"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." - Albert Einstein
lol creationists
- Thread starter mattseh
- Start date
"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." - Albert Einstein
Just to make it clear
1. I never advocate islam. There are good and bad in many religion. The only 2 things that are good about islam is when it's made, it's pretty relatively liberal 1300 years ago. I also like how many of them think that women are fucktoy. That's common sense. Quite often our ancestors have more common sense than us. That's not coincidence. Because they still follow a book written 1300 years ago, they still have that common sense. Good.
2. I do not promote polygamy. I promote banging chicks. That's 2 different things. Islam prohibit prostitution. I encourage it. To me, whether you have one women or 10 is fine. Just don't get married.
Serious mode on:
I used to think that polygamy is a good solution. There is no problem with the poly part obviously. There is a lot of problem with the gamy part. Marriage means government is the pimp, and some guy got plenty, then every body will want to be politicians. There goes capitalism. Be a sugar daddy. Don't be a polygamists.
I am actually a radical feminist. I believe women are superior than men. Women should learn engineering as much as CEO should mob floors, and for the same reasons.
Here is an analogy
Women : Engineering
CEO : Floor moping
1. I never advocate islam. There are good and bad in many religion. The only 2 things that are good about islam is when it's made, it's pretty relatively liberal 1300 years ago. I also like how many of them think that women are fucktoy. That's common sense. Quite often our ancestors have more common sense than us. That's not coincidence. Because they still follow a book written 1300 years ago, they still have that common sense. Good.
2. I do not promote polygamy. I promote banging chicks. That's 2 different things. Islam prohibit prostitution. I encourage it. To me, whether you have one women or 10 is fine. Just don't get married.
Serious mode on:
I used to think that polygamy is a good solution. There is no problem with the poly part obviously. There is a lot of problem with the gamy part. Marriage means government is the pimp, and some guy got plenty, then every body will want to be politicians. There goes capitalism. Be a sugar daddy. Don't be a polygamists.
I am actually a radical feminist. I believe women are superior than men. Women should learn engineering as much as CEO should mob floors, and for the same reasons.
Here is an analogy
Women : Engineering
CEO : Floor moping
As for the nature of reality and God, the sages of all cultures and times have figured this out a long time ago.
Some knowledge (yet remember, these words are only pointers and signposts, for infinite Truth cannot be clothed in finite symbols) for those with "little dust in their eyes":
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It [the Supreme Brahma (God), with which unconditioned Atma (Soul) is identical], the eye does not attain to[1], nor speech, nor the mind[2]: we do not recognize It [as comprehensible by aught other than Itself] and it is for this reason that we do
do not know how to expound Its nature [by means of any sort of description].
It is superior to what is known [distinctively, or superior to the manifested Universe and It is beyond the unmanifested Universe, one with Pure Being]; such is the teaching we have received from the wise men of former times.
It should be realized that That which is not manifested by speech [nor by anything else], but by which speech is manifested [as well as everything else], is Brahma (God) [in Its Infinity], and not what is looked
upon [as an object of meditation] as 'this' [and individual being or a manifested world, according as the point of view refers to the 'microcosm' or the 'macrocosm'] or 'that' [Ishvara or Universal Being itself, outside of all individualization
and all manifestation].
A disciple who has attentively followed the exposition of the nature of Brahma (God) must be led to suppose that he knows Brahma perfectly [at least in theory]; but, in spite of his apparent justification for thinking so, this is
nevertheless an errorneous opinion. In actual fact the well established meaning of every text concerning the Vedanta is that the Self of every being who possesses Knowledge is identical with Brahma [since through that very Knowledge the 'Supreme Identity' is realized]. Now a distinct and definite knowledge is possible in respect of everything capable of becoming an object of knowledge: but it is not possible in the case of That which cannot become such an object.
