Hello,

Best season's greetings.

The soul, according to many religious and philosophical traditions, is a self-aware ethereal substance particular to a unique living being. In these traditions the soul is thought to incorporate the inner essence of each living being, and to be the true basis for sentience. In distinction to spirit which may or may not be eternal, souls are usually (but not always as explained below) considered to be immortal and to pre-exist their incarnation in flesh.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul


Pls tell me;


1.Whether soul exists?


2. Whether every living being, smaller or bigger has one soul?


3. If so, how one human with millions or trillions of living cells can
have one soul?


Best wishes

you should check out 'the christian soul' thread i made in this religion forum.
anyway.

whether soul exists?

i can see that if it is a spirit, and has pretty much nothing to do with me,
except that it has to do with carrying karma from past lives...
yes, i can accept the soul.
but in most cases, i really can't see the soul... simply because i can't see it with my current knowledge, and every else i learn.

2. whether every living being, smaller or bigger has one soul?

3. if so, how one human with millions or trillions of living cells can have one soul?

i agree with you, it's kinda weird.
i sorta mentioned that with my other thread.

i suppose i should ask the dalai lama.

ps im not buddhist,
but to be frank,
many parts of it seem to make sense to me. :)

the whole is one..... that is the point.

-MT

As such, how there can be one soul of a human, when million or trillions individual living cells are there in human body? All individual living cells should also have their individual soul/sprit?

Can human soul be a combination of millons or trillions of souls of cells?

As such, how there can be one soul of a human, when million or trillions individual living cells are there in human body? All individual living cells should also have their individual soul/sprit?

Can human soul be a combination of millons or trillions of souls of cells?

to further add to that,
the immune system,
and the individual cells reacting to the point of infection for example.

it would seem like they're thinking.
they act reasonably.
they do things with life.

we know they can't think like we can merely because of the loss of the brain.
process thinking like us humans is so crazy because of our development of the forebrain.
the presence of something greater than you, isn't god, but a part of the brain; if one cuts it out... you lose that presence!
so how can we prove the soul exists?

so the whole soul thing may seem to go whacko.

how does the soul not apply to the cells, and only the the organism as a whole? what is the rule behind this?

Hello,

Best season's greetings.

Pls tell me;

1.Whether soul exists?

Yeah, I think so


2. Whether every living being, smaller or bigger has one soul?
Every living being has a mind which is immaterial, this causes experiences, sensations, etc.....this is not the actual soul though, in reality there is no individual, the soul is unborn, unchanging, and eternal, at no point did I not exist nor did anyone else not exist


3. If so, how one human with millions or trillions of living cells can
have one soul?
This question doesn't really make much sense, thats like saying how can one human have one brain or how can one car have one driver.....why do you phrase like its a mind-boggling question?

Yeah, I think so


Every living being has a mind which is immaterial, this causes experiences, sensations, etc.....this is not the actual soul though, in reality there is no individual, the soul is unborn, unchanging, and eternal, at no point did I not exist nor did anyone else not exist

Whether individual cell in body is not an individual living being?


This question doesn't really make much sense, thats like saying how can one human have one brain or how can one car have one driver.....why do you phrase like its a mind-boggling question?

Human body is not individual living being but is a combination of many living beings i.e. millions/trillions cells?

This question doesn't really make much sense, thats like saying how can one human have one brain or how can one car have one driver.....why do you phrase like its a mind-boggling question?

because one can ask, who drives the human? the soul? but it seems that, if you connect the great collection of existence out there...
it travels along the timeline, and every action leads to a reaction, which leads to another.
a whole perfect chain of events which leads us to be moving in highly improbable happenings to us, but in the picture, the chain is inevitable,
the physical of actions will have a finished and thus have a predictable conclusion (although this conclusion is highly unprobable for us), and we're just in the middle of the whole big schemable action.
so now one can ask, who drives the whole thing?
how can there be free will, if there is fate?
if we believe we have free will, and thus it's free will that god gave us...
but there's a consistent fate which we cannot change, is it really free will?

so on top of who drives the car? who drives the human? and then, who drives the human?
it seems time drives the human?
and it goes on,
who drives time?
dehadhadha.
this question is almost rhetorical!

and if you were to place a soul in that position...
the soul puts itself in a position destined for sin or not!
it's like putting itself in chance, by putting it into a destined fate!

why would the soul choose eternal suffering?

Every living being has a mind which is immaterial,absolute rubbish, firstly, If it is immaterial then it can have no connection with the material. as we cannot sense it or detect it, then it is effectively non-existent, as far as we are concerned, therefore we would not be able to use it.
secondly, if you wish to see the mind in action, test someone in REM sleep. we know the brain is functioning and the mind is active, however, what we cant do is know what the subject is dreaming about, we could never know someones thoughts they are totally subjective.
thirdly, how can they be separate, when the brain dies as does the mind, the mind and the brain are one and the same, changes in one will cause changes in the other. when we learn, it causes the growth of new connections, and which develops the mind. Neurons pass on signals to nearby cells that have the ability to replicate the chemical and electrical activities. when totally new information is recieved (possibly by a slight voltage increase, or even more or less neurotransmitters) variations happen.
the condition of these points is crucial to the brain's ability to think, information and experiences that we store inside our brain are all connected with each other, some more stronger than others.

If we put many people in one atmosphere, where they all can survive or die on change of that atmosphere can't mean all have one soul.

Alike it, we can't say all our living cells living under one environment(our body) are single unit living being.

absolute rubbish, firstly, If it is immaterial then it can have no connection with the material. as we cannot sense it or detect it, then it is effectively non-existent, as far as we are concerned, therefore we would not be able to use it.

hahaha...by immaterial I mean not made of matter....hey isn't there somethings called "gravity", "electromagnetism", and "time"...that aren't made of matter.....and wait don't they have a connection to the material???

Another typical atheist thinking they know it all already and everything else is rubbish besides what they think...


thirdly, how can they be separate, when the brain dies as does the mind, the mind and the brain are one and the same, changes in one will cause changes in the other. when we learn, it causes the growth of new connections, and which develops the mind. Neurons pass on signals to nearby cells that have the ability to replicate the chemical and electrical activities. when totally new information is recieved (possibly by a slight voltage increase, or even more or less neurotransmitters) variations happen.
How can they be separate? Well how is it that radio waves and a cell phone are separate? How is it that a car and a driver are separate? How is it that gravity and an object are separate? Changes in one causes apparent changes in the other....but they're still separate

As for your neural-correlate explanation...it works well in classical physics...but not quantum...

There is no evidence of such a thing as a "soul." The religious will confidently say there is, see the post above, but will fail to provide any verifiable or testable evidence for one every time. Instead, they'll attempt to make speculative analogies of other things they can explain which work in their fallacious appeals to ignorance and personal incredulity. They may even use the word "quantum" since they expect that this means "that which cannot be explained" in science.

In the end, the religious will nearly always fall back to the position that the "soul" is just something that is outside of the ability for science to explain, and this is why they can offer no evidence that can be tested. But you can best believe, if science were able to offer some evidence, the religious wouldn't hesitate to wave it around like a banner.

As such, how there can be one soul of a human, when million or trillions individual living cells are there in human body? All individual living cells should also have their individual soul/sprit?

Can human soul be a combination of millons or trillions of souls of cells?

Or another question could be; can the human body possess millions of trillions of separate lifeforms, each with an individual soul?

Jan.

1.Whether soul exists?

There is no evidence even remotely supporting the assertion 'souls exist' and there is plenty of evidence contradicting the very same assertion.


2. Whether every living being, smaller or bigger has one soul?

3. If so, how one human with millions or trillions of living cells can
have one soul?


Without existence of a 'soul' these questions aren't applicable.

Another typical atheist thinking they know it all already and everything else is rubbish besides what they think.

This coming from a deluded theist thinking that they know the answer to everything. "godidit" the old cop out of unanswerable question! :rolleyes:

In the end, the religious will nearly always fall back to the position that the "soul" is just something that is outside of the ability for science to explain, and this is why they can offer no evidence that can be tested.

yes it is something like the nature of the claim for abiogenesis - except the difference is that there is a claim for a process of direct perception

If we put many people in one atmosphere, where they all can survive or die on change of that atmosphere can't mean all have one soul.

Alike it, we can't say all our living cells living under one environment(our body) are single unit living being.
It doesn't appear to be dissmilar from the eg of a person carrying a cage full of ten mice - obviously its just 11 individuals

the only difference, regarding the cellular situation, is that one living entity is carrying countless millions of living entities within their body - those millions of living entities regulate their bodies and the host living entity regulates their bodies requirements (we all put food in our mouth, or equivelant, try and avoid unfavourable circumstances, and life takes its course)

Hello,
Pls tell me;

1.Whether soul exists?

imo NO
heres more detailed explanation how those SOUL BELIEFS originated
www.atheists.org/Atheism/mind.html

This coming from a deluded theist thinking that they know the answer to everything. "godidit" the old cop out of unanswerable question! :rolleyes:

Woah...you atheists never surprise me....I don't know ANY theist who say "god did it"....in fact thats just a western Judeo-Christian thing anyway....and again the atheist thinking he knows it all already knows that I'm a deluded theist...amazing!!!

There is no evidence of such a thing as a "soul." The religious will confidently say there is, see the post above, but will fail to provide any verifiable or testable evidence for one every time. Instead, they'll attempt to make speculative analogies of other things they can explain which work in their fallacious appeals to ignorance and personal incredulity. They may even use the word "quantum" since they expect that this means "that which cannot be explained" in science.

