Author Topic: What is consciousness? Theists say ...  (Read 5338 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: What is consciousness? Theists say ...
« Reply #261 on: March 12, 2014, 03:37:30 AM »
People claim a whole lot of stuff.  .....which person who "claims to know god" do we listen to FIRST?
I think you would do what you think is necessary at the time. I suspect each person is different and what is good for the goose is not good for the gander. Each has a choice.

What a terrible dodge.  What has "necessary" got to do with it? 

As I'm sure you would agree, there are all manner of woo-woo claims out there.  There are literally thousands of different gods described, and I could easily find half a dozen people who all claim to "know god" - but who all claim to know a DIFFERENT god.

Your suggestion is that we learn from the believer how to experience their god before dismissing their claims.  But that can take time.  So I ask you again.  How do we decide which of these woo-god-knowers we should "taste sugar" with first?

You're saying "they say they know something.  We should believe them".  ALL of them?  At once?  If not, why not, and how do we choose between them?
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: What is consciousness? Theists say ...
« Reply #262 on: March 19, 2014, 01:44:16 AM »
Your suggestion is that we learn from the believer how to experience their god before dismissing their claims.  But that can take time.  So I ask you again.  How do we decide which of these woo-god-knowers we should "taste sugar" with first?

You're saying "they say they know something.  We should believe them".  ALL of them?  At once?  If not, why not, and how do we choose between them?
I am not saying any of that. "You" is not the individual that would know God. Nor am I asking you too. You are the one that heard the word sugar from someone else who did not know either. He left early along with others who are all woo wooers.
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: What is consciousness? Theists say ...
« Reply #263 on: March 19, 2014, 04:14:00 AM »
Your suggestion is that we learn from the believer how to experience their god before dismissing their claims.  But that can take time.  So I ask you again.  How do we decide which of these woo-god-knowers we should "taste sugar" with first?

You're saying "they say they know something.  We should believe them".  ALL of them?  At once?  If not, why not, and how do we choose between them?
I am not saying any of that. "You" is not the individual that would know God. Nor am I asking you too. You are the one that heard the word sugar from someone else who did not know either. He left early along with others who are all woo wooers.

Fine.  Then state clearly, please exactly what is IS you are stating.

You want us to taste sugar.  Fine.  How do we determine if the white substance we are being given is sugar, or saccharine, or salt?
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6583
  • Darwins +516/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: What is consciousness? Theists say ...
« Reply #264 on: March 19, 2014, 06:03:13 AM »
God is conscious, but not alive. Just like we will be in the next life.
"God is conscious," is the fallacy of labelling: the idea is that you take any two nouns and separate them by the verb "to be", e.g. "Trees are life". It sounds profound but is essentially meaningless.

All evidence is against "another life".

Do you have any evidence for your claim, or is it something you invented or have you simply accepted, without question, someone's word on the matter?
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: What is consciousness? Theists say ...
« Reply #265 on: March 19, 2014, 04:12:05 PM »
Your suggestion is that we learn from the believer how to experience their god before dismissing their claims.  But that can take time.  So I ask you again.  How do we decide which of these woo-god-knowers we should "taste sugar" with first?

You're saying "they say they know something.  We should believe them".  ALL of them?  At once?  If not, why not, and how do we choose between them?
I am not saying any of that. "You" is not the individual that would know God. Nor am I asking you too. You are the one that heard the word sugar from someone else who did not know either. He left early along with others who are all woo wooers.

Fine.  Then state clearly, please exactly what is IS you are stating.

You want us to taste sugar.  Fine.  How do we determine if the white substance we are being given is sugar, or saccharine, or salt?
I am stating that there are theists amongst us. They are not historical figures but soon will become. Given enough time a religion or religions might be formed in their names. As it always does. The theists teach a method in their time of existence on how to know God. Their followers keep growing even after their deaths. This is what I am pointing out.   ---->   A theist is a person who knows God.

Once we accept this -- ie The Living Master Ching Hai is called - "God's direct contact", or the passed Sant Kirpal Singh and his descendants teaching Sant Mat , or the deceiver Paul Twitchell's formation of the  Eckankar - have all taught humanity on how to know God.

According Wiki in 40-50 countries across the globe ching hai teaches her followers a method "Quang Yin method" and her followers are practicing it so that they too can know God.  I make no claim that she is a liar or a fake -- I am sure someone is doing the research biased or not. What I propose is to say what they say to hear the critical thinking processes  of atheists to know how gnostic atheists know what they know. Is it through scientific investigation or is it assumptions. What do you think I have discovered so far?
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Offline Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: What is consciousness? Theists say ...
« Reply #266 on: March 19, 2014, 05:20:59 PM »
"God is conscious," is the fallacy of labelling: the idea is that you take any two nouns and separate them by the verb "to be", e.g. "Trees are life". It sounds profound but is essentially meaningless.

