Fat is a type of crazy

9 hours ago, Neeranam said:

If anyone believes in God/Karma, I'd like their opinion - 

 

It would obviously be morally and/or Karmically bad if I killed someone. I think it would also be bad killing the soi dogs outside my house. I have no issue killing an ant or mosquito. 

Where does one draw the line?  

Personally, I would draw it around a fish or a frog. What say ye philosophers?

 

 

I am with you on that. My girlfriend is a buddhist and she is so careful not to kill anything and certainly does not eat meat. Others say they are buddhists and eat meat and drink and this and that. Hard to say this is actual buddhism but maybe the kharmic laws look at your intention and it's better to be on the path bit by bit.

The line could be not the type of animal but the threat it poses to you. If you are attacked by a tiger or bees or mosquitoes maybe there is a justification. Soi dogs are more a nuisance than a threat so it is hard.  

The line could be the minimum you can eat for survival. If you lived somewhere with no edible plants but lots of fish maybe that is OK because your life depends on it. 

The line could be awareness or conciousness of the eaten thing. Frogs are aware so may be no frogs. New tests show plants react to things and in a sense learn and may have a form of consciousness so maybe without drawing a line you can't eat anything and you die. On that basis too if a human is  brain dead and has no awareness or consciousness you could eat him.

22 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

I believe God is everything,  and the source of everything, including science and "things ".

I also think we should separate the concept of science, as research for knowledge,  from the arrogant,  brainwashed folks who claim that "science knows everything ".

If God wanted us to live the simple life of animals, we would not have such an inquisitive mind and such a powerful imagination. 

It's up to us to make good use of these gifts.

 

 

I haven't seen a post that says 'Science knows everything'. I have seen posts saying that such an opinion is the opposite of science. 

Comparing pseudo science skeptics to evangelicals is also not fair. The first is just saying there's no proof so it is not science but good luck in your endeavors  - no leap of faith required - the second is saying I know that which is correct and you must follow me and the one true faith or go to hell.

Critics of psuedo science aren't saying that all of it is  definitely not correct but they are critical of people who talk as though it is correct without proof.

I would just get a tourist visa for 2 or 3 months. Hire an apartment and see how it goes. Go to a gym, date , get into new habits. An older guy with a superannuation fund who doesn't drink much and is easy going will be popular among thai women. Not just ones who want to rip you off but women who want stability, to be looked after, and are sick of a certain sort of Thai man.

I am in a similar position to you and spent two months in Thailand once in an apartment.  It's not that long but it gave me a taste of retirement. Had a motorbike. Went to gym and had the beach not too far. Good food each night. Had a girlfriend who was fun. Still can watch tv and play internet the same or similar to as before. It's a good life.  Hope to do it for six months a year in five years or so. 

42 minutes ago, Miami007 said:

In your analysis you are omitting European countries - some had strict and some not so strict Lockdowns. Results similar.. just different times for deaths to occur.

But the biggest omission is the disregard of economic suffering for the country and the impact on citizens not being able to return or even leave the country. We criticized the Soviet Union in the 1980s for these restrictions 

I have been separated from my girlfriend in Thailand for a year. I do hope they relax the travel rules as soon as is possible. I am sick of wearing masks. I am working from home and only have to wear them shopping so no big deal. My take on it is that there is a good reason that does make sense so I cop it. What was the reason in the Soviet Union in the 80's - just another dictator who wouldn't let people out I am guessing. 

Some individual businesses have been destroyed by this. You could say that from time to time in Australia they have gone a bit far sometimes with the rules and regulations.

By far though the majority of Australian people have been looked after on jobkeeper and jobseeker payments. Businesses have had similar payments. Particular businesses from hardest hit industries have received grants. The economy is now good. It's not a perfect outcome but overall it is a good outcome. 

You  might have a point about Europe. The different countries have different strategies and  I am not familiar with their outcomes. I think a comparison between Australia and the United States is fair. Different conditions for sure but the difference in outcome is so significant the strategies taken are likely to be a key factor.

