Does an Atheist Know God?

[Fool]

Weird thing to say right before posting 4 links with no math in them.

The first one talks about Quantem entanglement. Its a real phenomenon and a neat one at that. But it doesn't have the slightest thing to do with what we are talking about.

The third link is an old link that was about a disenfranchized and rejected research group that didn't even receieve funding from the school that has been working on proving ESP for the last thirty years and failed to come up with anything beyond the statistical error rate. The second is the new group after the founder left that group.

The next is a link to something that doesne't give me a clear indication of what they actually do or what they propose. Seems to be part of the University of Arizona under the anesteseologist department. If you had something more please link me to something specific.

Then the last one is on the anecdotal evidences of people with near death experiences.

Scientific Journals exploring consciousness, nonlocality, transpersonal psychology and other open science topics - Campaign for Open Science

Panel: Exploring Non-local Consciousness | Science and Nonduality


studies in nonlocal consciousness - Google Scholar

 

[paarsurrey]

Does an Atheist Know God?

An Atheist could know G-d, His doors are open to everybody. An Atheist could pray to G-d to lead one to Himself and start knowing Him. Please
Regards

One aspect of praying is acquiring positive attributes reflected in nature and in our own selves, that could be felt and perceived.
Does one agree with me?
Anybody, please
Regards

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Scientific Journals exploring consciousness, nonlocality, transpersonal psychology and other open science topics - Campaign for Open Science

This is a very nice link. It is a group of links to different scientific journals on the study of consciousness. I clikced the first few. The first one is broken but the others linked me to well respected and accredited universities and research groups who talk about consciousness. However none of it involved spirituality in the ones I clicked on. More or less they all agree with what I have been stating here in the thread.

Panel: Exploring Non-local Consciousness | Science and Nonduality

Unfortunatly not a journal or research group. This is a websight where people talk about spirituality and possibilities with that. However no research to be found and it mostly seems to be geared towards making money as seen by the "store" option in the top right. Everyone here is selling books or t-shirts. 0/10.

studies in nonlocal consciousness - Google Scholar

This is just a google search on docs with the keywords nonlocal consciousness. I'm not sifting through all of them and they, judging purely by the titles, seem to range from bunk non-scientific papers to more scientific-looking papers refuting the claim all together. In fact nearly half of these just at a glance are arguing against it. If you have specific ones you would like me to read or look at please link those specifically.

 

[Fool]

This is a very nice link. It is a group of links to different scientific journals on the study of consciousness. I clikced the first few. The first one is broken but the others linked me to well respected and accredited universities and research groups who talk about consciousness. However none of it involved spirituality in the ones I clicked on. More or less they all agree with what I have been stating here in the thread.

Unfortunatly not a journal or research group. This is a websight where people talk about spirituality and possibilities with that. However no research to be found and it mostly seems to be geared towards making money as seen by the "store" option in the top right. Everyone here is selling books or t-shirts. 0/10.


This is just a google search on docs with the keywords nonlocal consciousness. I'm not sifting through all of them and they, judging purely by the titles, seem to range from bunk non-scientific papers to more scientific-looking papers refuting the claim all together. In fact nearly half of these just at a glance are arguing against it. If you have specific ones you would like me to read or look at please link those specifically.

carl sagan wrote books

einstein wrote books

hawking has wrote books

penrose has written books


Dr. Robert Lanza

Dr. Michio Kaku


MK: Well. Einstein anticipated most of twentieth and twenty-first century physics first of all. Wormholes were actually first proposed by Einstein in 1935 they’re called Einstein-Rosen bridges. Wormholes to other universes. And he also butted heads against the quantum theory. And this is one sense where he actually blew it. He had reservations about the quantum theory because it was so bizarre. So fantastic. How can you be two places at the same time? How can you disappear, reappear somewhere else? How could things be non-local so that something here affects something on the other end of the galaxy faster than the speed of light?

If you had tunneled down you might have found a few more interesting journals and research.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

carl sagan wrote books

einstein wrote books

hawking has wrote books

penrose has written books


Dr. Robert Lanza

Dr. Michio Kaku


MK: Well. Einstein anticipated most of twentieth and twenty-first century physics first of all. Wormholes were actually first proposed by Einstein in 1935 they’re called Einstein-Rosen bridges. Wormholes to other universes. And he also butted heads against the quantum theory. And this is one sense where he actually blew it. He had reservations about the quantum theory because it was so bizarre. So fantastic. How can you be two places at the same time? How can you disappear, reappear somewhere else? How could things be non-local so that something here affects something on the other end of the galaxy faster than the speed of light?