All evidence is against "another life".

Do you have any evidence for your claim, or is it something you invented or have you simply accepted, without question, someone's word on the matter?
Maybe this website should be placed here.
http://kirpalsingh-teachings.org/en/talks/third-world-tour/449-on-the-path-to-higher-consciousness.html
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Offline Dark Rabbit

Re: What is consciousness? Theists say ...
« Reply #267 on: March 19, 2014, 05:35:02 PM »
Religion has always had the answer though. Sometimes, I do get upset that religion is automatically dismissed with a handwave. That is anti-scientific thinking.
Let's talk about explanatory power, the hallmark of science and that what separates wishful thinking from the real stuff. A scientific theory like general relativity or even its predecessor Newtonian physics has rich explanatory power. Newtonian physics suffices to send rockets to the planets. It can accurately predict a host of variables relevant for the trip. And it is not even the best science can do. It can do that with wildly different starting conditions. It is robust and applicable to a lot of situations varying from rockets in interplanetary orbits to table tennis. It explains the path objects take in space based on simpler building blocks than the phenomena it is able to describe. You can fit these buiding blocks in very dense statements like physical principles that can be tested on their own merit and formulae that accurately describe the process under consideration. These principles and formulae apply to every stage of the trajectory. These principles and formulae have shown to be able to predict phenomena before they can even be detected like the black holes that play a major role in galaxies, the constituents of the primordial universe or elementary particles.

But what exactly is the explanatory power of religious statements like 'god did it'. Do they really explain anything about the process of  things coming into being, or the trajectory taken? Did the statement that god created the whole shebang hint at the existence of cosmic background radiation, the Higgs boson or any physical phenomena known to man?

It was not a simple handwave that dismissed religion as a  source of answers. It was the arrogance of religion to first claim truth and skip the explanation thing altogether that dealt the blow.

Offline wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2443
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: What is consciousness? Theists say ...
« Reply #268 on: March 20, 2014, 03:19:05 AM »
"God is conscious," is the fallacy of labelling: the idea is that you take any two nouns and separate them by the verb "to be", e.g. "Trees are life". It sounds profound but is essentially meaningless.

All evidence is against "another life".

Do you have any evidence for your claim, or is it something you invented or have you simply accepted, without question, someone's word on the matter?
Maybe this website should be placed here.
http://kirpalsingh-teachings.org/en/talks/third-world-tour/449-on-the-path-to-higher-consciousness.html

Come on - this is a discussion forum and not a reading circle. Explain what you have been meaning by this non-brain-attached consciousness in your own words and with the evidence that supports it.
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: What is consciousness? Theists say ...
« Reply #269 on: March 20, 2014, 03:49:22 AM »
I am stating that there are people who claim to be theists amongst us.

The theists teach a method in their time of existence on how to allegedly know God. Their followers keep growing even after their deaths. This is what I am pointing out.   ---->   A theist is a person who claims to knows God.

Once we accept this.....

I've changed your statement so it shows what we ACTUALLY know, from our perspective.  There are people who claim to have a method of "knowing god", that offers enough that many people follow their teachings.  And there are some who follow their teachings after their deaths.

So what?

Why do we not all worship the ancient pagan mother goddess?  THAT was a religion where some people claimed to know the goddess.  Others followed what they said, even after the deaths of the first "prophets".

2,000 years ago, 12 men apparently knew god on a personal basis.  They taught others, and these days there are millions of them, all knowing god - but a DIFFERENT god to the Earth Mother.

Today, Ching Hai teaches of yet another god.  She teaches others, who will (I am sure) teach others after her death.

Now jump back to the pagans.  Either those people genuinely knew the One True Goddess (in which case both Paul and Ching Hai are wrong in their teachings), or it was the case that they taught a plausible fiction that convinced many (and probably even themselves), but did NOT - actually - know the goddess.

This is the point you seem unable to grasp.  So tell me.  Did the pagans genuinely know the Mother Goddess?  Or did they get things all wrong?  And how - at the time - could you have told the difference?
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline bertatberts

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1406
  • Darwins +48/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • Humanists. Not perfect. Not forgiven. Responsible.
Re: What is consciousness? Theists say ...
« Reply #270 on: March 20, 2014, 04:09:55 AM »
Do you seriously think he will reply without dodging! BM
We theists have no evidence for our beliefs. So no amount of rational evidence will dissuade us from those beliefs. - JCisall

It would be pretty piss poor brainwashing, if the victims knew they were brainwashed, wouldn't it? - Screwtape. 04/12/12

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: What is consciousness? Theists say ...
« Reply #271 on: March 20, 2014, 04:22:54 AM »
Do you seriously think he will reply without dodging! BM

Nope.  He'll probably talk about sugar again.  But he won't tell me how to tell the difference between sugar and Candarel, or how all those generations of pagans were deceived despite all the sugar that was around.

