US: Donald Trump launches 2024 comeback bid, makes his 'very big announcement'

[Subduction Zone]

Adolescent boy A: Kissing girls is really fun
Adolescent boy Z: Where is the evidence of your claim?
Adolescent boy A: It is in the kissing, you have to kiss the girl to have the evidence of a fun experience.
Adolescent boy Z: I know your silly "experience" claim is bogus when it comes to evidence, you know your fun kissing claim is false.

Just like you must kiss the girl to have the evidence of the fun experience, you must meditate to experience transcendence.

Guess what? We can observe kissing. There are even ways to test to see if two people kissed each other. We can ask people that have kissed about it and get consistent answers. No one seems to be able to observe the events that you claim have happened. You have no way to test your claim. You can't even provide people that make the same claims.

You just posted a terribly failed analogy.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Guess what? We can observe kissing. There are even ways to test to see if two people kissed each other. We can ask people that have kissed about it and get consistent answers. No one seems to be able to observe the events that you claim have happened. You have no way to test your claim. You can't even provide people that make the same claims.

You just posted a terribly failed analogy.

We can observe meditation also, it is easy to see a devotee in deep meditation practice. There are even ways to test if someone is in a state of meditation. Your atheism has severely stunted your intuitive faculty,

So here's the thing, go back and read the letter by my friend to Dr Tong that I uploaded for you in post #292 .
You will note that the reference point of the observer determines their degree of confinement relative to the transcendental state of being, The soul in a transcendent state is unlimited in time and space, someone though who identifies totally with their body as to who they are (which all atheists do btw) sees reality from the most confined state of time and space.
That's not to say it is wrong to self identify fully with the body, only that it is the least evolved.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We can observe meditation also, it is easy to see a devotee in deep meditation practice. There are even ways to test if someone is in a state of meditation. Your atheism has severely stunted your intuitive faculty,

So here's the thing, go back and read the letter by my friend to Dr Tong that I uploaded for you in post #292 .
You will note that the reference point of the observer determines their degree of confinement relative to the transcendental state of being, The soul in a transcendent state is unlimited in time and space, someone though who identifies totally with their body as to who they are (which all atheists do btw) sees reality from the most confined state of time and space.
That's not to say it is wrong to self identify fully with the body, only that it is the least evolved.

And meditation does very little besides relaxing a person.

When one makes extraordinary claims they need to provide extraordinary evidence. Avoiding that is a very good sign that the claims made were false.


And sorry, but you simply have no clue about quantum physics. Another bad sign.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And meditation does very little besides relaxing a person.

When one makes extraordinary claims they need to provide extraordinary evidence. Avoiding that is a very good sign that the claims made were false.

And atheism does very little besides wasting the potential to learn what and who one is in the context of universal existence.

When someone self identifies with matter, they will die when it disintegrates.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And atheism does very little besides wasting the potential to learn what and who one is in the context of universal existence.

When someone self identifies with matter, they will die when it disintegrates.

One cannot waste that which does not exist. Where is your evidence?

And guess what will almost certainly happen to you when you die? Your fate will be no different from mine.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

One cannot waste that which does not exist. Where is your evidence?

And guess what will almost certainly happen to you when you die? Your fate will be no different from mine.

Where is your evidence that one cannot waste that which does not exist?

My fate will be determined by the extent of understanding as to what and who I really am, what will yours' be? I know, it will be determined by the number of posts in a day on RF, atheist heaven.

 

[SkepticThinker]

And atheism does very little besides wasting the potential to learn what and who one is in the context of universal existence.

When someone self identifies with matter, they will die when it disintegrates.

Atheism is just lack of belief in god(s). That's it. It has nothing to do with self-identifying with matter, or whatever.

I'm not convinced there are god(s). Why? Because when I ask people who claim such things exist, such as yourself, I get a bunch of woo-woo language and condescension, but zero evidence for their claims.

