Spiritualism and Science?

There's no attack ya fool , even

waste my ... :)

had an emoticon
But you are still wrong about the ph, it can never be right, you are just seeing search results, anyone can spell anything as they wish on their own pages, that does not make it correct, search for phantastic, phear and phocus, now tell me they are correct!

Share this post


Link to post

m0l0t0v said:
I`ll just ignore the 'F vs PH business'. Who am I to agrue about PH with someone named PHoenix.

LOL you are phunny :D

m0l0t0v said:
I will agrue with this though:
So what if there are stages; these stages have no clear borders so the point still stands.

http://www.sleepdisorderchannel.net/stages/
the above describe the stages.

Note however this is not to be mistaken with meditation.
http://www.sol.com.au/kor/21_02.htm
there I think you can go into deeper searching for the 'spirit's world aspect. Even so, I will argue, stress relieve unequals the sensation of talking to the spirit world. We obviously have not a full understanding of the power we have over our brain functions. Meditation being one.

Share this post


Link to post

See, the way I think of it usually is that since no one understands existence, no one really understands much of anything, and therefor the best and smartest logic would be to keep their mouths closed on the subject. However, since this is a religion and politics section, people are going to say whatever they damn well want to say, even if our whole perception of reality is nothing more than a wild guess.

Share this post


Link to post

m0l0t0v's rant

Oh come on, don't be such a whiner! People make fun of you all the time on these forums - get used to it.

Share this post


Link to post

Good old fodders didn't want to humiliate you
Instead he wants to honour you.

You are my opponent, but not my enemy,
For your resistance gives me strength
Your will gives me courage
Your spirit ennobles me
And, although I aim to defeat you,
Should I succeed, I will not humiliate you
Instead I will honour you..
For without you, I am a lesser man.

Share this post


Link to post

I`ll never post another reply here again

OK, so I might have overreacted!

There's no attack ya fool , even "waste my ... :)" had an emoticon
But you are still wrong about the ph, it can never be right, you are just seeing search results, anyone can spell anything as they wish on their own pages, that does not make it correct, search for phantastic, phear and phocus, now tell me they are correct!

You are forgiven. You win; I give up; you have defeated me...
From now on I`ll spell PHilosophy and everytime I do I`ll think of good old Fodders (For without you, I am a lesser man)

Oh come on, don't be such a whiner! People make fun of you all the time on these forums - get used to it.

People usually make fun of my thoughts and ideas, this time it was about my spelling, that just annoyed me.

Politics and Religion....Flame on!

NOT "Spelling and Grammar....Flame on!"

:)

How can I stay angry with a face like that!

Share this post


Link to post
m0l0t0v said:

OK, so I might have overreacted!


I`ll think of good old Fodders

That's Phodders, fuckface :)

Share this post


Link to post

m0l0t0v said:

"In fact the 'me vs my'- mistake toke place when I was defending myself against Fodders COWARDLY and UNPROVOKED attack."

To fuel this fire some more: m0l0t0v, you should have written "took" instead of "toke", unless you wanted to write "token", which would not have made any sense in this sentence. So you really need to check up on your spelling. If not, people will not be interested in your ideas (cruel, but so very true) :-)

NeFaRiuS, self-proclaimed president of the Organisation Using Grammatical Errors to Irritate Other People (OUGEIOP)

Despite the terrible :-) spelling, we don't need flaming tongues to understand m0l0t0v (still warming up, is that a good or a bad thing when you're a molotov cocktail?).

Share this post


Link to post

"It's a damn poor mind that can think of only one way to spell a word!" -- Andrew Jackson
:I

"I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way." -- Mark Twain
:]

"We should have a great fewer disputes in the world if words were taken for what they are, the signs of our ideas only, and not for things themselves." -- John Locke
:)

If you can't annoy somebody, there's little point in writing.
- Kingsley Amis
:D

Share this post


Link to post

"All cvilization starts with language. If one does not master language, one is uncivilized." -Machiavelli, Il Principe

Share this post


Link to post

OK, OK, that should be Civilization of course. (see above)

Share this post


Link to post

No, it should be Sid Meier's Civilization. :p

Share this post


Link to post

No, it should of been about spiritualism and science. :)

O well.

Share this post


Link to post

You do not need to MASTER language to be civilized. That was one of the most moronic comments that I have ever heard. Most people are far from mastering English yet we consider ourselves civilized. Anyone who is more concerned with how a word is spelt than a thought or opinion should be shot in the head.

That filosophy is thoughtless. I spelt philosophy wrong in spite of you. Bah.

Black

Share this post


Link to post
Black said:

You do not need to MASTER language to be civilized. That was one of the most moronic comments that I have ever heard. Most people are far from mastering English yet we consider ourselves civilized. Anyone who is more concerned with how a word is spelt than a thought or opinion should be shot in the head.

That filosophy is thoughtless. I spelt philosophy wrong in spite of you. Bah.

Black

There is a difference between "considering yourself civilised" and being considered civilised, besides, understanding , grasping or mastering the English language has no bearing on being civilised, many Italians , Greeks etc are civilised.

Share this post


Link to post

Could we please get back to the original discussion folks.

(Psst Dsm, you could make a new forum called "Dsm's spelling booth: Haven't mastered your own native? Skilled foreigners will stand at your disposition here").



I think that science as well as the arts (or human sciences) could benefit tremendously from considering a spiritual approach to the understanding of our world. Opening up a whole new branch of speculative theory (that should be subject to the same level of scrutiny as anything else of course). Problem is that there is no real spiritualistic tradition to draw from right at the moment.

