Do you believe in God and why

[Sunmaster]

1 minute ago, Elad said:

Its just a common joke among scientists. Of course physics works, you only have to look at all the technology around you to know that.

I doubt he meant you..  ????

[Sunmaster]

@Elad

Have you thought about the questions I asked? 

[save the frogs]

6 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Well, world domination of course, across all possible dimensions. What else? 

Yes, I knew it.

That's why you must be stopped.

This thread needs to be locked.

 

[save the frogs]

6 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Really now? ????

What were they channeling exactly? 

can't really remember. it's been way too long.

decades.

[Sunmaster]

2 hours ago, save the frogs said:

can't really remember. it's been way too long.

decades.

Hold on. So you're telling me that after all your temper tantrums, you actually believe that channeling is real?

You're just pulling my leg, right? Right?

[save the frogs]

44 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Hold on. So you're telling me that after all your temper tantrums, you actually believe that channeling is real?

You're just pulling my leg, right? Right?

If you read my post more carefully, I explained everything.

But I'll stop interfering.

Probably me posting here too much is preventing other people from posting.

 

Yes, channeling exists.

Chakras are real, too man!

I know because I had a Reiki practitioner mess with my solar plexus chakra.

Most painful experience ever!.

 

[Sunmaster]

17 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

If you read my post more carefully, I explained everything.

But I'll stop interfering.

Probably me posting here too much is preventing other people from posting.

 

Yes, channeling exists.

Chakras are real, too man!

I know because I had a Reiki practitioner mess with my solar plexus chakra.

Most painful experience ever!.

 

 No no please. Stay.

I'll reply properly once I recover from this laughing fit.

[save the frogs]

3 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

 No no please. Stay.

I'll reply properly once I recover from this laughing fit.

it's very simple. had a few bad experiences in these spiritual circles and decided to stop focusing on it.

 

i might check in once a week or so.

the God peeps are a funny bunch.

 

[Sunmaster]

4 hours ago, save the frogs said:

the God peeps are a funny bunch.

They are mere amateurs compared to you. ????

[Tippaporn]

14 hours ago, Elad said:

  

On 3/21/2023 at 7:05 AM, save the frogs said:

I think at least one of the regular posters on here has been very critical of scientists as it pertains to anything spiritual.

But knock yourself out!

Its just a common joke among scientists. Of course physics works, you only have to look at all the technology around you to know that.

Just because one points out science's self-imposed limitations doesn't mean that they reject physics.  The joke employs fallacious logic.  The conclusion doesn't follow the premise.  Which doesn't reflect well on those scientists who laugh at the joke since they obviously accept the fallacious logic as valid.  They show themselves to be quite stupid in this case.  And if the fallacious logic of the joke is beyond their understanding then I shudder to think of what else is beyond their comprehension.

[Fat is a type of crazy]

29 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Just because one points out science's self-imposed limitations doesn't mean that they reject physics.  The joke employs fallacious logic.  The conclusion doesn't follow the premise.  Which doesn't reflect well on those scientists who laugh at the joke since they obviously accept the fallacious logic as valid.  They show themselves to be quite stupid in this case.  And if the fallacious logic of the joke is beyond their understanding then I shudder to think of what else is beyond their comprehension.

 

If it doesn't work it's physics.

It is a self deprecating comment among physicists saying that it is hard to make experiments work as expected - maybe due to complexity, funding, etc.

It has nothing to do with those pointing out science's limitations and whether or not in turn they reject physics.

Sometimes you think too much and miss the point. Then come to some unwarranted conclusions. 

[mauGR1]

2 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

It has nothing to do with those pointing out science's limitations and whether or not in turn they reject physics.

Yet, those science's limitations, which can be called sometimes aberrations, you seem to be not too willing to discuss.

In other words, science seems quite willing to help the development of technology, even when that technology is obviously unethical, for a price.

Someone may not see anything wrong with it, after all, making money is important.. yet i have the feeling that this is a wrong path for the whole world to follow..

[Fat is a type of crazy]

2 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Yet, those science's limitations, which can be called sometimes aberrations, you seem to be not too willing to discuss.

In other words, science seems quite willing to help the development of technology, even when that technology is obviously unethical, for a price.