25 minutes ago, Naguu said:

It is true that China and Russia are totalitarian states. But ... Here we discuss the pandemic and how to deal with it. Asian states have prevented the pandemic from spreading much better than Western democracies. This is a fact that Western countries are reluctant to acknowledge. People still live in a world of imagination where all things are done right only in the West. It can also be seen in this vaccine debate. I am a strong supporter of demogratian, but the pandemic has shown the weaknesses of Western demogratian to prevent the spread of the pandemic. After all your own mistakes, it is pointless to blame China, for example. Countries could have closed borders a year ago and life would be normal as well as free.

I take your point. The post I was referring to I felt went a bit further than just saying we shouldn't blame China, or that China handled the pandemic well,  and said that it isn't fair for Australia to criticise China as totalitarian. The inference being that Australians had to deal with human rights abuses similar or worse than in China. I strongly disagree with that. 

I'll defend Australia's actions in the pandemic. People may argue the lockdowns were a bit harsh but, linked with targetted government support such as jobkeeper payments, it saved a lot of lives and kept many people and businesses going to the point that the Australian economy is doing well with few covid deaths. 

I'll take an imperfect democracy than a totalitarian regime even if it may at times be less efficient. 

I googled demogration but it's not a word - not trying to be smart just wasn't sure what you meant - probably democracies.

My additional 2 cents is that you have to enjoy life and eat what you want - but what you want can be based on your current habits. If you are sitting in front of a computer or TV most of the day you are more likely to want comfort food all the time. If you do lots of exercise in a way that is hopefully fun it will more likely to be fun to eat healthy and some fried chicken sweets and beer won't be an issue.

If your starting point is https://forum.thaivisa.com/ then it's all under different topics e.g. you'll only find Cambodia stories in the Cambodia section. The advertorial stories are  marked as such at the top after you click into each topic. There's never a problem to know what's what. For some reason you are seeing something different.

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Unfortunately science can't prove or disprove spirituality/ God, so while people may try and use it for such it's actually irrelevant, IMO.

 

The one thing that IMO links religion and spirituality is HOPE. Both give us hope that we don't just vanish into dust and everything we ever did is as nothing. To believe that is IMO to believe that we are pointless, and our lives mean nothing. It's no wonder IMO that as the western world loses any belief in God and an after life, our societies are become chaos and disaster, in which only money has any meaning, and in fact money is worshiped, as it is, IMO. Not for nothing does the Bible warn against greed and usery.

Apologies if my last post was a bit dire.

I had to look up ursery - charging an excessive interest - that's a bit obscure.

There is probably a bit more inequality in some western countries than say, 30 years ago, but in Asia and Africa things are much better. Once you go back further, into the world of a powerful church and royal families and a much more class based system, it just gets worse and worse. 

Some say to believe we turn to dust just emphasises the importance of living a full life and doing good if possible. I hope you didn't have to climb a mountain to escape the tsunami warning in New Zealand. Thankfully nothing came. 

25 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

So why bring science up in a thread about God? IMO it's off topic.

 

If religion and spirituality holds the same interest for you as chewing gum on the pavement, I fail to understand why you are even commenting. The topic is about God, not science.

At least atheists were on topic.

I think science is relevant because there is a constant interplay in our minds between accepting the known reality of what science tells us and believing in either a god, or some sort of spirituality, or that we are special in some way. I am not saying either is correct but belief, as against hope or an interest in the latter, does require the leap of faith away from science. 

I think everyone goes through that conflict through life of wanting to believe either they are special, or there is a god, be they atheist or a committed christian. It may even take the form of momentary hope that passes by as logic takes hold.

It's not easy or palatable to constantly believe you are a dying piece of meat that becomes dust which I guess is what current scientific theory tells us we are. 

I  doubt that the bigger airlines would not offer a refund or voucher if they are cancelling the flight. Give them a call - if it is Thai Smile as you infer, which is owned by the same company as Thai Airways,  you'll get a credit or a refund for sure. 

2 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Thanks for the reasoned response, so much better to discuss it in an intelligent way than with someone like Chomper who just screams "Racist" all the time.

 

Personally I think it's the thin end of the wedge and shouldn't happen. I also think that Sainsbury's are doing it to prove how 'right on' they are and this will have no meaningful effect to the workers. If they want to help workers, pay them a decent wage (irrespective of race). If there is racism within the company, stamp down on it hard on a case by case basis.

 

I also think that if they set up an only group for White employees only, the reaction would be different and I dislike the double standard.

 

With respect, the UK is not Australia where the aboriginal people are the natives, and it's not the US with the history of slavery. Generally in the UK whites and blacks work together, have relationships together, play sport together, drink together with very few issues and I don't support this type of policy which I see as divisive and regressive. It panders to identity politics and there is more than a whiff of critical race theory in there.

 

Back to the topic of this thread, I also don't think that Sainsbury's should be telling customers that if they disagree with these controversial policies then shop elsewhere. They are a retailer with a responsibility to their shareholders and should stick to telling customers about their 2 for 1 offers on Cabbages, not how they should think about social/racial issues.

As an aside my department has just set up a thing for elder prejudice so us older and mainly white public servants approaching retirement are the focus.

I think it's OK if its done right.

I take your point - Australia doesn't have a lot of that stuff - it seems in the states businesses can get corny and gratuitous and over the top in the way they show there wokeness. 

19 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

This is classic. Allow me to summarize.

 

First you support Racial segregation, thinking it was 'real spaces'.

 

Then you deny it exists.

 

Then when provided links, you say Racial segregation is fine as long as it's only online. ????

 

Maybe you'd also be OK with White only versions of Twitter and FaceBook with no Blacks allowed? Maybe you'd prefer to ban Asians from posting on ThaiVisa so us Whities have a safe space? That's all good, nothing divisive there. Because racial segregation doesn't count if it's online ????. Wow. Maybe you'd have been happier in 1950's Oklahoma?

I work for the Australian government and they have special programs for aborigine employees whereby they can get support and maybe meet together and work with mentors who may be aborigines who have been successful.

It is common too to have women's only functions whereby women can speak freely and talk about how to succeed with issues that particularly affect women. Having an online platform, if I am reading that right, to discuss issues that may affect a part of the population, doesn't seem such a big deal and not segregation.

It may be hard to be a black worker in supermarkets in the UK sometimes. They are a minority. Whites are not. If prejudice against ugly red heads was a thing maybe they could have their own safe space.   

Blacks too may be massively under represented in management. They certainly don't deserve a cosseted work place, or a  free pass into management, but if there given a bit of help and support to talk about their particular issues with each other then who is being hurt. 

I take your point that their may be some virtually signaling but  it surely could have positive side effects ..

17 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Yes and no.

Science in the way you mean it, can test only material reality. 

The next stage is to realise that matter can be described, for a lack of better words, as "condensed thought ".

According to spiritual science,  "thought" is as real as matter, although "thought " cannot be dissected with a knife, or examined with a microscope. 

I hope I am not repeating myself. Probably am.

If both you and ThaiBeachLovers  say 'I believe in God and I believe that one day it is likely to be provable but science isn't up to the job now' then, I think it is a fair position for a believer who has faith in a god. This is because you are accepting established science as valid, but just feel it needs new tools to do its job, and you personally consider that the benefits to you of belief, i.e. that step into faith,  is warranted. I might disagree with taking that leap of faith but I can understand why people do.

If you admonish scientists though for not accepting  ideas such as condensed thought, or of god, because you think they should accept the subjective opinions of one or more individuals 'knowledge', or some other non-scientific measure, as being scientific then for me that is more problematic. What can follow is that scientists are called corrupt or money hungry or arrogant simply because they stick to test based science that has stood the test of time.

Patong beach otherwise looks nice and clean. Not like it was last time I was there. Good job.

46 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You miss the third option- that science just isn't capable of proving or disproving the existence of God because it's too primitive.

I did include that option in that post in the following bit:

If someone says I believe it is true, but it just can't be tested by science at this stage, then fair enough and it can be left there.

1 hour ago, Peter Denis said:

In a previous response of yours you mentioned that you only had heard of Sheldrake from his banned TED talk.  And that your comments were not based on an 'in depth assessment'.  

Imo your comment above is not even based on a superficial assessment.

Yes, I'm p1$$ed off when the great man (one of my heroes) and his groundbreaking work are disposed of like this by the Arrogant Ignorant, without even making the effort to look into the experiments he did set up and the data he gathered.  It's easy to google them, and when doing so, you would be surprised of how meticulously he used the 'scientific methodology' to avoid any bias or subjectivity in the experiments he did set up. 

It is true that Sheldrake is most interested in unexplained phenomena (or those where the 'explanation' of the phenomena is shallow).  And in the true spirit of REAL scientific enquiry, he does not just propose hypotheses ( VincentRJ's nothing more than a 'storyteller' assessment ) but does set-up experiments to find out whether real-world data supports his theories or not. 

Fascinating stuff for those that make the effort to look into it. 

Note: Attached a short (5 pages only) article from Sheldrake on the Extended Mind, which I posted already earlier.  In his books and studies, he provides both the set-up of the experiments he conducted as well as the data they generated, but the article gives already a flavor of his work-method.

The Extended Mind_Rupert Sheldrake.pdf.pdf 3.28 MB · 0 downloads

That was an interesting read and I can say that I have had the experience that someone being stared at seems to be aware . 

The last 6 paragraphs of page 2 where he talks about the idea of two way vision - that he describes as intuitive - didn't do it for me. An example is I don't think that it is a difficult concept that the brain has evolved to interpret what we are seeing rather than us just having the feeling of a picture in our brain. 

The results of the testing he mentions, completed by the Institute of Noetic science,  has results that are a bit different to statistical chance. It seems that to prove that people are aware of being watched is super easy if factual and could  surely be reproduced time and time again by others outside a parapsychology research institute. 

I am all for people testing these theories and we can all say we have had strange experiences - meeting people in strange circumstances as though brought together - coincidences that seem too bizarre to be by chance. But at the same time each of us have to be aware of the big picture - that coincidences do happen and that proof that it is not a coincidence should not be hard to find. 

He obviously has some merit given he had been picked for a Ted Talk. 

Come on Peter set up a test yourself with the local Thai community. 

2 hours ago, Peter Denis said:

There you go again...

Once again a totally incorrect statement < unable to show any convincing results which even meet the the most basic requirements of the methodology of science > being presented as an Unshakable Truth.

I suggest you read Sheldrake's correspondence with Skeptics dismissing his work, while he meticulously used the 'methodology of science' to eliminate any bias or subjectivity.  It is pathetic and sad to read how they keep on insisting for 'additional evidence that meets their conditions' and when provided, how they wiggle out by imposing once again other conditions in order to dismiss the results of Sheldrake's experiments.

This site might also invoke some fury > http://www.skepticalaboutskeptics.org/

 

I'm furious. No that website looks good.

They say Richard Dawkins is a man with a mission – the eradication of religion and superstition and their total replacement with science and reason.

My premise is that religion and reason should not be inconsistent if religion is true.

If someone says I believe it is true, but it just can't be tested by science at this stage, then fair enough and it can be left there. If they come up with some apparently clever but meaningless words that come back to the idea that something should be accepted by science because of their individual 'knowledge', when there is no objective evidence, then I think that's simply not correct.  

You see the difference. One accepts the validity of science but chooses to believe. The other says that science is failing simply because it does not accept subjective experience. 

I can see that the term atheist can seem arrogant.  But keep in mind it is someone who does not believe  - not someone who says it is not possible. If that is arrogant then surely someone's decision to believe is just as arrogant. 

Your premise about Sheldrake seems to be that he has the proof but scientists are either scared to look at it, as it affects their reputation, or too arrogant to look at it.  I think any scientist who has irrefutable evidence will get through those blockers fairly easier. It may not be easy but evidence is evidence. Doesn't mean a scientist checking his work has to go down a rabbit warren of iffy evidence that is not reliable and provable. Life's too short. Years later he hasn't been able to set up experiments that build a clear case so maybe he just has to do better testing to make his case. 

41 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

Some thoughts about reincaration by Dethlefsen, who has written extensively about it (him being a former reincarnation therapist).  Also - and main reason I picked this particular excerpt - is his assessment of the call for 'evidence', and the distinction between believing-knowing he is making. 

