Karma poll

[Little Rik]

I don't believe in Karma as a spiritual force -- but I do think that one should live by the philosophy that "what goes around comes around."

In order to think and believe in that philosophy which is quite good a person need a moral way of life.
If that doesn't come from spirituality where then can come from?  
Can you explain that to me?  

As far as I understand atheism live by the day (actions thought for short term results) not by the future or better say on long term results as reincarnation is off so how is then possible to think that later on a person pay the bill for previous actions?  

---

Rik, death is not an event - it is a process.  A dying (not yet dead) brain still has imperfect function.  
That is from where NDEs emanate, your ridiculous unevidenced opinions notwithstanding.

Not yet dead?
Doctors say that is dead not in the process of dying.
You can't get it Chas, do you?  

---

Evidence to the contrary Ton?
Lol.
If you only would have read what I did write recently you would have plenty of evidence to the contrary.

1) I said that something material-physical such as the brain can not give birth to something a lot more subtle and evolved as the consciousness.
2) Nothing in your link point to any solid evidence.
They are all opinions.
3) To understand what the consciousness is all about you got to leave the physical reality and get deep into the subconscious mind and that is mainly possible by PRACTICING intuitional science or yoga meditation although there are other ways possible but those ways takes for ever.
4) The consciousness is like an iceberg.
The above part show only little while the part under show everything.
By studying the physical phenomena you can only study the above that is why all those so called philosophers and scholars are unable to get into the subconscious mind.

Which of the above "I said" bullshit is supposed to be evidence?

1) Even demented idiots know that the brain is made of matter while the consciousness is an abstract reality.
This is 100% evidence yog.
From here the conclusion is only one and that is that something less evolved can not possibly give birth to something more evolved.

2) Demented idiots also know that there is a known mind (conscious mind) and a hidden mind.
This is evident and apparent when the missing word or solution to the problem come in the known mind after an effort and that can only come from the subconscious mind or hidden mind.

3) Any idiot would tell you that to fix your leaking toilet  you call a plumber not an electrician.
From here any idiot would understand that physical science can not possibly understand the subconscious mind.

You can well keep on dreaming yog but until you do so logic will stay well away from your existence.    



This also answer Ton questions.

[Angrboda]

LOL.  So that is your approach, then... to ignore it and pretend it didn't provide the evidence you asked for.  I will note yet again that you did not provide any evidence to the contrary while first demanding evidence and then demanding "real" and "solid" and "undisputed" evidence.  This from someone who thinks a book and website cataloging NDE experiences is evidence of karma and of the existence of a soul.

I realize you'll just ignore this and spew more garbage, but I just wanted to point it out one last time. That's who you are, Rik.

Evidence to the contrary Ton?
Lol.
If you only would have read what I did write recently you would have plenty of evidence to the contrary.

1) I said that something material-physical such as the brain can not give birth to something a lot more subtle and evolved as the consciousness.
2) Nothing in your link point to any solid evidence.
They are all opinions.
3) To understand what the consciousness is all about you got to leave the physical reality and get deep into the subconscious mind and that is mainly possible by PRACTICING intuitional science or yoga meditation although there are other ways possible but those ways takes for ever.
4) The consciousness is like an iceberg.
The above part show only little while the part under show everything.
By studying the physical phenomena you can only study the above that is why all those so called philosophers and scholars are unable to get into the subconscious mind.

Which of the above "I said" bullshit is supposed to be evidence?

1) Even demented idiots know that the brain is made of matter while the consciousness is an abstract reality.
This is 100% evidence yog.
From here the conclusion is only one and that is that something less evolved can not possibly give birth to something more evolved.

More like 100% bollocks.  All you are doing is asserting your conclusion that consciousness cannot be a product of the brain.  That's not providing evidence to the contrary, that's just begging the question.  And now you've doubled down on this stupidity.  Way to go, airhead.

2) Demented idiots also know that there is a known mind (conscious mind) and a hidden mind.
This is evident and apparent when the missing word or solution to the problem come in the known mind after an effort and that can only come from the subconscious mind or hidden mind.

3) Any idiot would tell you that to fix your leaking toilet  you call a plumber not an electrician.
From here any idiot would understand that physical science can not possibly understand the subconscious mind.

You were asked to provide evidence that consciousness is not a product of the brain.  Neither of these has anything to do with that proposition.  You can claim that there is a special nature to consciousness such that it requires a different sort of expert until you're blue in the face, that's not providing evidence that it is special in the way you claim.  You're just making bare assertions like usual.

[TheoneandonlytrueGod]

Oh boy here we go again.

[Little Rik]

1) Even demented idiots know that the brain is made of matter while the consciousness is an abstract reality.
This is 100% evidence yog.
From here the conclusion is only one and that is that something less evolved can not possibly give birth to something more evolved.