In the end, the religious will nearly always fall back to the position that the "soul" is just something that is outside of the ability for science to explain, and this is why they can offer no evidence that can be tested. But you can best believe, if science were able to offer some evidence, the religious wouldn't hesitate to wave it around like a banner.

Actually the Quantum double-slit experiment does constitute as evidence...if the electron that makes up the brain is in superposition when not observed how can the brain be the cause?

The atheist can say nothing to this, they'll just say its BS or something speculative....many physcists support the many-minds intepretation and the consciousness causes collapse theory...both which require some type of immaterial mind.....the atheist is speechless and will try to deny this in order to hold on to their atheistic faith...because atheism requires sooo much faith...

Hello,

Best season's greetings.
Pls tell me;
1.Whether soul exists?
2. Whether every living being, smaller or bigger has one soul?
3. If so, how one human with millions or trillions of living cells can
have one soul?
Best wishes

*************
M*W: What I call "soul" is nothing more than bioelectric energy. Bioelectric energy is what makes our heart tick, our brain think, and our muscles react. In death, our bioelectric energy dissapates. Our bioelectric field can be seen with the human eye. Some call it "aura," but it is simple electrical function. When we die, our bioelectric function ceases, but it is not destroyed. It simply returns to the whole. When we are borne, our bioelectric function is initiated. Well, it is initiated long before that in the womb.

There is no "soul" per se. It can be explained logically as bioelectricity.

you should check out 'the christian soul' thread i made in this religion forum.
anyway. whether soul exists?

i can see that if it is a spirit, and has pretty much nothing to do with me, except that it has to do with carry- ing karma from past lives...
yes, i can accept the soul.
but in most cases, i really can't see the soul... simply because i can't see it with my current knowledge, and every else i learn.

2. whether every living being, smaller or bigger has one soul?

3. if so, how one human with millions or trillions of living cells can have one soul?

i agree with you, it's kinda weird. i sorta mentioned that with my other thread.

i suppose i should ask the dalai lama.

ps im not buddhist, but to be frank, many parts of it seem to make sense to me. :)

*************
M*W: The "soul" has no religious designation! It is simply bioelectric energy.

Actually the Quantum double-slit experiment does constitute as evidence...if the electron that makes up the brain is in superposition when not observed how can the brain be the cause?

The atheist can say nothing to this, they'll just say its BS or something speculative....many physcists support the many-minds intepretation and the consciousness causes collapse theory...both which require some type of immaterial mind.....the atheist is speechless and will try to deny this in order to hold on to their atheistic faith...because atheism requires sooo much faith...
If you knew a damned thing about QM you'd know that particles in such a "noisy" environment as the brain can never be in superposition. It takes incredible finesse to get any particle to be in superposition in the presence of other influences. This is why getting a quantum computer to work is proving so difficult.

Most physicists still support the copenhagen interpretation BTW.

According to a poll at a Quantum Mechanics workshop in 1997, the Copenhagen interpretation is the most widely-accepted specific interpretation of quantum mechanics, followed by the Many-worlds interpretation.[1] Although current trends show substantial competition from alternative interpretations, throughout much of the twentieth century the Copenhagen interpretation had strong acceptance among physicists.

There is no evidence of such a thing as a "soul." The religious will confidently say there is, see the post above, but will fail to provide any verifiable or testable evidence for one every time. Instead, they'll attempt to make speculative analogies of other things they can explain which work in their fallacious appeals to ignorance and personal incredulity. They may even use the word "quantum" since they expect that this means "that which cannot be explained" in science.

In the end, the religious will nearly always fall back to the position that the "soul" is just something that is outside of the ability for science to explain, and this is why they can offer no evidence that can be tested. But you can best believe, if science were able to offer some evidence, the religious wouldn't hesitate to wave it around like a banner.

Yes, soul can be pseudoscience alike many other things. Still,

As per science, what is that comes out, when a lighted electric bulb fuses?

It doesn't appear to be dissmilar from the eg of a person carrying a cage full of ten mice - obviously its just 11 individuals

the only difference, regarding the cellular situation, is that one living entity is carrying countless millions of living entities within their body - those millions of living entities regulate their bodies and the host living entity regulates their bodies requirements (we all put food in our mouth, or equivelant, try and avoid unfavourable circumstances, and life takes its course)

I think, ll cells of body don't die on death of an individual?

Or another question could be; can the human body possess millions of trillions of separate lifeforms, each with an individual soul?

Jan.

Yes. How can we consider an individual wavelength, a single spectrum and a bigger/multy spectrum of wavelenghs emitted fron one bosd--as one entity?

Actually the Quantum double-slit experiment does constitute as evidence...if the electron that makes up the brain is in superposition when not observed how can the brain be the cause?

An 'observer' is the presence of something which the electron has a relationship with... its not just a person watching. What this means is that electrons in the brain arent superpositioned. They have a firm relationship with each other and all the biomass in your noodle (i.e. observers are quite abundant).

I think, ll cells of body don't die on death of an individual?

thats because they have an environmental dependence on what the host body offers. Just like if a rich man who is supporting 50 people suddenly becomes poverty stricken, so do the other 50 people

and again the atheist thinking he knows it all already knows that I'm a deluded theist...amazing!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVuw1wEuaAQ


Nuf said!

thats because they have an environmental dependence on what the host body offers. Just like if a rich man who is supporting 50 people suddenly becomes poverty stricken, so do the other 50 people

Then, when soul leaves the body--after initial death or after death of all cells?

Then, when soul leaves the body--after initial death or after death of all cells?
it can be either way
the soul leaves the body when the conditions make it uninhabitable - in the case of the host, upon leaving, things start to break down quite rapidly on a cellular level

it can be either way
the soul leaves the body when the conditions make it uninhabitable - in the case of the host, upon leaving, things start to break down quite rapidly on a cellular level

Whether those things/cells on cellular levels are not living when soul leaves the body?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVuw1wEuaAQ


Nuf said!
seems like they are deluded into thinking that the world's problems are caused by christianity

their argument about the mormons is basically this - since wonderful narratives exist in the form of fairy tales all incidents that are beyond current paradigms of understanding are fairy tales (its not clear how one could enable new knowledge to be assimilated under this general principle, since it would also appear wonderful)
-kind of a delusional argument, particularly with the added confidence statement "we all know it is true (that religion is a fairy tale)" which smacks of the same thing a philosophically limp religious fanatic might say ("we all know it is true")

seems like the makers of the film get painted by the same paint brush with their definiton of delusion, especially as the premises for "an actual fact" seems to be determined by the number of times per minute you can repeat the word "delusional" followed by confidence statements such as "we can all agree on this" (its not at all a philosophical presentation - its a persuasive one)

same with their assertions of "normal person" etc etc - they don't clearly establish why a theist exists in a bubble of delusion and they do not (except of course that because a theist has a different view than them they must obviously be delusional, which is itself a delusional concept)

and what is remarkable is that they use the same delusional argument regarding the muslims and christians - their general principle seems to be that if something is beyond the average person's scope as normal it can be labelled delusional - you could do a presentation on why physicists are also delusional in the same fashion ("Now do you believe that there are magical things which are invisible called electrons that make up the physical nature of existence. Physicists exist in a bubble of delusion and if they step outside that bubble they will find that it is only physicists that make these claims of electrons")

if you insist that the nature of reality can be determined by appealling to what the average joe can conceive of as believable, then I guess that leaves you with football stadiums, grunting, and turfing out over 90% of what we have in the way of advancement (and interestingly it is the upper 90% - how many people listen to classical music and how many listen to rap) and all that is left is sleeping, eating, mating and defending and other animal propensities that draw an equal consensus across the board - and its terrifying that the producers suggest that this is the platform of sanity

as for the 4 billion people being at odds with the christians or vice versa, that is not the case - its obvious to many that the many varieties of religion indicate different aspects of the absolute according to time place and circumstance.

as for their valid scientific study on the nature of prayer, I guess if we are willing to swallow their confidence statements we will swallow anything.

In short what is most tragic about the whole presentation, is that it doesn't actually inspire persons to be introspective by appealing to reason - I agree that there should be a means to inspect the claims of theism, but this production borrows from the saem tub of poison it is seeking to eliminate - it operates on the exact same principles that a suave charismatic pseudo religious leader would use to fleece persons of their money - its all persuasive and full of confidence statements

Whether those things/cells on cellular levels are not living when soul leaves the body?
obviosuly some are - otherwise cloning would not be possible

*************
M*W: The "soul" has no religious designation! It is simply bioelectric energy.

i very much like your thinking, and more or less agree with you in addition. :D

i very much like your thinking, and more or less agree with you in addition. :D
unfortunately its not evidenced by empirical knowledge though

LG are you a team of christians? You sure post a lot of long replies for just one person.

LG are you a team of christians? You sure post a lot of long replies for just one person.
wrong on both counts
I am not a team and I am not a christian - although there is something about an atheistic argument with holes big enough to drive a locomotive through that really increases my wpm
;)

unfortunately its not evidenced by empirical knowledge though

read a textbook,
i have right in front of me,
a physiology textbook, which discusses the consciousness and the awareness of oneself.
where in the brain this happens.
etc.
and how bioelectricity, if i used the term right, is the reason for MW's idea of the soul.

not evidenced by empirical?
it's right in front of me!
this is my major in school!
i undergo an ongoing attack of empirical evidence all year long.

you just speculated that i speculate.
i don't, and i acknowledge my speculation when i do.

