Philosophy

[Demonaura]

Slightly less like an anime plotline but, still sounds similar to me. It does however remind me of a philosophy based on Gaia as a material soul. A part of gaia became you, came to the mortal world (or worlds) to gather experiences then it returned to the greater Gaia to merge with the collective. Of course this made no sence because that is an amazingly pathetic method of learning, most people learn the same stuff and it's only scientific societies that develop anything. It also failed to explain why then, non-intelligent life existed.

If you are just talking about multiple universes then I'd like to see what this 'meteverse' theory is because I doubt it is a theory. A theory is a collection of facts and I can't think of anything that would lead me to beleive in a seperate universe but, I have hardly thought of it so, I won't write it off immediately.

And the big bang hardly suggests a multiverse, the big bang is NOT everything came from nothing, that's creationist propaganda. The big gang theory states that all matter in the universe was infinitely compacted to a single point, which exploded outwards to crate the universe we have now. What happened before that has nothing to do with the theory.

Random thoughts on this include a school of thought that the universe repeatedly expands, then as it reaches it's critical size it begins to contract again, towards it's center (last I heard there was something called dark matter, like anti-matter that could pull the universe together but, only after it's volume reached a certain level) eventually back into a single infinitely small point. I think this one makes the most sense to me personally, because we see cycles like that quite a bit in nature. Including one very cool thing about the earth, as our atmosphere weakens global warming occurs and eventually the earths magnetic polarity reverses and in the process it repairs the atmosphere, it's own cycle.


One question I would have, if we are re-incarnated then is there a set number of souls in existence or can they be created? If theres a finite ammount why has human population grown almost constantly since we arrived and if it's infinite where do new ones come from?

If they are created that sounds like a god to me, and if they are born then all you have really done is regressed backwards one layer without answering a single question about anything.

[dagda]

In re-incarnatiom theory, there is a finite amount of souls. I am not very sure if new souls can be created (how this would happen, I have no idea-it is sort of like the argument over wether all matter has been brought into being at the Big Bang or if it is still generating) but the human population keeps expanding because souls are not tied down to just humans. Souls can inhabit animals, insects and I have even heard some people talk about plant souls (not very sure about that) and even rock souls (this seems daft).

[Kyuuketsuki]

In re-incarnatiom theory, there is a finite amount of souls. I am not very sure if new souls can be created (how this would happen, I have no idea-it is sort of like the argument over wether all matter has been brought into being at the Big Bang or if it is still generating) but the human population keeps expanding because souls are not tied down to just humans. Souls can inhabit animals, insects and I have even heard some people talk about plant souls (not very sure about that) and even rock souls (this seems daft).

The entire idea of incorporeal souls seems daft to me (what with their being no evidence for and some significant evidence against) and don't even get me started on the idea of it being a "theory" (it's just more fantasy gah gah land).

Kyu

[Demonaura]

That doesn't explain anything, populations continue to rise even if you include animal or even plant souls.

Like what Kyu said, nothing here is based on anything we can observe. A fantasy writer coming up with a concept for his next book will sound exactly the same. Except fantasy books are usually based in reality with certain things exaggurated for entertainment value.

[Edward]

I find the above very hypocritical. But you are right, I should enforce my own rules, which is why I support Kyu's decision to issue you with a warning over the aforementioned post.

Oh, here we go. Same old story, and does anyone remember me predicting this? And why? Because I've been doing this for years and years and years. I write well, and I get lots of attention to my posts, and this makes the moderators and the owners of blogs and forums feel threatened. So they issue warnings first--usually at the same time they themselves are breaking the rules they say I am breaking, and then their scrawny finger hovers over the "ban" button until I finally say something that pushes them over the edge, or I post a post that gets a hundred responses in a day, and they just know that all their problems would be solved if they got rid of me. After all, no one starts a forum or a blog with the intent of someone else stealing the show. No one starts a forum just to manage it. Isn't that right, Adrian? They start a blog that allows responses or a forum with the hopes of getting a community going that becomes dependent on the interaction, and the more dependent the members become, the more power the owner with the "ban" button has. The next thing you know, people are saying things like: "You're all a bunch of idiots, except maybe Adrian." And, well, that's just the next best thing to heaven. In fact, maybe that is an atheist heaven.

You know what I get out of it. The absolute knowledge that you digested every single word in that big-ass rambling paragraph.

[Tiberius]

Oh, here we go. Same old story, and does anyone remember me predicting this? And why?

No, I don't remember you predicting this, and if you did, it only shows that you understood you were being disruptive.

Because I've been doing this for years and years and years. I write well, and I get lots of attention to my posts, and this makes the moderators and the owners of blogs and forums feel threatened.

We're not feeling threatened. We love the threads you've started and the posts you've made. What we object to is your attitude when we object to your ideas, or to an idea that you like. Take what happened in this thread. I called dagda's idea "fucking ridiculous", as is my freedom to do so on this forum. You couldn't stand for this blatant freethinking, and made numerous false assertions, most of which were ad-hominem attacks:

you have absolutely no intellectual curiosity at all
All atheists seem to know how to do is berate what they won't take the time to even think about.
I guess with a wave of your what, 20-year-old hand, you would dismiss them as "fucking ridiculous" as well.
You think you're advanced, intelligent, wise, oh, and what's the other word...educated. But you don't espouse any original ideas.