More like 100% bollocks.  All you are doing is asserting your conclusion that consciousness cannot be a product of the brain.  That's not providing evidence to the contrary, that's just begging the question.  And now you've doubled down on this stupidity.  Way to go, airhead.

2) Demented idiots also know that there is a known mind (conscious mind) and a hidden mind.
This is evident and apparent when the missing word or solution to the problem come in the known mind after an effort and that can only come from the subconscious mind or hidden mind.

3) Any idiot would tell you that to fix your leaking toilet  you call a plumber not an electrician.
From here any idiot would understand that physical science can not possibly understand the subconscious mind.

You were asked to provide evidence that consciousness is not a product of the brain.  Neither of these has anything to do with that proposition.  You can claim that there is a special nature to consciousness such that it requires a different sort of expert until you're blue in the face, that's not providing evidence that it is special in the way you claim.  You're just making bare assertions like usual.

FOOL.  

There is plenty of evidence that from nothing you get nothing and that from the small you get the small
not the big.
You guys always praise science but science tell you that you are dead wrong.  
Have you ever seen a car that create a driver?
Science tell us that is the human being that create the car.
How can something physical-material as the brain can create something bigger and abstract as the consciousness?
Did anybody ever told you what the word ABSTRACT means yog?
And did anybody ever told you what is the difference between material and abstract?

Oh, sorry you are atheist.
Now is all clear.
I never thought of that yog.  

---

Oh boy here we go again.

Still excited for Trump win Roberto?    

[Chas]

Rik, death is not an event - it is a process.  A dying (not yet dead) brain still has imperfect function.  
That is from where NDEs emanate, your ridiculous unevidenced opinions notwithstanding.

Not yet dead?
Doctors say that is dead not in the process of dying.
You can't get it Chas, do you?  

When someone is pronounced dead there is still biological function occurring.
Learn some science, you incredible dolt.

[Angrboda]

More like 100% bollocks.  All you are doing is asserting your conclusion that consciousness cannot be a product of the brain.  That's not providing evidence to the contrary, that's just begging the question.  And now you've doubled down on this stupidity.  Way to go, airhead.


You were asked to provide evidence that consciousness is not a product of the brain.  Neither of these has anything to do with that proposition.  You can claim that there is a special nature to consciousness such that it requires a different sort of expert until you're blue in the face, that's not providing evidence that it is special in the way you claim.  You're just making bare assertions like usual.

FOOL.  

Boo! Back atcha, dumbass.

There is plenty of evidence that from nothing you get nothing and that from the small you get the small not the big.

What fucking evidence are you talking about? From small parts we get large trucks, large ships, huge skyscrapers. From small humans choosing to live
near each other develop huge cities. So where's the evidence that from the small you only get the small? There is none, because this is just another
"law" that you pulled whole hog from your ass, and it's demonstrably false.

You guys always praise science but science tell you that you are dead wrong.  
Have you ever seen a car that create a driver?
Science tell us that is the human being that create the car.

What the fuck are you babbling about? Have you ever seen a human as big as a car? Small from small my ass.

How can something physical-material as the brain can create something bigger and abstract as the consciousness?

What have you been smoking? Consciousness is neither bigger nor smaller than the brain; it has no dimensions. And what, besides your prior assumption that the concrete can't give birth to the abstract makes you think the concrete can't serve as host for the abstract. The filing system on your computer is an abstract entity, but it sure as hell has a physical incarnation in the wiring of the computer. This is another "law" that you pulled from your ass and it depends on the brain not giving rise to consciousness, because then it would assuredly be false. So your "law" depends on the belief you have about consciousness being true in order to validate it. That's begging the question plain and simple.

Did anybody ever told you what the word ABSTRACT means yog?
And did anybody ever told you what is the difference between material and abstract?

Do you ever do anything but pull things from your ass and quote non-existent "laws" ? The material and the abstract collide at multiple points, including consciousness.

Oh, sorry you are atheist.
Now is all clear.
I never thought of that yog.  

There's a whole metric shit ton of stuff you never thought of, all because you're stuck in the dogma of beliefs you cribbed from Sarkar and Ananda Marga.

[Little Rik]

Not yet dead?
Doctors say that is dead not in the process of dying.
You can't get it Chas, do you?  

When someone is pronounced dead there is still biological function occurring.  
Learn some science, you incredible dolt.

FOOL.  

If you really believe that biological functions of a dead body (oh, sorry let us say your dying brain) are able to create clear and sharp visions and experiences still vivid and bright after years and years then you only fool yourself.
By the way Chas why don't you ask your experts if they know the relation between brain and consciousness and whether the consciousness die when the brain die or it dissociate from the body-brain at that stage.
Let me know if these experts know for sure one way or an other.  