That is Brahma, for It is the [total] Knower, and the Knower can know other things [encompassing them all within Its infinite comprehension, which is identical with Universal Possibility], but cannot make Itself the object of Its
own knowledge [for, in Its identity, which is not the result of any identification, one cannot make the principial distinction, as in the condition of Prajna, between a subject and an object which are nevertheless 'the same', and It cannot cease
to be Itself 'all-knowing' in order to become 'all-known', which would be another Itself], in the same way that fire can burn other things but cannot burn itself [its essential nature being indivisible, just as, analogically, Brahma is 'without duality'](1). Neither can it be said that Brahma is able to become an object of knowledge for anything other than Itself, since outside Itself there is nothing which can posssess knowledge [all knowledge, even relative, being but a participation in absolute and supreme knowledge].
Lastly:
If you think that you know [Brahma] well, what you know of Its nature is in reality but little; for this reason Brahma should be still more attentively considered by you. [The reply is as follows]:
I do not think that I know It; by that I mean to say that I do not know It well [distinctively, as I should know an object capable of being described or defined; nevertheless, I know It [according to the instruction I have received concerning Its nature]. Who-ever among us understands the following words [in their true meaning]: 'I do not know It, and yet I know It', verily that Man knows It. He who thinks Brahma is not comprehended [by any faculty], by Him Brahma is comprehended [for by the Knowledge of Brahma he has become really and effectively identical with Brahma Itself]; but he who thinks that Brahma is comprehended [by some sensible or mental faculty] knows It not. Brahma [in Itself, in Its incommunicable essence] is unknown to those who know It [after the manner of some object of knowledge, be it a particular being or Universal Being] and It is known to those who do not know It at all [as 'this' or 'that](1).
Some knowledge (yet remember, these words are only pointers and signposts, for infinite Truth cannot be clothed in finite symbols) for those with "little dust in their eyes":
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It [the Supreme Brahma (God), with which unconditioned Atma (Soul) is identical], the eye does not attain to[1], nor speech, nor the mind[2]: we do not recognize It [as comprehensible by aught other than Itself] and it is for this reason that we do
do not know how to expound Its nature [by means of any sort of description].
It is superior to what is known [distinctively, or superior to the manifested Universe and It is beyond the unmanifested Universe, one with Pure Being]; such is the teaching we have received from the wise men of former times.
It should be realized that That which is not manifested by speech [nor by anything else], but by which speech is manifested [as well as everything else], is Brahma (God) [in Its Infinity], and not what is looked
upon [as an object of meditation] as 'this' [and individual being or a manifested world, according as the point of view refers to the 'microcosm' or the 'macrocosm'] or 'that' [Ishvara or Universal Being itself, outside of all individualization
and all manifestation].
A disciple who has attentively followed the exposition of the nature of Brahma (God) must be led to suppose that he knows Brahma perfectly [at least in theory]; but, in spite of his apparent justification for thinking so, this is
nevertheless an errorneous opinion. In actual fact the well established meaning of every text concerning the Vedanta is that the Self of every being who possesses Knowledge is identical with Brahma [since through that very Knowledge the 'Supreme Identity' is realized]. Now a distinct and definite knowledge is possible in respect of everything capable of becoming an object of knowledge: but it is not possible in the case of That which cannot become such an object.
That is Brahma, for It is the [total] Knower, and the Knower can know other things [encompassing them all within Its infinite comprehension, which is identical with Universal Possibility], but cannot make Itself the object of Its
own knowledge [for, in Its identity, which is not the result of any identification, one cannot make the principial distinction, as in the condition of Prajna, between a subject and an object which are nevertheless 'the same', and It cannot cease
to be Itself 'all-knowing' in order to become 'all-known', which would be another Itself], in the same way that fire can burn other things but cannot burn itself [its essential nature being indivisible, just as, analogically, Brahma is 'without duality'](1). Neither can it be said that Brahma is able to become an object of knowledge for anything other than Itself, since outside Itself there is nothing which can posssess knowledge [all knowledge, even relative, being but a participation in absolute and supreme knowledge].