I am not a christian ;)
:eek: Surely you jest!


- although there is something about an atheistic argument with holes big enough to drive a locomotive through that really increases my wpm
;)

Havent you even considered that its your undertanding of the probability of wild guessed earlier explanatons being right, that may have the holes?

read a textbook,
i have right in front of me,
a physiology textbook, which discusses the consciousness and the awareness of oneself.
where in the brain this happens.
etc.
and how bioelectricity, if i used the term right, is the reason for MW's idea of the soul.

not evidenced by empirical?
it's right in front of me!
this is my major in school!
i undergo an ongoing attack of empirical evidence all year long.

you just speculated that i speculate.
i don't, and i acknowledge my speculation when i do.

if bioelectricity is the cause of consciousness you would think that it would be possible to exhibit the effect (ie consciousness) in something bereft of the effect (ie a dead person) by its application (ie by applying bioelectricity to a dead person and reviving their consciousness your point would be proven empirically)

It appears you don't have empirical fact in front of you but emprirical theory - your reading may be a fact but what you are reading may not be

:eek: Surely you jest!
no



Havent you even considered that its your undertanding of the probability of wild guessed earlier explanatons being right, that may have the holes?

perhaps it would be easier to consider if one was confronted with penetrating rational arguments rather than sloppy emmotional appeals of confidence

obviosuly some are - otherwise cloning would not be possible

Good, thanks. Whether a cloned person will have same soul of origional or different?

no





perhaps it would be easier to consider if one was confronted with penetrating rational arguments rather than sloppy emmotional appeals of confidence

Perhaps if you listened instead of immaturely endowing athiests with your irrational perspective, you will learn for the first time how a logical argument is made and tested.:rolleyes:

seems like they are deluded into thinking that the world's problems are caused by christianity

their argument about the mormons is basically this - since wonderful narratives exist in the form of fairy tales all incidents that are beyond current paradigms of understanding are fairy tales (its not clear how one could enable new knowledge to be assimilated under this general principle, since it would also appear wonderful)
-kind of a delusional argument, particularly with the added confidence statement "we all know it is true (that religion is a fairy tale)" which smacks of the same thing a philosophically limp religious fanatic might say ("we all know it is true")

seems like the makers of the film get painted by the same paint brush with their definiton of delusion, especially as the premises for "an actual fact" seems to be determined by the number of times per minute you can repeat the word "delusional" followed by confidence statements such as "we can all agree on this" (its not at all a philosophical presentation - its a persuasive one)

same with their assertions of "normal person" etc etc - they don't clearly establish why a theist exists in a bubble of delusion and they do not (except of course that because a theist has a different view than them they must obviously be delusional, which is itself a delusional concept)

and what is remarkable is that they use the same delusional argument regarding the muslims and christians - their general principle seems to be that if something is beyond the average person's scope as normal it can be labelled delusional - you could do a presentation on why physicists are also delusional in the same fashion ("Now do you believe that there are magical things which are invisible called electrons that make up the physical nature of existence. Physicists exist in a bubble of delusion and if they step outside that bubble they will find that it is only physicists that make these claims of electrons")

if you insist that the nature of reality can be determined by appealling to what the average joe can conceive of as believable, then I guess that leaves you with football stadiums, grunting, and turfing out over 90% of what we have in the way of advancement (and interestingly it is the upper 90% - how many people listen to classical music and how many listen to rap) and all that is left is sleeping, eating, mating and defending and other animal propensities that draw an equal consensus across the board - and its terrifying that the producers suggest that this is the platform of sanity

as for the 4 billion people being at odds with the christians or vice versa, that is not the case - its obvious to many that the many varieties of religion indicate different aspects of the absolute according to time place and circumstance.

as for their valid scientific study on the nature of prayer, I guess if we are willing to swallow their confidence statements we will swallow anything.

In short what is most tragic about the whole presentation, is that it doesn't actually inspire persons to be introspective by appealing to reason - I agree that there should be a means to inspect the claims of theism, but this production borrows from the saem tub of poison it is seeking to eliminate - it operates on the exact same principles that a suave charismatic pseudo religious leader would use to fleece persons of their money - its all persuasive and full of confidence statements

Nice long reply of non-seguirtus bull shit!

You have a defenition of delusion, and it fits to a T on religious beliefs:

Delusion:
Although non-specific concepts of madness have been around for several thousand years, the psychiatrist and philosopher Karl Jaspers was the first to define the three main criteria for a belief to be considered delusional in his book General Psychopathology. These criteria are:

certainty (held with absolute conviction)
incorrigibility (not changeable by compelling counterargument or proof to the contrary)
impossibility or falsity of content (implausible, bizarre or patently untrue)
These criteria still live on in modern psychiatric diagnosis. In the most recent Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, a delusion is defined as:

A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everybody else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. **Wiki..

belief in the assertions of non-existents entities, supernaturalism, mysticism, are a form of delusion. When you can't present evidence, of the existence of your assertions, i.e. souls, gods, heaven, and hold these beliefs as fact, this nothing more then delusion. You are my friend deluded, to believe that such a thing as a god exists, who is wathcing your every move, who is the judge and jury of your soul? wether you will go to heaven or hell, and such nonsese is delusion.

Religious belief clearly falls under the definition of delusion. If people treated it as they do santa or the easter bunny, then it would be a playful fantasy. People actually believe religion (gods, afterlives, etc.) to be factually true with no evidence to support it.

This is technically known as Delusion.

Perhaps if you listened instead of immaturely endowing athiests with your irrational perspective, you will learn for the first time how a logical argument is made and tested.:rolleyes:
you mean like saying "you are delusional" repeatedly until you are blue in the face?
(at which point one might try an array of ad homs)

Religious belief clearly falls under the definition of delusion. If people treated it as they do santa or the easter bunny, then it would be a playful fantasy. People actually believe religion (gods, afterlives, etc.) to be factually true with no evidence to support it.

This is technically known as Delusion.

which brings us to that delightful question - is evidence self evident or does it require a standard of knowledge as a foundation before it becomes perceptable?
(it doesn't matter whether you apply this general principle to scientific, theistic or even adolescent claims of knowledge)

No I dont mean like youre delusional and ad homs insue. Man even for a thiest you take impertinent retort to whole new levels.

Nice long reply of non-seguirtus bull shit!
I thought the same thing of the video link you provided, but rather than write "that was total bullshit" I thought it would be more progressive to examine why i thought so,in case I came across as a fool who just kept making relentless confidence statements

You have a defenition of delusion, and it fits to a T on religious beliefs:
;)

Delusion:
Although non-specific concepts of madness have been around for several thousand years, the psychiatrist and philosopher Karl Jaspers was the first to define the three main criteria for a belief to be considered delusional in his book General Psychopathology. These criteria are:

certainty (held with absolute conviction)
you seem certainly convinced there is no god

incorrigibility (not changeable by compelling counterargument or proof to the contrary)
you have no proof god doesn't exist (abiogenesis would be sufficient)

impossibility or falsity of content (implausible, bizarre or patently untrue)
you claim that abiogenesis is evidenced

These criteria still live on in modern psychiatric diagnosis. In the most recent Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, a delusion is defined as:

A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everybody else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. **Wiki..
seems like you are deluded - maybe you should seek professional help

belief in the assertions of non-existents entities, supernaturalism, mysticism, are a form of delusion.
agreed - thats why I assert that god is not non-existant

When you can't present evidence, of the existence of your assertions, i.e. souls, gods, heaven, and hold these beliefs as fact, this nothing more then delusion.
if you could establish how you are qualified to perceive evidence in the given field of knowledge perhaps we could progress down that line of thought

You are my friend deluded, to believe that such a thing as a god exists, who is wathcing your every move, who is the judge and jury of your soul? wether you will go to heaven or hell, and such nonsese is delusion.
more delusional ramblings I am afraid

No I dont mean like youre delusional and ad homs insue. Man even for a thiest you take impertinent retort to whole new levels.
then why don't you break the cycle and present an argument from the point of coherency and logic instead of "Its all in your head - see i just proved god is an imagination because I said you imagined it"

I will give you a hint

First you have establish the means (ie general principles outside of a mere theistic or non theisistic claim) that you utilize to determine what consctitutes reality - for instance is it sufficient for something to be real if enough people assert it to be real? or is something real if you see it withyour eyes? etc etc

If only you could remain lucid long enough you may just see that I have already done so. If only your grasp of logic was have as good as your tenacious defence of any contradiction to your faith, you might realize the difference between fable and education.

which brings us to that delightful question - is evidence self evident or does it require a standard of knowledge as a foundation before it becomes perceptable?
(it doesn't matter whether you apply this general principle to scientific, theistic or even adolescent claims of knowledge)
Ugh.

Alright. If the evidence of god is so ethereal and requires such a level of mystical/spiritual enlightenment, then why do over 95% of humans claim to "believe" in a god? If they all are this enlightened, why then are they so wrapped up in the petty BS of ordinary life?

Or are they supporting a cultural delusion?

What say you LG of the 95%+ of the population who "believe" yet clearly have not gotten past their inability to react like assholes under even the most benign of circumstances?

Are they examples of what enlightenment of perception leads to?

Or are they delusional?

Or are you saying that they are indeed delusional, but the few (like you I assume) have reached the proper level and can unequivocally state the reality of god and that you are not experiencing a delusion?



