still have a physical 3rd eye.

Yep, an actual physical thing:

We of course don't have this sun-sensing eye spot, and are thus left with the retinal tissue in our brains in the pineal center, with no corresponding eye; retinal tissue is the only kind that can produce optic nerve input. There are various theories about what this retinal tissue in the pineal may be doing today... some speculate that it may be what is spoken of when we say "mind's eye": that retinal tissue may actually be producing images of things we imagine, rather than perceive. Speculation though.

I'll just say this one thing... EVERYTHING is a metaphor.  EVERYTHING.

Yes, but I would provide more context. I think this is yet another language trap. In some sense yes, this entire physical reality is one giant stream of metaphors, but it is helpful to point out that this organ is not only a metaphor, but also a physical thing (so a second-degree metaphor  rolleyes)

My own theory is that most of the major structures of the old Hindu "chakra" system represent physical structures too.
79  World Cultures, Traditions and Religions / Welcome to World Cultures, Traditions and Religions! / Re: Zoroastrianism on: December 27, 2015, 08:11:29
Ha, love you too  cheesy

You should drop by more often, TK!

Sometimes I feel like my name ought to have been "Thread Derailer", for all the skill I have with sending discussions on distant tangents.
80  World Cultures, Traditions and Religions / Welcome to World Cultures, Traditions and Religions! / Re: Zoroastrianism on: December 16, 2015, 21:06:36
But my point, and what I found personally, was that spiritualism is finding the god within yourself.  The "you" being one small aspect of the creator of this reality.  While it's not a god in the sense of the Christian "God", it is as powerful (meaning US) a concept.

This is sort of a Hindu viewpoint as expressed in the Mahabharata, and condensed in the Bhagavad Gita. In this worldview, each being is animated by a small shard (Atman) of the great super being Brahman Atman.

It is something of a semantic distinction, but it is conceivable for there to be a creation which is the result of another force, rather than something with a singular identity. Perhaps creation could be in theory the result of a concert of beings which are really quite separate and distinct, but are working in collaboration.

Some modern physicists would postulate that fundamental features of any reality, such as the laws of logic, may have forced the world into existence, in order to validate them.

These are not my viewpoint, but they are logically consistent to me.

I don't think you can progress spiritually until one realizes the truth of this existence.

Hard to say for me. I am not sure if any of us are actually progressing in most senses. The idea of progress within a non-linear system has always seemed odd to me. It makes sense within the context of a single human life... it is clear to see that a person often is better than they once were, and perhaps grow closer to truth; but the greater reality is not sequential like this, and after death this logic is difficult to continue coherently to me. I think it might be a sort of anthropomorphism... expecting greater reality to resemble our experiences here.

And that aside, assuming progress does happen, it is conceivable to me that a person can grow into being greater than they once were merely by grasping personal principles. Perhaps this person conceives of a love for honor, or compassion, or defending and bettering those around them. Many religions would call this person of low worth, because they lacked training in this or that dogma system. I think you would agree with me though that this person is among to most laudable of all, because they became greater without external prompting from others, but rather because they felt it was best within themself.

The common counterargument that is offered to this line of thought is that this person "knew God in their heart but didn't realize it". Perhaps this is true, but I think it confuses the real point- that you don't need to know various facts about the structure of existence in order to do what you perceive to be good things. I think a person can get quite far on devotion to helping others alone. Interestingly, this is another of the ideas expressed within the Bhagavad Gita- that a person need know little of the actual truth in order to move closer to the greater realities.

This is all speculation for me too, even after the handful of great experiences I have had through the years, but I guess the common thread of what I am trying to express is to examine your assumptions.

What things do you know because of evidence, and what things do you merely feel to be true?

Here is an example for me personally:

When I am at what I would currently call my "up state" in a waking setting, I feel visceral connection to the entire reality around me. It is not merely an abstract intellectual reasoning, but rather a powerful knowing that there is no separation between myself and the clouds and the trees. It feels like I am bleeding into them without a boundary. On a deep emotional level, and with an intensity that I think humans rarely experience, I truly feel this connection, and it is accompanied by massive exhileration. But as odd as it must sound, I must take this serially repeating experience, and keep it self-contained within its own slot.

