Jump to content

Aiyen

Mod Author
  • Content Count

    3,384
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Aiyen

  • Rank
    High King

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. @mono. I am not saying it is the only reason why people abandon religion in favor of alternatives. I just say from my point of view I think a large part of it is because of the idea that you do something yourself rather than having it handed to you by a creator. I entirely understand that there are other reasons, and most of them depend on the people. However I do not see how it is demeaning to say that someone make that choice for themselves. Considering how integral the concept of faith is to people I think that making the leap to believe in yourself rather than a creator is a compliment if anything. Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant! But hope that made sense! Also I agree with you on the darleks.... they are a leftover of early episodes, when effects etc. where not high on the list. These days they are more a joke than anything else. Now the freaking stone angel thingies... those I can respect! Still remember the first episode I saw with them, freaking me the hell out. Good vibes from original horror movies without going over the top.
  2. Yeah I remember that episode!(s) It was a good storyline! :) I should get to watch that show again... if only I did not have such a huge hate for darleks.... I just cannot take them seriously as bad guys!
  3. "(I don't know if this is still a popular theory now that it's been discovered that the universe is still expanding)" All the cosmological end scenarios are pretty bleak. Ever expanding, until everything is cold. Or collapsing... until it all heats up into a super plasma. Got to admit that having cosmology was one of the few courses that left me a bit depressed/impressed. No happy ending what so ever. But a real stress on the whole live life while you got it. Good thing that there is most likely more between here and the end of the universe, than we currently know. I personally hate unhappy endings. :) As for the whole god/creator part. I guess that is largely due to simple human ego. It is after all better to believe you got somewhere due to yourself, rather than having it given by some creator. It just make us feel special...which I can relate to.
  4. I understand entirely tech, and I want to take the time to thank you for putting yourself and your views out here. I still believe that this is part of the reason why I stick around this forum after this long. Considering the subject, the debate has been really civil, at least compared to certain other forums I have attended in my time. That said, when you present views that take on scientific aspects, it is always going to end up with scrutiny. It is not because of malicious intent, or any attempt to display you as a crazy person. From my perspective it is simply a healthy way to look at life. If anyone tells me they view the world in a certain way, I am going to ask counter arguments to their logic for having said view. Due to my upbringing I "lost" the ability to simply take things on faith alone a long time ago. One point I did not manage to compliment ya on was the meditation part, I found that really interesting. It was good to read your views on it, and it reflects quite a bit on how I do it myself... or at least did a while back.
  5. "They rarely open themselves to the possibility that a different, less popular "theory" could be correct simply because it isn't mainstream or it has less supporting facts that build its theory. The science community is cut throat in this regard and is why I prefer to stay away from it." If theory A has more supporting facts than theory B, then by definition theory A is the better at explaining the observed phenomenon. So this has nothing to do with science minded people being malicious of intent, it is simply because the sum of evidence for A is greater than B. Great examples of this is gravity. There are numerous theories that all try to explain it, yet general relativity still has the best track record to date when it comes to explain the vast majority of the observed phenomenon. Yes there are theories that explain discrete phenomenon much better and more accurately, but then fail utterly when a different observation is presented. This is why general relativity has the special status it has, not because scientists think that the people who propose something different are all crazy people (though some of them are). I have often found that this view that scientists are narrowminded etc. is often perpetrated by people in the scientific community who have had their hard work discredited because it was simply not up to the task of scrutiny. I can understand why it must be annoying to be able to create something truly remarkable, and think you are the next Einstein... and then have it all torn away because nature just decided to do something different. It is after all easier to blame the people than to blame nature.
  6. So we are going to get "harvested" by wonder wanderers (sorry had too! :) Sounds like a good movie plot! On a more serious note. One thing I found interesting is how many of these new age things use concepts from science as they get theorized. You did not really see anything about space-time until after the theory of relativity was explained to the general public. And it is also quite amusing that in most cases those who use space time get is sort of wrong, like it is a tangible thing. For example black holes... it is taken as a factual entity in space... yet few actually know that one has never been strictly proven to exist. Sort of like dark matter... we know something is there, but we got no clue what it is. Yet it finds its way into popular science and science fiction so much that it become tangible to people. It is quite fascinating to me how one go from the abstract, into the tangible, and then back into a new abstract with new properties. That is actually one thing that physics courses could benefit a bit from getting into more! I would go as far as to say it should be more common, since it is a great problem solving, and idea generating method. Hope that made sense! :D (Try not to take this like I am being critical of you, I already hate myself for doing it) Tech...this material, did anyone actually grammar check it? I will swear that there are at least some , missing, and some of the sentence structures are like bad translations. I mean I actually tried to read it out loud and I had to stop and double check several times. case in point : "The patterns of activation of an entity of high seniority" That is not just me.. that is a bad way to write... almost as bad as my at times very bad use of then and than!
  7. I do not apologize for my stance, but I can apologize for the way I present my views! :) I have also enjoyed this little debate, it has been a long time since I did it last. Good to see I have not entirely forgotten everything I learned back then!