---

What fucking evidence are you talking about?  From small parts we get large trucks, large ships, huge skyscrapers.  From small humans choosing to live
near each other develop huge cities.  So where's the evidence that from the small you only get the small?  There is none, because this is just another
"law" that you pulled whole hog from your ass, and it's demonstrably false.

With a lot of bricks is possible to build huge building.
No question about it Yog.
The point however was not whether we can create big things with small things materially speaking.
The question was different and as usual you didn't get it.  

It was whether with the small CONSCIOUSNESS can create a big consciousness.
The brain is made of matter and in the matter you can only find a dormant consciousness therefore
a brain can not possibly create an active consciousness as the consciousness in a human being.
Many bricks can make a huge building but the building itself does not have a bigger consciousness than a brick.
In fact both of them being made of matter have the same dormant or latent consciousness.

You never thought of that Yog, did you?  

You guys always praise science but science tell you that you are dead wrong.  
Have you ever seen a car that create a driver?
Science tell us that is the human being that create the car.

What the fuck are you babbling about?  Have you ever seen a human as big as a car?  Small from small my ass.

You fail once again yog by missing the point.  

It is all about the matter that is unable to create something bigger that herself such as an awake consciousness.  

How can something physical-material as the brain can create something bigger and abstract as the consciousness?

What have you been smoking?  Consciousness is neither bigger nor smaller than the brain; it has no dimensions.  And what, besides your prior assumption that the concrete can't give birth to the abstract makes you think the concrete can't serve as host for the abstract.  The filing system on your computer is an abstract entity, but it sure as hell has a physical incarnation in the wiring of the computer.  This is another "law" that you pulled from your ass and it depends on the brain not giving rise to consciousness, because then it would assuredly be false.  So your "law" depends on the belief you have about consciousness being true in order to validate it.  That's begging the question plain and simple.

Life in this universe is all about evolution.
In order for evolution to take place is necessary to insert or allow to enter the consciousness into a medium that present a parallelism with such a consciousness.
So a latent or dormant consciousness will lie in the matter while an awake consciousness will find a medium in the animal or human life.
So yes there is relation between body-brain and consciousness.
A developed consciousness need a body-brain in order to express itself and have the chance to evolve
that however does NOT means that the consciousness is a product of the brain or that the consciousness die when the body-brain die.
The consciousness will never die and the energy will also never die.
When the parallelism between body-brain and consciousness is no longer there then the consciousness
will have to find an other medium in order to continue his journey to the final goal of life.
Unfortunately atheism doesn't get it.  

Did anybody ever told you what the word ABSTRACT means yog?
And did anybody ever told you what is the difference between material and abstract?

Do you ever do anything but pull things from your ass and quote non-existent "laws" ?  The material and the abstract collide at multiple points, including consciousness.

FOOL.  

Not only collide but go hand in hand until life is there.
That doesn't mean that they are stuck together for ever even when the body die.
Science prove you wrong yog.
Consciousness and energy are the two sides of the same sheet.
They never die.
Ever.  

Oh, sorry you are atheist.
Now is all clear.
I never thought of that yog.  

There's a whole metric shit ton of stuff you never thought of, all because you're stuck in the dogma of beliefs you cribbed from Sarkar and Ananda Marga.

Let us hear about these dogmas.
Mention one if you can.  

[Whateverist]

Let us hear about these dogmas.
Mention one if you can.  

Apparently Sarker was far ahead of his time. His Microvita theory came out years before the Star Wars movies revealed the existence of midi-chlorians. I'll bet you never thought of that one, did you yogi bear?

[Tonus]

I like how he follows up calling one person FOOL by completely fucking up the quote system for the hundredth goddamn time.

[Little Rik]

Let us hear about these dogmas.
Mention one if you can.  

Apparently Sarker was far ahead of his time.  His Microvita theory came out years before the Star Wars movies revealed the existence of midi-chlorians.  I'll bet you never thought of that one, did you yogi bear?

Most of the times that scientists discover something they come to the conclusion that such a thing is the ultimate to discover later on that there is something more evolved.
When the atom was discovered it was follow by protons, neutrons and electrons and then by quarks and the struggle to discover more goes on and on.
Sarkar worked on a different plane of science.
A body need to be fed so this universal body follow the rule.
As the universe is balanced by the positive and negative also the food needed in this universe come as positive and negative and microvita is composed of both positive and negative microvita.
This is something that physical science never bother to investigate that is why they still don't know
anything about microvita but Sarkar goes well over the physical aspect of the smaller part that compose the universe.