Now you see, I could use the same method and simply attack you multiple times with ad-hominems and make false assertions, but I didn't. I countered every point you made.

So they issue warnings first--usually at the same time they themselves are breaking the rules they say I am breaking, and then their scrawny finger hovers over the "ban" button until I finally say something that pushes them over the edge, or I post a post that gets a hundred responses in a day, and they just know that all their problems would be solved if they got rid of me. After all, no one starts a forum or a blog with the intent of someone else stealing the show. No one starts a forum just to manage it. Isn't that right, Adrian? They start a blog that allows responses or a forum with the hopes of getting a community going that becomes dependent on the interaction, and the more dependent the members become, the more power the owner with the "ban" button has. The next thing you know, people are saying things like: "You're all a bunch of idiots, except maybe Adrian." And, well, that's just the next best thing to heaven. In fact, maybe that is an atheist heaven.

Blah blah blah...mindless assertion...blah...assertion...assertion. Just so you know, none of us have our fingers over a ban button. We only ban extremely disruptive people, because a warning seems to help most calm down a it. Happened with frodo; he's still with us. Will it happen with you? Well it all depends on your attitude, and whether you break any other rules. We want a nice discussion here, but if you simply want to go around and blacken my name over things I haven't ever said or done, then you have another thing coming. We don't stand for threat and we certainly don't stand for mindless abuse.

You know what I get out of it. The absolute knowledge that you digested every single word in that big-ass rambling paragraph.

Like to see you try and prove "absolutely" that I read it

Attack ideas, not people please.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Oh, here we go. Same old story, and does anyone remember me predicting this? And why? Because I've been doing this for years and years and years. I write well, and I get lots of attention to my posts, and this makes the moderators and the owners of blogs and forums feel threatened. So they issue warnings first--usually at the same time they themselves are breaking the rules they say I am breaking, and then their scrawny finger hovers over the "ban" button until I finally say something that pushes them over the edge, or I post a post that gets a hundred responses in a day, and they just know that all their problems would be solved if they got rid of me. After all, no one starts a forum or a blog with the intent of someone else stealing the show. No one starts a forum just to manage it. Isn't that right, Adrian? They start a blog that allows responses or a forum with the hopes of getting a community going that becomes dependent on the interaction, and the more dependent the members become, the more power the owner with the "ban" button has. The next thing you know, people are saying things like: "You're all a bunch of idiots, except maybe Adrian." And, well, that's just the next best thing to heaven. In fact, maybe that is an atheist heaven.

Many people claim they write well, I wouldn't have said you're particularly good at it. I sincerely doubt Adrian feels threatened at all, I know I don't, why would we be threatened by some lame-ass, nambi-pambi, theist crud based on 2000 plus year old rubbish that any halfway advanced thinker would have grown out of?

You know what I get out of it. The absolute knowledge that you digested every single word in that big-ass rambling paragraph.

I doubt it! I, for one, have difficulty reading the crud you post.

hey start a blog that allows responses or a forum with the hopes of getting a community going that becomes dependent on the interaction, and the more dependent the members become, the more power the owner with the "ban" button has.

You are not banned yet, you were warned for personal insults in open forum ... the ONLY person who can decide if he wants to be banned or not is you so, if you want to stay here, shape up.

Your move.

Kyu

[Rockthatpiano06]

I agree with the point that reality is a prison, and most of it is an illusion, but not completely. We were talking about this in philosophy. Since we can never get outside of our own mind, ideas, and perceptions of the world we can never really know what truth is, all we see is our perception of truth. Basically, if we start with ideas we can never truly know what those ideas represent. ecocentric predicament.

I don't agree with anything else you said though.

[Demonaura]

Reminds me of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29pPZQ77c...re=related

Which is finished humurously with this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9-Niv2Xh...re=related

Figured it was at least a little relevant.

[dagda]

The entire idea of incorporeal souls seems daft to me (what with their being no evidence for and some significant evidence against) and don't even get me started on the idea of it being a "theory" (it's just more fantasy gah gah land).

Kyu

I think I pointed out (or I should have) that this is only a hypothesis. Most theories start of with a hypothesis and then evidence is acumulated which either proves the hypothesis or disproves it. At the present time, I have no possible way of taking my hypothesis beyond that point. As it is only a hypothesis, I need less evidence than if this was a theory.

Evidence? I must say my evidence is not concreate. First of all there is past life recall. This I do not put much faith in. It seems to me to be rather suggestive and can only relly be used in conection with other evidence.

Secondaly, there is the Dali Lama/Buddhist Lama's. Have you read the accounts of how the Dali Lama was discovered? There is a lot of coincidences-too many in my opinion.
For instance, the Dali Lama recognised his old life freinds and his old life cloths WHEN they were hidden among other cloths etc.
What is more, the regent of Tibet at the time had a dream which pointed out the Dali Lama's province, county and actual house.

Then there is the cycles. There is the cycle of the seasons; the cycle of the planets; the hydrological cycle so why not the cycle of birth, death and rebirth?

I would be intrested in the evidence against reincarnation.

As to why the population keeps going up, I don't know if the animal population keeps going up at all. In fact, many animals are constantly heading for extinction and the population figures can't possibly be conclusive enough for you to make that alagation, in my opinion.