Are you joking?

[Bucky Ball]

Show me an "I" which exists in the absence of a functioning brain.
Take your time. No rush.

[Minimalist]

Optimistic is not how I'd describe people on this forum.

Generally speaking, optimists are not paying attention to what's going on around them.

[Doubting Thomas]

If I were joking, I'd say, "A horse walked into a bar. The bartender said, 'Why the long face?'"

[downbeatplumb]

If I were joking, I'd say, "A horse walked into a bar. The bartender said, 'Why the long face?'"

A bear walked into the bar and said "can I have..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................a beer"

The barman said

"why the big pause"

(this only works if you say it out loud)

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Who is I?
OM......i am God.
For many thousand years the general mantra has been OM or i am God.
So I represent the awareness that you are God and therefore is not a different issue.
But of course before you realize this it takes a lot of hard work.

Sorry, but I'm unsure what a mystical chant has to do with the debate about the mind/brain division. I know this is asking a lot of you, but could you be clearer about what you mean?

Have you ever try? [to investigate God]

No. And neither has anyone else. God, but its very nature (as described by believers) wouldn't be subject to investigation.

Wrong again.
The primitive that worshiped the sun, the moon and every other physical entity did so out of fear but they did not start the religions.
The caste of priests started the religions in order to control the masses for their own benefit.

And the control was accomplished via fear (fear of the priest caste, fear of divine displeasure, etc).

No idea isn't it?
Just as i thought.

You didn't 'think', otherwise you wouldn't have jumped to the erroneous conclusion that I'm wrong about this. Think - REALLY think, not just pretend to do so - about what I said.

Wrong again.
They did teach spirituality but if you haven't got a clue what spirituality is then all lost.
Shiva, Krisna, Buddha, Jesus were teaching meditation not the rosary, the masses or old mantras.

Really? Jesus taught meditation? Chapter and verse, please.

How do you COMPEL evidence?

I don't compel evidence - evidence compels me. That's what the phrase 'compelling evidence' means.

With the usual PHYSICAL science?[quote]

Yes. If people want to offer evidence for the existence of gods, they would need to do so with the physical sciences. Nothing else is or can be evidentiary.

And how do you know that there is no reason for them to exist.

Because no one has yet offered up a phenomenon for which gods are required as an explanation. All believers routinely do is to us gods as explanations for things they (the believers) are too lazy to think seriously about.

How would you know that the space, the air the light the water and the solid matter are not instead composed of vibration if you never practice self awareness?

Could you reword this, please? I'm not sure what you're asking.

People are over optimistic so they come to easy conclusion even before they build up the foundations into intuitional science which would be able to explain how the system works.

There is no such thing as 'intuitional science.' Scientists may be intuitive, science can't be.

Not really.
Philosophy is the theoretical way to know how the system works.

Sorry, no.

I wonder why so many people try to pass the time in this forum.

Well, I'm nursing an injury at the moment, and this is as good any anything. I don't presume to speak for other people.

You make me feel like going to sleep!

You're welcome.

Boru

[Kayenneh]

You make me feel like going to sleep!

Go to sleep, don't wake up. Won't miss you.

[bennyboy]

WTF are you on?

Edit-Why do you not want to speak of philosophy...you dropped this dog vomit in a philosophy sub forum?

This. Just because the cool kids hang out in the Philosophy section, we have to put up with all range of bullshit questions here. Things that IMO should not be here:
1) talk about spiritual stuff like meditation
2) issues of evidence for/against religion

[Little Rik]

Show me an "I" which exists in the absence of a functioning brain.
Take your time. No rush.

NDE's.
Gee, it took me hours to think about it.

[Little Rik]

Sorry, but I'm unsure what a mystical chant has to do with the debate about the mind/brain division. I know this is asking a lot of you, but could you be clearer about what you mean?

The mind can not do anything unless the I decide to start the action.
It is like a car that can not go anywhere unless the driver decide to act.
Since the old times many people came to the conclusion that this universal dimension is just an illusion like it is an illusion to think that the moon that reflect on a lake is the real moon.
The only real thing is the I and this I is the divine seed.
Once you are able to allow this seed to sprout then you go back to the real dimension.
In other word your self awareness make you realize that you are God.
The sound of this awareness is OM......I am God.

No. And neither has anyone else. God, but its very nature (as described by believers) wouldn't be subject to investigation.

There are believers and believers.
Some believers think that the moon that they see reflected in a lake is the real moon.
When you realize that the difference between you and God is zero then you can investigate anything you like.
One day the son will become father so the son has got every right to try to understand how the system works.

You didn't 'think', otherwise you wouldn't have jumped to the erroneous conclusion that I'm wrong about this. Think - REALLY think, not just pretend to do so - about what I said.

All you did is to avoid the question so what i suppose to think?

Really? Jesus taught meditation? Chapter and verse, please.

Read the Aquarian Gospel and then come back here.

Yes. If people want to offer evidence for the existence of gods, they would need to do so with the physical sciences. Nothing else is or can be evidentiary.

Garbage.
It is like saying that to offer evidence that the moon is such and such you got to look at what you see reflected in a lake.

And how do you know that there is no reason for them to exist.

Because no one has yet offered up a phenomenon for which gods are required as an explanation. All believers routinely do is to us gods as explanations for things they (the believers) are too lazy to think seriously about.

As i said before there are believers and believers so avoid saying.....ALL BELIEVERS.
As far as me i say that without the holy breath there wouldn't be any life.
This holy breath turn his thinking into space, air, light, water and matter (generator) and maintain all this (operator) until it is all destroyed (destroyer) when the thinking come back in his mastermind.
G...... generator
O........operator
D........destroyer
Now all you can perceive is this physical universe and this make you believe that this is real as you can see, touch, smell and so on.
Again, it is only when you develop self awareness that you will be able to understand what is real and what is illusion.

There is no such thing as 'intuitional science.' Scientists may be intuitive, science can't be.

How would you describe the science that get the knowledge from within?
Why waste your time and mental energy by trying to invent something new when we already have something that work well?

Philosophy is the theoretical way to know how the system works.

Sorry, no.

Sorry me.
There is no point in saying no without giving an explanation.

Ok. Ciao for now

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

NDE's.
Gee, it took me hours to think about it.

Bzzt. Sorry, but brain function is required for an NDE to occur (remember, no dead person has ever experiences an 'N'DE).

Boru

Addendum: I'm not going to reply to your reply to me. Feel free to take this as a capitulation if it so pleases you, but I'm unsure of the value of debating you on claims you've made with which you've already said you disagree.

I have tried to read the Aquarian Gospel. As a work of fiction, it wasn't awful. However, I'm an historian by education, and the errors in the book and the explanations for them left me unconvinced.