If you had tunneled down you might have found a few more interesting journals and research.

Many people did write books. None of them, except one which I will get to in a minute, support the idea of non-physical consciousness.

Robert Lanza is a medical doctor and has made termendous strides in the fields of stem cell research and cloning. Some of his physics work leaves something to be desired. He has put out at least 2 books on his theory of biocentrism which shares a name with a philosphy of ethics. I spent a good 30 minutes researching into what it is that is being said and reading the reviews and critique of his work. I have come to the conclusion that I plan on either purchasing or borrowing his first book on it to take a better look. It seems that he has some very complicated and out there theories that can be described as fringe but possible. Most everything he has presented does have some backing that I have seen but without reading the book I can't give a full comment on it. I must ask if you have read the book and if so what was the exact natuer of his claims that you feel resonated with your own? The rest don't even come close to it I'm afraid. And from what I have seen much of his propositions have been misunderstood or misrepresented and just wanted to have a clearer understanding of where you are coming from having linked him.

edit:
Though I would like to add that after reading a few of the critiques of the book it is not very well recieved and there are numerous rebuttles to his work in fields in which he has not been prepared for.

 

[Fool]

Many people did write books. None of them, except one which I will get to in a minute, support the idea of non-physical consciousness.

Robert Lanza is a medical doctor and has made termendous strides in the fields of stem cell research and cloning. Some of his physics work leaves something to be desired. He has put out at least 2 books on his theory of biocentrism which shares a name with a philosphy of ethics. I spent a good 30 minutes researching into what it is that is being said and reading the reviews and critique of his work. I have come to the conclusion that I plan on either purchasing or borrowing his first book on it to take a better look. It seems that he has some very complicated and out there theories that can be described as fringe but possible. Most everything he has presented does have some backing that I have seen but without reading the book I can't give a full comment on it. I must ask if you have read the book and if so what was the exact natuer of his claims that you feel resonated with your own? The rest don't even come close to it I'm afraid. And from what I have seen much of his propositions have been misunderstood or misrepresented and just wanted to have a clearer understanding of where you are coming from having linked him.

edit:
Though I would like to add that after reading a few of the critiques of the book it is not very well recieved and there are numerous rebuttles to his work in fields in which he has not been prepared for.

that is how science works. not everyone agrees with the interpretation of the data.

even einstein didn't like the EPR but alas its been proven true. oh well.....

 

[Monk Of Reason]

that is how science works. not everyone agrees with the interpretation of the data.

even einstein didn't like the EPR but alas its been proven true. oh well.....

The problem mainly with Robert Lanza being that there isn't any data or actual theory in his books. Its just a kind of proposed possibility that hinges mostly on the skirtails of pseudoscience that comes from misinterpreted and misunderstood actual science. Since my last response I've read quite a bit more into what is written in his books and unfortunatly its a great idea to sell books but far less to sell science. He is a brilliant man in his own field but is proving to be less than so in other fields.

The interpretation of data is a big issue but the theories that we have are at least well supported.

The way you have described consciousness isn't what the data represents. I know this isn't your main point but some of the links earlier had to do with ESP and "The Secret" style attempts to change reality with just our thoughts. Those don't even have the data to push behind them. And this isn't jus stubborn denial on my part. I used to look into it a lot hoping it was true. I was really into the ghost hunts and the ESP search and the whole shebang. I'm still a little jaded and heartbroken over the fact that at the end of the day there isn't two shreds of evidence to rub together.

 

[Fool]

p

The problem mainly with Robert Lanza being that there isn't any data or actual theory in his books. Its just a kind of proposed possibility that hinges mostly on the skirtails of pseudoscience that comes from misinterpreted and misunderstood actual science. Since my last response I've read quite a bit more into what is written in his books and unfortunatly its a great idea to sell books but far less to sell science. He is a brilliant man in his own field but is proving to be less than so in other fields.

The interpretation of data is a big issue but the theories that we have are at least well supported.

The way you have described consciousness isn't what the data represents. I know this isn't your main point but some of the links earlier had to do with ESP and "The Secret" style attempts to change reality with just our thoughts. Those don't even have the data to push behind them. And this isn't jus stubborn denial on my part. I used to look into it a lot hoping it was true. I was really into the ghost hunts and the ESP search and the whole shebang. I'm still a little jaded and heartbroken over the fact that at the end of the day there isn't two shreds of evidence to rub together.

EPR is a known and proven thing. Consciousness isn't exclusively local nor is it exclusive to a brain. The numbers don't lie.

 

[Shad]

Do Atheists know Love?

1 John 4:8
Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

Projection, nothing more.

 

[Fool]

Projection, nothing more.

projection?

how can a question be a projection. i could understand how a statement could be a projection but not a question.

the question doesn't state that atheists are loving, or unloving. it asks if they know love.

your argument is an ad hominem.

 

[Shad]

projection?

how can a question be a projection. i could understand how a statement could be a projection but not a question.

You are projecting your view of God and love on to the atheists as if they accept this view. They do not. It would be like my putting forward the following.

God is a fiction thus believers know fiction.

This is projecting my point of view on to you as if you accept it. Do you accept it?

the question doesn't state that atheists are loving, or unloving. it asks if they know love.

Again you are making love, an emotion, synonymous with God which atheists reject. Since they reject this link they know love, not God.

your argument is an ad hominem.

Look up what the fallacy is. You have no idea what you are talking about....

 

[Fool]

You are projecting your view of God and love on to the atheists as if they accept this view. They do not. It would be like my putting forward the following.

the question was posed to all people in how they view a subset of people.

Not all atheists believe in the same way. There are christian atheists who follow the ideas of christianity but don't believe in God outside of self. There are atheists who follow the golden rule but doesn't mean they aren't loving. Ideas are not exclusive to people who identify as this, or that. Actions aren't either.


Christian Atheist

God is a fiction thus believers know fiction.

that is your opinion but the quote states that god is love or god = love. in logic 1 + 1 "is " 2

This is projecting my point of view on to you as if you accept it. Do you accept it?

i don't need to discuss individuals in order to discuss an idea. the post isn't about an individual. it's about "people" having similar actions. i could care less what someone wears as a covering.

Again you are making love, an emotion, synonymous with God which atheists reject. Since they reject this link they know love, not God.

no the quoted text equates god as being love. you're confused. i'm not a christian. i do follow certain christian ideas.

language evolves and some definitions become archaic. you have to consider the space and time; in which the writing occurred. the writer wasn't christian. he was most likely gnostic.

an yes i know what an ad hominem is. it's discussing an individual; when you could be discussing the idea.

 

[Shad]

the question was posed to all people in how they view a subset of people.

Good then my point still stands.

Not all atheists believe in the same way. There are christian atheists who follow the ideas of christianity but don't believe in God outside of self. There are atheists who follow the golden rule but doesn't mean they aren't loving. Ideas are not exclusive to people who identify as this, or that. Actions aren't either.

This does not apply to the discussion since by definition they reject the verse you have cited in the meaning put forward.

that is your opinion but the quote states that god is love or god = love. in logic 1 + 1 "is " 2

Irrelevant as that is your belief not that of atheists

i don't need to discuss individuals in order to discuss an idea. the post isn't about an individual. it's about "people" having similar actions. i could care less what someone wears as a covering.

When you are talking about a group of people the members of this group matter.

no the quoted text equates god as being love. you're confused. i didn't i'm not a christian. i do follow certain christian ideas.

Look up the word equates.

language evolves and some definitions become archaic. you have to consider the space and time; in which the writing occured. the writer wasn't christian. he was most likely gnostic.

Assetion

an yes i know what an ad hominem is. it's discussing an individual; when you could be discussing the idea.

You are talking about atheists which are people which is part of your idea

You still have no idea what ad hominem is. I am pointing out an error you are making within your idea. This is not a personally attack.

 

[Fool]

Good then my point still stands.

you have no point. you're seem to believe you're all atheists. you can speak for self but not other atheists, or even all non-atheists.

Good then my point still stands.
This does not apply to the discussion since by definition they reject the verse you have cited in the meaning put forward.

again you don't know all atheists, nor all theists.

Good then my point still stands.

again no it doesn't. it stands from your belief system. love is not unique to a culture, or a belief system, not even an atheist belief system.

atheists may object to a god apart from self but they don't all object to self. a god can be a person as noted by many ancient belief systems. that is a god not apart from self; if it can be a person.

When you are talking about a group of people the members of this group matter.

the idea was posed to a group. it wasn't posed to a particular individual as representative to the group. Unless you've been elected to represent the whole of atheism, you're projecting.

Look up the word equates.