"The way is shut. The way is shut and the dead keep it. We do not suffer the living to pass."

"You will suffer me!"

If only you could remain lucid long enough you my just see that I have already done so. If only your grasp of logic was have as good as your tenacious defence of any contradiction to your faith, you might realize the difference between fable and education.

thats ok but I was asking specifically for general principles since swapping opinions, confidence statements and tentative claims (and even ad homs) doesn't seem to achieve much

If you think you have indicated general principles in some other post you can link it

Whether soul is one among many OR part of one?

Whether god is one OR one overall?

Ugh.
lol


Alright. If the evidence of god is so ethereal and requires such a level of mystical/spiritual enlightenment, then why do over 95% of humans claim to "believe" in a god? If they all are this enlightened, why then are they so wrapped up in the petty BS of ordinary life?

Or are they supporting a cultural delusion?
some could be deluded, but I would argue that many of them accept the claims of god not in terms of direct perception but perceiving the claims of a person who claims direct perception of god as credible - this doesn't necessarily have to be your stereotypical misanthropic cult leader but is mostly accepting the statements of jesus (in the case of the xtians) as authoratative - In other words its more a case of "I have not seen god, th epriest has not seen god but jesus has"

the same general principle operates in regards to the general public's perception of electrons too, since hardly 95% of persons who are scientists have performed the necessary proceedures to confirm the existence of an electron - so for the average joe its a case of "I have not seen an electron, my science teacher has not seen an electron, but the scientists whom the science teacher is talking about have"

What say you LG of the 95%+ of the population who "believe" yet clearly have not gotten past their inability to react like assholes under even the most benign of circumstances?
therefore accroding to the vedas there are 81 varieties of religiousity (and I don't mean (1) xtian (2) buddhist (3) Muslim etc etc) according to the quality of teh performer

Are they examples of what enlightenment of perception leads to?

Or are they delusional?
for the most part they (meaning the assholes you mention - although I wouldn't put their number anywhere near 95%) are stabilized on an unsatisfactory level of performance - such a stagnantation occurs (ie spiritual life is curtailed) when one is bereft of the favourable association of spiritual practioners more elevated than oneself (until one crosses a certain threshold of purity in regard to material contamination - eg lust anger, wrath etc)

Or are you saying that they are indeed delusional, but the few (like you I assume) have reached the proper level and can unequivocally state the reality of god and that you are not experiencing a delusion?
not sure exactly who we are talking about here - if you mean can a person who displays grossly inappropriate behaviour lay claim to credible notions of god?
On the whole, no.

NoI 1: A sober person who can tolerate the urge to speak, the mind's demands, the actions of anger and the urges of the tongue, belly and genitals is qualified to make disciples all over the world.



"The way is shut. The way is shut and the dead keep it. We do not suffer the living to pass."

"You will suffer me!"

BG 6.20-23: In the stage of perfection called trance, or samādhi, one's mind is completely restrained from material mental activities by practice of yoga. This perfection is characterized by one's ability to see the self by the pure mind and to relish and rejoice in the self. In that joyous state, one is situated in boundless transcendental happiness, realized through transcendental senses. Established thus, one never departs from the truth, and upon gaining this he thinks there is no greater gain. Being situated in such a position, one is never shaken, even in the midst of greatest difficulty. This indeed is actual freedom from all miseries arising from material contact.

Whether soul is one among many OR part of one?

Whether god is one OR one overall?

katha Up. 2.2.13
The Supreme Lord is eternal and the living beings are eternal. The Supreme Lord is cognizant and the living beings are cognizant. The difference is that the Supreme Lord is supplying all the necessities of life for the many other living entities.

Mukunda Up. 3.3.1
The Lord and the living entity are compared to two birds sitting in a tree. While the illusioned living entity eats the fruits of the material world, the Lord as Supersoul and best friend witnesses these activities.

Within each body there are are two souls
jiva (the living entity - who desires) and paramatma (god as a witness/controller in the heart)

thats ok but I was asking specifically for general principles since swapping opinions, confidence statements and tentative claims (and even ad homs) doesn't seem to achieve much

If you think you have indicated general principles in some other post you can link it



http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=61492&page=4




.......My rough principle against theism and agnosticism(which IMO wrongly alludes theism is equally as logically valid because "we cant prove there is no god") aswell, pretty well damn it.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=61492&page=4




.......My rough principle against theism and agnosticism(which IMO wrongly alludes theism is equally as logically valid because "we cant prove there is no god") aswell, pretty well damn it.
I think you have given the wrong link - you don't have a post on it

some could be deluded, but I would argue that many of them accept the claims of god not in terms of direct perception but perceiving the claims of a person who claims direct perception of god as credible - this doesn't necessarily have to be your stereotypical misanthropic cult leader but is mostly accepting the statements of jesus (in the case of the xtians) as authoratative - In other words its more a case of "I have not seen god, th epriest has not seen god but jesus has"

the same general principle operates in regards to the general public's perception of electrons too, since hardly 95% of persons who are scientists have performed the necessary proceedures to confirm the existence of an electron - so for the average joe its a case of "I have not seen an electron, my science teacher has not seen an electron, but the scientists whom the science teacher is talking about have"

It may be that 95% of all scientists are not out proofing the model of an electron, but the evidence presented is convincing enough. Moreover, the remaining 5% who do, are doing it critically, so that their papers may hold up in the arena of peer review. Science operates on a self-correcting system; if someone conjures up a bogus theory based on fabricated evidence, given time, a competing colleague will take notice and expose it.

Compare this with a mainstream religion. Criticism is not invited. Their holy scriptures do not present evidence. Some of them just state that if you don't believe their true word, you'll be punished for an eternity.

It may be that 95% of all scientists are not out proofing the model of an electron, but the evidence presented is convincing enough. Moreover, the remaining 5% who do, are doing it critically, so that their papers may hold up in the arena of peer review. Science operates on a self-correcting system; if someone conjures up a bogus theory based on fabricated evidence, given time, a competing colleague will take notice and expose it.
same thing happens in theism - anything done artificially will fail

Compare this with a mainstream religion. Criticism is not invited. Their holy scriptures do not present evidence. Some of them just state that if you don't believe their true word, you'll be punished for an eternity.
therefore theism that operates like that eventually fails and god or god's pure representative reestablishes the same eternal principles of religion

BG 4.2: This supreme science was thus received through the chain of disciplic succession, and the saintly kings understood it in that way. But in course of time the succession was broken, and therefore the science as it is appears to be lost.

BG 4.3: That very ancient science of the relationship with the Supreme is today told by Me to you because you are My devotee as well as My friend and can therefore understand the transcendental mystery of this science.

katha Up. 2.2.13
The Supreme Lord is eternal and the living beings are eternal. The Supreme Lord is cognizant and the living beings are cognizant. The difference is that the Supreme Lord is supplying all the necessities of life for the many other living entities.

Mukunda Up. 3.3.1
The Lord and the living entity are compared to two birds sitting in a tree. While the illusioned living entity eats the fruits of the material world, the Lord as Supersoul and best friend witnesses these activities.

Within each body there are are two souls
jiva (the living entity - who desires) and paramatma (god as a witness/controller in the heart)

Do you mean that a specific soul is a specific form of eternal god?

I think you have given the wrong link - you don't have a post on it

77, scroll down

Do you mean that a specific soul is a specific form of eternal god?

No, I am saying that there exists an eternal relationship between 2 eternal entities, jiva tattva and vishnu tattva

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tattva#The_tattvas_in_Vaishnavism

No, I am saying that there exists an eternal relationship between 2 eternal entities, jiva tattva and vishnu tattva

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tattva#The_tattvas_in_Vaishnavism

But that indicates jiva tattva a modification of vishnu tattva.

The tattvas in Samkhya
The Samkhya philosophy regards the universe as consisting of two eternal realities: Purusha and Prakrti. It is therefore a strongly dualist philosophy. The Purusha is the centre of consciousness, whereas the Prakriti is the source of all material existence. The twenty-five tattva system of Samkhya concerns itself only with the tangible aspect of creation, theorizing that Prakriti is the source of the world of becoming. It is the first tattva and is seen as pure potentiality that evolves itself successively into twenty-four additional tattvas or principles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tattva#The_tattvas_in_Vaishnavism

I think, it tells about evolution theory of energies, matter, atoms, molecules, cells, body etc. from prime force.

But that indicates jiva tattva a modification of vishnu tattva.
I don't understand??



I think, it tells about evolution theory of energies, matter, atoms, molecules, cells, body etc. from prime force.
tattva just means "truth" - sankhya deals exclusively with dilineating the material nature - goes into details around text ten here
http://srimadbhagavatam.com/3/26/en
sankhya deals with cause and effect of material articles but doesn't touch on the issue of the soul (in other words it defines how matter can form a body suitable for the soul to inhabit, but it doesn't establish anything about the cause of the soul, since sankhya busies itself with analyzing the material world, beginning from pradhana - the concentrated form of the three gunas)

77, scroll down
that is not general principle. that is a confidence statement

her e is an example of what would be a general principle - "Religion is an imagination because all things that are real can be seen with one's eyes and I have never seen god."

Its not a very well structured general principle, but still, it is stated - the general principle for determining whether something i s real or not is whether one can see something with one's eyes - and since i haven't seen god with my eyes, god is not real.

