There are no actual thought bundles it's just a way of talking about a whole collection of ideas for certain objects and concepts at the relative level of temporal consciousness. That's why it's idealism - everything is mental. Objects and bodies have no independent reality in themselves. What experiences or perceives in normal consciousness is Universal Self but through the thick and distorting lens of ego restricted individual selves. All "things" exist in the mind of Universal consciousness. At the finest level of consciousness is experience of the ineffable nature of transcendent Self or being. Is my guess...
How then do you differentiate between 'something' and 'nothing' ?
I'm not sure what you mean. There is nothing unreal in existence.
I'll rephrase that as it was a silly question to ask a non-physicalist.
Does the Mental have any properties?... I hold back from saying substance. If you think it does , then that is something . If you think it doesn't , then why is it not nothing ?
It's a controversial viewpoint to say that religion is mainly harmful and that atheism is the way to go. There have been many positives : if it was toxic and harmful to people, it would have been abandoned many centuries ago as something that had nothing positive to offer.
The idea that religions cause wars is of course hugely misleading, it's people that cause them. The two most murderous regimes in history were Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union and both of those were atheist states who wanted to abolish all religion.
I mentioned further up the thread too that atheists don't exactly seem to be happy with their lot. There have been quite a few scientific studies which suggest that religious people are happier and more optimistic as a rule than their atheist counterparts (which would actually fly in the face of the suggestion that they would be far better off ditching their religious beliefs).
BIB I wasn't referring to war.
I was referring to the dangers and compromises made to human life as a result of any society basing itself on intellectually dishonest codes of belief/behaviour, which in itself creates a society that destroys itself from the inside.
Although I'd take issue with the bit about happiness having much relevance here, I 'd say I don't think happiness brings much in the way of original thought and progress. It maintains the status quo, generally speaking. So there's no reason to see happiness and optimism as superior to it's opposite.
I mean, happy ignorance doesn't serve much. Happy and informed is more useful. We have a responsibility beyond ourselves to limit the damage we do and increase progress where it needs it. I don't think all atheists are miserable sods lol. That's more down to an individual's hormonal imbalances in the brain ie. propensity towards depression etc and is not vastly or significantly altered merely by a belief in the supernatural.
I mentioned further up the thread too that atheists don't exactly seem to be happy with their lot. There have been quite a few scientific studies which suggest that religious people are happier and more optimistic as a rule than their atheist counterparts (which would actually fly in the face of the suggestion that they would be far better off ditching their religious beliefs).
"Ignorance is bliss" may explain that.
I'm fairly content with life and don't see myself a being pessimistic, but would rather be accused of being a miserable sod than being of inferior intelligence.
I'll rephrase that as it was a silly question to ask a non-physicalist.
Does the Mental have any properties?... I hold back from saying substance. If you think it does , then that is something . If you think it doesn't , then why is it not nothing ?
In a Universal, absolute and idealistic sense as oneness it is all properties. In that sense you might say it is sort of something but really everything.
In the sense that it is, as such, ineffable being too great or extreme to be expressed or described in words, and transcendent, being beyond or above the range of normal or "physical" human experience, it is sort of effectively and relatively nothing since it's beyond description.
Which is not say that it can't be experienced and then remembered in normal consciousness as something symbolic, such as blinding light, awesome fear, great peace, bliss or love. Nor does it mean that experience can't affect the body and even effect visual changes either temporary or perhaps permanent.
In the normal and relative state of consciousness mind or our perception of what it is to be mental, such as thinking and perception, is restricted in order to maintain separation from each other and oneness. IMO.
I'm fairly content with life and don't see myself a being pessimistic, but would rather be accused of being a miserable sod than being of inferior intelligence.
One thing that always bothers me in these type of threads is the constant referencing of superior intellect. As if that one quality in and of itself is the most important and crucial to leading a satisfactory life. I suspect very clever people make a big deal out of being very clever, because theyare very clever, much the same way good looking people often place an over importance on being good looking.
Of course we'd all like to be super smart and goodlooking but in real life the vast majority are neither, surprisingly though many average people go on to have productive, fulfilling lives, and a surprising number of smart and/or goodlooking people don't. This rather shallow deification of intellect seems to verge on a type of sectarien bigotry with some atheists. Seriously I might admire intellect but a good dollop of common sense is probably far more useful.
Ironically the same method of meta-analysis used for those past studies, also suggests the existence of ESP.
BIB I wasn't referring to war.
I was referring to the dangers and compromises made to human life as a result of any society basing itself on intellectually dishonest codes of belief/behaviour, which in itself creates a society that destroys itself from the inside.
Although I'd take issue with the bit about happiness having much relevance here, I 'd say I don't think happiness brings much in the way of original thought and progress. It maintains the status quo, generally speaking. So there's no reason to see happiness and optimism as superior to it's opposite.