Equates for your benefit means equals

Godlike person

You are talking about atheists which are people which is part of your idea

yes, i included a group of people an equated them to having the ability to be loving. it isn't what a person identifies as in a system that results in rewards or penalties. it's their actions. love isn't exclusive to a belief system. all people have the potential to be hateful, exclusive, and discriminating, or loving, inclusive, and equating

You still have no idea what ad hominem is. I am pointing out an error you are making within your idea. This is not a personally attack.

when you call projection, yes you are. you're not focusing on the idea. you're focused on a person and trying to define them.

unless you believe love is a projection

i'm also an atheist based on the idea that Love is not separate from self, and humans have the capacity to be god like.

 

[Shad]

you have no point. you're seem to believe you're all atheists. you can speak for self but not other atheists, or even all non-atheists.

This is hilarious since your opening post you are making a statement regarding all atheists. You seem to believe you can make a statement regarding all atheists than cry foul when I do.

again you don't know all atheists, nor all theists.

Take your own advice

again no it doesn't. it stands from your belief system. love is not unique to a culture, or a belief system, not even an atheist belief system.

Which your OP is tied direct to a specific belief system.....

atheists may object to a god apart from self but they don't all object to self. a god can be a person as noted by many ancient belief systems. that is a god not apart from self; if it can be a person.

Now you are changing the definition in a ad hoc rescue removed from the context of the verse.

the idea was posed to a group. it wasn't posed to a particular individual as representative to the group. Unless you've been elected to represent the whole of atheism, you're projecting.

A group which rejects the very link between God and love

Equates for your benefit means equals

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=god

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=god

Which only confirms what I have said

Godlike person

Read your own source

yes, i included a group of people an equated them to having the ability to be loving.

I was talking about the verse used in the OP

it isn't what a person identifies as in a system that results in rewards or penalties. it's their actions. love isn't exclusive to a belief system. all people have the potential to be hateful, exclusive, and discriminating, or loving, inclusive, and equating

Then remove the verse from your OP as it is a specific belief system

when you call projection, yes you are. you're not focusing on the idea. you're focused on a person and trying to define them.

The verse is projection in relation to the OP statement.

unless you believe love is a projection

I was talking about the verse in relation to the OP statement

i'm also an atheist based on the idea that Love is not separate from self, and humans have the capacity to be god like.

Sophistry. If you do not believe in God there is no connection to being Godlike.

 

[Fool]

Take your own advice

i did. i asked a question that both an atheist could contemplate and a theist too, and answer if they wish. thats what you do; when you attempt to understand.

I never stated that atheists were loving/unloving. I did 'inquire' if god as the idea of love was possible for an atheist. the question was posed as equilibrium between theists and atheists; if anything.

you come from one polarity because their are many denominations of atheism as there are theism. not all theists agree 100% and neither do atheists agree 100%. a belief system doesn't have to be organized. Every person comes from a different point in space and time.


atheism is as ancient as theism.



i equate love to being the greatest and divine mystery that can be realized as a potential in all people. its the one unifying thing, given that an atheist can love a theist and vice versa

you're hung up on a word; which some deify and some demonize. i'm hung up on the idea of love as the epitomy of what it trully is to be human and divine/marvelous/holy/god like.


love can only be manifested by the binary. Love and the idea of love are two. one is an idea the other is the realization of the idea. the two are the potential/actual of the other.

 

[Shad]

i did. i asked a question that both an atheist could contemplate and a theist too, and answer if they wish. thats what you do; when you attempt to understand.

I never stated that atheists were loving/unloving. I did 'inquire' if god as the idea of love was possible for an atheist. the question was posed as equilibrium between theists and atheists; if anything.

All you have done is play definition games in an attempt to pander

you come from one polarity because their are many denominations of atheism as there are theism. not all theists agree 100% and neither do atheists agree 100%. a belief system doesn't have to be organized. Every person comes from a different point in space and time.

No I am pointing out your definition games are sophistry

i equate love to being the greatest and divine mystery that can be realized as a potential in all people. its the one unifying thing, given that an atheist can love a theist and vice versa

So you do not know what atheist means, nothing more.

you're hung up on a word; which some deify and some demonize.

i'm hung up on the idea of love as the epitomy of what it trully is to be human and divine/marvelous/holy/god like.

Word games you means

love can only be manifested by the binary. Love and the idea of love are two. one is an idea the other is the realization of the idea. the two are the potential/actual of the other.

Word salad.

 

[Fool]

All you have done is play definition games in an attempt to pander



No I am pointing out your definition games are sophistry



So you do not know what atheist means, nothing more.



Word games you means




Word salad.

Dumb Parrot Puzzle

 

[Shad]

Dumb Parrot Puzzle

Great empty rebuttal...

 

[Fool]

Great empty rebuttal...

thank you