Basically, I'm convinced that he is a theist, a genuine believer in one of these new-agey cults of woo, who came here with the "bright" idea of pretending to be an atheist in order to sucker us into admitting his woo could be true.  Unfortunately, nobody is biting, and so now he is having to try to simultaneously pretend to be an atheist while also promiting the woo he secretly believes in.

Actually, I shouldn't have posted the above.  He is going to seize on that as a convenient sidetrack, and ignore all the questions from my previous post.  He's done it before, odds are it will happen again.
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Online Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2703
  • Darwins +219/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: What is consciousness? Theists say ...
« Reply #272 on: March 20, 2014, 05:00:44 AM »
David Lane didn't like Kirpal Singh, because he changed the religion, which is not a good sign if you claim to be from a chain of masters. The traditional view of the master is one that brought the religion to you, rather than you bringing it to him, by pretending you have had an experience, and then the master congratulating you. I'm going to have a look at what Kirpal believed, in order to discredit him. Preliminary googling, only shows he drank Coke, which is not quite the same as raping women.
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6583
  • Darwins +516/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: What is consciousness? Theists say ...
« Reply #273 on: March 20, 2014, 08:44:42 AM »
"God is conscious," is the fallacy of labelling: the idea is that you take any two nouns and separate them by the verb "to be", e.g. "Trees are life". It sounds profound but is essentially meaningless.

All evidence is against "another life".

Do you have any evidence for your claim, or is it something you invented or have you simply accepted, without question, someone's word on the matter?
Maybe this website should be placed here.
http://kirpalsingh-teachings.org/en/talks/third-world-tour/449-on-the-path-to-higher-consciousness.html
from your link:
Quote
Sant Kirpal Singh: Man is the highest in all creation – it's spoken of very highly by all scriptures. All say that, because this is the highest, because we can do that work which cannot be done in any other body: that is we can know our Self and can know God.
This idiot has assumed there is a God, hasn't he?

He has not shown there is a god or even that there might be a god. He has just accepted that there is a god.

So your link didn't help at all.

Again, "Do you have any evidence for your claim, or is it something you invented or have you simply accepted, without question, someone's word on the matter?"

It seems you have just accepted this old fraud's word, tell me that you haven't done that.
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Online Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2703
  • Darwins +219/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: What is consciousness? Theists say ...
« Reply #274 on: March 20, 2014, 09:34:30 AM »
On a survey of the faults of Kirpal Singh, I have found that he believed in Homeopathy, Ayurveda and had a lot of prostate problems.

http://kirpalsingh-teachings.org/en/talks/in-india/955-zt.html
Quote
Ever since the first flicker of life on earth, man has been mightily engaged in search of happiness. He has made a tremendous progress in all walks of life. Take, for example, physical research. Many wonderful sciences have come to light: Unani system of medicine, Ayurvedic system of cure, Allopathy, Homeopathy, Naturopathy, and the like. All of them aim at the smooth working of the physical body. Surgery has progressed to an extent unknown before – the finest organ of the human body can now be replaced or transplanted from one to another.

http://www.ruhanisatsangusa.org/pdf/Volume3-TheNewLife.pdf
Quote
Homeopathic
medicines are prepared in alcohol. In both cases they have
no intoxicating effect.

Apparently he also hated sex, and believed that unborn children would be tainted by sex, if the parents had sex. Also, homosexuals will come back as ghosts.
http://www.santmat-thetruth.de/anurag-sagar-860/items/book_anurag_sagar_en_05_06_01.html

Quote
If young people have an intense desire for sexuality, that originates from the mother’s thoughts during the pregnancy. True education begins inside the womb, because the thoughts of the mother form the character of the unborn child. For this reason, and for the health of the mother, child and husband, it is of particular importance that the partners do not have marital intercourse during the period of pregnancy and nursing.

Love and lust are also often mixed up. Love coming out of the Soul, emanating behind and between the eyebrows but ending in the body or in outer objects is lust. Only Love coming from the Soul and ending in the Soul of the other one is chastity.

