Why don't some people like being created?

[McBell]

It was not instinct awareness that was wrong, it was false rationalisation that people believed to be true.

in your favoured method, how does one distinguish between what is real and what is not real?

Seems to me that you just pick one, declare it is the real one, and hope you are right.

 

[Walkntune]

That sentence means no different from: "rational thinking comes into play once we're aware of something". Which is obvious.

This is true! But awareness changes by fear and faith or fight and flight.As people panic there awareness changes and sometimes can't even see what is front of there face.
So you can only rationalise or use logic to discern that which is in your awareness but we also have the ability to open up our awareness through faith and therefore I said both aspects are important.
Religion helps people open there awareness and science is used to rationalise that which is in the awareness.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Rational thinking comes into play to rationalize the reality that we become aware of through our awareness or fight and flight instinct.

I believe you are confusing the two uses of the root word "rational" in your sentence. Properly used, rational thought would never be used to rationalize anything. Rationalization (as you are using it) is the making of an excuse to justify an error. Rational thought (as you are using it) is the systematic method of analyzing data (i.e. using logic rather than emotion to reach a conclusion).

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It was not instinct awareness that was wrong, it was false rationalisation that people believed to be true.

So, you think that people looked up at the sun and instinctively knew that the earth revolved around it? Is that something you seriously want to claim?

They saw the sun move across the sky, and their instinctive reaction was that the sun moved. You can argue that it's poor rationalization, but that's only because they refused to accept any rational explanation that conflicted with their perception of the sun's movement - because it was counterintuitive. The same can be said of the earth being flat. In fact, practically all great scientific discoveries - round earth, evolution, gravity, atoms, etc. - fly in the fact of man's instinct in judging the world.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Religion helps people open there awareness and science is used to rationalise that which is in the awareness.

What utter dung. Religion is many things to many people, but science is used to confirm or falsify preconceived ideas. It is never used to rationalize anything. When conclusions in science are wrong, they are (sooner or later) discovered to be so, and they are discarded.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

This is true! But awareness changes by fear and faith or fight and flight.As people panic there awareness changes and sometimes can't even see what is front of there face.

Again, this is obvious. Not only that, but entirely contradictory to your previous statement that intuition and awareness was the most reliable basis for determining facts.

So you can only rationalise or use logic to discern that which is in your awareness but we also have the ability to open up our awareness through faith and therefore I said both aspects are important.

"Open up our awareness" to what, exactly? When has religion ever provided a substantial, correct, thorough and testable explanation of anything?

Religion helps people open there awareness and science is used to rationalise that which is in the awareness.

And now your argument is starting to degenerate into a nonsensical hodge-podge of buzzwords that makes no sense.

 

[Walkntune]

in your favoured method, how does one distinguish between what is real and what is not real?

Seems to me that you just pick one, declare it is the real one, and hope you are right.

It seems a majority of people spend there lives trying to deny what is real.For whats important in my life, I spend a lot of time in rehabs and homeless shelters trying to reach people that are hurting and who have been taken down with mental diseases and such.
I write songs that encourages and lifts others up. At the end of the day this is whats real and important!

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It seems a majority of people spend there lives trying to deny what is real.For whats important in my life, I spend a lot of time in rehabs and homeless shelters trying to reach people that are hurting and who have been taken down with mental diseases and such.
I write songs that encourages and lifts others up. At the end of the day this is whats real and important!

You haven't even come close to answering his question. Can you do so or not?

 

[Autodidact]

No its not the best method. I think your instinctive awareness of reality is first and foremost.Reality never changes only our awareness.Science will continue to change(it always has) and everything you are standing on now you may find to not be true tomorrow.The scientific method rationalises all reality in your awareness and religion expands and contracts your awareness. I believe both are needed and important.

It seems a majority of people spend there lives trying to deny what is real.For whats important in my life, I spend a lot of time in rehabs and homeless shelters trying to reach people that are hurting and who have been taken down with mental diseases and such.
I write songs that encourages and lifts others up. At the end of the day this is whats real and important!

Uh huh, thank you for sharing. The subject here, and do try to focus, is what method works for learning about the natural world. An example above was a good one. When we wanted to figure out whether the sun revolved around the earth, how do you think people should have gone about figuring that out? What method would you advocate?

 

[Walkntune]

You haven't even come close to answering his question. Can you do so or not?

I already did!
I open up my awareness to reality with faith and use logic to rationalise the reality!

 

[Walkntune]

I believe in being creative and intuitive and using your imagination and looking for all possibilities.This opens awareness.And then lining up your rational and logical thinking.
I believe in being willing to take a chance and step beyond the unknown! Call it any method you want to!I let reality be reality and just open up to it and then rationalise it.

This is actually what I wrote

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I already did!
I open up my awareness to reality with faith and use logic to rationalise the reality!

No, you didn't. His question was this:

"in your favoured method, how does one distinguish between what is real and what is not real?"

You have yet to demonstrate how "intuition and awareness" are better at determining what is real and what is not than the scientific method is.

Also, faith does not increase your "awareness". It does nothing to it.