Someone may not see anything wrong with it, after all, making money is important.. yet i have the feeling that this is a wrong path for the whole world to follow..

Happy to acknowledge that science is a bit scary in its applications. Everything from atomic bombs, to artificial intelligence and chat gpt, and what technology is doing to the planet, to our psyches, etc is terrifying if you think about it. So many positives too though. 

For me the answer isn't to look for a god as gods have a bad track record both with practical ethics and of intervening and fixing things. Spiritual endeavours might help bring a kind of peace. 

I suppose the answer is to see what is reality and adapt both to the world, and to my own circumstances, as the decades pass. 

[Tippaporn]

34 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

 

If it doesn't work it's physics.

It is a self deprecating comment among physicists saying that it is hard to make experiments work as expected - maybe due to complexity, funding, etc.

It has nothing to do with those pointing out science's limitations and whether or not in turn they reject physics.

Sometimes you think too much and miss the point. Then come to some unwarranted conclusions. 

Perhaps we're reading it differently.  My reading of it took Elad's response in the context of save the frogs comment.  "Posters critical of science re spirituality" to "of course physics works."

But I'm willing to take your word for it and perhaps my reading was wrong.  Although I would have never come to the same interpretation of the exchange as you did.  And I still don't think your interpretation is what Elad was getting at.

Maybe it's best to have @Elad elaborate and we can shake hands again. 

 

[Sunmaster]

Aren't we all getting a bit lost in unimportant details here?

I offered my personal story (about the kundalini awakening, see Tummo Shaktipat below) to the materialists to see if they could come up with any kind of material explanation. But apart from Woof999's reply, nothing. What happened to me could happen to anyone of you at any time. How would you react to it? Would you still stick to science?

 

You've been asking for practical examples and evidence. Here it is. Are you just going to pretend not to see it?

Quick summary:
As an atheist, I had no knowledge of or even interest in spirituality. Even spiritual individuals rarely ever hear about the kundalini. So, zero chance to have fed my brain with any kind of subconscious suggestions. Yet there I was, fully blown away by that experience of cosmic unity, deep love and knowledge. No idea what just happened but so so deeply grateful and blessed that it did. 
AFTERWARDS, I learned what it was and that it had a name (kundalini) and amazingly, the stories from other people's experiences coincided with mine to a degree that categorically excludes mere coincidence. 

How, in scientific terms, is that possible? 
If the science is strong in you, young materialists, then you must surely be able to come up with a valid theory.

[mauGR1]

48 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

For me the answer isn't to look for a god as gods have a bad track record both with practical ethics and of intervening and fixing things. Spiritual endeavours might help bring a kind of peace. 

That's fair enough, no one can deny your common sense, but perhaps a little more general interest in spiritual research could add some ethics to science. 

If you don't see the slippery slope of a science without ethics it's ok, i guess, surely you are not alone.

[Fat is a type of crazy]

10 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

That's fair enough, no one can deny your common sense, but perhaps a little more general interest in spiritual research could add some ethics to science. 

If you don't see the slippery slope of a science without ethics it's ok, i guess, surely you are not alone.

Ethics can come from intuition and experience rather than from god. Not sure where ethics comes from in terms of spiritual research if not religion. 

Failings in ethics is not science's fault but discoveries make terrible outcomes possible.

The answer may lie with real world solutions and laws rather than looking for answers through spirituality. The latter may be good for some things but giving a surge of ethics to the whole world through spirituality is not something I see as realistic at this point. 

[mauGR1]

33 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

..but giving a surge of ethics to the whole world through spirituality is not something I see as realistic at this point. 

Some day i think the same, but i still have some hope.

 

[metisdead]

Some troll posts have been removed.  If the topic is of no interest to some people, don't enter the topic and post nonsense. 

[Acharn]

On 2/27/2023 at 7:58 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

You believe that the universe had no beginning, but it has an end ( when all the stars run out of fuel ), and if it has an end ergo it has to have had a beginning, IMO. Many, including myself, believe in the Big Bang, but what caused it, and where did the material to make the universe come from? Unless one believes that matter can just magically appear, one has to believe that it was created somewhere, and by some force- which is what I believe to be "God".

You said " I can't deny there are powers greater than myself in the universe.", so you apparently believe in the same thing, except I call those powers God, and you do not.