If sexuality is practised without its underlying purpose – i. e. to beget children –, it  inevitably causes that Souls come back as ghosts. This is the case with all groups which practise tantra, but also homosexuals, who have sexual relationships, for no children can be begotten here.

He believed in Astrology, but that he was exempt from it. Calling it a "regular science".
http://www.ruhanisatsangusa.org/pdf/Volume3-TheNewLife.pdf

Quote
ASTROLOGY is a regular science, but few there are
who are really conversant with it. This requires a clear
mind vision. Moreover, it affects those who are under the
influence of the Stars; but those who transcend the starry
sky, or are taken under the care of Masters who transcend
the starry sky, the predictions in their cases do not stand
correct

LOL. (page 38)

Quote
Saints, when seemingly ill, are generally seen taking medi-
cinal doses as may be prescribed by the physicians, but
actually They do not need such treatment. This They do
just to keep up the worldly order of things. In this way,
they set an example to man to continue his worldly routine
wisely and resort to proper treatment whenever necessary.

They have a poor explanation of why saints die of cancer and have prostate problems. Presumably they do it voluntarily, while taking medicines, to look normal.

That's all I can be bothered scanning for. It indicates that he believed in a load of crap, and was just as fake as any other fake Indian New Ager.

Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Online Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2703
  • Darwins +219/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: What is consciousness? Theists say ...
« Reply #275 on: March 20, 2014, 09:59:45 AM »
I shouldn't have read this. This is way funnier.

Quote
Q. Can I teach Yoga?
TEACHING YOGA is all right; you may earn your
money in any way you like, but don’t be your own
subject of yoga. If you do, then you will go the longer way.
Our way can be done very quickly. That way would take at
least hundreds of years to come inside; you would have to
take the longer way. If you want to take the longer way, all
right, do it. You may want to teach it, that’s all right, but
don’t do it your own self, that’s all. If you want to go the
longer way, very good, you may choose it if you like. That
is the longer way; it was introduced in the past ages. In the
Golden Age man lived for one lac of years. People could
put in 70,000 years, 80,000 years in that practice. Then
came the Silver Age. In the Silver Age the age came down
one tenth to 10,000 years. People could put in two or three
thousand years in that way. Then came the Copper Age.
Life was cut down to one-third. Even then you could put in
two or three hundred years. Nowadays man does not live
70 years. How can you follow those methods that were
introduced in those years? We cannot live up to that age.
So Kabir and Guru Nanak introduced this simple way that
we do—even a child can do it. It is the quicker way, you
see. Have you read Crown of Life? I wrote this book about
the comparative study of all yoga. There is one part that
explains what you do, what you are teaching. There are
other forms of yoga in it too. But our method is the quick-
est way through all the ages, for any man of any age. Now,
is it clear to you?

If I kept reading, I would bump into stupider and stupider things.

Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: What is consciousness? Theists say ...
« Reply #276 on: March 20, 2014, 01:19:49 PM »
"God is conscious," is the fallacy of labelling: the idea is that you take any two nouns and separate them by the verb "to be", e.g. "Trees are life". It sounds profound but is essentially meaningless.

All evidence is against "another life".

Do you have any evidence for your claim, or is it something you invented or have you simply accepted, without question, someone's word on the matter?
Maybe this website should be placed here.
http://kirpalsingh-teachings.org/en/talks/third-world-tour/449-on-the-path-to-higher-consciousness.html

Come on - this is a discussion forum and not a reading circle. Explain what you have been meaning by this non-brain-attached consciousness in your own words and with the evidence that supports it.
Apparently I am only insulting people by trying to discuss.
If I say the dictionary meaning of the word atheists is flawed - everyone gets all upset, and if I say ok here is the dictionary meaning of consciousness everyone is for discussion rather than its meaning. I keep shooting myself in the foot trying to please.
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Offline Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: What is consciousness? Theists say ...
« Reply #277 on: March 20, 2014, 01:23:42 PM »
I am stating that there are people who claim to be theists amongst us.

The theists teach a method in their time of existence on how to allegedly know God. Their followers keep growing even after their deaths. This is what I am pointing out.   ---->   A theist is a person who claims to knows God.

Once we accept this.....

I've changed your statement so it shows what we ACTUALLY know, from our perspective.  There are people who claim to have a method of "knowing god", that offers enough that many people follow their teachings.  And there are some who follow their teachings after their deaths.

So what?

Why do we not all worship the ancient pagan mother goddess?  THAT was a religion where some people claimed to know the goddess.  Others followed what they said, even after the deaths of the first "prophets".

2,000 years ago, 12 men apparently knew god on a personal basis.  They taught others, and these days there are millions of them, all knowing god - but a DIFFERENT god to the Earth Mother.