 

[tumbleweed41]

For that matter, what does the acute stress response of "fight or flight" (freeze should also be included in that response) have to do with how one views science or faith?
In fact the "fight, flight or freeze" theory has been replaced by the more accurate model in biological stress of the General Adaptation Syndrome. With the more inclusive responses of Alarm, Resistance, and Exhaustion.
Either way, these responses are automatically triggered by glands in your body, and can be controlled through coping and adaptation.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

This is actually what I wrote:
I believe in being creative and intuitive and using your imagination and looking for all possibilities.This opens awareness.

No it doesn't. It just makes you more susceptible for false answers or answers you've just made up. Just because you can "imagine" something says nothing about whether what you have imagined is true or not - so there is nothing for you to become more "aware" of.

And then lining up your rational and logical thinking.

So, in other words, you make up an answer and then seek to justify it?

Which is more important to you? Your perceived answer or the facts that evidence it?

I believe in being willing to take a chance and step beyond the unknown!

And how, exactly, do you step beyond the unknown? That doesn't make any kind of sense.

Call it any method you want to!I let reality be reality and just open up to it and then rationalise it.

You have yet to demonstrate that you can do any of these things. Please, answer my original questions. In what way is "intuition and awareness" a more reliable basis for establishing fact and fiction than the scientific method?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I like to rationalize my awareness by using my imagination of the mainstream intuition via rational thought and logic. I then open up to the reality that science has previously deemed important.

Now, could I be more clear, or do I need to explain further?

 

[Alceste]

I except the fact species evolve. To what extent or how abrpt of a process I am not sure.
For everything to have evolved gradually there would be many, many fossils uncovered. I believe it was a more abrupt change between certain forms leaving less traces of evidence.

There are many, many fossils uncovered. I've been on numerous fossil-hunting expeditions and never walked away empty handed. Never. You understand what that means? Any time of the day or night, any season, no matter how often you set out, you can find fossils. Not just one or two, but buckets full. My mother's basement is almost entirely given over to her fossil collection and cleaning setup. You can find leg bones so big it takes three or four people to lug them back to the trucks. I recommend you join a group like this - it would be a good way to rectify some of your misconceptions about the fossil record.

 

[Autodidact]

I already did!
I open up my awareness to reality with faith and use logic to rationalise the reality!

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

 

[Sunstone]

I like to rationalize my awareness by using my imagination of the mainstream intuition via rational thought and logic. I then open up to the reality that science has previously deemed important.

Now, could I be more clear, or do I need to explain further?

I myself rationalize awareness on a semi-epistemological basis between the hours of ten in the morning and three in the afternoon. I have found during my sessions of opening up to reality that those hours are the best for rationalizing awareness because you do not at those hours need to pay a cover charge to get into the stripper bar.

 

[gnostic]

No its not the best method. I think your instinctive awareness of reality is first and foremost.Reality never changes only our awareness.Science will continue to change(it always has) and everything you are standing on now you may find to not be true tomorrow.

Of course science will change. Science is a learning process. We are still learning new uncover and new technique.

The scientific method rationalises all reality in your awareness and religion expands and contracts your awareness. I believe both are needed and important.

Not really. If anything, religion have stagnant because it refused to change with changing times. It doesn't expands or contracts your awareness. It blind you to folklore and fairytales. The Adam and Eve story is great as a myth, but the reality is, is that nothing more than fable. I mean, do you seriously think in reality that a serpent can talk in human language?

And there's more fable, in the book of Numbers, with the Balaam and the talking donkey. You might as well as believe that Mr Ed or Francis can talk. Or Doctor Dolittle. Is that reality, or is that supernatural.

The bible contain stories that are no better than the Babylonian, Egyptian or Greek myths; the bible is very far from reality.

One human language only existed in the bible, right up to the time of the Tower of Babel, and then suddenly on a single day everyone were speaking different languages. The reality and historical facts are that different languages have existed long before the supposed Flood and supposed Tower of Babel. There are evidences of heiroglyphs and cuneiforms well before the Genesis was ever composed.

The Greeks believed in resurrection, centuries before Jesus and the gospels exist, as did the older civilisation like Egypt. Both have contact with the Israelites before Jesus' time. And obviously that their religions have corrupted and influenced the 2nd Temple Period Judaism and early Christianity, enough that Jesus and Paul copied them and adapted it to suit their own new religion.

Sorry, but Hebrews, Christians and Arabs are stealers of ideas, and destroyers of other religions.

 

[Super Saiya Jinn]

I except the fact species evolve. To what extent or how abrpt of a process I am not sure.
I believe it was a more abrupt change between certain forms leaving less traces of evidence.

Abrupt change?....I'm not sure that can even happen, only small changes, baby steps if you will.
Cases of great climate change could force evolution to happen at a much quicker rate, but still painfully slow according to our standards (still hundreds of generations). As i said on another thread, drastic change just does not arise out of the blue, and to think it does is a great misunderstanding of how Evolution works.

For everything to have evolved gradually there would be many, many fossils uncovered.

Do you have any idea how hard it is for something to be fossiled?...i don't think you do.
Even knowing how hard it is for a corpse to be fossiled, we still have a fantastic range of transitional forms of species, yes maybe we don't have every single baby step but with the climate and the such over the millions of years, it would impossible to do so.

Try going to a rocky beach, i guarentee within half an hour you would have found a creature fossiled in one of the rocks, it's actually great fun!