Religion and society have co-existed quite comfortably for the last two thousand years at least. People have been quite happy for many generations to see their children baptised, to be married within the church and to have religious funerals for their loved ones. There's not much evidence there of religion being a cancer eating away at the heart of society and destabilising it. The basic message of thou shalt not kill and treat each other kindly seems perfectly fine.
One thing that always bothers me in these type of threads is the constant referencing of superior intellect. As if that one quality in and of itself is the most important and crucial to leading a satisfactory life. I suspect very clever people make a big deal out of being very clever, because theyare very clever, much the same way good looking people often place an over importance on being good looking.
Of course we'd all like to be super smart and goodlooking but in real life the vast majority are neither, surprisingly though many average people go on to have productive, fulfilling lives, and a surprising number of smart and/or goodlooking people don't. This rather shallow deification of intellect seems to verge on a type of sectarien bigotry with some atheists. Seriously I might admire intellect but a good dollop of common sense is probably far more useful.
Ironically the same method of meta-analysis used for those past studies, also suggests the existence of ESP.
"James Clerk Maxwell (13 June 1831 – 5 November 1879) was a Scottish mathematical physicist. His most notable achievement was to formulate the classical theory of electromagnetic radiation, bringing together for the first time electricity, magnetism, and light as manifestations of the same phenomenon. Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism have been called the "second great unification in physics" after the first one realised by Isaac Newton." wiki
Newton and Maxwell were both religiously driven men. Maxwell was a man with a mission.
I'd hazard a guess that men as a rule are more concerned with matters of science, evidence, logic etc and this may explain the disparity. Doesn't necessarily mean men are right of course : an alternative viewpoint would be that women are being open minded by not putting all their eggs in the 'science answers everything' basket.
You misunderstand science if you see it as some form of gamble.
Science is simply the best we know that is measurable, repeatable and predictable.
That's a basket I'm prepared to put all my eggs in thanks just like you do every time you travel by bus, train, car, plane or bicycle, walk near or into any building or use any device ever shown to be safe.
One thing that always bothers me in these type of threads is the constant referencing of superior intellect. As if that one quality in and of itself is the most important and crucial to leading a satisfactory life. I suspect very clever people make a big deal out of being very clever, because theyare very clever, much the same way good looking people often place an over importance on being good looking.
Of course we'd all like to be super smart and goodlooking but in real life the vast majority are neither, surprisingly though many average people go on to have productive, fulfilling lives, and a surprising number of smart and/or goodlooking people don't. This rather shallow deification of intellect seems to verge on a type of sectarien bigotry with some atheists. Seriously I might admire intellect but a good dollop of common sense is probably far more useful.
Ironically the same method of meta-analysis used for those past studies, also suggests the existence of ESP.
Not saying that there is any correlation between intelligence and leading a satisfactory life.
Was responding to a poster who seemed to be implying that research suggesting that theists are happier than atheists somehow validates religious thinking.
In a Universal, absolute and idealistic sense as oneness it is all properties. In that sense you might say it is sort of something but really everything.
In the sense that it is, as such, ineffable being too great or extreme to be expressed or described in words, and transcendent, being beyond or above the range of normal or "physical" human experience, it is sort of effectively and relatively nothing since it's beyond description.
Which is not say that it can't be experienced and then remembered in normal consciousness as something symbolic, such as blinding light, awesome fear, great peace, bliss or love. Nor does it mean that experience can't affect the body and even effect visual changes either temporary or perhaps permanent.
In the normal and relative state of consciousness mind or our perception of what it is to be mental, such as thinking and perception, is restricted in order to maintain separation from each other and oneness. IMO.
I have taken all you have said on board and with due consideration of 'It' ( please go with me on the label' , the conclusion of my musings is that for a thing to be all things it will inevitably cancel itself out . Which fits conveniently to the scientific view that the Universe has a zero net energy.
Religion and society have co-existed quite comfortably for the last two thousand years at least. People have been quite happy for many generations to see their children baptised, to be married within the church and to have religious funerals for their loved ones. There's not much evidence there of religion being a cancer eating away at the heart of society and destabilising it. The basic message of thou shalt not kill and treat each other kindly seems perfectly fine.
That frequently wasn't really optional, and any resistance to any or all of these was me with - at the very least - deep suspicion. Being openly of no faith (or the wrong one) was 'frowned upon' to put it mildly.
I mean, happy ignorance doesn't serve much. Happy and informed is more useful. We have a responsibility beyond ourselves to limit the damage we do and increase progress where it needs it. I don't think all atheists are miserable sods lol. That's more down to an individual's hormonal imbalances in the brain ie. propensity towards depression etc and is not vastly or significantly altered merely by a belief in the supernatural.