Lastly:
If you think that you know [Brahma] well, what you know of Its nature is in reality but little; for this reason Brahma should be still more attentively considered by you. [The reply is as follows]:
I do not think that I know It; by that I mean to say that I do not know It well [distinctively, as I should know an object capable of being described or defined; nevertheless, I know It [according to the instruction I have received concerning Its nature]. Who-ever among us understands the following words [in their true meaning]: 'I do not know It, and yet I know It', verily that Man knows It. He who thinks Brahma is not comprehended [by any faculty], by Him Brahma is comprehended [for by the Knowledge of Brahma he has become really and effectively identical with Brahma Itself]; but he who thinks that Brahma is comprehended [by some sensible or mental faculty] knows It not. Brahma [in Itself, in Its incommunicable essence] is unknown to those who know It [after the manner of some object of knowledge, be it a particular being or Universal Being] and It is known to those who do not know It at all [as 'this' or 'that](1).
Lot of interesting posts in this thread.
However, the flavor of ice cream you like or do not like, along with many other such inclinations are not personal preferences at all.
Before any social construction or deconstruction is revealed by making such a statement with regards to one's preference to ice cream, the fact is; the statement reveals the basis of a favorable chemical reaction, that an individual merely identifies a being a "preference".
That preference however, is not an "intellectual" choice. Even though one may think it is. Edit: Or even "emotional"
Responses are highly individual. However, responses can be tailored accordingly with proper resources and appropriate strategy.
However, the flavor of ice cream you like or do not like, along with many other such inclinations are not personal preferences at all.
Before any social construction or deconstruction is revealed by making such a statement with regards to one's preference to ice cream, the fact is; the statement reveals the basis of a favorable chemical reaction, that an individual merely identifies a being a "preference".
That preference however, is not an "intellectual" choice. Even though one may think it is. Edit: Or even "emotional"
Responses are highly individual. However, responses can be tailored accordingly with proper resources and appropriate strategy.
Just before I head off I'm going to say, most of you pale white chickens without an ounce of spirituality will dismiss what I showed above as nonsense, but that's only cause you have not experienced levels of thought (such as No Thought) beyond the daily word-play (and for you more clever ones, image play) in your mind.
It would seem, for the Western Hemisphere, the most is you can get lucky by consuming certain drugs [whose modes of action are not fully understood] that obliterate your sense of self [you are the only one who is in your way of attaining Real Knowledge, as you are grasping at false knowledge through ignorance] and show you what Is.
But why worry about God? Why worry about Reality? There's enough transient objects and desires and wants that you are occupied by.
It would seem, for the Western Hemisphere, the most is you can get lucky by consuming certain drugs [whose modes of action are not fully understood] that obliterate your sense of self [you are the only one who is in your way of attaining Real Knowledge, as you are grasping at false knowledge through ignorance] and show you what Is.
But why worry about God? Why worry about Reality? There's enough transient objects and desires and wants that you are occupied by.
Sorry I will have to refuse for now. This topic in particular depresses me as religion/ideologies has put my family through a lot of hardship growing up.
PM'ing NickyCakes to have this thread locked as we speak. (joke)
On the contrary, I've done 6 years of Madrasah schooling growing up learning about Islam, have read the Quran (all the pages), and live for 20+ years in a country where there is actually a religious police (the kind that puts you in jail for not fasting). My own mother converted to Islam in her 20's and was discriminated against so I do know what I'm talking about.
The reason why Muslims that migrated/live in Canada don't do the things that they do in Saudi Arabia is because it's not permissible by law.
Have a good one guys, thanks for the time.
I can dig it, and I certainly don't expect you to go to an uncomfortable place.
Thanks Clyde.
Sure I could. I can't claim that I only believe things that are 100% proven of course, but I certainly try to. To some extent we all do. I'm quite a skeptic though so I'd say much more so than average for me.Luke, could you ever be compelled to believe a thing in the absence of "hard evidence?" More to the point, is it possible to know a thing without having evidence of it? Further, can you think of examples in which "hard evidence" has led us to know things that we now understand to be untrue?