  8. Nice views on the religion part previously. And hey... gotta love random dinosaurs getting thrown into the mix! :) And sorry if my continuous trying to make you question what you believe is a tad too much, but as I have tried to describe that is just how I work. Spent so much of my youth with religion, and later years with new age stuff. I guess I trivialize a lot of it, because I find it so amusing that at their core most of them are the same. Sort of the saying "It does not matter what you believe, as long as you believe". And I personally made my peace with all of the stories a long time ago now. It is also more fun to try to cut away the story and see what is behind it so to speak. I tend to do that with a lot of stuff.
  9. A huge part of my world view come from this. When you cut away the stories, what you ultimately have is more or less the same at its core. Since the stories and mythology is what make up a huge part of disagreements, then why keep focusing so hard on them? They are clearly doing more harm than good. I know of their purpose, like sparrow and you say.. a story is more interesting. But it is just amazing that there need to be this constant "Our story is better and closer to the truth than your story". I do not know if it is sad or just hilarious that most religions can agree on so many core principles.... however since their stories are so different, and that is what people remember, that is what fights start over. On that note, it is actually quite interesting that there have been no new major religions developed for so long now. A lot of new derivatives of the major ones (again with the same core stuff, but slightly different stories), and a lot of stuff like the law of one (again same core stuff, but vastly different stories)... but none of them manage to really kick in the door so to speak. They simply remain niche. I have always found this quite peculiar... it cannot be attributed to any one thing. Like technological development, or improved living conditions etc. would love to hear your thoughts on that! All of this said then I find it entirely acceptable that you have a need for the Ra component of the law of one. if it helps you, fine.... I just personally do not see the need of it. And I think anyone who think critically, should always try to cut past the stories, and find what the damn philosophy is actually all about. Also to be a bit rude perhaps... if I want to read fantasy/scifi, there are better authors out there! :P
  10. I think one of my points kinda flew past you. The core question is. (now that I had more time to think of it) Why do you need the mythology part ? Is there a specific reason for... in lack of a better term, fantasy creatures to make the core points come through? It is not specific to this law of one.. it is a general human "need". There always have to be a story, or something similar attached. Like with the old testament... you cannot simply have the commandments, you need to have burning bushes, and a story about a people running away etc. Or the new testament, you cannot simply have the core teachings of jesus, you need to have all of the story and all of the "hate the romans, they are bad" parts there to justify a lot of things that go counter to what the core teachings are actually all about. I always found that discussion very interesting. (also part of the reason why I love the warhammer 40k back story, it deals with this philosophical issue) If people truly became rational, there should not be a need for the stories, and the way those stories lock down the faith people have. Some of the most "enlightened" people I have met have not been religious. They have been spiritual, but they are not locked down behind stories of fantasy. They simply focus on the core. Be a good person today, and tomorrow will be better! At least that is the general gist of it.
  11. Oh this is like a walk down memory lane... sort of anyways. I came from a sort of religious upbringing... bible school the works. However it never did anything for me... probably because I was hugely into dinosaurs back then, and history in general. And much to the annoyance of my teachers I was more focused on asking about the roman empire than whatever jesus was up to on any particular day. Also the amount of failure to explain dinosaurs in the garden of eden... well let us just say that even as a kid the skepticism was strong with me. Later I went into all sorts of newage stuff, met lots of interesting people. I know now that a lot of it was because I found ways of dealing with depression though their teachings. However along with all of this I was also starting my science education, and rather than saying either side was right or wrong, I tried to focus on the best of both worlds. Or keep an open mind as it where. I wont question that you genuinely get some sort of spirituality out of it, in fact I can even relate to it. But if you truly think that just because a fancy story reflects of your life experience make it true... then a broader perspective could be positive. In all cases of newage philosophy I have experienced, read and been a part of... they have really good and solid core fundamental teachings... however they always go that one step too far. And ultimately they make you close your mind. It is the same with the major religions... they all have some really good strong fundamentals (This is the lure)... but they kinda throw all of that away when they add in the "you must convert all other to believe this"... and they all do to one degree or another (This is the trap). And another common denominator in all of this is that on top of the pyramid there sits someone who for one reason or another gets to dictate the mythology, and eventually every other rule. Newage stuff is not New in that sense. They are doing what humanity has been doing since the dawn of human history. You put up some good solid fundamentals that will echo off a lot of peoples experiences, then you put a mythology on top that makes it interesting, and eventually you add in the paragraph that you are right and everybody else is wrong. Heck even atheists are doing this... their mythology is just called science fiction! :) I could also present you with one argument that I used to say to a person who had a very similar story to you (Cant remember if it was Ra, or some other ancient figure).... When one of the core fundamentals of what you believe is that your teachings are to help develop your outlook, your senses, mental state etc. How does it make sense that there need to be alien overlords (insert whichever other name you like) involved to make it happen? You essentially take a really REALLY good spiritual idea, and outlook on life, and you lock it down and limit it to such a degree that it fails to do more for you. All because you eventually stop to question "why". Or said another way. If you want to evolve beyond what some teaching is saying, you need to stop believing. If you do not, you just end up stuck.
