BrainMeta'   Connectomics'  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V  1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Food for thought......
Agnostic4Now
post Jul 31, 2003, 03:42 PM
Post #1


Awakening
***

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 176
Joined: Jul 20, 2003
Member No.: 14



 Here's an article that I think highlights my outlook on religion, philosophy, and beliefs. It is not the article I pidgeonhole my thoughts to, nor the article that I quote whenever asked how I feel about a topic. It is simply an influence, as are philisophical groups and ideas. I would like it if replies to the thread would be from people that have read the entire article.

http://www.randi.org/jr/072503.html
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Laz
post Jul 31, 2003, 11:06 PM
Post #2


Demi-God
*****

Group: Full Member
Posts: 676
Joined: Jun 17, 2003
Member No.: 255



Ah! james Randi, the worlds foremost skeptic.

I completely agree with everything he says, and some of it i think i just said in the athiest thread!  :)

Did you see his study of homeopathy? That was great, and really exposed it as a load of old... water I guess!  ;)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Agnostic4Now
post Aug 01, 2003, 08:42 AM
Post #3


Awakening
***

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 176
Joined: Jul 20, 2003
Member No.: 14



Richard Dawkins said the following about the new philosphical movement, the Brights:

"A bright is a person whose world view is free of supernatural and mystical elements. The ethics and actions of a bright are based on a naturalistic world view."

Another website described Brights this way:

"A Bright is a person who has a naturalistic worldview. A Bright's worldview is free of supernatural and mystical elements. The ethics and actions of a Bright are based on a naturalistic worldview."

Not only that, it describes the context of the definition:

"naturalistic: conceiving of reality as the natural world as it is known and experienced scientifically (not supernaturally)"

 "worldview: the overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world; a set of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or group"

Sound anything like my system of ethics to you? I'd say that this is pretty much me, with a little skeptic thrown in to take care of the "beliefs in the natural world" issue.




User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rhymer
post Aug 01, 2003, 10:45 AM
Post #4


Supreme God
*******

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2093
Joined: Feb 27, 2003
Member No.: 385



I may be biassed, but I like the choice of the name 'Brights', for it implies that 'non-Brights' are, maybe, Dulls!
But then, we are all different and we could not appreciate Brights if all that existed were Dulls.

Best regards, Bill.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
joe
post Aug 01, 2003, 12:02 PM
Post #5


Unregistered









It leads pretty much to mindset of the majority of the people. A majority belief system.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Agnostic4Now
post Aug 01, 2003, 12:25 PM
Post #6


Awakening
***

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 176
Joined: Jul 20, 2003
Member No.: 14



 Do not make judgements on that which you do not know.
 
  The page below:

http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0...,981412,00.html

  explains why Dawkins chose the term. If you want to skip the reading and have me explain it to you in simple terms, let's just say that bright is meant as cheerful and happy more than smart. The word was coined humorously as "the new gay". Read on to find out more.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
joe
post Aug 01, 2003, 04:58 PM
Post #7


Unregistered









Intelligently ignorant!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Agnostic4Now
post Aug 01, 2003, 05:05 PM
Post #8


Awakening
***

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 176
Joined: Jul 20, 2003
Member No.: 14



 Yes, Joe, but we're talking about me and my discovery of philosophy, not you as you are accustomed to.  ;D

  Man, Laz, I'm readin Randi's comments on his site...... this man shares my outlook on life down to a tee! I'm a bright/skeptic.... and if it wasn't for this message board, I never would have found a calling.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
joe
post Aug 02, 2003, 05:19 AM
Post #9


Unregistered









QUOTE
Yes, Joe, but we're talking about me and my discovery of philosophy, not you as you are accustomed to.  


Is this the discovery of a category that you were looking to fit into or the discovery of  a conception of truth through personal experience.