 

You, of course, have every right to believe or not believe anything, but given that a scientist that is exploring the origins of the universe  says they don't know 95% of what is out there ( on an Al Jazeera news item few days ago ) how can anyone definitely say that there is no God?

If you don't believe in a creator God, how do YOU think the universe happened? Was there a big mass of gas ( the universe started as a cloud of gas, or so I understand ) just floating around in empty space? Where did it come from? How were the laws of physics created to make the gas become stars and planets? How did humans evolve to have intelligence ( the dinosaurs were not exactly geniuses )? Was it magic? So many questions are raised if one does not believe in a creator God.

Well, the material for the Big Bang came from Samsara, this physical universe. After it used up its fuel it collapsed and created the new Big Bang. Of course, there's no way to prove this, and most astronomers believe there's too little mass in Samsara to be cyclical. That's OK, I disagree with them.

 

As for how humans evolved intelligence, the Earth has been around for a little over 4 billion years. That's a long time for the primordial soup to try different chemical combinations until several of them were self-replicating with controls to prevent change (which work poorly). I think the current consensus is that life as we know it appeared a little over 2 billion years ago. That's still a long, long time. By the way, we don't have any idea how smart the dinosaurs were. We keep finding more creatures that use tools.

 

What do you mean, "How were the laws of physics created ...?" They're inherent in matter and space. Most of your questions come from believing in a creator god and believing the universe had to have a beginning and an end.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, Acharn said:

Well, the material for the Big Bang came from Samsara, this physical universe. After it used up its fuel it collapsed and created the new Big Bang. Of course, there's no way to prove this, and most astronomers believe there's too little mass in Samsara to be cyclical. That's OK, I disagree with them.

 

As for how humans evolved intelligence, the Earth has been around for a little over 4 billion years. That's a long time for the primordial soup to try different chemical combinations until several of them were self-replicating with controls to prevent change (which work poorly). I think the current consensus is that life as we know it appeared a little over 2 billion years ago. That's still a long, long time. By the way, we don't have any idea how smart the dinosaurs were. We keep finding more creatures that use tools.

 

What do you mean, "How were the laws of physics created ...?" They're inherent in matter and space. Most of your questions come from believing in a creator god and believing the universe had to have a beginning and an end.

The question is simple. Do you believe that something can come from nothing ( atheism ) or do you believe it was created by an unknowable ( to primitive humans ) force ( belief in a creator )?

Up to you. I'm not here to try and convince posters of anything, but I am here to learn, which requires an open mind. Seems some are of such fixed positions they are unable to accept there is more to life than what we can see with our biological senses, or what our primitive science can prove.

 

BTW, IMO 4 billion years is nothing in cosmic terms, and if humans are the best it can come up with so far, hopefully there is time before the sun's fuel runs out to do better.

[thaibeachlovers]

8 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Happy to acknowledge that science is a bit scary in its applications. Everything from atomic bombs, to artificial intelligence and chat gpt, and what technology is doing to the planet, to our psyches, etc is terrifying if you think about it. So many positives too though. 

For me the answer isn't to look for a god as gods have a bad track record both with practical ethics and of intervening and fixing things. Spiritual endeavours might help bring a kind of peace. 

I suppose the answer is to see what is reality and adapt both to the world, and to my own circumstances, as the decades pass. 

My response to that is to ask why you think a force that can create a universe with black holes that destroy entire solar systems has to conform to human conditions such as ethics and of "fixing things"?

Have you not considered that the universe and our planet/ species are working exactly as designed?

Far as humans are concerned, seems to me that a fail safe was built into all species that if they exceeded their place in the order of things they destroy themselves or are destroyed, and humans, IMO, are working as fast as possible to exterminate our species.

[save the frogs]

9 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Even spiritual individuals rarely ever hear about the kundalini.

FYI: 

A girl once give me a book called "The Five Tibetans". 

It's yoga from Tibet designed to 'raise the Kundalini.' 

Never did the exercises.

But later I read that there are some 'dangers' with 'raising the kundalini'.

But I really never looked into it much.

Watch out with that stuff. Make sure you know what you're doing. 

Sounds like it could turn into a "bad acid trip". 

 

[Elad]

On 3/21/2023 at 4:03 PM, Sunmaster said:

@Elad

Have you thought about the questions I asked? 