Today, Ching Hai teaches of yet another god.  She teaches others, who will (I am sure) teach others after her death.

Now jump back to the pagans.  Either those people genuinely knew the One True Goddess (in which case both Paul and Ching Hai are wrong in their teachings), or it was the case that they taught a plausible fiction that convinced many (and probably even themselves), but did NOT - actually - know the goddess.

This is the point you seem unable to grasp.  So tell me.  Did the pagans genuinely know the Mother Goddess?  Or did they get things all wrong?  And how - at the time - could you have told the difference?
Can you see how you time travel to justify your thinking as if you really know what was going on back then.  All we know is that people followed a guy teaching about God. That is still happening today.  If we want to know about God we would have to go to the teacher it is that simple. That is the only science to knowing.
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Offline Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: What is consciousness? Theists say ...
« Reply #278 on: March 20, 2014, 01:25:41 PM »
Do you seriously think he will reply without dodging! BM

Nope.  He'll probably talk about sugar again.  But he won't tell me how to tell the difference between sugar and Candarel, or how all those generations of pagans were deceived despite all the sugar that was around.

Basically, I'm convinced that he is a theist, a genuine believer in one of these new-agey cults of woo, who came here with the "bright" idea of pretending to be an atheist in order to sucker us into admitting his woo could be true.  Unfortunately, nobody is biting, and so now he is having to try to simultaneously pretend to be an atheist while also promiting the woo he secretly believes in.

Actually, I shouldn't have posted the above.  He is going to seize on that as a convenient sidetrack, and ignore all the questions from my previous post.  He's done it before, odds are it will happen again.
I have understood I cannot change your mind. What is there to address??
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Offline Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: What is consciousness? Theists say ...
« Reply #279 on: March 20, 2014, 01:32:29 PM »
"God is conscious," is the fallacy of labelling: the idea is that you take any two nouns and separate them by the verb "to be", e.g. "Trees are life". It sounds profound but is essentially meaningless.

All evidence is against "another life".

Do you have any evidence for your claim, or is it something you invented or have you simply accepted, without question, someone's word on the matter?
Maybe this website should be placed here.
http://kirpalsingh-teachings.org/en/talks/third-world-tour/449-on-the-path-to-higher-consciousness.html
from your link:
Quote
Sant Kirpal Singh: Man is the highest in all creation – it's spoken of very highly by all scriptures. All say that, because this is the highest, because we can do that work which cannot be done in any other body: that is we can know our Self and can know God.
This idiot has assumed there is a God, hasn't he?

He has not shown there is a god or even that there might be a god. He has just accepted that there is a god.

So your link didn't help at all.

Again, "Do you have any evidence for your claim, or is it something you invented or have you simply accepted, without question, someone's word on the matter?"

It seems you have just accepted this old fraud's word, tell me that you haven't done that.
The link was more to do with the question raised by the thread -"What is Consciousness? Theists say...." I was trying to bring it back on track.

Was there something this idiot says about consciousness that clarifies the problem you and others have relative to what we have been taught? Is it clearer what Theists say about consciousness.
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Offline Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: What is consciousness? Theists say ...
« Reply #280 on: March 20, 2014, 01:41:43 PM »
On a survey of the faults of Kirpal Singh, I have found that he believed in Homeopathy, Ayurveda and had a lot of prostate problems.

http://kirpalsingh-teachings.org/en/talks/in-india/955-zt.html
Quote
Ever since the first flicker of life on earth, man has been mightily engaged in search of happiness. He has made a tremendous progress in all walks of life. Take, for example, physical research. Many wonderful sciences have come to light: Unani system of medicine, Ayurvedic system of cure, Allopathy, Homeopathy, Naturopathy, and the like. All of them aim at the smooth working of the physical body. Surgery has progressed to an extent unknown before – the finest organ of the human body can now be replaced or transplanted from one to another.

http://www.ruhanisatsangusa.org/pdf/Volume3-TheNewLife.pdf
Quote
Homeopathic
medicines are prepared in alcohol. In both cases they have
no intoxicating effect.

Apparently he also hated sex, and believed that unborn children would be tainted by sex, if the parents had sex. Also, homosexuals will come back as ghosts.
http://www.santmat-thetruth.de/anurag-sagar-860/items/book_anurag_sagar_en_05_06_01.html

Quote
If young people have an intense desire for sexuality, that originates from the mother’s thoughts during the pregnancy. True education begins inside the womb, because the thoughts of the mother form the character of the unborn child. For this reason, and for the health of the mother, child and husband, it is of particular importance that the partners do not have marital intercourse during the period of pregnancy and nursing.