Another general principle could be - something is real if enough people think it is real (again, not such a great one).

the idea behind a general principle is that it can be applied to a variety of circumstances to determine whether it is infact adequate - for instance, if one cannot see an electron with one's eyes, and if electrons are real, then it indicates that the general principle is faulty.

So it is well established that you think religion is a fantasy, but I am asking you to elaborate on what general principles you apply to determine whether or not something is fantastic.

I don't understand??tattva just means "truth" - sankhya deals exclusively with dilineating the material nature - goes into details around text ten here
http://srimadbhagavatam.com/3/26/en
sankhya deals with cause and effect of material articles but doesn't touch on the issue of the soul (in other words it defines how matter can form a body suitable for the soul to inhabit, but it doesn't establish anything about the cause of the soul, since sankhya busies itself with analyzing the material world, beginning from pradhana - the concentrated form of the three gunas)



The tattvas in Samkhya
The Samkhya philosophy regards the universe as consisting of two eternal realities: Purusha and Prakrti. It is therefore a strongly dualist philosophy. The Purusha is the centre of consciousness, whereas the Prakriti is the source of all material existence. The twenty-five tattva system of Samkhya concerns itself only with the tangible aspect of creation, theorizing that Prakriti is the source of the world of becoming. It is the first tattva and is seen as pure potentiality that evolves itself successively into twenty-four additional tattvas or principles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tattva#...in_Vaishnavism

Does above not tell prime two eternal realities; Purusha and Prakriti, from which every material existance is evolved?

Does above not tell prime two eternal realities; Purusha and Prakriti, from which every material existance is evolved?

yes, but prakrti has a source too
prakrti evolved from the adi purusa

BG 7.6: All created beings have their source in these two natures. Of all that is material and all that is spiritual in this world, know for certain that I am both the origin and the dissolution.

BG 7.7: O conqueror of wealth, there is no truth superior to Me. Everything rests upon Me, as pearls are strung on a thread.

just as it is absurd to talk about energy that does not have a source, it is absurd to talk of prakrti without a purusa

Four fundamental interactions/forces are understood in science but their prime source or "prime force" is yet to be known in science. However each force has its mediater i.e. Strong force: gluons, Electromagnetic force: photons, Weak force : W and Z bosons and Gravity:gravitons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction

This indicates dualist philosophy. Prime force of all these four forces and its mediater (may be Purusha and Prakrti or Prameshwar and Prmeshwari OR GOD and GODDESS) is either unknown in science or will be indescribable, still omni-...as indicated in religions.

Four fundamental interactions/forces are understood in science but their prime source or "prime force" is yet to be known in science. However each force has its mediater i.e. Strong force: gluons, Electromagnetic force: photons, Weak force : W and Z bosons and Gravity:gravitons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction

This indicates dualist philosophy. Prime force of all these four forces and its mediater (may be Purusha and Prakrti or Prameshwar and Prmeshwari OR GOD and GODDESS) is either unknown in science or will be indescribable, still omni-...as indicated in religions.

the soul operates out of the same potency as god.
That is it is transcendental thus not visible by empirical standards.
The effects of the soul can be perceived however
just as an electron is not visible, but one can perceive its movements by its trail when passing through a gas

the soul operates out of the same potency as god.
That is it is transcendental thus not visible by empirical standards.
The effects of the soul can be perceived however
just as an electron is not visible, but one can perceive its movements by its trail when passing through a gas

How such movement of soul can be measured scientificaly alike as measured of an electron?

that is not general principle. that is a confidence statement

her e is an example of what would be a general principle - "Religion is an imagination because all things that are real can be seen with one's eyes and I have never seen god."

Its not a very well structured general principle, but still, it is stated - the general principle for determining whether something i s real or not is whether one can see something with one's eyes - and since i haven't seen god with my eyes, god is not real.

Another general principle could be - something is real if enough people think it is real (again, not such a great one).

the idea behind a general principle is that it can be applied to a variety of circumstances to determine whether it is infact adequate - for instance, if one cannot see an electron with one's eyes, and if electrons are real, then it indicates that the general principle is faulty.

So it is well established that you think religion is a fantasy, but I am asking you to elaborate on what general principles you apply to determine whether or not something is fantastic.


Its a valid priniple of logic, the fact you cant see that lies in your inability to differentiate between logic and fantasy.

As for the statement " electrons exist"- it is evidencial that this is true from observing bonding of atoms, electro-magnetic forces, static-magnetic forces and any & every test you care to apply.:rolleyes:
The statement "god exists" has zero evidence and has failed every test applied to it.


Do you see where you have gone wrong in your analogy?

How such movement of soul can be measured scientificaly alike as measured of an electron?

when the soul is active, it manifestion in matter can be verified (like the distinction between a dead person and a living one - its quite obvious)

Dr singh (PHD organic chemistry) has ventured this

Matter by itself

1. Inert and dead
2. Characterized by either low information content or absence of specific form beyond atomic and molecular structures
3. Reduces to thermodynamicaly stable states
4. Exhibits less organized flow of matter
5. Tends to lose form or pattern under transformation
6. Grows by external accumulation only (eg Crystal>>Crystal)
Exhibits only passive resistance (eg mountain)

Matter associated with Life

1. Animated substance or entity (eg a vehicle with a driver or a bird etcetc)
2. Characterised by high information content and very specific form
3. Thermodynamically unstable states play a dominant role
4. Exhibits a precisely regulated flow of matter (metabolism)
5. Undegoes transformation without loss of complex pattern (reproduction).
6. Grows from within by an intricate construction process (Eg Baby > Child > Youth > Old age)
7. Adaptive: tries to actively over come obstacles

Actually the Quantum double-slit experiment does constitute as evidence...if the electron that makes up the brain is in superposition when not observed how can the brain be the cause?

The atheist can say nothing to this, they'll just say its BS or something speculative....many physcists support the many-minds intepretation and the consciousness causes collapse theory...both which require some type of immaterial mind.....the atheist is speechless and will try to deny this in order to hold on to their atheistic faith...because atheism requires sooo much faith...

ROTFLMAO

The double split experiment simply proves the uncertainty principle of particle-wave duality.

Its a valid priniple of logic, the fact you cant see that lies in your inability to differentiate between logic and fantasy.

As for the statement " electrons exist"- it is evidencial that this is true from observing bonding of atoms, electro-magnetic forces, static-magnetic forces and any & every test you care to apply.:rolleyes:
who does the observing?
Hardly 95% of qualified scientists ... what to speak of the general public

The statement "god exists" has zero evidence and has failed every test applied to it.
every test except the tests recommended in scriptures and by saintly persons


Do you see where you have gone wrong in your analogy?
perhaps if you could indicate on what authority that you say every test applied to perceive god has failed I could.
I mean given that the claims of physics are perceived by physicists who apply the processes advocated by physicists, (and not say, newspaper journalists) doesn't it seem to indicate that verifying the nature of god's existence is monopolized by saintly people.
I don't think it s valid to say that god does not exist becasue he has not been evidenced by contemporary science (ie empiricism in pursuit of reductionist paradigms) because such methodologies are not advocated by either scripture or saintly people

who does the observing?
Hardly 95% of qualified scientists ... what to speak of the general public

every test except the tests recommended in scriptures and by saintly persons



perhaps if you could indicate on what authority that you say every test applied to perceive god has failed I could.
I mean given that the claims of physics are perceived by physicists who apply the processes advocated by physicists, (and not say, newspaper journalists) doesn't it seem to indicate that verifying the nature of god's existence is monopolized by saintly people.
I don't think it s valid to say that god does not exist becasue he has not been evidenced by contemporary science (ie empiricism in pursuit of reductionist paradigms) because such methodologies are not advocated by either scripture or saintly people


I BELIEVE THERE are fairies at the bottom of my garden, Im going to write about it onarollof toilet paper, I will never produce evidence or will you or anyone else find any. You cant question me because Im a haloed prophet of the fairies.
How would you describe me and my bog roll?

I BELIEVE THERE are fairies at the bottom of my garden, Im going to write about it onarollof toilet paper, I will never produce evidence or will you or anyone else find any. You cant question me because Im a haloed prophet of the fairies.
How would you describe me and my bog roll?
since you say that no one else will be able to find any evidence , not too highly.

There are statements in the scritpure however that assert that anyone can determine the nature of god.
They compare, just as one is free to take bath in the ganga during magha (the cooler month) everyone is free to practice spiritual life
the import is of course that many people do not bath in the ganga during winter becasue they perceive it as unpleasant - the notion of giving up sinful life, worshipping god with humility and associating with saintly persons (the essential process of any religion you care to mention) is also commonly disbanded for the same reason

There are statements in the scritpure however that assert that anyone can determine the nature of god.
They compare, just as one is free to take bath in the ganga during magha (the cooler month) everyone is free to practice spiritual life
the import is of course that many people do not bath in the ganga during winter becasue they perceive it as unpleasant - the notion of giving up sinful life, worshipping god with humility and associating with saintly persons (the essential process of any religion you care to mention) is also commonly disbanded for the same reason

I will put those things or my sacred toilet paper too, how do you feel about us now?

I will put those things or my sacred toilet paper too, how do you feel about us now?
us?
I thought you said noone except you had access to this perception

“
Originally Posted by imaplanck.
I BELIEVE THERE are fairies at the bottom of my garden, Im going to write about it onarollof toilet paper, I will never produce evidence or will you or anyone else find any. You cant question me because Im a haloed prophet of the fairies.

Always keep a spare bible close to the toilet, just in case you run out of toilet paper, kind of rough, but it gets the job done!

us?
.

When I said "Us" I meant me and my holy shit roll, not other people. Sorry for the confusion.:)

When I said "Us" I meant me and my holy shit roll, not other people. Sorry for the confusion.:)
that you are the same as any other lunatic making claims about the nature of objective reality bereft of a process that anyone can follow to come to your said point of perception
:D

that you are the same as any other lunatic making claims about the nature of objective reality bereft of a process that anyone can follow to come to your said point of perception
:D

Bingo! For the first time you have objectively described the worlds bibles and the grandeurly deluded authors of them.

Bingo! For the first time you have objectively described the worlds bibles and the grandeurly deluded authors of them.
except of course that such scriptures, loaded with normative descriptions, give clues how to approach god

except of course that such scriptures, loaded with normative descriptions, give clues how to approach god

Im telling you "my toilet paper has that too!" and Im incredibally qualified to do so as I've been endowed by the fairies to be so.

Im telling you "my toilet paper has that too!"

so you have changed your mind?

“
Originally Posted by imaplanck.
I BELIEVE THERE are fairies at the bottom of my garden, Im going to write about it onarollof toilet paper, I will never produce evidence or will you or anyone else find any. You cant question me because Im a haloed prophet of the fairies.

so you have changed your mind?

“
.

My words as a prophet are often ambiguous. They shouldnt always betaken literally , I will tell you whenthey should be thus and sometimes change my mind over words that were previously meant to be taken literally.

1.Whether soul exists?
The fact that soul is rather a modern word should already give you a clue. It does not exist. The ancient greeks used some kind of definition of alive that people often confuse with soul, but it wasn't what we call soul.



2. Whether every living being, smaller or bigger has one soul?

Depends entirely on your definition of soul. Soul is a human concept. It doesn't necessarily mean anything.


3. If so, how one human with millions or trillions of living cells can
have one soul?
well, indeed. can they have a soul.

The fact that soul is rather a modern word should already give you a clue. It does not exist. The ancient greeks used some kind of definition of alive that people often confuse with soul, but it wasn't what we call soul.


Apparently it's from "breath", (when dead the breath left the body. Simple science for ancient people, unfortunately unscientific modern people have turned it into something else).

My words as a prophet are often ambiguous. They shouldnt always betaken literally , I will tell you whenthey should be thus and sometimes change my mind over words that were previously meant to be taken literally.
well get back to me when you are clear whether or not you have claim to objectivity (ie a process that will enable persons to directly perceive what appears at the moment to be purely subjective)
;)

well get back to me when you are clear whether or not you have claim to objectivity (ie a process that will enable persons to directly perceive what appears at the moment to be purely subjective)
;)

Why? Why should this prophet be different from your prophets ???????????????????????????????????????????????and why should my bog roll be different from your bible????????????????????????????????????????????? ??

Lightgigantic: First you have establish the means (ie general principles outside of a mere theistic or non theisistic claim) that you utilize to determine what consctitutes reality - for instance is it sufficient for something to be real if enough people assert it to be real? or is something real if you see it withyour eyes? etc etc

Have you experienced Samadhi? Or are you simply assured of the experience based on text? How can you know for sure your teacher has experienced samadhi and isn't simply making that claim?

Pertaining to the question and remarks made by Godless and Superluminal, in Calcutta there is a sect or cult which worships the goddess Kali. In the process practised by initiates there are those who rise even higher in their insistence in the belief of Kali to the point where they can see Kali during meditation, they communicate with Kali etc.
When they reach this stage their guru abrubtly informs the person that Kali doesn't exist...and no this isn't a made-up myth its what they refer to as the 'mysteries'. Even for these hard-core religious or spiritual adherents there is an acknowledgement of the trap of arrogance for those whom profess to know absolutely. This is the aspect of hindu and buddhist tradition that Lightgigantic isn't yet privy or refuses to acknowledge. He accepts doctine ABSOLUTELY!

LG I would like to know what you think of such a process where one is set on a path of belief and then the moment they do are promptly shaken from this belief?

Also I would like to know how you would interpret the ending of the Mahabharata:

Arjuna climes the ladder towards heaven, when he arrives he finds his evil
Dhartarashtra cousins sitting around having a merry time in bliss-land and his good brothers suffering in hell. Its considered his last test. He decides that he wants to join his brothers in hell only to find it was heaven.

It seems to me that his last illusion is that of the reality of heaven and hell. What do you think?

Why? Why should this prophet be different from your prophets ???????????????????????????????????????????????and why should my bog roll be different from your bible????????????????????????????????????????????? ??

because , as I have indicated several times, you lack a methodology

because , as I have indicated several times, you lack a methodology

What???? But im using exactly the same methodology your bible employs!!!!!
Firstly can you firstly stop talking out of your ass?
Secondly can you not skirt around and answer my damn question of why i and my crap roll should be treated different?(Reminder- I said I was going to include the same methodology the bible employs) Or is it true to say "'you cant'"and there indeed is no difference?

Lightgigantic: First you have establish the means (ie general principles outside of a mere theistic or non theisistic claim) that you utilize to determine what consctitutes reality - for instance is it sufficient for something to be real if enough people assert it to be real? or is something real if you see it withyour eyes? etc etc

Have you experienced Samadhi?
If I answer "yes" how would you know whether I was lying?
If I answer "no" how would you know whether I was lying?

Or are you simply assured of the experience based on text? How can you know for sure your teacher has experienced samadhi and isn't simply making that claim?
that is more less what I am addressing - how there is a basis for theistic claims that does not require automatic acceptance nor the similar alternative, automatic rejection.
Or to phrase it another way, how do you determine the credible qualification of claims (not just theistic ones, but any claim) beyond jurisdiction (if one's personal direct perception is everything you are left with a very limited perspective of reality)

Pertaining to the question and remarks made by Godless and Superluminal, in Calcutta there is a sect or cult which worships the goddess Kali. In the process practised by initiates there are those who rise even higher in their insistence in the belief of Kali to the point where they can see Kali during meditation, they communicate with Kali etc.
When they reach this stage their guru abrubtly informs the person that Kali doesn't exist...and no this isn't a made-up myth its what they refer to as the 'mysteries'. Even for these hard-core religious or spiritual adherents there is an acknowledgement of the trap of arrogance for those whom profess to know absolutely. This is the aspect of hindu and buddhist tradition that Lightgigantic isn't yet privy or refuses to acknowledge. He accepts doctine ABSOLUTELY!
and there are huge number of sects doing a huge array of things to prey upon the huge absence of knowledge that people have due to neglecting scripture. Scripture gives theoretical knowledge and methods of practical application - the rest is up to you.

LG I would like to know what you think of such a process where one is set on a path of belief and then the moment they do are promptly shaken from this belief?
there are many reasons, but lets just assume that a person is on a correct path when they get 'shaken' off it.
the most common is material desire

BG 2.44: In the minds of those who are too attached to sense enjoyment and material opulence, and who are bewildered by such things, the resolute determination for devotional service to the Supreme Lord does not take place.

Samadhi means "fixed mind." The Vedic dictionary, the Nirukti, says, samyag ādhīyate 'sminn ātma-tattva-yāthātmyam: "When the mind is fixed for understanding the self, it is said to be in samādhi. " Samadhi is never possible for persons interested in material sense enjoyment, nor for those who are bewildered by such temporary things. They are more or less condemned by the process of material energy.

Also I would like to know how you would interpret the ending of the Mahabharata:

Arjuna climes the ladder towards heaven, when he arrives he finds his evil
Dhartarashtra cousins sitting around having a merry time in bliss-land and his good brothers suffering in hell. Its considered his last test. He decides that he wants to join his brothers in hell only to find it was heaven.

It seems to me that his last illusion is that of the reality of heaven and hell. What do you think?
if you read it, you will see that it was a test of the devas,by memory it was either yamaraj, the superintendant of reward and punishment, or indra - in either case it was just that - an illusory representation of the hellish planets.

it was a test to see whether arjuna had transcended the three modes of material nature

BG 14.22-25: The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: O son of Pāṇḍu, he who does not hate illumination, attachment and delusion when they are present or long for them when they disappear; who is unwavering and undisturbed through all these reactions of the material qualities, remaining neutral and transcendental, knowing that the modes alone are active; who is situated in the self and regards alike happiness and distress; who looks upon a lump of earth, a stone and a piece of gold with an equal eye; who is equal toward the desirable and the undesirable; who is steady, situated equally well in praise and blame, honor and dishonor; who treats alike both friend and enemy; and who has renounced all material activities — such a person is said to have transcended the modes of nature.

(actually arjuna, being an associate of the lord, is already transcendental, and his forrays into what are apparently ignorance are to illustrate teachings to our conditioned consciousness)

What???? But im using exactly the same methodology your bible employs!!!!!


then why don'y you tell me what exactly your methodology is so we can determine if it is exactly the same.

Given that it wasn't until a few posts ago that you began thinking about the issue of having a methodology, it doesn't look too good for you.

Given that it wasn't until a few posts ago that you began thinking about the issue of having a methodology, it doesn't look too good for you.

:mad: What????? I have told you several times that my methodology is to demand you believe me without evidence ,as I am a devine prophet of the fairies . My words should not always be taken literally, I will tell you as and when and if the circumstances suit me to alter this. Why must I repeat the simplest of premises to you?

:mad: What????? I have told you several times that my methodology is to demand you believe me without evidence ,as I am a devine prophet of the fairies . My words should not always be taken literally, I will tell you as and when and if the circumstances suit me to alter this. Why must I repeat the simplest of premises to you?
when you make up your mind whether or not you have a methodology that enables direct perception let me know
;)

when you make up your mind whether or not you have a methodology that enables direct perception let me know
;)
Is 'methodology' a new buzzword you've heard from your pastors?
I have always presented such to you. I have tried using logic and empirical methodology with you. I've tried using your standards of methodology(which is not as much a methoology as a 'my words must be obeyed without question, make-it-up as you go along' grandeur). Have you actually EVER looked up the word 'methodoogy' in the ditionary? because you dont appear to know what it actually means.
You cant and wont answer my questions, so your only resort left is to keep repeating the same impertinents over and over, like a spastic parrot.

ROTFLMAO

The double split experiment simply proves the uncertainty principle of particle-wave duality.

haha...so what about the interpretations of the double-slit experiment like the many-worlds interpretation, Copanhagen, many-minds, consciousness causes collapse, quantum immortality, etc.....you're just dodging what the double-slit experiment implies because of your atheistic faith...

haha...so what about the interpretations of the double-slit experiment like the many-worlds interpretation, Copanhagen, many-minds, consciousness causes collapse, quantum immortality, etc.....you're just dodging what the double-slit experiment implies because of your atheistic faith...

No Im just implying that quantum physics providing any validation towards a spiritual plane, is merely in the mind of retards and is yet another attempt by religion to corrupt science into pseudoscience for their religous purpose and thus steel credibility from a body that actually deserves it(evolotion being another example that you've bastardized into the freakshow of intelligent design).
Further more, you have the faith! I have faith in nothing! dont project your weaked will unquestioning mindset on me!

No Im just implying that quantum physics providing any validation towards a spiritual plane, is merely in the mind of retards and is yet another attempt by religion to corrupt science into pseudoscience for their religous purpose and thus steel credibility from a body that actually deserves it(evolotion being another example that you've bastardized into the freakshow of intelligent design).
Further more, you have the faith! I have faith in nothing! dont project your weaked will unquestioning mindset on me!

so Stephen Hawkings is a retard now? He believes in the MWI...

I'm not trying to corrupt science, thats what you're doing, if anything turns out to be just what religion says then no it can't be lets change it to appear differently.....the truth is the truth...so why do you seek the atheistic truth instead of the actual truth...all the evidence is already there...

My weak mindset? You're the one rejecting and denying any POSSIBLITY of a mind independant of matter...hahaha these atheists try anything...

so Stephen Hawkings is a retard now? He believes in the MWI...
Please, give me a link showing that Stephen Hawkings supports the notion that quantum mechanics implies an immaterial soul.

I'm not trying to corrupt science, thats what you're doing, if anything turns out to be just what religion says then no it can't be lets change it to appear differently.....
You may not consciously be aware of it, but you are well entrenched in the domain of pseudo science. You take complex theories, you misinterpret their predictions and you label them as proof for pretty big claims. Science doesn't work that way.

the truth is the truth...so why do you seek the atheistic truth instead of the actual truth...all the evidence is already there...
The evidence for what, exactly? Please, try to refrain to concrete and precise terms.

My weak mindset? You're the one rejecting and denying any POSSIBLITY of a mind independant of matter...hahaha these atheists try anything...
Weak mindset? It takes some courage to look in the mirror and to realize that I'm only mortal, a flash point of life, burning out in an insanely brief time, on a little speck of accumulated dust, rotating around a relatively unremarkable ball of fire.

The next thought might be: then, let's make the best of it. Wondering about souls, gods and whatnot seems, to me, like an awful waste of the little time we have.

so Stephen Hawkings is a retard now? He believes in the MWI......If he indeed suggests that anything in the science of Quantum physics has provided evidence for god, a soul or spirit world of any kind , then yes I say he is a retard, but he doesnt!

I'm not trying to corrupt science, thats what you're doing, if anything turns out to be just what religion says then no it can't be lets change it to appear differently.....the truth is the truth...so why do you seek the atheistic truth instead of the actual truth...all the evidence is already there...No Im not trying to corrupt science, if science ever produces repeatable data for anything thiests claim, I will be one of the first to accept said claim.

My weak mindset? You're the one rejecting and denying any POSSIBLITY of a mind independant of matter...hahaha these atheists try anything...

No Im not denying any possibility of such, just present measurement for it!

Vital do you actually understand QM? do you actually understand uncertainty priciple or superposition? Or are you just repeating the words of others.

Please, give me a link showing that Stephen Hawkings supports the notion that quantum mechanics implies an immaterial soul.
Do you know what the MWI (Many-worlds interpretation) implies?


You may not consciously be aware of it, but you are well entrenched in the domain of pseudo science. You take complex theories, you misinterpret their predictions and you label them as proof for pretty big claims. Science doesn't work that way.
If thats pseudoscience then so is every interpretation of the quantum double-slit experiment from the many-worlds, copanhagen, etc...


The evidence for what, exactly? Please, try to refrain to concrete and precise terms.
Well you see there's something called the quantum double slit experiment, and right now we don't know which intepretation from the many are actually true. Some like the many-minds intepretation and the consciousness causes collapse require an immaterial mind. There's currently no evidence distinguishing which interpretation is actually true.


Weak mindset? It takes some courage to look in the mirror and to realize that I'm only mortal, a flash point of life, burning out in an insanely brief time, on a little speck of accumulated dust, rotating around a relatively unremarkable ball of fire.

The next thought might be: then, let's make the best of it. Wondering about souls, gods and whatnot seems, to me, like an awful waste of the little time we have.
Whoever said you weren't a mortal or any of that stuff you said? The weak mindset comes from denying all possibilty of a immaterial mind or a mind independant of matter existing despite the fact that there's many consciousness theories (some which have a mind not made of matter), neurologists don't know what consciousness even is, and some interpretations in QM require a mind to exist...yet to the atheist there's a 0% chance...no possibility...

If he indeed suggests that anything in the science of Quantum physics has provided evidence for god, a soul or spirit world of any kind , then yes I say he is a retard, but he doesnt!

Do you really know what the MWI implies?


No Im not trying to corrupt science, if science ever produces repeatable data for anything thiests claim, I will be one of the first to accept said claim.

Well thats good to hear.


No Im not denying any possibility of such, just present measurement for it!
You know things like zero-point energy were impossible to measure until advances in nanotechnology...measuring the mind is possible, if it really exists

Vital do you actually understand QM? do you actually understand uncertainty priciple or superposition? Or are you just repeating the words of others.
You should be asking yourself this same question. You should know well what the quantum double-slit experiment implies about the observer, superposition (all states at once)...either way you look at it the observer does affect the outcome...

Do you really know what the MWI implies?... Unlike you I know the extent of what quantum physics implies, nothing in this area of physics including quantum tunneling implies a seperate soul orwhatever other bollocks you are suggesting because of uncertainty.





You know things like zero-point energy were impossible to measure until advances in nanotechnology
But its been possible to calculate its existance for around a century. What is your point?

...measuring the mind is possible, if it really exists
If you mean the soul? Yes it is, so whereis the data?

...You should be asking yourself this same question....
No! I know I understand it. Imasking you if you have learnt quantum phyics andthereforunderstad it, or are just repeating other peoples assertions about its aspects.You should know well what the quantum double-slit experiment implies about the observer,

It implies nothing about the oberver! It merely implies the observed is changed for ever when this observation takes place..[/QUOTE]
superposition (all states at once)...either way you look at it the observer does affect the outcome...

Yes that is correct(give yourself a pat on the back). Saying that this in anyway conducive to theism though is totally spasticated.

Is 'methodology' a new buzzword you've heard from your pastors?
no
its something that is required if someone has claims of an objective phenomena however


I have always presented such to you. I have tried using logic and empirical methodology with you. I've tried using your standards of methodology(which is not as much a methoology as a 'my words must be obeyed without question, make-it-up as you go along' grandeur). Have you actually EVER looked up the word 'methodoogy' in the ditionary? because you dont appear to know what it actually means.
You cant and wont answer my questions, so your only resort left is to keep repeating the same impertinents over and over, like a spastic parrot.
fair enough
- then spit it out
what is that methodology you use , in regard to the fairies, which you claim is identical to 'whatever one" I am using?

no
its something that is required if someone has claims of an objective phenomena however?
No its not, its simply the procedure a given group take to reach an end.
Since you mentioned objectiveness though, since when has religion been objective in how it explains phenomena?



fair enough
- then spit it out
what is that methodology you use , in regard to the fairies, which you claim is identical to 'whatever one" I am using?

This is getting tiresome:

To demand you believe me without evidence ,as I am a devine prophet of the fairies . My words should not always be taken literally, I will tell you as and when and if the circumstances suit me to alter this.