I think in the past folks may have taken such experiences, and derived religions or cults out of them. It might go something like this: I have this tremendous experience of the enormity of creation and its interconnectedness. From this I know that all things are one. From the knowledge that all are one, I know there to be a super conglomeration of beings I will call God. God has property A, B, C, and not D. And the person reasons on- some things being fairly close to having a basis in what they experienced, some things being derivatives of derivative statements.

But out of deference to truth, I know I cannot and should not do this. I should not derive things that seem to be true but that I cannot know to be true if I am honest with myself. I feel there to be a great oceanic current of consciousness to this world. But as soon as others start talking about this same current, start referring to it as God, I get pretty suspicious of these statements. Why? For me, it is because they are speaking with certainty about things which clearly no person could be certain. They are using language borrowed from history, and dogmas contained therein. They are relying on the assumptions of others, rather than direct experience in most cases. I have a large degree of direct experience myself, and I still know that I can say few things with authority.

I guess this is what I am saying... I think I may have had a handful of the same experiences you may have had. These experiences are tremendous in and of themselves, but I think we have to be very careful to separate what we know from what we suppose.
81  World Cultures, Traditions and Religions / Welcome to World Cultures, Traditions and Religions! / Re: Zoroastrianism on: December 14, 2015, 15:54:02
Being a "spiritual atheist" actually isn't a contradiction in terms. It would just mean the person conceived of a metaphysical realm that was not organized under a deity. In fact, many forms of Buddhism might be called spiritual atheism (a few others have a sort of creator). There is something like a negative halo effect around the word "atheist", but the word only refers to positive belief in the absence of a deity.
82  Astral Projection & Out of Body Experiences / Welcome to Out of Body Experiences! / Re: Theory for understanding phasing scientifically on: December 01, 2015, 20:41:00
Thank You for that link Stillwater!  smiley I thoroughly enjoyed that interview.

Sure  wink

It is my belief now that most topics take about 2-3 hours to really begin to explore in a non-trivial fashion. Modern media and the internet has definitely lowered attention spans dramatically, and long-form discussions like this are sort of the pendulum swinging into the other direction. I really enjoy when I can explore a topic in moderate depth like that over that extended period. Rogan himself is also one of the best interviewers around to me for a number of reasons: he is a self-actualized person who is happy with himself and what he does, and is not seeking validation; he is greatly open to many points of view, and exploring ideas alien to him, while at the same time being quick to point out when something is clearly a lie, or unsupported by evidence; finally, he is not catering to a sponsored agenda directed by some corporate entity, but rather his own drive to explore new ideas.

You can tell I dig both people in that particular interview, which is another reason I really enjoyed that discussion.
83  Astral Projection & Out of Body Experiences / Welcome to Out of Body Experiences! / Re: Theory for understanding phasing scientifically on: December 01, 2015, 04:52:28
Wim Hof is the real deal in some sense. You can't fake some of the things he has accomplished, and he has been studied by enough independent researchers to validate his achievements, and indicate that he has caused major physiological changes in his own body that allow him to resist very extreme cold, and to multiply the strength of his immune system past what is expected normal.

I listened to a discussion between he and Joe Rogan a few weeks back, which I recommend, because in Rogan's long form interview you get a pretty involved discussion of his ideas over about 2 and a half hours:

The guy emits a positivity and a clear call to service of others that makes him incredibly charismatic. In a charlatan, this would make him a dangerous cult figure, but my feeling is that he is not an act, and the research into him seems to corroborate that view.

Who knows exactly how he has accomplished this, but he seems to be able to impart it to others too, as evidenced by his excursions marching middle-aged people onto Everest unclothed, lol.
84  Astral Chat / Welcome to Astral Chat! / Re: ACTIVE DUTY SOLDIER’S Riveting Case Against Bringing Syrian Refugees To U.S. on: November 30, 2015, 20:35:05
I don't want to really make this a political issue, but please excuse me here.

I think that the refugees should be helped by some means, and that means should take into account balance, efficiency, and the well being of all parties involved. As an example, it is much cheaper to provide resources to relocate many of the refugees to nearby safe countries to which they bear some cultural similarity, and thus face much lower barriers to getting employment and living situations.

It is estimated that the cost of bringing a non-English or French speaking family to the US is around 250k USD; this is primarily in terms of the social services it would take to get these folks off their feet to the extent that they could culturally integrate. Some are estimating that a sum of around 30k USD might be spent per family to help relocate them to countries such as Turkey, Iran (Iran is a much safer and more well off country than you might suppose it is, due to western propaganda against it), and Lebanon, and to provide them with the right services in these countries to get them established in normal lives there. I am not opposed to bringing smaller numbers of Syrians to North America, if they already speak the languages, as these are the folks that have an intention of actually becoming western citizens.