Love and lust are also often mixed up. Love coming out of the Soul, emanating behind and between the eyebrows but ending in the body or in outer objects is lust. Only Love coming from the Soul and ending in the Soul of the other one is chastity.

If sexuality is practised without its underlying purpose – i. e. to beget children –, it  inevitably causes that Souls come back as ghosts. This is the case with all groups which practise tantra, but also homosexuals, who have sexual relationships, for no children can be begotten here.

He believed in Astrology, but that he was exempt from it. Calling it a "regular science".
http://www.ruhanisatsangusa.org/pdf/Volume3-TheNewLife.pdf

Quote
ASTROLOGY is a regular science, but few there are
who are really conversant with it. This requires a clear
mind vision. Moreover, it affects those who are under the
influence of the Stars; but those who transcend the starry
sky, or are taken under the care of Masters who transcend
the starry sky, the predictions in their cases do not stand
correct

LOL. (page 38)

Quote
Saints, when seemingly ill, are generally seen taking medi-
cinal doses as may be prescribed by the physicians, but
actually They do not need such treatment. This They do
just to keep up the worldly order of things. In this way,
they set an example to man to continue his worldly routine
wisely and resort to proper treatment whenever necessary.

They have a poor explanation of why saints die of cancer and have prostate problems. Presumably they do it voluntarily, while taking medicines, to look normal.

That's all I can be bothered scanning for. It indicates that he believed in a load of crap, and was just as fake as any other fake Indian New Ager.
Thanks Let me read what you have and get back to you on it.
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Offline Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: What is consciousness? Theists say ...
« Reply #281 on: March 20, 2014, 01:53:14 PM »
I shouldn't have read this. This is way funnier.

Quote
Q. Can I teach Yoga?
TEACHING YOGA is all right; you may earn your
money in any way you like, but don’t be your own
subject of yoga. If you do, then you will go the longer way.
Our way can be done very quickly. That way would take at
least hundreds of years to come inside; you would have to
take the longer way. If you want to take the longer way, all
right, do it. You may want to teach it, that’s all right, but
don’t do it your own self, that’s all. If you want to go the
longer way, very good, you may choose it if you like. That
is the longer way; it was introduced in the past ages. In the
Golden Age man lived for one lac of years. People could
put in 70,000 years, 80,000 years in that practice. Then
came the Silver Age. In the Silver Age the age came down
one tenth to 10,000 years. People could put in two or three
thousand years in that way. Then came the Copper Age.
Life was cut down to one-third. Even then you could put in
two or three hundred years. Nowadays man does not live
70 years. How can you follow those methods that were
introduced in those years? We cannot live up to that age.
So Kabir and Guru Nanak introduced this simple way that
we do—even a child can do it. It is the quicker way, you
see. Have you read Crown of Life? I wrote this book about
the comparative study of all yoga. There is one part that
explains what you do, what you are teaching. There are
other forms of yoga in it too. But our method is the quick-
est way through all the ages, for any man of any age. Now,
is it clear to you?

If I kept reading, I would bump into stupider and stupider things.
Wow You have been busy. Let me look up more on Kabir.
From What I understand he was a mystic who was unschooled - he started the path of Surat Shabd Yoga and passed it on to his favorite deserving disciple Dharamdas - who promoted the path of Surat Shabd Yoga through the songs of kabir - the singers are called panthis or Kabir panthis.. The evidence of what is experienced on the inner journey is described in the numerous poems that was written by those around Kabir who listened and documented. Apparently all his poems ends with Kabir says:---Shabd or light and sound of God.
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 703
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: What is consciousness? Theists say ...
« Reply #282 on: March 20, 2014, 02:28:17 PM »
I have understood I cannot change your mind. What is there to address??

Sure you can.  Just answer the questions instead of avoiding having to  answer them.  Maybe if you had some reasonable answers you might be successful in changing minds.

Look at it this way:

Anytime someone comes up with a plan, either in engineering or architecture (or almost anything in life), the lead designer with the plan is going to be asked questions and better know what he or she is doing.  If the lead designer can't answer questions in a meaningful way then the end result is going to be pretty bad.
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6313
  • Darwins +732/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: What is consciousness? Theists say ...
« Reply #283 on: March 20, 2014, 02:28:56 PM »
Jesuis

Your assumptions about god minds or whatever are based on nothing that exists in my reality. You have talked and talked about knowing god and you have tried and tried to redefine atheism and none of it makes a whit of sense.