I might respond to one or two of them but don't expect much from it because you already know I'm a bit of a materialist ????

I need to clear a few things up with @Tippaporn first with regard to time. 

Bear with me please because I'm not always at my laptop and I hate using the mobile.

[Fat is a type of crazy]

3 hours ago, save the frogs said:

FYI: 

A girl once give me a book called "The Five Tibetans". 

It's yoga from Tibet designed to 'raise the Kundalini.' 

Never did the exercises.

But later I read that there are some 'dangers' with 'raising the kundalini'.

But I really never looked into it much.

Watch out with that stuff. Make sure you know what you're doing. 

Sounds like it could turn into a "bad acid trip". 

 

They seem to say it can happen from taking drugs too. Hard to comment on something I haven't experienced. A bit suspicious of things that cause such a big reaction. It either means you are opening things up and it's a good thing or you are holding something back, akin to holding or limiting your breath, and causing the brain to react in an extreme way. 

[save the frogs]

1 hour ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

They seem to say it can happen from taking drugs too. Hard to comment on something I haven't experienced. A bit suspicious of things that cause such a big reaction. It either means you are opening things up and it's a good thing or you are holding something back, akin to holding or limiting your breath, and causing the brain to react in an extreme way. 

just did a quick google search.

 

https://www.yogabear.org/why-is-kundalini-yoga-dangerous/

In the worst situation of Kundalini awakening dangers, there have been reports of psychotic episodes resembling anxiety attacks and LSD trips. 

[Sunmaster]

5 hours ago, save the frogs said:

FYI: 

A girl once give me a book called "The Five Tibetans". 

It's yoga from Tibet designed to 'raise the Kundalini.' 

Never did the exercises.

But later I read that there are some 'dangers' with 'raising the kundalini'.

But I really never looked into it much.

Watch out with that stuff. Make sure you know what you're doing. 

Sounds like it could turn into a "bad acid trip". 

 

Yes, it's true that not everyone experiences it the way I did. I could have gone into panic mode and had a bad trip, but I surrendered to it and had the most amazing time of my life.

This was a one time thing for me though. Not that I didn't want it, but it has a mind of its own...or "her" own as she's female energy.

 

I don't believe in those who claim they can "activate the kundalini in 5 easy and fast steps". That's marketing BS to sell books or workshops. 

 

The negative effects are mostly due to the unwillingness of people to let go. For a full k awakening the "death" of the ego is a must. That is the scariest part of the experience. If you can't let go of the ego, you will block and fight the k from fully rising. That in turn creates a very frightening scenario...the fear of dying. 

 

But let's put it into perspective. 

Negative experiences can happen, but are quite rare. K doesn't create them. We create them by resisting its flow.

The positive experiences far outweigh the negative ones and to that I can attest personally. 

[Sunmaster]

2 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

They seem to say it can happen from taking drugs too. Hard to comment on something I haven't experienced. A bit suspicious of things that cause such a big reaction. It either means you are opening things up and it's a good thing or you are holding something back, akin to holding or limiting your breath, and causing the brain to react in an extreme way. 

That's correct.

Drugs as in "entheogenic substances" or "consciousness expanding plants" can help, but there is absolutely no guarantee that they will actually release the kundalini. 

In whichever way she is released, the essence of the K remains the same. 

[Sunmaster]

4 hours ago, Elad said:

I'm a bit of a materialist ????

That's ok. Nobody is perfect. ????

[save the frogs]

sunmaster, check this dude out.

you might find this interesting.

he's apparently using "scientific methodology". lol

 

https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/who-we-are/history-of-dops/dr-ian-stevenson/

Dr. Ian Stevenson founded the Division of Perceptual Studies in 1967. 

Dr. Stevenson established the Division in order to conduct research in which scientific methodology is utilized to empirically investigate phenomena which cannot be explained by the currently accepted scientific assumptions and theories about the nature of mind or consciousness, and its relationship to matter. Examples of such phenomena, sometimes called paranormal, include various types of extrasensory perception (such as telepathy), apparitions and deathbed visions,  after-death communications or ADCs, poltergeists, experiences of persons who come close to death and survive (usually called near-death experiences or NDEs), out-of-body experiences (OBEs), and children’s memories of previous lives.