 

[metis]

It discusses the underlying oneness of the universe,

But what created the "oneness"? If you say it was uncaused [always present], then that means you're implying that but not offering any logical evidence. IOW, maybe there was no actual beginning.

Instead, I take a different approach. Supposedly, when the Buddha was asked if there was a god or gods, his response was that it's irrelevant. Those that came to follow him sorta conclude that maybe he said this because we can't know, although some others felt that it really doesn't make a difference in the here & now, or both.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Where is your evidence that one cannot waste that which does not exist?

My fate will be determined by the extent of understanding as to what and who I really am, what will yours' be? I know, it will be determined by the number of posts in a day on RF, atheist heaven.

It is called logic. No evidence needed.

And for both of us the odds are huge that when you are dead you are dead.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Atheism is just lack of belief in god(s). That's it. It has nothing to do with self-identifying with matter, or whatever.

I'm not convinced there are god(s). Why? Because when I ask people who claim such things exist, such as yourself, I get a bunch of woo-woo language and condescension, but zero evidence for their claims.

It has to everything to do with atheists self-identifying with matter, the goal of a religious aspirant to self-identify with the spirit within, which endures beyond the life time of the physical body. It is not as though I believe atheists purposely set out to do this, it is just their default way of imagining that is what and who they are, like Fido the dog, come here Fido!

 

[Ben Dhyan]

But what created the "oneness"? If you say it was uncaused [always present], then that means you're implying that but not offering any logical evidence. IOW, maybe there was no actual beginning.

Instead, I take a different approach. Supposedly, when the Buddha was asked if there was a god or gods, his response was that it's irrelevant. Those that came to follow him sorta conclude that maybe he said this because we can't know, although some others felt that it really doesn't make a difference in the here & now, or both.

I agree with you, there was no actual beginning, I never said or implied there was. The logical evidence that there was no beginning is that is it illogical to imagine that existence can come from non-existence, something from nothing

Otoh, the only reason those humans who do magine there was a beginning is that every thing they can see or detect has a beginning (the 5% matter part of the universe) and thus imagine the 95% rest of existenc also must have had one too.

I agree too with the idea that the question of God is irrelevant, it is just a name like Nirvana, Tao, Brahman, etc.. it is the question of what and who am I in the context of existence that is important, not just aiming at getting the highest daily number of posts on RF.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It is called logic. No evidence needed.

And for both of us the odds are huge that when you are dead you are dead.

Only in the mind of some one who self identifies with the body all their life.

And for someone who through religious practice has realized the spiritual source of their existence, it is logical they no longer fully self-identfy with their body.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Only in the mind of some one who self identifies with the body all their life.

And for someone who through religious practice has realized the spiritual source of their existence, it is logical they no longer fully self-identfy with their body.

No. You are trying to wiggle out of a claim that you made that you cannot properly support. Doing so to others indicates that you know that you are wrong. Meanwhile you are trying use ad hominem attacks to justify your position.

You can believe that you are not associated with your body, but when you claim to have out of body experiences you put a burden of proof upon yourself. You may simply be having moderately controlled dreams. You see what you want to see.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

For those who wonder how our conscious could be influenced by the universe, you may be interested in this. When we meditate, and cease thinking, we are one with the universe.

Consciousness is the collapse of the wavefunction | Stuart Hameroff

Consciousness is the collapse of the wave function

Quantum mechanics suggests that particles can be in a state of superposition - in two states at the same time - until a measurement take place. Only then does the wavefunction describing the particle collapses into one of the two states. According to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, the collapse of the wave function takes place when a conscious observer is involved. But according to Roger Penrose, it’s the other way around. Instead of consciousness causing the collapse, Penrose suggested that wavefunctions collapse spontaneously and in the process give rise to consciousness. Despite the strangeness of this hypothesis, recent experimental results suggest that such a process takes place within microtubules* in the brain. This could mean that consciousness is a fundamental feature of reality, arising first in primitive bio-structures, in individual neurons, cascading upwards to networks of neurons, argues Roger Penrose collaborator Stuart Hameroff.

* Microtubules exist in the axons of the brain's neurons.

 

[Subduction Zone]

For those who wonder how our conscious could be influenced by the universe, you may be interested in this.

Consciousness is the collapse of the wavefunction | Stuart Hameroff

Consciousness is the collapse of the wave function

Quantum mechanics suggests that particles can be in a state of superposition - in two states at the same time - until a measurement take place. Only then does the wavefunction describing the particle collapses into one of the two states. According to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, the collapse of the wave function takes place when a conscious observer is involved. But according to Roger Penrose, it’s the other way around. Instead of consciousness causing the collapse, Penrose suggested that wavefunctions collapse spontaneously and in the process give rise to consciousness. Despite the strangeness of this hypothesis, recent experimental results suggest that such a process takes place within microtubules* in the brain. This could mean that consciousness is a fundamental feature of reality, arising first in primitive bio-structures, in individual neurons, cascading upwards to networks of neurons, argues Roger Penrose collaborator Stuart Hameroff.

* Microtubules exist in the axons of the brain's neurons.

I see that he is an anesthesiologist. How does that make him an expert in quantum physics? This sounds like it is only quantum woo woo. Where are his peer reviewed papers? Why should anyone give him any credibility at all when this is far outside his area of expertise in both medicine and physics?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I see that he is an anesthesiologist. How does that make him an expert in quantum physics? This sounds like it is only quantum woo woo. Where are his peer reviewed papers? Why should anyone give him any credibility at all when this is far outside his area of expertise in both medicine and physics?

Quantum effects in the understanding of consciousness - PubMed

Quantum coherence in microtubules: A neural basis for emergent co...: Ingenta Connect

Consciousness, the Brain, and Spacetime Geometry
https://nyaspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2001.tb05709.x

Works by Stuart Hameroff - PhilPapers

 

[Subduction Zone]

Quantum effects in the understanding of consciousness - PubMed

Quantum coherence in microtubules: A neural basis for emergent co...: Ingenta Connect

Consciousness, the Brain, and Spacetime Geometry
https://nyaspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2001.tb05709.x

Works by Stuart Hameroff - PhilPapers

Not my area of expertise, nor yours, but even the short Wiki article has explanations of why he is probably wrong:

Stuart Hameroff - Wikipedia

In other words it is probably just quantum woo woo.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Not my area of expertise, nor yours, but even the short Wiki article has explanations of why he is probably wrong:

Stuart Hameroff - Wikipedia

In other words it is probably just quantum woo woo.

Wow, 60,321, that's another 11 posts of no value to any serious student, but to you it is your life's work. I suppose as long as you feel it's an accomplishment, good luck. I can feel the excitement as the number goes up each post.

 

[metis]

I agree with you, there was no actual beginning, I never said or implied there was. The logical evidence that there was no beginning is that is it illogical to imagine that existence can come from non-existence, something from nothing

Again, that same question can also be applied to God(s).

Otoh, the only reason those humans who do magine there was a beginning is that every thing they can see or detect has a beginning (the 5% matter part of the universe) and thus imagine the 95% rest of existenc also must have had one too.

There's been an increasing number of cosmologists who tend to think that we are part of a multiverse, but then the question still remains who or what created that?

 

[SkepticThinker]

It has to everything to do with atheists self-identifying with matter, the goal of a religious aspirant to self-identify with the spirit within, which endures beyond the life time of the physical body. It is not as though I believe atheists purposely set out to do this, it is just their default way of imagining that is what and who they are, like Fido the dog, come here Fido!

And you imagine that things like spirits, satan and gods exist and assert such to atheists, without being able to provide any evidence at all.
So, yeah. Why should we (or anybody) accept your claims? Because as I said, atheists are just people who aren't convinced that god(s) exist.