If I went to a food forum and told them that in fact marshmallows were, in reality, long things made of wood used to spread mustard over the lawns of the ancients, would I get much in the way of positive responses? I hope not. You shouldn't be hoping for much here, either. Because the things you are saying are even less intelligible. At least in my example I defined my redefinition in language others can follow, even if they don't agree. You haven't bothered doing that.

Your insistence is irritating. Your communication skills nil. And your concern over your own failing are even less nil. If that is possible.

When dozens of people can't communicate to one person that he is not communicating, the fault has to lie with the one person who isn't doing anything right. The rest of us can't be held responsible for your strange ideas or strange ways.

We've tried. You're trying. Big difference.
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: What is consciousness? Theists say ...
« Reply #284 on: March 20, 2014, 02:42:37 PM »
from your link:
Quote
Sant Kirpal Singh: Man is the highest in all creation – it's spoken of very highly by all scriptures. All say that, because this is the highest, because we can do that work which cannot be done in any other body: that is we can know our Self and can know God.
This idiot has assumed there is a God, hasn't he?
From an early age he had he desire to know God. So yes. As for him being an idiot - how did you conclude that? Can you clarify if that is your educational stance or it is bias speak? Neil De Grasse wanted to be an Astrophysicist from an early age does that make him an idiot? If that makes him intelligent to fulfill this desire- Can you clarify where this "urge" and its determination comes from that results in an individual confirming their life's ambitions?
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Offline Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: What is consciousness? Theists say ...
« Reply #285 on: March 20, 2014, 02:45:19 PM »
I have understood I cannot change your mind. What is there to address??

Sure you can.  Just answer the questions instead of avoiding having to  answer them.  Maybe if you had some reasonable answers you might be successful in changing minds.

Look at it this way:

Anytime someone comes up with a plan, either in engineering or architecture (or almost anything in life), the lead designer with the plan is going to be asked questions and better know what he or she is doing.  If the lead designer can't answer questions in a meaningful way then the end result is going to be pretty bad.
But I am just a an idiot not a lead designer. I know you think I have potential but I know who I am - and I am with the others on this.
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Offline Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: What is consciousness? Theists say ...
« Reply #286 on: March 20, 2014, 02:53:37 PM »
Jesuis

Your assumptions about god minds or whatever are based on nothing that exists in my reality. You have talked and talked about knowing god and you have tried and tried to redefine atheism and none of it makes a whit of sense.

If I went to a food forum and told them that in fact marshmallows were, in reality, long things made of wood used to spread mustard over the lawns of the ancients, would I get much in the way of positive responses? I hope not. You shouldn't be hoping for much here, either. Because the things you are saying are even less intelligible. At least in my example I defined my redefinition in language others can follow, even if they don't agree. You haven't bothered doing that.

Your insistence is irritating. Your communication skills nil. And your concern over your own failing are even less nil. If that is possible.

When dozens of people can't communicate to one person that he is not communicating, the fault has to lie with the one person who isn't doing anything right. The rest of us can't be held responsible for your strange ideas or strange ways.

We've tried. You're trying. Big difference.
I understand my faults in communication - however it does not mean you cannot understand the books or websites better than I could have - as I have posted them. If you were really interested in what I am reading and where this knowledge is coming from you have all the info at your disposal.

If a 2 year old was trying to communicate with limited vocabulary I am sure if you "wanted to know" what I am trying to say you could.
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 703
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: What is consciousness? Theists say ...
« Reply #287 on: March 20, 2014, 03:30:13 PM »
from your link:
Quote
Sant Kirpal Singh: Man is the highest in all creation – it's spoken of very highly by all scriptures. All say that, because this is the highest, because we can do that work which cannot be done in any other body: that is we can know our Self and can know God.
This idiot has assumed there is a God, hasn't he?
From an early age he had he desire to know God. So yes.

How did he learn about “God”?  Was he told about “God” from someone else, his parents perhaps?  Yes, that is where I suspect Kirpal Singh learned about “God”, from his parents.  Just about every spiritual or religious person (if not all) learn about “God” as children, from the people who raise them.  This is a serious problem as children will believe almost anything including true and untrue things.  Simply having a desire to know “God” proves nothing.  Some children may also have a desire to know Santa Claus, however eventually children figure out the truth or they are told the truth that Santa Claus is imaginary.  There is no evidence that Santa Claus actually exists.  So, where is the evidence that “God” actually exists?

As for him being an idiot - how did you conclude that?

The word “Idiot” as defined by Merriam-Webster:

1 usually offensive :  a person affected with extreme mental retardation
2 :  a foolish or stupid person

I think the first definition is no longer proper, someone would have to be fairly insensitive to call someone with a mental disorder an idiot.  The possibility does exist though that someone might simply appear foolish or stupid and actually have an unknown mental disorder causing their behavior.