If you are asking what proof it would take short of scientifically testable, repeatable evidence to believe in the almighty, this ought to do it:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjAM2J_D4UY]Bruce Almighty (4/9) Movie CLIP - Bruce Meets God (2003) HD - YouTube[/ame]
Short of that? I want it totally, scientifically proven and published in PNAS. Period.
Incredible Claims require Really fucking incredible evidence.
I don't bother reading quran. I fear that I may be inclined to comment on it, and somebody will call me blasphemous.
I do live among muslims. Like us, some are nice and some are not. I can't hate people because they're muslim.
Recently they killed ahmadiyah. The poll says that the majority of muslims agree with it.
Since then, I simply keep my distance with muslims, unless those I know.
But then again, christians in US are like that too when they bash porn.
A theory that would work is that humans would promote believe and entertain any beliefs that serve their interest. Truth has nothing to do with it. It's more on does this belief serve you?
If chocolates raise IQ, I am sure chocolate factories would promote it, irrelevant of whether it's true or not.
Now look at most religious doctrines and religion. Look who promote them. They all have incentive.
Ganja is dangerous -> bigger government, bigger paycheck for politicians
Obey religion or go to hell -> bigger influence for religious leaders that now can more effectively persuade people to do what they want
Islam, like christianity, serve a niche. A niche where you got to do what the ruling class want. When christianity lose that power, islam is filling that niche.
The fascists, the anti porn, the anti sex outside marriage people, need a banner, and that's not tolerance. They need justification that people want can and will believe. They need something that can't be disproved.
That being said, I am still looking for this God. Jews seem to be as clueless as I do and christians are so sure on things they don't know. Faith.
I do live among muslims. Like us, some are nice and some are not. I can't hate people because they're muslim.
Recently they killed ahmadiyah. The poll says that the majority of muslims agree with it.
Since then, I simply keep my distance with muslims, unless those I know.
But then again, christians in US are like that too when they bash porn.
A theory that would work is that humans would promote believe and entertain any beliefs that serve their interest. Truth has nothing to do with it. It's more on does this belief serve you?
If chocolates raise IQ, I am sure chocolate factories would promote it, irrelevant of whether it's true or not.
Now look at most religious doctrines and religion. Look who promote them. They all have incentive.
Ganja is dangerous -> bigger government, bigger paycheck for politicians
Obey religion or go to hell -> bigger influence for religious leaders that now can more effectively persuade people to do what they want
Islam, like christianity, serve a niche. A niche where you got to do what the ruling class want. When christianity lose that power, islam is filling that niche.
The fascists, the anti porn, the anti sex outside marriage people, need a banner, and that's not tolerance. They need justification that people want can and will believe. They need something that can't be disproved.
That being said, I am still looking for this God. Jews seem to be as clueless as I do and christians are so sure on things they don't know. Faith.
Belief and Knowing are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Clinging to Belief prevents you from Knowing. So no, if you want to Know you have to give up Belief.
If you believe something is real, it doesnt mean you dont know it is real.
p.s. geomark..it says location: los what is that short for? you in la?
p.s. geomark..it says location: los what is that short for? you in la?
Hey lukep... saw your post on your adsense sites.. it was good.
Even if everyone on this site doesnt believe the same things, its sucks there is attack back and forth. This community is smaller then most people think.
If one doesnt believe in god, jesus ... its up to each person to make a decision about it. The great part is we get to make up our own minds about it.
Again, thanks for the posts you did on your sites, i printed a lot of it out .. excellent tips from you and others in it.
Even if everyone on this site doesnt believe the same things, its sucks there is attack back and forth. This community is smaller then most people think.
If one doesnt believe in god, jesus ... its up to each person to make a decision about it. The great part is we get to make up our own minds about it.
Again, thanks for the posts you did on your sites, i printed a lot of it out .. excellent tips from you and others in it.
Oh don't take it personally, I'm just picking on you because LOS is pretty commonly known acronym for "Land of Smiles" - referring to Thailand, a place geomark talks about in most of his posts. Sorry if I touched a nerve there with the Christian-bashing, I'm in a mood tonight. :thumbsup: