Fat is a type of crazy

22 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Just interested, but why do you think God has human emotions such as disappointment?

 

Among the uncountable stars and planets and life forms of the universe there must be countless disasters as entire planetary systems fall into black holes, stars run out of fuel etc etc. All part of intelligent design, IMO.

 

IMO it's a nonsense to ascribe human emotions to the creator of the universe.

I meant the person talking not god. 

33 minutes ago, Mansell said:

I am somewhat amused by your comments about people proving their knowledge of their past lives.....prove it to whom? You with your skepticism? People who have experienced these things have no reason to validate anything to anybody. They know what they experienced, and that is that. I could talk to you for an hour or more about phenomena I have experienced in various countries.....but what would be the point if your mind is closed.

As for the things in people’s houses......I know what happened etc, but why would I waste my time and energy trying to explain to you? I know what happened, and when I returned to their house they told me that the ghost/entity was gone. Their words, not mine. One guy who was actually owner of a landscape gardening business who we employed to handle a few gardens and mansions the church owned.....we were talking one day and he brought up about something in his house....even said his friends would come over for a football game and beers, and they said to him, “There is something here in your house, we can feel it.” He mentioned that he and his wife had talked about this themselves. So I asked him if he would like me to come over and see if I can get it to leave, and he said Yes. So I rolled over with another minister, I am also an ordained minister. We moved through the house praying and carrying lit candles, and told the ghost/entity it was okay to leave etc. A few weeks later the man was at our properties, and while talking I asked him about the entity. He said it was gone from the day we were there. I was happy to hear that. He offered me money, but I told him he could give some to the spiritual based church if he wished.

Now here’s one that will blow your mind. I was having lunch at the church building with some fellow ministers, and I recounted some of my experiences with entities.....this isn’t anything unusual to us, and one lady told me she was working to get an entity to leave and it physically bit her on the shoulder.....it scared her and she ran out of the house. Now this was a new one for me, I had no idea they could physically attack you.

I have lots more stories around these things, but I’m not here to entertain you. But just understand that what you see here is what is called “the ten percent level.” There are things going on all the time which most people have no awareness of at all. There are also people, men and women who can see and do things beyond the average person’s understanding here on the earth. Skepticism is fine.....but keep fifty percent of your mind open otherwise all these things will pass you by.

 

I liked the positivity of your posts..and of course you don't have to prove a thing. It is not to prove it to some guy on Thaivisa, but if provable, to change the world. So I can get a bit defensive about big claims and think .. don't talk about it .. prove it. If someone claims they are reincarnated  it seems particularly provable . If it's not provable you could ask yourself if you can be sure it is a thing. I guess life isn't that simple.

I feel sometimes my posts can come across a bit black and white and I don't mean for that to be the case. 

2 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

noun: hubris

excessive pride or self-confidence.

"the self-assured hubris among economists was shaken in the late 1980s"

Similar:

arrogance

conceit

conceitedness

haughtiness

pride

vanity

self-importance

self-conceit

pomposity

superciliousness

feeling of superiority

hauteur

uppitiness

big-headedness

Opposite:

modesty

(in Greek tragedy) excessive pride toward or defiance of the gods, leading to nemesis.

 

I'd like to have some opinions about "hubris " ,just for fun.

Does the people in some countries,  or geographical area, have more or less "hubris " ?

I find Thais to be fairly modest. Their religion is a way of life and that seems to help in terms of believing they are part of something bigger.  

As religions become less, the young may think there's no god to punish them or that karma is not the reality, and  hubris  can take hold and they may initially  forget what it is to care and be careful based on fear. The lack of teaching the positives of religion too may leave a gap in peoples feeling of community. It's up to the non religious to replace the fear of retribution and the good parts of religion with good reasons to be fair and helpful and nice. There's always death and potential illness to bring people back to earth.  

Better I think to learn good from bad through life experience, and known reality, than by faith based teaching based on fear and hope. 

On 6/20/2021 at 2:03 AM, Neeranam said:

This guy has an intersting take on God. 

 

Do you think a new representation of god is coming. I wonder if he would be dissapointed with how things turned out. I am interested what resonates with you about what he says.

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Given that none of us even agree what "God" is, and it's not possible to find out this side of death, I don't see how God can be proven or not.

I don't even understand why a non believer would care enough to keep trying to "prove" to believers that God does not exist. It's not like we are going to try to do nasty things to them, for not believing, is it?

Perhaps it's some sort of challenge, or they had a bad experience at Sunday school.

For sure, just saying "science can't prove the existence of God, so God doesn't exist" thousands of times isn't going to change any minds, is it?

Far as I can see, some believe that God doesn't exist because bad things happen, which isn't much of an argument, IMO.

Fair point. Today's post is not to prove or disprove god. It is just an exercise in logic. Something to think about for 5 minutes  in between doing my job. And what else is there to post about. Most posts on this site are constant whining about the covid response by government. Someone says something the same as yesterday and the day before and gets 50 likes.

The post I referred to gave reasons why people might believe in god and I gave reasons as to why these reasons might not amount to much. The aim is not to prove god doesn't exist but just to set aside reasons that people think are evidence of his existence so the argument can move to a more interesting discussion. I concur that just saying god doesn't exist is as boring as someone saying I believe in god with no further detail or nuance.

10 hours ago, OmegaRacer said:

Found this on Quora and found it relevant to the discussion:

 

What are the logical / scientific reasons to believe in the existence of God?

 

There are a few logical reasons, some with scientific bases, to believe in the existence of God. Here are some of them:

 

1.    The fine tuning of the universe to our existence. This is what convinced Anthony Flew, perhaps the leading atheist thinker of the second half of the 20th century, to decide that he was wrong and God exists. The argument is that somewhere between six and a dozen constants of nature are so finely tuned for our existence that random processes cannot account for it. (We are talking about probabilities of one divided by ten to a power of hundreds or even thousands of digits.) The counter argument is the infinite multiverse with an infinite number of local bubbles. If you get an infinite number of shots at even the lowest probability event, the event will happen an infinite number of times. The evidence for a multiverse is very thin, but not zero.

 

2.    Human consciousness. Truth is we don’t have a clue as to what human consciousness is. The mechanical electro-chemical explanations are not very convincing. How does a chemical moving across a synapse in some kind of energy exchange create a thought? If I hold two wires connected to a battery near one another and get a spark between them, did I just create a “thought?” Doesn’t feel like I did. Maybe human consciousness is on a higher level than science. The counterargument is that thought is just the whirring of the brain’s machinery and has no reality independent of the whirring. One of the most prominent atheists or our times, Daniel Dennett - a member of the so called Four Horseman of New Atheism, was so troubled by the problem of human consciousness that he insisted that it does not actually exist and that thinking is just an illusion. What do you think about Dennett’s counterargument? Oh wait, if he is right you don’t think at all.

 

3.    The mathematical structure of the universe and our ability to understand it. The equations that govern everything in the universe can be written in longhand on two 8 1/2 x 11 inch pieces of paper. Why is the universe so ordered and mathematical? There is no fundamental reason for this. It could just as easily be chaotic at a profound level if there is no purpose to the order. Princeton professor Eugene Wigner ranks among the important physicists of the twentieth century, winning the Nobel prize in 1963. He wrote a frequently noted 1960 article on “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences.” Speaking bluntly and candidly, Wigner acknowledged that the mathematical foundations of the natural world are a true “miracle” that lies outside any scientific understanding itself. Indeed, as he further explained, it seemed to him that there are actually “two miracles,” first the very “existence of [mathematical] laws of nature” and a second miracle “of the human mind’s capacity to divine them.” Wigner thus considered as implausible any suggestion that the electrical and chemical workings of the physical brains of human beings could have created the complex abstractions—themselves lacking any physical reality—of higher mathematics of the kind routinely used by physicists. Why is the human mind that evolved to be good at calculating the trajectory of spears being thrown at mammoths able to grasp everything from the Planck length (the incredibly smallest possible sub-atomic distance in physics) to our Big Bang-produced universe that is probably 156 billion light years across (including the bigger region beyond the light horizon)? Jesus said to love God not only with our hearts but with our minds. Maybe God is a mathematician and our ability to understand his math is what “in his image means.” The counterargument is we were just lucky that the universe randomly turned out to be mathematically ordered because if it hadn’t we wouldn’t be here to contemplate it and our ability to understand it is the result of a long series of random beneficial DNA mutations that while not helping us to down mammoths, didn’t hurt our ability to do so.

 

4.    Human conscience. The argument is that human beings in every culture throughout history have felt the desire to behave well and do the right thing toward other human beings. Cruelty and wanton self-interest are viewed as aberrations, even being deemed a mental illness (sociopathic behavior). Most cultures, no matter how separated in time and space from ancient Judaism, have moral codes that overlap significantly with the Ten Commandments. Why are all human beings drawn to similar standards of good behavior? The famous mathematician, Blaise Pascal, first referred to this concept as an abyss in the heart that can only be filled with God. (Modern writers have rephrased this to be the “God shaped hole in our hearts.”) The counterargument is that human conscience evolved because benevolent societies had a reproduction and survival advantage over more self-centered societies.

Atheists holding to the current views of the state of physics believe that all of observable reality is the result of an initial random fluctuation in the pre-Big Bang vacuum energy that led to a multiverse that spawned our local Big Bang in a process that randomly determined the constants of nature in the resulting local bubble which along with early random quantum particle fluctuations necessary to seed star formation in the early plasma after the Big Bang led to a chaotic process of particle collisions cascading through billions of years that created everything we are and see. As Rupert Sheldrake famously said in his book the Science Delusion, “Give us one free miracle and we will explain the rest.”

Believers hold the view that God had a purpose in creating the universe and us, however it was he went about it including possibly every law, constant, and event in the current views of physics and biology, and we should learn that purpose to the best of our abilities.

Both positions are positions of faith. You can’t prove either one is right. Two different people, both rational and well-meaning, can look at the arguments and counterarguments above and come to different conclusions.

 

Longing seems to permeate the debate. Longing colors everyone’s perceptions of the evidence. Atheists long for the intellectual and moral freedom that they interpret a universe with no creator gives them. Then they try to bravely accept the attendant purposelessness that would characterize human life. Believers long for a universe in which our lives count for something.

So it boils down to this: what do you long for?
(Answer by David Seuss)

My 2 cents...again.

Point 1.  Life adapted to the conditions it found. We find tuned to it not it to us.

Point 2.  Though I have no idea how it works it doesn't seem that difficult for me to believe it is part of the physical body.  I see dogs dream and ants work stuff out.  If we see - there is the seen and the seer. An individual life form differentiating between the two seems just a further step that life would work out.

Point 3.  It's not surprising in a sense that, if there is stuff, that it consistently works in a certain way. If it didn't that may indicate a god more than if it does. The maths of the parabolic movement of a spear could be seen as  a bigger step than some of the more complex stuff later since it required a scientific way of thinking not common at the time. 

Point 4 I have done some average things to people . Not that bad but a bit bad. Later I copped the same. So I worked out it's better if we are nice. No god required. 

27 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Btw, I'm almost sure this isn't yet been said in this long thread...

Apparently all of the cells which compose our physical body, including the brain, have a short life, and die, to be replaced by new cells. 

It takes about 7 years for all cells to be completely replaced, that way, every 7 years or so, we are physically another being.

Yet, the memory of our past and our consciousness are not affected by that complete physical change.

This is a serious clue,  imho, that consciousness is not originated by the brain, but exists regardless of our physical existence. 

Human organs are similarly replicated. No need to rely on some non physical presence to accept how organs keep functioning over the years so same for memories I think.  You have taken an amazing fact of physical humanity and felt the need to attribute it to a non physical presence.

3 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

I recall stating many pages ago in this thread, that God exists as a construct of the human mind. If one expands upon this concept, it seems undeniable to me that everything, without exception, that humans can think about, perceive, talk about and express in any way, are constructs of the human mind.

When we mention the 'Laws of Physics', there is usually an assumption that such 'laws' are embedded in the external reality of the universe, and that we humans, through the scientific process, have discovered such laws, which exist independent of us. However, the concept of a 'law', whether in the legal context or the scientific context, is still a 'construct of the human mind', and as we know from the history of scientific enquiry, science is never settled and every 'so-called law' is subject to change or modification.

 

The unique characteristic of humans, amongst the animal kingdom, is our greater capacity for language and abstract thought. Mathematics is an example of this abstract thought, which has been essential for all scientific and economic progress.
It is difficult to deny that 1+1=2, in abstract mode, or in terms of the practical reality that most humans experience, attributing simple words to objects that appear to be the same but in reality are different.

 

For example, (one human being) + (one human being) = 2 human beings. However, we know that every human being is different to some degree. Even 'so-called identical twins' are not really identical. In fact there are no two objects that are completely identical. They are just 'similar' to varying degrees.

 

Common language uses a very rough and approximate degree of similarity when applying the same name to objects which, in reality, are different. Science has to be much more precise, hence the huge number of scientific words or terms in the many disciplines of science.
One might think that at a fundamental level, such as the atom, there are identical objects. For example, the nucleus of an atom contains neutrons and protons bonded tightly together. However, the same chemical element can have a different number of neutrons, but still have the same name, as in 'Carbon'; but science digs deeper and finds there are about 15 different isotopes of Carbon with a different number of neutrons, although the most common variants are Carbon 12, 13 and 14.

 

One might ask, are two Carbon 12 atoms identical? The answer is 'No'. The electrons, protons and neutrons in the nucleus of any atom are in various states of excitement, and the nucleus as a whole can rotate and vibrate at various speeds.

 

In other words, there are no two objects in the world that are truly and completely identical. Mathematics is a an abstract, human construct, which is extremely useful, but still a human construct.

 

Hope my post is not too profound for you all.  ????
 

You have noted science is a best fit by humans. Also that 2 atoms, objects, people etc, are categorised by certain characteristics, that link them though they are not exactly the same.  I get your point but I am not sure what you think the implication of this is as it relates to god.

Maybe it is the old elephant example where different religions come to the elephant from a different angle and interpret it in different ways - leg, trunk, etc. A human construct. That assumes there is an elephant in the room at all and they are not touching a part of themselves that they have lost touch with and thinking it is god.  

51 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Did you expect to "live" a past life or experience an out of body experience, and because not up to expectations dismiss it as "nothing much"?

My spiritual experiences are pretty much just appreciating sunsets and scenery, so one might say that they are "not much" too.

IMO the problems for some are that if a burning bush doesn't  speak to them they think spirituality doesn't exist.

 

So far on this thread, reasons not to believe are that God is mean for letting people get sick and die; because bad people use religion to do bad things; because miracles are not performed like party tricks on demand; and because primitive human science isn't able to "prove" the existence of God.

 

If that is the benchmark for believing, then there isn't much hope for enlightenment, IMO. It's almost as though some are afraid to believe because if they did they might have to give up bad behaviour or some such.

 

 

So what should the benchmark be. A sunset makes you feel good and therefore god exists.

Reincarnation doesn't make sense to me. But you are right to say that the fact I couldn't find my past life in a one hour session doesn't mean I should dismiss it out of hand. It did seem to be cobblers but I keep an open mind. Time is limited and we all make priorities based on what we see as the odds of a particular path leading to a happier life. Studying or meditating long hours on this stuff is  something that does not appeal. However I think by having an awareness and openness to new things can help. But being open doesn't mean taking a leap of faith if it does not feel correct and the evidence is not there to back it up.  

Why does modern music sound boring to those who lived in the 60's to 80's era. Fashion and trends in general seem a bit unoriginal too. 

Theories

Older ears get tired. When your 5 or 10 you are hearing the music with a young person's passion and freshness. It's all in the future so someone singing about love resonates. 

We've heard it before. When I was a kid I liked certain bands but older people could have said 'Yeah that song is just a rehash of something from the 50's or 60's.'

The pop and rock bucket is empty.  

Electric guitars and synthesisers and modern life seemed to bring out new forms of music - rock and pop. There's only so many beats and chord combinations and it's been done. Rap was a new pathway- I was listening to Die Antwoord last night -crazy fun. For classic top 40  pop and rock maybe by the mid eighties the bucket was empty. Good songs since then but not so original. 

Music is a product of the times

People stopped writing 'classic' classical music in the 20th century - maybe it didn't fit modern life. Like Victorian architecture being taken over by modern architecture. I don't like a lot of modern classical music or modern architecture but things change over time. The kids live  a different life to us - what can sound boring and predictable music to us might fit there social media world. I do note a lot of kids listen to older music too. 

In terms of movies I think your on the wrong tram there - a movie is just someone telling a story and there have been of course amazing movies, TV series etc up till now. 

On 6/18/2021 at 11:02 PM, jvs said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJeWySiuq1I

I still put on this whole album. A beauty. They became a bit grandiose and boring after this in my opinion but this album, and the stuff he did with other bands like Visage, was the best of early eighties pop. 

My story. 22 and in the Gili islands off the coast of Lombok. Met a swedish girl..I was travelling overland to Timor and she was going to Bali. Spent a few days together. As we parted she gave me a name of a girl in Australia who could go into past lives. This girl was the girlfriend of a lead singer in an Australian band that had some  hits of a spiritual nature. 

I saw her, she was pretty,  and she took me into the back room and said I should lie down and think I am on a river floating and let my mind go. She talked about stuff and pictures did come into my mind of a person from hundreds of years ago. $50 please. I felt weird for the next few days.  

It was fun but the pictures I got were nothing much. That adds to my opinion that it is not a thing. 

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

In my story, the university represents all that we call "spirituality". There are many courses/ways to the Self, many teachers showing different paths to the same goal and just as many methodologies. 
 

Again, Hatha Yoga (the one you're talking about) is a type of yoga that uses the physical body as a means of union with the divine. But that's just one of many yoga types, and most other types are not physical.

 

Also, the brain is physical. It can be measured, tested and observed with all sorts of devices. The mind is not physical.

Traditionally, scientists have tried to define the mind as the product of brain activity: The brain is the physical substance, and the mind is the conscious product of those firing neurons, according to the classic argument. But growing evidence shows that the mind goes far beyond the physical workings of your brain. https://qz.com/866352/scientists-say-your-mind-isnt-confined-to-your-brain-or-even-your-body/

And consciousness is even less physical. If it were, then science would actually know what it is and where it comes from by now.
Despite millennia of analyses, definitions, explanations and debates by philosophers and scientists, consciousness remains puzzling and controversial,^[2] being "at once the most familiar and most mysterious aspect of our lives".^[3] Perhaps the only widely agreed notion about the topic is the intuition that it exists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness

 

 

Correct, and not only in regards to reincarnation. Any attempt to establish a truly comprehensive map of the truth/life/existence/world, must include all of the human experiences, even if they are messy, uneasy and appear chaotic.

 

Plenty of research has been done in this field, by actual scientists. I remember one doctor, who started researching this subject and interviewing many people who claimed to have had past life experiences, after some of his patients had near death experiences. I don't remember his name or the name of his book, but I'm sure you can google it and I'm sure there are plenty of other such resources. One only has to look... 
Will they satisfy your skepticism though? I doubt it.

There, found it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Stevenson
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/18/health/psychology/18stevenson.html

And another one:
For the past 20 years, Dr. Jim Tucker, now the director of the Division of Perceptual Studies, has focused mainly on cases found in the United States. His book Return to Life offers accounts of very strong American cases of young children who remember previous lives. In this book, Dr. Tucker writes about the now well-known cases of James Leininger, a young boy who had verifiable past-life memories of being a WWII pilot, and Ryan Hammons, who had verifiable memories of being a Hollywood extra and talent agent.
https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/our-research/children-who-report-memories-of-previous-lives/
and
https://uvamagazine.org/articles/the_science_of_reincarnation

I think this sort of post is where the debate about god can get interesting.

There is no doubt lack of certainty about the mind and consciousness and how it works. My opinion is that it is likely to be physical as one affects the other  but I concur it is to be proven what is going on. Similarly with yoga I think it is physical, for similar reasons, but I guess if we don't fully understand conscious thought, then neither of us can say we know for sure what happens in the mind body process. 

I just had a brief look at the Ian Stevenson wiki page and the James Leilinger case so comments are going to be admittedly based on not much . Both interesting thanks.

I do note that the doctor is clearly not a quack and there is some praise, but also some fairly detailed criticisms, of Ian Stevenson on that page.  

If James Leilinger is the poster boy for these types of stories then I'd say it is interesting but there's plenty of scope for doubt.

The child played with planes and had nightmares - many young boys do. He did come up with some interesting statements, according to the parents, but they seem limited. 

The child was interested in planes and war before his statement about the past life. Was his interest in planes due to the past life or is it a kid interested in planes who has an imagination.. possibly egged on by his father.  

Why couldn't the child just tell the story - I was a pilot, I lived at this address, my wife was Mary and her nickname is Happy, I had a dog called Jim etc etc.

Instead he has just a few details mainly related to the plane crash that came up after visiting a War Museum. What started as a story by the son, could have been reinforced between  father and son, until it becomes a thing. I could not see indications the boy had been taken aside, away from his parents,  and came up with startling new evidence.

It could be, for example,  that only a few memories could come from a past life and this could explain his limited recollection. But, except for mentioning the name of an aircraft carrier, and a few other limited statements according to the parents, it does not appear to be a compelling case.  

21 minutes ago, Mansell said:

When you are dealing with reincarnation personal experience is valid......personal experience is pretty much valid with most things. But if your a skeptic like your name then all you can do is argue. I know people who have experienced their past lives while living now, and in much detail. Many of us are free thinkers and see this world differently than the skeptics and atheists do. If the proof bit you on the ass you would still find a way to deny it, or use words to rationalize your point of view. I have had experiences in this world that your ilk would think I was crazy. I have removed what you might call a ghost, but is actually a disincarnate entity, from people houses. They had experienced them and their friends knew there was something in the house......so they invited me in to get it to leave. And it worked. But you would have to find something in your world as a reference point to deny what I am telling you. And that is fine. One day your consciousness will be open to many of the unusual phenomena that happens every day. Until then you can wrap yourself in science and validate your belief system. I will continue on my spiritual path learning something new, hopefully daily.

You believe what you believe and say that the truth about god comes from personal experience. Not something that can be debated but it's fine.

In this post you say you know many people who have experienced their past lives while living now and in much detail. That should be provable - speaking different languages, verifiable facts about locations and people in the past or just giving a detailed description of the way of life. Forget the word science if it turns you off. Just get them to be tested by someone objective. One might suggest if they remember their past lives they should have many details rather than just 'I lived in Rome and wore a toga'. 

You say there was something in the house and it left. Your claim. Now let's see your evidence.

 If it's true it's true and you should have evidence.

Truth doesn't mean some vague videos where a hippy said he was a dog or one of those dodgy ghost hunter shows. 

 ...  in another, I was Elvis.

Was that nickname after 1956 Elvis, or 1967 Elvis, or 1977 Elvis. 

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

A man who does not know what a university is, goes to his town's university, looks at the building, walks around it, measures it, looks at all the details like doors, windows and decorations. Eventually, he claims to finally "know" what a university is all about. It's "just" a big building with a nice garden, he says. Nothing much to it.

 

Everyone who has ever studied at a university though, really knows that it's much more than that, and no simplistic definition will every explain the countless hours spent there, the knowledge imparted from the teachers to the students, the "ahaa" moments when something new has been realized and learnt, the joys and suffering of years of study.

 

The same way, materialists watch a few YouTube videos or read a few articles online about spirituality, and think they gathered enough information to build their opinions upon. 

You hear them say "It's just wishful thinking", "It's meaningless balm for the weak minded", "It's all mumbo jumbo".

 

If you tell them they should go inside the university and actually take a few courses in order to really understand what they're so easily dismissing, you will get all sorts of excuses...no time, no interest, too much effort and and and. 

Yet, they still feel entitled to disguise their opinions based on incomplete data as scientific fact.

 

Makes one wonder who the weak minded and weak willed people really are.

What is the university and who are the teachers and what is their methodology in your example. Is it god? A particular text? A book on yoga? 

For yoga I accept that it has all sorts of positive effects and they are physical in my opinion. The mind and consciousness is physical. 

Control of breathing, flexibility, diet and  exercise can affect peace of the mind and focus, and that can in turn lead to good decisions in life including doing exercise etc.

On the other hand life experience such as hard word, or charitable work, or taking drugs and girls, and being good or bad, might help some on their path to a better life. 

The transfer back and forth  between all these thoughts, feelings, dreams, experiences, moral dilemmas,  and actual movement, I feel are physical. 

Therefore  that university would have to show me something beyond this and that in fact there is something non physical and provide evidence in that regard. 

I have noticed a trend towards cans in premium beers in Australia. In Australia many cans are still 375 ml or sometimes bigger. I like bottles but like cans too. Easier to carry a box to the car. 

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

?????????????????

People are lonely because they don't have intimate relationships or good friends. Nothing to do with science.

Loneliness isn't necessarily about having people around you but about being misunderstood.  Someone might feel that way if they felt they had made a finding in their life about something, e.g.  relating to the nature of god, but others were skeptical, indifferent or hostile.  A solution as you suggest may be to join a community of like minded folk e.g. spiritual types, new agers and hippies, religions etc. Depending if that theory matched your theory. 

8 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

I think it's the other way around actually. ???? 

As long as we concur  it's all science, that should be consistent and testable, even if we can't do so for all theories at this stage. 

10 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Since time immemorial, those who don't follow the stream have to accept some degree of loneliness. 

I find nothing wrong with that, it's a win-win... materialists are not interested in my reasoning,  and I'm not really interested in their opinions ????

There was a time, many years ago, when i was practicing some yoga breathing techniques,  and i remember one morning at a supermarket,  being able to see the colors of people's thoughts. 

I was extremely disappointed,  and quite surprised,  definitely, i see my loneliness as a blessing. 

To me yoga is physical. To put some spiritual thing on top it is to have faith and to put a construct over the top of, or to make an assumption, that might get in the way of yoga. Physical lungs. Physical body. To me the unusual experiences or thoughts that might be experienced are due to a clearing of the mind and balancing the mind and body. Similar to dreams. 

Same as if I don't do strong physical exercise I note a change in my self  for the worse. 

10 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Sorry, but it's obvious that,  on average, the working lives of the common folks have become more comfortable in the last centuries ( the increased longevity supports that ) , but i don't see how materialism has lost any power. Quite the opposite imho.

I am aware that the only way is forward, but using and abusing technology without strong moral ethics is a recipe for disaster.

That's why materialistic science and spiritual science should be friends and not enemies. 

I think materialistic science encompasses the concept of spiritual science. Think of Steiner as an ideas person, an artist, who shook the tree of how things were done and came up with some good notions, wild imaginings and some bad science.

I still think everything is stuff even if a form of energy or something else so covered by the one and only science. 

If you feel that you dream into some other realm and experience something unique you may have to accept a certain loneliness - a loneliness borne from your illusions or a loneliness coming from the fact that scientific technology can't go there yet.  Or find a way to be able to test and calculate and provide evidence for your own experiences and prove that it's a thing. 

1 hour ago, KhaoYai said:

Is the government still making those payments?  I may not have understood her correctly or she could be wrong but my wife told me there was a cap on the total payout, that's been reached so its finished.  Not that everyone got any anyway - there didn't seem to be any criteria for being able to claim the cash, it seemed to be a first come, first served handout.  Out of 7 adults in my wife's immediate family, 1 got the 5000 per month payment, I think for 3 months last year - since then nobody's had anything.

Sounds right The government can borrow cheap money but whether it's going to the people who need it like in Australia is a different thing. My girlfriend is in Ubon and people she knows don't seem to get much if anything after a payment some time ago as you say