Historically, and in a few recent examples it has been shown that when large incoming populations face major barriers to cultural integration in their host countries, it generates a dangerous situation. An example is Sweden, which took in a number of primarily North Africans totaling something like 3-4% of their total population at the time. These folks in many cases had no way of becoming active citizens, and doing anything other than rely of social service systems there. The rape rate in Sweden has gone up by some estimates by around 800% during this same period, making it the rape capital of the west; something like 75-80% of this increase is attributed directly to the recent migrants. It is also less and less safe to be a Jew, or to have a Synagogue in that area. Other metrics of poverty and human suffering have increased as well across the board. I think the path Sweden has taken indicates that the service of underpriveliged populations is not something that can be done without extensive planning or study. Just giving the greenlight to a similar mass exchange of people, without plans for how to best integrate them into their destination countries should be avoided.

I think it comes down to the fact that impoverished people will express the worst parts of their culture, whereas thriving people will question the cultural norms they had in the past. This group of people can go either way, depending on how the situation is handled. Going back to the example of Iran, it is home to one of the most secularized and moderate populations of Muslims in that region. The historical government still continues to be radicalized, but the people there are increasingly less so, and I attribute this to the industrial success of large parts of that country at this time, which has taken people out of poverty to the extent that they can think for themselves. 
85  Astral Projection & Out of Body Experiences / Welcome to Out of Body Experiences! / Re: Ejaculated during Afternoon Nap Astral Projection Attempt on: November 25, 2015, 22:52:32
For short answer, answer is linked here:

Long answer... a few ideas need to be explained, and it will make more sense.

The concept of an orgasm is generally thought of as something in response to genital stimulation, but this is only a very small part of the story. What an orgasm really is, is an overload of the sensory neurons all over the body, that all fire at once in waves. It can be caused by genital stimulation, but it can also just as easily happen by choice if you detach the concepts in your mind. You can literally have the experience basically instantly without any contact if you change the way you think about it. I think it is easier for women to understand this, as they generally have more experience detaching the concept of an orgasm from direct stimulation, but I think I anyone can grasp it.

Now think about what the vibrations are for most people... a full body sensation of sensory overload coming in tight waves. Does this sound similar to the above?

Given these two facts together, I surmise that the life-long link between such full body sensations and genital stimulation caused the effect you experienced.
86  Astral Chat / Welcome to Astral Chat! / Re: Paris Terrorist Attacks on: November 23, 2015, 00:35:16
Don't believe this BS that Muhammad was tolerant. I know the Bible very well and I know the Koran fairly well and I can tell you there is not even a close resemblance to compare Jesus and Muhammad. Jesus was an innocent child compared to Muhammad which was a military dictator.

For sure. Muhammad was a warlord, with all that came with it. Jesus utters a few warlike lines, but rightly nothing to compare to Muhammad. But then Jesus isn't the logical comparison in the Bible to me to Muhammad. For that, you should look at the warlords of the old testament, and then you will find very much to compare. Abraham's line was not a tame one. Back when Yahweh was the war god of the Jewish tribe, he was saying some pretty odd things... being sure to slaughter all the men and bed all the women of the enemy... taking the survivors for slaves and the like...making sure to stone your daughter to death if she should transgress... The old testament and the Koran read very closely together.  Unless you are a scholar of each, I can put two lines from each side by side, and you would not know which was which (not you personally, but for most this would be true).
87  Astral Chat / Welcome to Astral Chat! / Re: Paris Terrorist Attacks on: November 22, 2015, 22:40:04
The Koran and the greater Hadith of Islam (words of the prophet and canonized scholarly interpretations of Islamic teaching) sadly do in fact prescribe violence and murder for a host of what are considered trivial reasons in modern culture today. It is incredibly difficult to explain away the dozen or so verses that explicitly command violence against offending non-Muslims, or apostate Muslims. Modern scholars more or less accept this as indesputable.

But there is another dimension to this whole business too. The Bible also prescribes violence and mayhem about as often as the as Koran does, and sometimes in even more barbarous fashion. Yet modern Christians are not looked on as barbarians. In all honesty, it is impossible to follow the Bible prescriptions even 20% of the time. There are too many of them, too many of them contradict, and too many of them are outright brutal.