 

This rhythmic movement of the soul between life and death has, since time immemorial, been called transmigration of souls or reincarnation (literally a “re-entry into flesh”). Plato knew about it just as Goethe did. I deliberately say “knew” and not “believed”, for reincarnation is not a matter of belief but rather a matter of philosophical insight. Everyone is free to believe in something other than reincarnation, but it should be borne in mind that any hypothesis without reincarnation has the stamp of absurdity, since only reincarnation is in harmony with all universal laws.
How astonishing it is to hear people again and again demanding proofs of reincarnation.
Reality needs no outward proof since it proves itself by its very existence. The kind of functional, outward proof, that has been made into he keystone of scientific argument, is, in fact, the greatest enemy of true knowledge, for it seeks to enforce belief. To say “I have proved it” is in essence tantamount to saying “You must believe me”. But reality does not require proof because it is not a matter of belief. Reality is perceived through the individual's experience, and thereby generates knowledge.
If one knows something one does not need to believe it and one is free of the need for proofs.
A statement such as “death is the end of everything” does require proof because this statement forms no part of reality and therefore cannot be experienced. In no area of reality can one point to a process of nature that ends abruptly in nothingness.

 

Sorry but just when I think I'll leave it there along comes something like this.

Not to believe in reincarnation is absurd. Why? He says that no one can point to a process in nature that ends abruptly in nothingness. Cemeteries suggest otherwise.  Possibly our sense of awareness or sense of being is somehow a thing separate from our bodies that must live on. Why? What is the evidence it is? The evidence is the opposite. 

But evidence is not necessary because he KNOWS it is true. 

He says death requires proof because we have no experience of it but reincarnation does not because we do. So if I know I have had an experience of reincarnation then it is by definition correct. 

But does he  know? Really? 

Philosophy is defined as the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge. He says he uses philosophical insight to know reincarnation is true. So knowledge of knowledge lead to knowledge that reincarnation is real?

He says knowledge comes from experience. Sounds OK as long as you take into account that your experience is limited and a subjective experience. He seems to say that the  experience he had is knowledge and no need for proof because I experienced something, I felt something that was so strong it makes it fact, and therefore I know it is correct. Why?

Further, he appears to say an individual's knowledge or feeling of knowledge is much more significant than objective proof. This might indicate that all religious people who have certainty in the knowledge of their faith are by definition correct. Why?  

If a scientist proves something by actual hard work and scientific testing he is telling everyone else they must believe him? No. That is not how science works. He is saying I think through my endeavours I have built a consistent argument that is borne out by the facts. He then welcomes others to attempt to prove him wrong. That proof requires more than someone saying I am certain I am correct and by that certainty alone  I have proven you wrong.

Sometimes some words on a page are poetic or have a nice feeling but if you take it bit by bit it there's nothing there except for: I think or feel with certainty that I know so it is fact. Reincarnation is real because I know it is and because I know it is reincarnation is real.  

This is the smugness I talk about - not in you but in the author - they feel they can just say stuff like that and in the end just smile and say - I just know. No. 

6 hours ago, Neeranam said:

I once was invited onto a tv program in scotland which was to be aired on one Halloween, a kind of spooky ghost thing.

Myself and my yoga teacher were hypnotically regressed. Well actually I wasn't, I was very nervous with all the cameras and spoke to the famous hypnotist, so famous I can't remember his name! After speaking to him I felt absolutely no stress or fear when sitting in front of a Grampian Tv camera.

He regressed me through my present life and it was qite a nice feeling, however when we got to 0, he asked my to name a date, which I did 1864 and I got this very weird feeling that I didn't want to go there. It was explained afterwards that this happens to many people, maybe something traumatic happened.

My friend however appeared on tv and she was transformed into an Indian woman.

Uri geller was also on this program and when he and my teacher were speaking, there was a very strange thing happened, they just stared at each other for what seemed like ages, kind of communicating without speaking.

I have seen the power of God, I believe in reincarnation, there is no doubt in my mind. 

Good story. I am going to put on the doubter hat now. I had a similar experience in the 80's - met a girl in Lombok who referred me to a past lives therapist - that was a thing in the 80's. She was pretty, and a girlfriend of the lead singer of a successful Australian band - I gave it a go and had a similar experience to you.

It felt profound but I put it down to being in a strange situation and letting yourself and your imagination go and having a girl focus on you added to the theatre. My memories of the past life were vague - non verifiable - and nothing much. 

You probably know Uri Gellar describes himself as an entertainer these days. He had to due to fraud cases. James Randi did a good job on him.

So that's a different take on the past lives stuff.

I have had that happen. It just kept saying it would be complete in a certain amount of time but just kept extending it out. Then..it was paid. In my case it went through within about 12 hours of the original estimate. For a while there it had  the money in the account within minutes but now seems to take a bit longer.