I'm not sure ignorance is a word that's relative to the discussion anyway. No one is ignorant of atheism, most of us know what the position is, and the arguments to support it. Not agreeing with, or doubting that position isn't ignorant. Thinking all atheists are devil worshipers, that's ignorant.
I have taken all you have said on board and with due consideration of 'It' ( please go with me on the label' , the conclusion of my musings is that for a thing to be all things it will inevitably cancel itself out . Which fits conveniently to the scientific view that the Universe has a zero net energy.
So really it's all about nowt
Genuine lol. I've posted more than once that the Universe equates to nothing.
That nothing is not the absence of everything - it's non-temporal, eternal, transcendent reality.
You misunderstand science if you see it as some form of gamble.
Science is simply the best we know that is measurable, repeatable and predictable.
That's a basket I'm prepared to put all my eggs in thanks just like you do every time you travel by bus, train, car, plane or bicycle, walk near or into any building or use any device ever shown to be safe.
But all those things we know to be useful, because we've experienced them so we're in broad agreement they work for us.
I'm getting the feeling from your post that not accepting the scientific thinking on things that are currently beyond sciences remit, equates to rejecting science. It doesn't. It's a method, not a position.
But all those things we know to be useful, because we've experienced them so we're in broad agreement they work for us.
I'm getting the feeling from your post that not accepting the scientific thinking on things that are currently beyond sciences remit, equates to rejecting science. It doesn't. It's a method, not a position.
Nothing it beyond the remit of science. The scientific method can apply to anything that can be perceived in any way, everything that has any effect on the physical universe. This includes the presence or absence of supernatural beings that in any way interact with or affect our universe in any way.
But all those things we know to be useful, because we've experienced them so we're in broad agreement they work for us.
I'm getting the feeling from your post that not accepting the scientific thinking on things that are currently beyond sciences remit, equates to rejecting science. It doesn't. It's a method, not a position.
I agree. One should never confuse scientific method with the position of scientism.
Nothing it beyond the remit of science. The scientific method can apply to anything that can be perceived in any way, everything that has any effect on the physical universe. This includes the presence or absence of supernatural beings that in any way interact with or affect our universe in any way.
“It would be possible to describe everything scientifically, but it would make no sense; it would be without meaning, as if you described a Beethoven symphony as a variation of wave pressure.”
― Albert Einstein
“It would be possible to describe everything scientifically, but it would make no sense; it would be without meaning, as if you described a Beethoven symphony as a variation of wave pressure.”
― Albert Einstein
Yay, arguing with Einstein!
It would make no sense to only describe a Beethoven symphony as a variation of wave pressure but this can be done in addition to the subjective interpretation and much can be learned.
The issue only arises with 'phenomena' that can't be evaluated scientifically as they have no basis in truth.
If they did they could be tested.
Yay, arguing with Einstein!
It would make no sense to only describe a Beethoven symphony as a variation of wave pressure but this can be done in addition to the subjective interpretation and much can be learned.
The issue only arises with 'phenomena' that can't be evaluated scientifically as they have no basis in truth.
If they did they could be tested.
Well I don't know how Einstein would reply to that , but I do wonder how science is going to come up with the Theory of Everything if it can't tackle phenomena .
Yay, arguing with Einstein!
It would make no sense to only describe a Beethoven symphony as a variation of wave pressure but this can be done in addition to the subjective interpretation and much can be learned. The issue only arises with 'phenomena' that can't be evaluated scientifically as they have no basis in truth.
If they did they could be tested.
Gods nails... Did Albert actually use those words in that exact sequence?
Comments
How then do you differentiate between 'something' and 'nothing' ?
I'm not sure what you mean. There is nothing unreal in existence.
I'll rephrase that as it was a silly question to ask a non-physicalist.
Does the Mental have any properties?... I hold back from saying substance. If you think it does , then that is something . If you think it doesn't , then why is it not nothing ?
BIB I wasn't referring to war.
I was referring to the dangers and compromises made to human life as a result of any society basing itself on intellectually dishonest codes of belief/behaviour, which in itself creates a society that destroys itself from the inside.
Although I'd take issue with the bit about happiness having much relevance here, I 'd say I don't think happiness brings much in the way of original thought and progress. It maintains the status quo, generally speaking. So there's no reason to see happiness and optimism as superior to it's opposite.
"Ignorance is bliss" may explain that.
I'm fairly content with life and don't see myself a being pessimistic, but would rather be accused of being a miserable sod than being of inferior intelligence.
Religious people are less intelligent than atheists, according to analysis of scores of scientific studies stretching back over decades
In a Universal, absolute and idealistic sense as oneness it is all properties. In that sense you might say it is sort of something but really everything.