No modern religion is really based in full literal interpretation of its own holy book. Non of them are coherent or internally consistent enough for this to be possible. Modern religion is thus about interpretation, and trying to tease out a preferred meaning from the chosen text, and forming a community around your interpretation. It is about which verses a community emphasizes, and which they disregard (because they ALL disregard some verses). Christianity is more a reflection of the Christian than the Bible. They are in fact developing a set of principles that were handed down from them by their family in most cases, and then using the Bible to anchor them (because really the Bible is so vast you can use it to support pretty much any viewpoint at all).

Islam is pretty much the same from what I have seen. No sane Muslim can follow the majority of the Koran. Individual communities of Muslims are defined by what verses their families and Imams choose to highlight and live by. Just as the Bible is full of commandments to enslave and murder others, that are casually put aside today, Muslim communities are putting aside the parts of their holy book that they don't jive with. Thus despite the religion at its core being pretty brutal, it is necessary to see how any given community is filtering it to really be able to comment.

Here is a great example from my life:

I was involved with an inspection of a Mosque close to my past home town; I sat down with the clerics there, and had a discussion with them. It was honestly brimming with hate. Hate for gays, hate for non-believers, and a refusal to listen to any sane arguments against these positions (because of course his justification was from the Koran itself, which he was forbidden to contradict). Later that day, I met a few of the folks who were worshipping at the mosque. They were cool as cucumbers... inviting people (north Africans mainly) who chose to instead emphasize the verses of the Koran that prescribed charity and care for the underpriveliged (Islam's strong suit, in my opinion). I met two entirely different kinds of Muslims that day.

Later I learned that there is a pattern today where Muslim communities in countries without large percentages of them will want to build a mosque, but will not have the funds. Enter the Saudis: the Saudi Arabians will offer to pay for the construction of the mosque for them, in exchange for the placement of a Saudi Imam at that mosque. The Saudi will generally preach Wahabism, which is the most insane form of Islam imaginable, and will attempt to radicalize the congregation. It is a pattern repeated hundreds of times around the western world. In fact, anytime there is violence in an Islamic community, a huge part of the time there is some Saudi connection. The official 9/11 story would have us believe all of the hijackers were Saudis. The majority of the recent militants in Iraq were actually Saudi expats. The ISIL/ ISIS group is a creation of American CIA and Saudi money. While not every violent act traces back to the Saudis, I think you will find a frightening percentage of it does. If the west really wanted to combat militantism, there would have been some form of intervention against this Saudi action a long time ago. I think most of us know the reasons this has not happened. Most of it goes back to the Petrodollar agreement back in the 70's.
88  Psychic and Paranormal / Welcome to Psychic and Paranormal! / Re: Here is a ... Peculiar on: November 21, 2015, 22:10:59
LOL that list of philosophers...

I don't think Crowley is a person many people ought to be emulating...

I don't think Alex jones is what I would call a philosopher.

Some of the others are personalities rooted in the 60s/ 70s, when the dangers of smoking were less understood. 

Would you smack women around because you saw Woody Allen do it in a 60's flick? Sometimes knowledge improves over time, and not everything the heroes of the past did is worth repeating.

There are some substances that may be very useful in the right hands, when used in a disciplined and measured way, in the right circumstances. Modern tobacco doesn't really seem to be on that list for me though.

If it was me, I wouldn't be so stoked on trying to repair something you have yourself said has emitted toxic fumes in the past. Better than cigarettes, sure, but then beer is better than moonshine by a long ways too, and while I wouldn't stop anyone from drinking a beer or two now and again, I am sure they aren't doing themselves any favors either.
89  Astral Projection & Out of Body Experiences / Welcome to Out of Body Experiences! / Re: Experiments? on: November 18, 2015, 19:41:23
Charles Tart is a long-time researcher in projection studies and parapsychology in general. He is a past associate of Robert Monroe, like several others. He has written a collection of books which are pretty well recommended, if you are interested in the research and validation aspect of the phenomenon. You might be aware of the famous "Miss Z" story that circulates around pretty far and wide- she was one of his early subjects.

Another famous series of parapsychology experiments was done at Princeton, under the heading of the "Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research" program (PEAR). These seemed to indicate that human intention was capable of affecting the outcomes of otherwise random events, such as tiny balls falling through a pegboard grid.