Being a skeptic is good, even Christ said question everything. Only the heart knows what is real, and it is through personal experience that the heart draws itself closer to God. Even if you go completely in the opposite direction you are bound to end up at the beginning.
Evolution of experience always has its point of origin and completion in the same place.
The world is constantly changing; world views, definitions through expanded experiences and their new meanings. It is the same path regardless whether you take the straight line approach or the winding back and forth, scenic route.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Agnostic4Now
post Aug 02, 2003, 06:37 AM
Post #10


Awakening
***

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 176
Joined: Jul 20, 2003
Member No.: 14



 It's simply a discovery of other people who share my way of thinking. It's not something to subscribe to, just something that others and I share.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
veda
post Aug 04, 2003, 03:11 AM
Post #11


Aspiring
**

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 62
Joined: Aug 03, 2003
Member No.: 506



QUOTE
"The website http://www.celeb-atheists.com/ suggests numerous intellectuals and other famous people are brights. Brights constitute 60% of American scientists, and a stunning 93% of those scientists good enough to be elected to the elite National Academy of Sciences (equivalent to Fellows of the Royal Society) are brights."


ok wait, celebrities, intellectuals, and of the scientists, "...a stunning 93% of those scientists good enough to be elected to the elite National Academy of Sciences (equivalent to Fellows of the Royal Society) are brights"
dude, total elitism!
and im supposed to feel morally outraged if somebody says "christian children" but impressed with the "Fellows" of the Royal Society? dont they allow women in the (obviously elitist) Royal Society? whats up with that?

i dont kno... one thing i cant stand about some religious people is that they think theyre better than everyone else. but i cant stand that kinda tude in a secular humanist or atheist either.
and the church of scientology makes a big deal about its celebrity members too.

its nice to find a group of people you have something in common with, and i think its a naurally human thing to partly define your identity in terms of belonging to family or tribe or nation, but when i browsed through bright.net it reminded me of boys in a treehouse whove formed a club just so they can be in a club.
im not tryin to harsh on anyone or be critical and negative and bitchy but it seems like this bright meme doesnt have any purpose except to compete with other memes. i could be totally wrong tho, thats just what i was thinking.

i forgot what i was thinking about The Amazing Randi's article, ill have to reread it
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Laz
post Aug 04, 2003, 03:18 AM
Post #12


Demi-God
*****

Group: Full Member
Posts: 676
Joined: Jun 17, 2003
Member No.: 255



QUOTE
and if it wasn't for this message board, I never would have found a calling.


So what is this calling? what is your mission from here?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rhymer
post Aug 04, 2003, 07:26 AM
Post #13


Supreme God
*******

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2093
Joined: Feb 27, 2003
Member No.: 385



Joe,

On 2nd August you wrote:-

Only the heart knows what is real, and it is through personal experience that the heart draws itself closer to God.
You also observed that things change all the time.

If an atheist has a heart transplanted [changed] from a very religious person, will his concept of reality and God change?

I ask because as far as I know the heart is a blood pump!

Best regards, Bill.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Agnostic4Now
post Aug 04, 2003, 09:27 AM
Post #14


Awakening
***

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 176
Joined: Jul 20, 2003
Member No.: 14



Veda,

Wherever you got that from is clearly an example of members of a philosophical group misunderstanding their own cause. You don't have to be any of those things to be a Bright...... as a matter of fact, it sounds like the biased site you quoted is trying to sway people to join by using a bandwagon elitist stance.

I also admit that the people who run the-brights.net are embarassingly childish. But every philosophy has its abusers..... the individual does not define the group.

My mission here is to find knowledge. Hopefully that's what others are seeking too.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
veda
post Aug 04, 2003, 09:54 AM
Post #15


Aspiring
**

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 62
Joined: Aug 03, 2003
Member No.: 506



i got that from the link you posted... http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0...,981412,00.html  ...the article written by dawkins...
sorry, my bad for not putting the link with the quote :-[

if it seems like hes misunderstanding his own cause then... um... well does it make you wanna rethink this whole bright thing?
and what is the cause exactly? i mean i kno they want us to start using the word 'bright' in this new way, and i kno they want there to be more brights, lots and lots of brights... it seems to me kinda like the way catholics want there to be more catholics
but is there more to the cause?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
joe
post Aug 04, 2003, 11:14 AM
Post #16


Unregistered









QUOTE
Joe,

On 2nd August you wrote:-

Only the heart knows what is real, and it is through personal experience that the heart draws itself closer to God.
You also observed that things change all the time.

If an atheist has a heart transplanted [changed] from a very religious person, will his concept of reality and God change?

I ask because as far as I know the heart is a blood pump!

Best regards, Bill.


People also write love songs and dedicate them to the feeling heart.
However in regards to the heart, being a pump, the heart is a pump but it is also the seat of the soul. Just below and behind the heart is the connecting point of the Self and the self.