The so-called spiritualists Scientist mentions are not true seekers of knowledge. Not even in the spiritual sense (though they will probably claim to be). Instead they use "spiritualism" to ascertain themselves of their worth by attributing all kinds of beneficial "energies" to themselves. Woe betide to anyone who dares to question their judgement in the matter (like our dear Scientist). They will find themselves the target of malignant "energies". All in all it sums up to be some people "blessing" each other to improve their confidence in themselves. Very charming, but completely worthless for a seeker of knowledge.

So before one can start merging science and spiritualism one must first solve the problem of spiritualism and quack spiritualism. A problem that involves overcoming the social stigma of spiritualism nowadays. Most people seem to believe that only quack variant of spiritualism and this forces "serious shamans" into hiding if they don't want to be buffooned. And then there is always the christian ban on necromancy to worry over.


BTW my university is just beginning to offer courses in magic.
I wanna be a wizard. ¤<:)


I have a question for you Scientist: When you talk about science do you then also mean "arts" or "humanities"?

Share this post


Link to post
Little Faith said:

Could we please get back to the original discussion folks.[/b]
I think that science as well as the arts (or human sciences) could benefit tremendously from considering a spiritual approach to the understanding of our world. Opening up a whole new branch of speculative theory (that should be subject to the same level of scrutiny as anything else of course). Problem is that there is no real spiritualistic tradition to draw from right at the moment.

....

So before one can start merging science and spiritualism one must first solve the problem of spiritualism and quack spiritualism. A problem that involves overcoming the social stigma of spiritualism nowadays. Most people seem to believe that only quack variant of spiritualism and this forces "serious shamans" into hiding if they don't want to be buffooned. And then there is always the christian ban on necromancy to worry over.


BTW my university is just beginning to offer courses in magic.
I wanna be a wizard. ¤<:)


I have a question for you Scientist: When you talk about science do you then also mean "arts" or "humanities"?

Well ashes to ashes dust to dust.

Religion requires believe. Science requires facts. They will never mix. And I shutter at the thought of the pinnacle of thought and reason, a University, being perverted by Witchcraft. Holy fuck.

This reminds me on Mark Twain:
Don't let school interfere with your education. Arts and humanity are obviously studies but not necessarily scientific. In fact the day art is a science we have lost art.

Share this post


Link to post
Executor6666 said:

WARNING!
Flamewar ahead!
Flame density: Lethal
Take proper caution and wear protective gear beyond this point
--Internet Department of Safety

By the way, my answer is no. Religions are myths, and God is the result of humanity's attempts to comprehend the incomprehensible. For example, the formation of the universe started when a singularity containing all of the universe's matter (it was then energy because the speck was too hot for real matter to exist) exploded in the Big Bang. The speck was caused when a very, very, very old universe ended its existence by contracting in a Big Crunch (our own universe will go through a Big Crunch in about a trillion years). But ther's a catch! Since the universe as we know it did not exist before the Big Bang, there is no "before" the Big Bang (time is part of the universe). If that makes your head spin, the following will truly boggle your mind.

Reality and time do not exist in the period between Big Bangs and Big Crunches, so there is no before and after. The universe before ours never existed because its reality is gone. If you try to understand this "history," you're doing it in vain because humanity cannot contemplate these ideas. You can only know it.

Also, a new universe could theoretically "bud" off of a black hole in our own if the black hole is large enough and it explodes (black holes contain singularities). You cannot travel to a different universe because it does not exist to us. If someone lived in one of these theoretical alternate realities, we would not exist. You could perhaps reach another universe through a spinning black hole (a rapidly spinning black hole has a ring-shaped singularity that you could pass through if you approached from a certain angle. However, the black hole has to be oh-my-gosh-here-it-comes-jumbo-sized so its gravitational pull is gentle enough not to tear you apart. If you emerge in any universe besides a "parallel" universe, you will no longer be yourself because you would be conforming to different physical laws. YOu would not "live" in our sense of the word, and the universe you left will not exist. Also, you will have to move quickly before the white hole that ejected you into this new universe before the other items it threw out pull together into a black hole that swallows up the white hole.

I think I'll stop now an give your aching brains a rest.

Last edited by Executor6666 on 5-14-02 at 21:12


Hmmm......

Share this post


Link to post
Phoenix said:

And I shutter at the thought of the pinnacle of thought and reason, a University, being perverted by Witchcraft. Holy fuck.


Paganism and Wicca were the recognised religions of the British Isles long before the Romans introduced Christianity. I'd be careful when using a word such as 'perverted' when it comes to such a subject. After all, there are religious courses are there not? Wicca is one of the oldest religions in the western world - it has more right than Christianity to be taught in our education system.

Share this post


Link to post
Spike said:

Paganism and Wicca were the recognised religions of the British Isles long before the Romans introduced Christianity. I'd be careful when using a word such as 'perverted' when it comes to such a subject. After all, there are religious courses are there not? Wicca is one of the oldest religions in the western world - it has more right than Christianity to be taught in our education system.

Recognized by whom, scientists? No I won¡¯t be careful, what do you think, I am afraid of something like a witch? LOL
Read his post again I responded to. They are not just studying religion on a historical basis; they are actually ¡°search¡± for scientific proof of spiritualism. And they do in a University?!? Next thing is to search for Santa Claus.

Share this post


Link to post
Spike said:

Paganism and Wicca were the recognised religions of the British Isles long before the Romans introduced Christianity. I'd be careful when using a word such as 'perverted' when it comes to such a subject. After all, there are religious courses are there not? Wicca is one of the oldest religions in the western world - it has more right than Christianity to be taught in our education system.

I seem to remember a film called wicker (wicca) man, was dead cool

Share this post


Link to post
This topic is now closed to further replies.