I can think of a few more, if the above examples interest you.
90  Astral Chat / Welcome to News and Media! / Re: New Research on Consciousness shows ... on: November 12, 2015, 11:40:55
There is new research on "consciousness" that shows that current scientific understandings and theories of consciousness may be flawed.

It is worth noting though that the past scientific perspective is a materialist paradigm, and the change in understanding referenced in the article is within the same materialist paradigm, so it isn't any kind of change of view at all.

It is akin to saying that I was once a Sunni Muslim, but that I converted to a different sect of Sunni-ism. The change of mind here is completely internal to the pre-existing belief. Put another way, it is like Catholic Cardinals arguing about whether taking wine and taking wafer are identical forms of communion. Neither of the Cardinals is talking about becoming a Buddhist- it is a matter completely internal to Catholic dogmas, and the answer will be a Catholic one regardless.

So not much changing here  rolleyes
91  Astral Projection & Out of Body Experiences / Welcome to Out of Body Experiences! / Re: List of all possible projections on: November 06, 2015, 07:31:50
Experience.  Smiley

Technically... I guess we are in a long-form projection from our other reality frame now  wink

So in a way, I guess people here are trying to learn to project out of another projection, hehe.
92  World Cultures, Traditions and Religions / Welcome to World Cultures, Traditions and Religions! / Re: Should we do AP on: November 05, 2015, 18:14:16
Meat damages our health, of course we shouldn't eat it.

Well, at least we will agree on one point here.

For me... I simply think it is unnecessary, so why cause the harm?

Dead dog's white teeth  wink
93  World Cultures, Traditions and Religions / Welcome to World Cultures, Traditions and Religions! / Re: Should we do AP on: November 04, 2015, 17:25:11
Everything else is propaganda and lies. If you just believe someone who dresses up as scientists, that's your problem.

So a study can be done in multiple locations, for over 27 years, in the present time today, but you know for a fact it is a lie. Why is anything you need to be false a lie?

It clearly implies the question, how do you know your interpretation of the Bible is the right one? The Bible doesn't tell us how to read it.

That just doesn't make sense, and Earth is clearly not millions of years old.

There is clearly evidence for the history of a long earth history. How is it that there are fossils of creatures buried in rock for hundreds of yards down, and not only that, but the deeper down you go, the further back the creatures date to? How is it that the shape of Africa and the Americas lines up perfectly, showing that they were once one continent? If the earth was to be 5000 years old, at what point did those continents move apart, and how fast did it happen? There are dozens of facts like this.

What scientific facts out in the physical world clearly tell you the earth is very young?

I have no idea what Bible school is.

Sunday School.

Very first page, very first verse. It says that God created everything - space, matter, time, living things and everything.

Most people read Genesis as metaphors, but there are those who believe in 7 literal days of creation- so you must believe then that the Bible is meant to be read literally. 

Let us go to Leviticus:


 Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

 And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

 And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.

The Bible clearly tells us that pigs and rabbits should not be eaten ever. Do you believe and follow this?

Leviticus 19:19

Observe my statutes. You are not to let your cattle breed with a different species. You are not to sow your fields with two different kinds of seeds. You are not to wear clothing made from two different kinds of material.

The Bible tells us that we should not have two kinds of seeds sown in one field. Do you investigate your food to ensure this is so?

Do you examine the clothing you are about to wear to ensure that you are not wearing two kinds of fabric at once?

Leviticus 19:27

Do not trim off the hair on your temples or trim your beards.

I am assuming you have a big beard, right?

If you are ignoring any of these laws of Leviticus, why are you doing that?
94  World Cultures, Traditions and Religions / Welcome to World Cultures, Traditions and Religions! / Re: Should we do AP on: November 04, 2015, 04:15:55
There are no scientific experiments that could verify those assumptions.

Why would it be impossible? Several experiments are currently ongoing depicting macroevolution today.

There is an experiment that has tracked a single colony of E. Coli Bacteria and its descendents over 27 years, and 50,000 generations+. Some of the descendents are already so different that they are essentially a new species. They eat totally different food from the original bacteria they descended from, and can now metabolize citrate, whereas E. Coli is famous for not being able to do that. The descendents are already more different from one another than dogs and cats. And that is after only 27 years, with most of the change happening in the earliest years, as the bacteria evolved to suit their fitness to new environments.