Sometimes, color of an object is considered as its sprit, complexion as costitution. Probably, emitted or reflected spectrum from body at death=soul, distorted or from dead body (if no light at death)=ghost. :)

Can this be thought in science?

implanck
“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
no
its something that is required if someone has claims of an objective phenomena however?
”
No its not, its simply the procedure a given group take to reach an end.
and if the group is big enough to include everyone, you have objective reality

Since you mentioned objectiveness though, since when has religion been objective in how it explains phenomena?
the same as any other claim of objective phenomena - apply the process and get the result


“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
fair enough
- then spit it out
what is that methodology you use , in regard to the fairies, which you claim is identical to 'whatever one" I am using?
”
This is getting tiresome:

To demand you believe me without evidence ,as I am a devine prophet of the fairies . My words should not always be taken literally, I will tell you as and when and if the circumstances suit me to alter this.
then if by accepting you I never come to the point of perceiving evidence, you have no objective basis, which distinguishes you from the claims of bonafide religious paths

Sometimes, color of an object is considered as its sprit, complexion as costitution. Probably, emitted or reflected spectrum from body at death=soul, distorted or from dead body (if no light at death)=ghost. :)

Can this be thought in science?

No that is pseudoscience bullcrap,.

implanck
and if the group is big enough to include everyone, you have objective reality


the same as any other claim of objective phenomena - apply the process and get the result

then if by accepting you I never come to the point of perceiving evidence, you have no objective basis, which distinguishes you from the claims of bonafide religious paths

Oh I see 'a religion must be true if enough people follow:rolleyes: ' , but Im not a good enough prophet because I dont have enough followers?


Actually objectiveness is the quality of remaining open to evidence and not being influenced by what you want to see.

Lightgigantic: If I answer "yes" how would you know whether I was lying?
If I answer "no" how would you know whether I was lying?

Why would you lie?

LG: how do you determine the credible qualification of claims (not just theistic ones, but any claim) beyond jurisdiction (if one's personal direct perception is everything you are left with a very limited perspective of reality)

Well how do you?

LG you have skirted the issue again by referring back to scripture when I asked you for your own interpretation! You parrot scripture like a pedant as if, because it is written, you no longer need critical thinking. The last illusion posed to Arjuna was the idea of heaven and hell. You posted this:

(actually arjuna, being an associate of the lord, is already transcendental, and his forrays into what are apparently ignorance are to illustrate teachings to our conditioned consciousness)

Your consciousness is also conditioned. You cling to scripture which is also of the 'material'. I don't think you understood the process I was describing concerning the Kali sect. The buddha became the buddha when he began to question what he was taught, the scriptures and techniques and then carved his own path, his own way...at least that's the legend.

and if the group is big enough to include everyone, you have objective reality


This is the early morning joke! Right?

So the earth was once "flat" since enough people believed the earth to be flat, when they were ignorant, the flat earth was objective reality! LOL...

I think you really need to take a look at the meanings of the word, before you start using them! Your vocabulary is growing, however I don't think that you are truly grasping their meaning. First consecutive word you kept using was also misused, "espitemology" then you seem to have a hang up wiht "methodology" now it seems it's "objective" There's no such thing as an "objective religion" Now that!!! it's an OXYMORON!

Do you know what the MWI (Many-worlds interpretation) implies?
I have no idea. What does it imply?

If thats pseudoscience then so is every interpretation of the quantum double-slit experiment from the many-worlds, copanhagen, etc...
I wouldn't say every interpretation. I didn't read up on every interpretation. My point remains: if you make a big claim, then it needs evidence. Well, on the table with it. I'm dying to know, enlighten me.

Well you see there's something called the quantum double slit experiment, and right now we don't know which intepretation from the many are actually true. Some like the many-minds intepretation and the consciousness causes collapse require an immaterial mind. There's currently no evidence distinguishing which interpretation is actually true.
Expand, if you will, on "consciousness causes collapse", and how this will require an immaterial mind.

The weak mindset comes from denying all possibilty of a immaterial mind or a mind independant of matter existing despite the fact that there's many consciousness theories (some which have a mind not made of matter)
There may be many theories regarding the tooth fairy. Yet, due the glaring absence of evidence, I find the existence of a tooth fairy to be unlikely.

neurologists don't know what consciousness even is
Exactly. What we do know is that consciousness reacts on events in our observable world. For example, tinker a bit with the chemical make up of your brain, e.g. by the intake of drugs, and there you go, your consciousness is altered. No need for quantum theory here, just chemistry and an understanding of the physical nature of our brains.

some interpretations in QM require a mind to exist...
How, exactly, do they require a mind to exist?

yet to the atheist there's a 0% chance...no possibility...
The term atheist only implies a lack of belief in a god or gods. I'm not sure if it says anything about souls, by definition.

It may be that a portion of those who claim to be atheists, are doing so because they don't see the evidence for any god. Lack of evidence, for them (and me) may mean that it can be considered unlikely. On the same token, an atheist (or any other individual, for that matter) may find the evidence for a soul unconvincing.

Expand, if you will, on "consciousness causes collapse", and how this will require an immaterial mind.


.
I dont know if you have an understanding of Quantum physics('quantum mechanics', to use the old fashioned term), but its impossible to predict where in a wavefunction a partical-wave will hit('collapse'), until it has already hit('collapsed'). Many dishonest/moronic theists use this science to suggest that a supernatural power is at work. This Richard present here is using hizenburg to tell us we have a soul in this instance.

I dont know if you have an understanding of Quantum physics('quantum mechanics', to use the old fashioned term), but its impossible to predict where in a wavefunction a partical-wave will hit('collapse'), until it has already hit('collapsed').
Up to this point, I'm with you.

Many dishonest/moronic theists use this science to suggest that a supernatural power is at work. This Richard present here is using hizenburg to tell us we have a soul in this instance.
Here is where I start to get a bit confused. It may be impossible to predict what will happen, it may be that, according to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, we can't know the exact position and direction for every particle, but that in no way implies or suggests a higher power, a soul or whatnot.

It may be impossible to predict what will happen, it may be that, according to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, we can't know the exact position and direction for every particle, but that in no way implies or suggests a higher power, a soul or whatnot.
Yes indeed.

Oh I see 'a religion must be true if enough people follow:rolleyes: ' , but Im not a good enough prophet because I dont have enough followers?
erm - I think I used the word 'everyone'


Actually objectiveness is the quality of remaining open to evidence and not being influenced by what you want to see.
hence personal values are not 'objective' because 'everyone' is not open to them

Lightgigantic: If I answer "yes" how would you know whether I was lying?
If I answer "no" how would you know whether I was lying?

Why would you lie?
as the constant devil's advocate to anything I post, I guess i assumed you would disagree

still, it addresses the issue that if you adon't know how to qualify an experience you cannot determine neither its presence or absence

LG: how do you determine the credible qualification of claims (not just theistic ones, but any claim) beyond jurisdiction (if one's personal direct perception is everything you are left with a very limited perspective of reality)

Well how do you?
I was asking you, since I assume you have caught public transport in strange cities, gone to a doctor who you know nothing about with a medical complaint you know nothing about etc etc - in other words I was trying to prod you in to determining the general principles we apply by dint of everyday life as a lead in to the issue of spiritual qualification

LG you have skirted the issue again by referring back to scripture when I asked you for your own interpretation! You parrot scripture like a pedant as if, because it is written, you no longer need critical thinking. The last illusion posed to Arjuna was the idea of heaven and hell. You posted this:

(actually arjuna, being an associate of the lord, is already transcendental, and his forrays into what are apparently ignorance are to illustrate teachings to our conditioned consciousness)
critical thinking is applied to scripture to determine the thread or continuity between concepts - it gives rise to vedanta sutra (veda- knowledge, anta - the end, sutra - thread).
The basis for such critical thinking is that any statement one is claiming to be true should be backed up by a vedic statement .... like for instance

Your consciousness is also conditioned. You cling to scripture which is also of the 'material'.
..... you would have to back up your statement that scripture is material with a vedic statement (or even if you don't accept the vedas, some other scriptural statement) - otherwise its not clear why we should accept your opinions as authoratative (The obvious q being why would scripture be material when it is transcendental knowledge?)

You assert that quoting scripture is a sign of a lack of critical thinking, but even if you are reluctant to quote scripture (although it could help your argument if you quote a "materialistic" section of scripture as evidence), you should at least make clear what your critical reasoning is, otherwise we are just left with opinions that seem to edge on claims of confidence

I don't think you understood the process I was describing concerning the Kali sect. The buddha became the buddha when he began to question what he was taught, the scriptures and techniques and then carved his own path, his own way...at least that's the legend.
there is the principle that spriritual life is like flying a plane (ie solo journey), but still it is observable that there are patterns of behaviour for successful practioners (austerity, tolerance etc). In other words spiritual life is between two extremes : it doesn't necessarily hinge on having to reinvent everything like a mad artist or going through life with a set of blinkers on

This is the early morning joke! Right?

So the earth was once "flat" since enough people believed the earth to be flat, when they were ignorant, the flat earth was objective reality! LOL...
then obviously the claim that the earth is flat is not an objective claim since it didn't reach a group consensus

I think you really need to take a look at the meanings of the word, before you start using them! Your vocabulary is growing, however I don't think that you are truly grasping their meaning. First consecutive word you kept using was also misused, "espitemology" then you seem to have a hang up wiht "methodology" now it seems it's "objective" There's no such thing as an "objective religion" Now that!!! it's an OXYMORON!
then tell us what objective means you used to determine that there is no such thing as an objective religion?

then obviously the claim that the earth is flat is not an objective claim since it didn't reach a group consensus

1992 Four hundred years too late, the Catholic Church acknowledged that Galileo was right and the Earth does revolve around the sun.

1993 The supreme religious authority of Saudi Arabia, Sheik Abdel-Aziz Ibn Baaz, issued an edict, or fatwa, declaring that the world is flat.

http://www.non-religious.com/chronology.html