  12. I agree with you on the drug part. I myself also avoid drugs unless as a last resort. The whole "what does not kill you make you stronger" thing. For example I will take vaccines etc. and have a hard time relating to people who do not. But I do not really wish to open that can of worms, since it is a topic with a lot of emotion involved. But overall I believe that being healthy, and being emotionally "happy" will help you resist illness. Because a happy body, is better able to produce the good stuff that helps keep the bad stuff away. As for the rest... Got to admit that you got my skepticism going. As I read it all, basically what you are saying is the following. Certain people think they know how to do something, but do not want to share with anybody, since that might show that it does not work as they think at all. Also the whole idea of calling things seemingly arbitrary things like "third densities"... again why, what is wrong with plain terms that does not sound like you are on drugs. I just do not get why people who are into that insist on making the gap in communication so huge. It is like ... we are not special enough, we need to cement that we are special (again the ra thing...it just seems like a thing to put yourself apart from whoever you are talking to. As if taking a name from Egyptian mythology did not do that already). It is seriously like a doctor talking about an illness with you and they stick to just talking latin because it sounds fancy, but all they manage to do is make you question if they really know what the hell they are talking about. Nobody like a specialist snob after all. And to bring this somewhat back to the science angle When someone says to you... "I know how to do this... but I am not going to show you because you need to learn for yourself" then they are being about as unscientific as they possibly can. The core premise in science is that you show how to do things, then see if others can do the same. If they can then you can start to talk about a thing being something. Just because you can do something does not make it universal. No matter how many fancy words you try to use to explain it.
  13. I have always found the whole deal with alternative treatments etc. quite fascinating. Often when I hear debates on that topic it seems that the lines are just drawn up too heavily with either side of the argument wanting to be right. With the sides being pro and con "western medicine". I have to admit that when you hear someone claiming that some miracle healing was because of some stone or other gadget I start to just shake my head. But I also shake my head when someone survives chemo beats cancer and the doctors claim it is the best solution. I remember reading a heavy debate that was in the medias a while back, where someone had failed to respond positive to the treatment at the hospital, but after starting on an alternative treatment line along with the hospital treatment, the person suddenly got better. Doctors claimed it was because of them, and the alternative practitioner claimed the opposite. However admist all of the media hype, and gung throwing that was done, not many people paid attention to the fact that the person in question simply believed that he got more motivation to survive, in general being in a better mood. So the conclusion was that conventional "western" treatment along with a general more positive outlook meant that the body healed faster... or said in another way... if you are happy, take care of your body etc.... you will be better able to fight. I do not think I need to say.... no shite sherlock. But still quite amazing how professionals on both side of the argument just fail to see the whole picture, because they fear being misinterpreted. As for your quote... I got to admit If you have a QnA session like that and someone continues to start out by stating they are Ra..... why is this relevant what so ever? All it does is throw a lot of people into dismissing what you are saying. Also the answers, are not really answering anything, they cleverly talk around the topic being asked. It is almost like watching an interview with a politician, who has to answer something that was not in the script! :)
  14. You know you have the proper ones if you have no bandwidth limits... ie you should be able to transfer data over network at full speed. It happens that you get some network card that somehow requires some special drivers... it has been years since I had that issue however. If you have internet when you install, most drivers should be found automatically. It is really only with special peripherals that it is still an issue. Also today most network cards are built into the motherboard... ie it should be even less of an issue, since when they do that they use the industry standard components, which uses the standard drivers. But again some vendors might try to be clever and have something non standard installed. example: On my motherboard I have a special USB 3.0 controller which took some effort and the actual driver CD that came with the motherboard to function properly. Specifically it was the ability to use one of the USB 3.0 ports as a fast recharger for phones... this is non standard, and required special drivers that windows just could not find automatically.
  15. When you claim something is tangible, and true, but you cannot correlate it with other peoples observations and perceptions then I think it is very natural that you get skepticism. After all there is a big difference between someone saying they believe in X and that they claim X is real. Belief/faith is healthy, and in my optics it is just an alternative expression of fantasy. And having a good fantasy is vital to being a human being. I do agree that people tend to get too close minded.. In my opinion because something becomes dogma. This is bad in science, it is bad in religion... it is bad just about every single time. But it is understandable why it happens. You have most likely seen it at your own work... do you challenge the way you do things, or are you just happy that procedure A is the same today as it was yesterday. And how much of an uproar is there when someone change procedure A. As for the ghost part. I hope you can see that it is rather huge to claim that ghosts are intelligent etc. The ramifications of this would be huge... but basically I think it comes down to this... would this not imply that something is policing the ghosts? If ghosts retain sentience, and they can make contact.. what is preventing them from doing it at a whin? And why would it be a problem that "the living" know about it? If you have a person die and that person then gets "stuck" and is aware of it ... I would think that person would do anything possible to try to contact someone regardless of how it would affect "the living". I am all for extra dimensions, and alternative worlds etc. But it is a bit of a long shot. As for UFO´s... I believe there is life out there... or rather I would be immensely impressed if there was not. I mean who in their right mind would bet money on there not being life somewhere else today? Which is also why I think it is nice to see the debate moving away from ... "is there life out there?" to .. what should we do about it?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.