All the greatest scientists were creationists: Tesla, Newton, Einstein, Kepler, Faraday, Mendel, Pascal

It is worth noting that you picked scientists exclusively from a certain time period and geographic locus. You of course left out Archimedes, Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, Pythagoras, and Democritus.

Also of note, being that you list Einstein, he is quoted saying that "Religion without science is blind".

We were created. God created us.

You are making an error that creationism and evolution are mutually exclusive. They are not. If God created man, then evolution from simpler organisms is clearly the way it was done.

But that is something you just learned in school.

And how is that different from saying, "But that is just something you learned in Bible school"? And as far as I can see, there is no place in the Bible where it is declared that the diversity of life was not created via evolution. Can you show me some Bible verses that state this?

All modern science  indicates that evolution is a fairy tale, and not much more of that.

I am puzzled by this. Earlier you state that science cannot provide experiments depicting evolution (which it in fact has, as referenced above), but now you are stating that there is in fact experimental evidence that evolution has not happened. Can you provide me with those studies? If all of modern science is saying this, surely there must be a few?
95  World Cultures, Traditions and Religions / Welcome to World Cultures, Traditions and Religions! / Re: Should we do AP on: November 04, 2015, 01:19:00
humans can not at all be proven to have developed from any single cell organism. It's just a wild assumption.

If humans are not descended from single celled organisms, then where did the multicellular organisms we came from develop? And why are the simplest multicelluar organisms incredibly related to their single-celled predesesors?

Suppose you came to a construction site, full of bricks, wood, power tools, and workers, and in the middle of the site, was a partially built building, which the workers were currently visibly working on.

Now suppose there were two people there watching. One person told you that the workers built the building, and that it took them 2 months so far. The other person told you that the building spotaneously came into existence, and the workers and the job site around it were just confusing the matter. Furthermore, this person didn't witness it actually happen, but they knew it to be the case anyhow.

Which of these two people would you be more likely to believe?

Evolution is exactly like that. We can see the bricks and wood. We can see the power tools. We can see the workers. We can see it happening now as we speak, just as the workers were building the building.

The person who said the building sprang into existence has a lot of stuff to explain away, and the other person has a pretty easy time making their argument. Saying evolution didn't happen is about the same situation- it isn't as easy as simply saying it is an assumption, you also have to explain away the evidence which would fill an entire library. That is a tall order.

And this is how “Creation” occurs:

Original matter and cosmos emerge from the absolute, eternal background of God’s and all spiritual beings’ individuality (in cycles), through an “interdimensional evolution” (involution) from the higher, less dense levels of matter down to the dimension where matter is most dense. While the everlasting is always present in the background (immanently and transcendentally), time and space (universe) come into existence through a divine creation and therein firstly the highest, less dense dimensional world. This highest plane, “heaven,” includes all other parallel worlds which then—as time passes by, or rather, in the course of space and time—will evolve from one another through “involution.”  Most mystery traditions distinguish seven levels of dimension.

That is all well and good, but logically if this was the explanation for all the plants and animals on earth, then they wouldn't be closely related. Each one would be separate from the others in its structure. At the very least, they wouldn't have the clear and concise appearance of a common sequential biological history. Why would such a thing be invented, when it would be not only a lie, but a deliberate attempt to purposefully hide the truth?
96  World Cultures, Traditions and Religions / Welcome to World Cultures, Traditions and Religions! / Re: Should we do AP on: November 04, 2015, 01:00:42
I don't believe in millions of years at all.

I don't think we are going to agree about very much if we don't agree on this. Every indication is that the earth is several billion years old.

Also, I don't think that micro-evolution leads to macro-evolution.

If you drop a bucket of sand on the floor every hour for 3 billion years, you will have a mountain won't you? At the very least, you will have a very large volume of sand. Why wouldn't mutations add up over time?

Those are only assumptions, and a wrong ones.

Where do you take issue with them? What is the alternative, which evidence supports? There is an overwhelming body of evidence that depicts the entire story of the development of life, that we can describe in excruciating detail. I can pull up hundreds of examples that show very close relationships between all of the plants and animals in the tree of life. And the effect is cumulative. You can show that members in the middle of the tree have features that all members following them possess, and that no members prior to them possess. This is on the biomolecular level and the macrostructural level as well. It boggles my mind that all of the life on earth would have very clear and traceable patterns of development between them, and yet not be descendants of one another. If it failed to be true, it would mean that lierally every single organism, including man, was engineered by some being to trick us.