The second definition is likely (and maybe more often) the intended meaning behind using the word “idiot”.  Someone who is foolish or stupid.

The word “foolish” as defined by Merriam-Webster:

1 :  lacking in sense, judgment, or discretion
2 a :  ABSURD, RIDICULOUS
b :  marked by a loss of composure :  NONPLUSSED
3 :  INSIGNIFICANT, TRIFLING

The word “stupid” as defined by Merriam-Webster:

1 a :  slow of mind :  OBTUSE
b :  given to unintelligent decisions or acts :  acting in an unintelligent or careless manner
c :  lacking intelligence or reason :  BRUTISH
2 :  dulled in feeling or sensation :  TORPID <still stupid from the sedative>
3 :  marked by or resulting from unreasoned thinking or acting :  SENSELESS <a stupid decision>
4 a :  lacking interest or point <a stupid event>
b :  VEXATIOUS, EXASPERATING <the stupid car won't start>

It is fair to say, people who assume things with zero supporting evidence for their assumptions are idiots.

For instance, if I were to assume that aliens from another planet are stealing my socks to fuel their intergalactic space ships, I would be an idiot.  If I were to assume my 14-speed bike can fly me to the moon, I would be an idiot.


Can you clarify if that is your educational stance or it is bias speak?

I can’t speak for Graybeard, but for me it would be my educated stance that Kirpal Singh is an idiot.  I say that not as an insult, but as a evaluation.

Neil De Grasse wanted to be an Astrophysicist from an early age does that make him an idiot? If that makes him intelligent to fulfill this desire-

What someone wants to be from an early age has nothing to do with being an idiot. 

Can you clarify where this "urge" and its determination comes from that results in an individual confirming their life's ambitions?

Interesting enough, this “urge” to learn and know things has developed over millions of years through evolution and is what has helped the human race survive.  We want to know if there is a lion in the bush that is about to kill us, we want to know about the trails used by animals so we can hunt, we want to know about the cycles of the seasons so we can learn what time of year is the best time to plant crops. 

Unfortunately, simply wanting to learn or know things isn’t enough as a person has to put work into learning and knowing, and has to care if what they learn or know is actually the truth.  Some people however take the easy way out of doing the hard work it takes to learn and know things, and just make stuff up like “God exists and created the universe”. 
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 703
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: What is consciousness? Theists say ...
« Reply #288 on: March 20, 2014, 03:32:04 PM »
Look at it this way:

Anytime someone comes up with a plan, either in engineering or architecture (or almost anything in life), the lead designer with the plan is going to be asked questions and better know what he or she is doing.  If the lead designer can't answer questions in a meaningful way then the end result is going to be pretty bad.
But I am just a an idiot not a lead designer. I know you think I have potential but I know who I am - and I am with the others on this.

Well then, shouldn't you stop acting like the lead designer then and simply say "I don't know"?
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6313
  • Darwins +732/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: What is consciousness? Theists say ...
« Reply #289 on: March 20, 2014, 03:32:52 PM »
Jesuis

Your assumptions about god minds or whatever are based on nothing that exists in my reality. You have talked and talked about knowing god and you have tried and tried to redefine atheism and none of it makes a whit of sense.

If I went to a food forum and told them that in fact marshmallows were, in reality, long things made of wood used to spread mustard over the lawns of the ancients, would I get much in the way of positive responses? I hope not. You shouldn't be hoping for much here, either. Because the things you are saying are even less intelligible. At least in my example I defined my redefinition in language others can follow, even if they don't agree. You haven't bothered doing that.

Your insistence is irritating. Your communication skills nil. And your concern over your own failing are even less nil. If that is possible.

When dozens of people can't communicate to one person that he is not communicating, the fault has to lie with the one person who isn't doing anything right. The rest of us can't be held responsible for your strange ideas or strange ways.

We've tried. You're trying. Big difference.
I understand my faults in communication - however it does not mean you cannot understand the books or websites better than I could have - as I have posted them. If you were really interested in what I am reading and where this knowledge is coming from you have all the info at your disposal.

If a 2 year old was trying to communicate with limited vocabulary I am sure if you "wanted to know" what I am trying to say you could.

Two things. We're telling you that the stuff you want us to read is a bunch of crap. And two year olds can at least point. Also, two year olds also have a track record of being accurate about when they pooped and stuff, so they are worthy of our attention. So far you haven't managed that.

Books about the crap you're pushing are written to make money, not to enlighten. You need to learn that at some point in your life or you'll be reading a lot of stuff unworthy of your attention.
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.