In the sense that it is, as such, ineffable being too great or extreme to be expressed or described in words, and transcendent, being beyond or above the range of normal or "physical" human experience, it is sort of effectively and relatively nothing since it's beyond description.
Which is not say that it can't be experienced and then remembered in normal consciousness as something symbolic, such as blinding light, awesome fear, great peace, bliss or love. Nor does it mean that experience can't affect the body and even effect visual changes either temporary or perhaps permanent.
In the normal and relative state of consciousness mind or our perception of what it is to be mental, such as thinking and perception, is restricted in order to maintain separation from each other and oneness. IMO.
One thing that always bothers me in these type of threads is the constant referencing of superior intellect. As if that one quality in and of itself is the most important and crucial to leading a satisfactory life. I suspect very clever people make a big deal out of being very clever, because theyare very clever, much the same way good looking people often place an over importance on being good looking.
Of course we'd all like to be super smart and goodlooking but in real life the vast majority are neither, surprisingly though many average people go on to have productive, fulfilling lives, and a surprising number of smart and/or goodlooking people don't. This rather shallow deification of intellect seems to verge on a type of sectarien bigotry with some atheists. Seriously I might admire intellect but a good dollop of common sense is probably far more useful.
Ironically the same method of meta-analysis used for those past studies, also suggests the existence of ESP.
Religion and society have co-existed quite comfortably for the last two thousand years at least. People have been quite happy for many generations to see their children baptised, to be married within the church and to have religious funerals for their loved ones. There's not much evidence there of religion being a cancer eating away at the heart of society and destabilising it. The basic message of thou shalt not kill and treat each other kindly seems perfectly fine.
"James Clerk Maxwell (13 June 1831 – 5 November 1879) was a Scottish mathematical physicist. His most notable achievement was to formulate the classical theory of electromagnetic radiation, bringing together for the first time electricity, magnetism, and light as manifestations of the same phenomenon. Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism have been called the "second great unification in physics" after the first one realised by Isaac Newton." wiki
Newton and Maxwell were both religiously driven men. Maxwell was a man with a mission.
You misunderstand science if you see it as some form of gamble.
Science is simply the best we know that is measurable, repeatable and predictable.
That's a basket I'm prepared to put all my eggs in thanks just like you do every time you travel by bus, train, car, plane or bicycle, walk near or into any building or use any device ever shown to be safe.
Not saying that there is any correlation between intelligence and leading a satisfactory life.
Was responding to a poster who seemed to be implying that research suggesting that theists are happier than atheists somehow validates religious thinking.
I have taken all you have said on board and with due consideration of 'It' ( please go with me on the label' , the conclusion of my musings is that for a thing to be all things it will inevitably cancel itself out . Which fits conveniently to the scientific view that the Universe has a zero net energy.
So really it's all about nowt
That frequently wasn't really optional, and any resistance to any or all of these was me with - at the very least - deep suspicion. Being openly of no faith (or the wrong one) was 'frowned upon' to put it mildly.
The Church (and it's congregation) sometimes acted as if it had the right to lay claim to your offspring - and not so long ago -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fethard-on-Sea_boycott
I'm not sure ignorance is a word that's relative to the discussion anyway. No one is ignorant of atheism, most of us know what the position is, and the arguments to support it. Not agreeing with, or doubting that position isn't ignorant. Thinking all atheists are devil worshipers, that's ignorant.
Genuine lol. I've posted more than once that the Universe equates to nothing.
That nothing is not the absence of everything - it's non-temporal, eternal, transcendent reality.
So really it's all about now.
But all those things we know to be useful, because we've experienced them so we're in broad agreement they work for us.
I'm getting the feeling from your post that not accepting the scientific thinking on things that are currently beyond sciences remit, equates to rejecting science. It doesn't. It's a method, not a position.
Nothing it beyond the remit of science. The scientific method can apply to anything that can be perceived in any way, everything that has any effect on the physical universe. This includes the presence or absence of supernatural beings that in any way interact with or affect our universe in any way.
I agree. One should never confuse scientific method with the position of scientism.
Does a thing not have to be temporal to have significance in the now ?
“It would be possible to describe everything scientifically, but it would make no sense; it would be without meaning, as if you described a Beethoven symphony as a variation of wave pressure.”
― Albert Einstein
Yay, arguing with Einstein!
It would make no sense to only describe a Beethoven symphony as a variation of wave pressure but this can be done in addition to the subjective interpretation and much can be learned.
The issue only arises with 'phenomena' that can't be evaluated scientifically as they have no basis in truth.
If they did they could be tested.
No.... Past
Now----Future....
Well I don't know how Einstein would reply to that , but I do wonder how science is going to come up with the Theory of Everything if it can't tackle phenomena .
Gods nails... Did Albert actually use those words in that exact sequence?