I would have million questions now. May I? Smiley

Sure, Absolutely Wink
97  World Cultures, Traditions and Religions / Welcome to World Cultures, Traditions and Religions! / Re: Should we do AP on: November 03, 2015, 23:31:30
I also feel that it should be obvious that over the course of billions of years, micro-evolutions add up to macro-evolutions. Lampreys become Giraffes. Jellyfish become Turtles. It isn't fast, but I think the fossil record and genetic records clearly demonstrate the passage of the genetic lineage from single-celled organisms to humans.

I wouldn't say we can understand our origins using mutations.

I think we can clearly show the passage of mankind out of single celled creatures. Again, I think you are connecting evolution to mind-body philosophy, from which it is entirely separate. The part of the human that evolution doesn't describe is our minds, but then evolution isn't making metaphysical claims, it is making claims about physical organisms.

Interesting theory about how everything non material is actually a product of material, but I don't think there is something to support that theory.

Not only is it an interesting theory, it is the dominant model between all of the natural and physical sciences for the last 200 years. It is accepted as uncontested fact by more or less the entire scientific community today.

Mind telling me more about your point of view?

Sure  wink

I will preface by saying that I think the primary problem of modern philosophy is the mind-body problem that we have been dancing around in this discussion. In fact, Modern philosophy began around 1641 when Descartes recognized this problem and helped make it the focus of philosophy from then on. The problem is roughly:

How is it that we have this thing called a physical body, that has mass, volume, and physical properties, and that we have this other thing called a mind, that has none of these things, and seems to exist in non-material space? Why does the body seem to have power over the mind, and vice versa? How are they even related? How can something nonmaterial interact with something material?

There are many solutions to this problem, but there are three main ones, and then variations of those three, and then odd special case solutions that are rarely held.

As noted, the solution that modern science espouses is Materialism. Materialism states that we in fact don't have a non-physical mind, but rather some peculiar effect of physical brains, that only appears to be non-physical in nature. This is the most obvious solution, and the easiest one to support; clearly, anything that happens to the brain has a profound effect on the mind. It very much appears that the mind is merely an effect conjured by a functioning brain. Nonetheless, I think this is the wrong answer. David Chalmers' "hard problem of consciousness" illustrates why I feel materialism is inadequate, if you would like to read up on that. Basically, it states that the mind is ontologically distinct from physical matter. It is composed of "first person experiences". There is absolutely nothing in the physical world that even resembles an experience. It is not entirely clear how a brain can get matter to produce experiences when it bears absolutely no resemblence to them. In fact, I think it is impossible to show this, without the use of exotic solutions, such as protopsychism,  which posits that physical matter is actually conscious on some level, and the brain is simply manipulating the consciousness matter already possesses. I find this very strange, honestly.

Now the solution that Christianity supports is substance dualism- namely that we have a mind and a body. I reject this solution too, because it is nonsensical to me. It doesn't make sense that we would have a material and immaterial element, and that these would be entirely separate, and yet somehow still interact. How does a physical object have an effect on an immaterial thing that doesn't exist in spacetime? And if the physical could effect the non-physical, wouldn't that just mean the non-physical thing was in fact physical, and that would in turn bring us back to materialism? For this reason, I cannot support dualism.

The final answer, which is held by few people today, but you will find many on this site supporting, is Monism of mind. That view states that we in fact have only a mind, and that mind is nonphysical. Any appearance of having a body or living in a physical world is in fact just an idea, and not a physical system. I think the more you consider this view, the more enticing it becomes. Consider that we have no way of actually experiencing a physical object such as an apple, except by ideas and sensations. These sensations are the only sense we even have of the apple. Why does the apple need to exist at all? I would say the apple does not exist, at least not as anything but as an idea (I understand the semantic problem with "real" and "exists", but that is a language issue, and let's set that aside for ease of understanding here.)

Considered from another direction, Monism of mind is the only one of the three solutions that isn't burdened by an unsolveable problem. Materialism is burdened with explaining how we have a mind which in no way resembles any physical properties. Dualism is burdened with explaining how physical and non-physical could interact, without the non-physical being rendered physical by the very fact of their interaction, and thus defaulting back to materialism. Monism has no such burden. Because all we have of a physical world are our ideas of it, there is no need for these ideas and sensations to be anything beyond that.