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Laz
post Aug 04, 2003, 06:54 PM
Post #17


Demi-God
*****

Group: Full Member
Posts: 676
Joined: Jun 17, 2003
Member No.: 255



Joe speaks of the Lotus Heart Bill, Yoga philosophy would tell you that it is located above the abdomen and bleow the thorax, and as its name suggests is in the shape of a Lotus flower.

It is supposed to be an internal light that never fades, and it is as big as the universe and as small as an atom.

QUOTE
My mission here is to find knowledge. Hopefully that's what others are seeking too.


That's cool, I thought by the wording you were going to try and become the antichirst or something  ;)

My mission is to share the information I learn with anyone who is prepared to listen, debate it, and draw my own conclusions
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Agnostic4Now
post Aug 04, 2003, 09:32 PM
Post #18


Awakening
***

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 176
Joined: Jul 20, 2003
Member No.: 14



 Hehe.... well, I do have 666 tattooed on my head, for some reason..... and I've watched the omen a couple times.....   wink.gif

 Hmmm...... I never l,earned about this in Biology class....
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
joe
post Aug 05, 2003, 03:30 AM
Post #19


Unregistered









There are a lot of things you will never learn in school.
Does that make it less real?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dan
post Aug 05, 2003, 07:34 AM
Post #20


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1922
Joined: May 01, 2003
From: Sri Danananda
Member No.: 96



QUOTE
Joe speaks of the Lotus Heart Bill, Yoga philosophy would tell you that it is located above the abdomen and bleow the thorax, and as its name suggests is in the shape of a Lotus flower.  

more generally, Joey is speaking of 'chakras' (the 'heart chakra', specifically).  Chakras are psychosomatic sensations that are 'felt' locally in the body, and are associated with mental/emotional states.  The ancients mistook thes psychosomatic representations for actual physical objects, thus they believe that there are 'portals' in various locations of one's body.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Agnostic4Now
post Aug 05, 2003, 08:09 AM
Post #21


Awakening
***

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 176
Joined: Jul 20, 2003
Member No.: 14



 It sounds to me like you just have to associate something with endorphines released throughout your body, along with other stimulus' supplied by your nervous system.

 Because "God" forbid your feelings could just be organic, and not spiritual.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
joe
post Aug 05, 2003, 08:58 AM
Post #22


Unregistered









Actually the chakras are physical points that are located within the body. At these points are intersections of nerve clusters called nadis.

The heart as I have described is not the chakra but the seat of the soul which is the nerve clusters energy source.
Similar to the idea of being brain dead when the brain is no longer operating but the body is, without the ability to connect to the conscious source the body becomes purely mechanical and without any spark of intellegence behind the fuctioning organs.

That bit about the chakras was funny Dan, I bet you read that somewhere in a comic book, or just made it up.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Agnostic4Now
post Aug 05, 2003, 09:25 AM
Post #23


Awakening
***

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 176
Joined: Jul 20, 2003
Member No.: 14



 You'd think they'd have noticed the last time you had an X-ray.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Agnostic4Now
post Aug 05, 2003, 09:44 AM
Post #24


Awakening
***

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 176
Joined: Jul 20, 2003
Member No.: 14



 I only used that link to get information on where the term "Bright" originated..... that's the only reason I put it on here.

 I don't really see why that would mean I'm misunderstanding my cause. The cause, which I posted in the second post, isn't that hard to understand.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
veda
post Aug 05, 2003, 10:00 AM
Post #25


Aspiring
**

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 62
Joined: Aug 03, 2003
Member No.: 506



sorry, i deleted that becuz i realized i was being smart-azz just to be a smart-azz. im sorry my bad again.

but if dawkins seems like he's misunderstanding his own cause, and the bright.net people seem pretty childish, doesnt it all seem kinda silly?

im not tryin to be a smart-azz now, but like i said, i cant stand some religious people cuz they think theyre better than the rest of us, and i dont like that tude in an atheist or secular humanist either. i mean, "holier than thou" is lame, agreed? and self righteously intellectually superior than thou is pretty lame too dontcha think?
im just sayin... becuz thats all i can see goin on with the whole 'bright' thing
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Agnostic4Now
post Aug 05, 2003, 01:57 PM
Post #26


Awakening
***

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 176
Joined: Jul 20, 2003
Member No.: 14



 Where are you gettin' this 'holier than thou' from? If you're getting it from Dawkins, I ddn't see it, and if you're getting it from the-brights.net, it's because no matter how good your philosophy is, it'll be abused by people who are in it for the wrong reasons. But you can't equate those people with the whole.