Now since I am a monist of mind, rather than a materialist as most modern evolutionists, why do I support evolution? Well I think that is simple. The appearance of the physical system (I guess you can think of it as a physical simulation) is governed by rules and laws which are both observeable and predictable. It is extremely mechanical in that sense. And if we want to know about its history, we can simply extrapolate those laws in reverse, and there is a mountain of evidence that supports this practice. To be clear, I think evolution explains to humans the history of the physical simulation we are currently experiencing. Explaining the nature of minds, or the simulation itself is another matter, unrelated to merely extrapolating history.
98  World Cultures, Traditions and Religions / Welcome to World Cultures, Traditions and Religions! / Re: Should we do AP on: November 03, 2015, 04:58:16
This is interesting, I didn't know that, thank you. let me see If I understood this correctly, "reductive materialism" (raw patterns of matter moving in space) is not behind the magnificent orchestration that has lead life just here on Earth to the point were it locates today as system? (Evolutionary theory)
If so, could be also possible that, it Should state that it lead, at least, to its beggining? And then, Something took the rails to put evolution where it is located now?

Reductive materialism is probably the closest thing there is to a viewpoint that disallows there being anything like spirit. It is very difficult to have a metaphysical world in this view system. Not only is this view "raw patterns moving in space", but also that there only exists matter, and nothing else. In such materialism, nothing can take the reins, because nothing else exists. In Dualism, spirit could take the reins. In Monism of mind, mind had the reins all along and the matter was a sort of simulation within mind (this is my view).

Evolution, on the other hand, only tells us about the way life developed in stages on earth. It tells us nothing about who or what may have started it, or what spiritual qualities that life might have- thus evolution is compatible with pretty much all the major religions.
99  World Cultures, Traditions and Religions / Welcome to World Cultures, Traditions and Religions! / Re: Should we do AP on: November 03, 2015, 02:08:06
You are a gap theorist I assume, because evolutionist wouldn't admit there is something such as AP. According to evolution, we are random mutations without anything spiritual.

I think I see the thought pattern you are using here. I think the problem is that you are extending the theory of evolution past the claims that it actually makes. Standard evolution does indeed posit that humans are the result of cumulative mutations adding up over time. In fact it doesn't say significantly more than that. It makes no claims, positively or negatively, about any spiritual aspect any being or organism may or may not possess. That is a different part of science and philosophy altogether.

Now while it is true that the majority of evolutionists hold the view you describe, it is not true that that view is part of evolutionary theory. It is an entirely different view called "reductive materialism". What reductive materialism states, is that all a human mind is, is in fact a product of the material world, namely the matter of brains; they reduce all concept of mind to material , in otherwords.

So most evolutionists are reductive materialists, but reductive materialism is not part of evolutionary theory. I can see why people associate the two, but they are in fact distinct viewpoints, neither of which really entails the other if you are honest.

Honestly I think Christians actually mean to take issue with reductive materialism, but don't know enough about the mind-body problem (to which it is one of the alternative answers), and many don't have the language terms to know what their actual target is. For what it is worth, the Christian perspective is generally thought of as a "Dualist" alternative solution, and the solution I support is called "Monism of Mind" (in Christian terminology, this would mean that I only posit the existence of soul/mind, and I think that matter is a kind of illusion created by mind).

I don't think they don't have experience with it. Almost every pope, at least in my country, would have a lot experience to share. Not that they practice AP like we do, but in some other way. All in all, AP is happening every night, sometimes we are aware, sometimes not, right? They can't run from it, they are just saying that we should be careful with all that entities

Yes, many Catholic practices are very much like meditative practices, despite the viewpoint being different. Long form rosary prayer being one famous example, that will lead to some interesting experiences if practiced long enough.

100  Psychic and Paranormal / Welcome to Psychic and Paranormal! / Re: The moon on: November 03, 2015, 01:39:03

Do you have an example of a shot where the moon has the scanline effect, but there is some reference object also in the same frame that is unaffected? All of the ones I have seen were against featureless black space backgrounds, that don't have any reference to see if the wave is occurring outside the moon.

I did see the shot you mention with the pulse effect... that one is harder to explain, but I don't buy his explanation yet.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 85
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums

The Astral Pulse Copyright © 2002 - 2014
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS! Dilber MC Theme by HarzeM