 I'm not a Bright to be better than anybody. I'm simply a Bright because my ideas and outlook fall into that category, along with being a Skeptic.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Laz
post Aug 05, 2003, 11:16 PM
Post #27


Demi-God
*****

Group: Full Member
Posts: 676
Joined: Jun 17, 2003
Member No.: 255



Hey veda  :)

I would love to know where you are coming from and what your angle is?

You seem to be pro ascension but anti religion.

You know about buddhism, but you claim to no nothing of the ego and my "experiment" post helped you get started!

You don't like self righteously intellectually superior people, and yet you can speak the same language and in the same style as Joe.

I'm confused, help me out :-/
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
veda
post Aug 06, 2003, 06:10 AM
Post #28


Aspiring
**

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 62
Joined: Aug 03, 2003
Member No.: 506



Agnos honey, sweetie, please try to work with me here

i think the problem is that im asking you your opinion on an article that you posted, but you didnt read. i quoted that article, and you agreed with me that it seemed pretty elitist. you even said, about the article that you posted, "Wherever you got that from is clearly an example of members of a philosophical group misunderstanding their own cause... as a matter of fact, it sounds like the biased site you quoted is trying to sway people to join by using a bandwagon elitist stance." - and i totally agree with you on this.
well it was dawkins that said it. so, does that make you wonder about the validity of other things dawkins says? it does me.
i also notice that randi quotes dawkins in the other article you posted. so if im not so sure that dawkins is being totally rational, how can i be sure that randi is being totally reasonable when he quotes dawkins?

the other thing i was thinking, was when you said "...no matter how good your philosophy is, it'll be abused by people who are in it for the wrong reasons. But you can't equate those people with the whole." so does this apply to dawkins? ya think hes in it for the wrong reasons? and again does this say anything about randi that quotes dawkins?
and does this apply to christians or buddhists, too? becuz i think randi is making this mistake when he says "religionists" and puts jim jones and david koresh in the same class as mother theresa and the dali lama and nonviolent compassionate little me.

this is just what i was thinking. im not tryin to keep the flamage goin, its just that these things dont seem rational or reasonable to me.

if these are dumb questions, please ignore, but if youre gonna post links to articles i totally think you should read em.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rhymer
post Aug 06, 2003, 07:37 AM
Post #29


Supreme God
*******

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2093
Joined: Feb 27, 2003
Member No.: 385



Joe, I tried to find out the medical name for Lotus Heart but did not succeed.
I did find the following though.

The "Lotus Of  The Heart"
Deep within the Heart dwells the "Lotus of the Heart". And deep within this Heart-Lotus dwells the Self-God.  In other words, the Heart-Lotus is the seat of the Infinite Consciousness. This is the Spiritual-Center, the Support or the Adhaar of life and everything else. Juts as the waves rise from the ocean, subsist in the ocean and then merge back into the ocean; similarly, the thoughts (mind) rise from this Substratum, on which they exist and where they are dissolved. Thus, this Heart-Lotus is the Center of all centers.

In view of this definition my original question still stands, since you did not answer it the first time.

Does a heart transplant change ones soul, God centre, religious faith?? Yes or no, with extra comment if you prefer.
Best regards, Bill.
Please remember that I have no desire whatever, to criticise your Faith. I just want to know what truths I have to learn to accept your Faith.
Best regards, Bill.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
joe
post Aug 06, 2003, 10:54 AM
Post #30


Unregistered









The mechanical heart has nothing to do with the essence of ones being, feelings etc. It is a biological mechanism only.
To simply answer your question. NO.

However have you looked into the stimulation of the glandular system of the body or the points or nerves that are used in chinese accupunture?
There were even some stimulation studies of glands that were done to mechanically accelerate the process of higher states of consciousness that were interesting, particularly the petuitary gland and the region of the crown chakra.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 20th August 2017 - 06:29 PM


Home     |     About     |    Research     |    Forum     |    Feedback  


Copyright BrainMeta. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use  |  Last Modified Tue Jan 17 2006 12:39 am

Consciousness Expansion · Brain Mapping · Neural Circuits · Connectomics  ·  Neuroscience Forum  ·  Brain Maps Blog
 · Connectomics · Connectomics  ·  shawn mikula  ·  articles