Home | Community | Message Board

Avalon Magic Plants
Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract, Kratom Powder For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]
InvisibleSclorch
Clyster

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 07/13/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
Re: Einstein A Father of Science Believed in GOD... [Re: buttonion]
    #932773 - 10/04/02 08:14 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

I often wonder why the sense of the mysterious is often degraded with metaphysical theory.
There is a little metaphysical in every perspective.

Not in mine.
Is it impossible to be spiritual whilst denying the metaphysical?
I don't think so, and neither would the Fightin' Jesus or Buddha.

Okay... Just hear me out on this little thought experiment...

If it could be proven (it can't) that there is no metaphysical aspect to this reality- only what can be observed exists (more or less), would it change you/your behavior?
Serious answers only, please.


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinechemkid
Be excellent toeach other

Registered: 06/21/02
Posts: 506
Loc: Between a rock and a hard...
Last seen: 17 years, 2 months
Re: Einstein A Father of Science Believed in GOD... [Re: Sclorch]
    #932815 - 10/04/02 08:33 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

If it could be proven that no metaphysical experience exists: Of course it would change your behavior. If however you never had a belief in the metaphysical, then I suspect behavior would remain the same.

Question: If it could be proven without a doubt that God existed and that hell was a very real place that some sinners went to, would it change your behavior?


--------------------
An open mind is the greatest journey of all.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleIn(di)go
People of the sun.
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/30/00
Posts: 8,157
Loc: Cologne, Germany
Re: Einstein A Father of Science Believed in GOD... [Re: chemkid]
    #932865 - 10/04/02 09:00 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

In reply to:

a very real place that some sinners went to


sinners go where they want to go, just like everyone else...

and to answer your question, sclorch... it all depends on what kind of proof you deliver... what would be proof in your eyes could not mean anything in mine...


--------------------


Edited by Lozt Soul (10/04/02 09:01 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleSclorch
Clyster

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 07/13/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
Re: Einstein A Father of Science Believed in GOD... [Re: In(di)go]
    #932921 - 10/04/02 09:25 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

Question: If it could be proven without a doubt that God existed and that hell was a very real place that some sinners went to, would it change your behavior?


NO. And I can say that without hesitation.

and to answer your question, sclorch... it all depends on what kind of proof you deliver... what would be proof in your eyes could not mean anything in mine...

Usually, answers contain ANSWERS.
Proof is proof is proof.
Fine... proof in YOUR eyes... I don't care what that entails. Just answer me. No more sidestepping.


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinechemkid
Be excellent toeach other

Registered: 06/21/02
Posts: 506
Loc: Between a rock and a hard...
Last seen: 17 years, 2 months
Re: Einstein A Father of Science Believed in GOD... [Re: In(di)go]
    #932939 - 10/04/02 09:37 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

You're dodging the question Loztsoul :grin:


When I say proof I mean irrefutable proof (in your eyes and mine) 


--------------------
An open mind is the greatest journey of all.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinechemkid
Be excellent toeach other

Registered: 06/21/02
Posts: 506
Loc: Between a rock and a hard...
Last seen: 17 years, 2 months
Re: Einstein A Father of Science Believed in GOD... [Re: Sclorch]
    #932946 - 10/04/02 09:39 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

just curious as to why you say "without hesitation"?

If you knew you could avoid an eternity of fire and brimstone by following the plan that was now proven....why wouldn't you change?

Just playing Devils advocate here.


--------------------
An open mind is the greatest journey of all.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleSclorch
Clyster

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 07/13/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
Re: Einstein A Father of Science Believed in GOD... [Re: chemkid]
    #932976 - 10/04/02 09:52 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

If you knew you could avoid an eternity of fire and brimstone by following the plan that was now proven....why wouldn't you change?

You're assuming I would go to hell. I'm a very moral person... most pinks don't have a clue who I really am.

However, there is one thing I won't be compelled to do: believe anything dogmatically. Furthermore, I would argue that (if he/she existed) God isn't a cocksucker. That being the case, God would check out my life and say, "hey, you're not such a bad guy afterall... so what if you don't believe in me... you were still a good person... ah, fuck what the church says... come on in!! *big smile*".

If God were a dick, I'd tell him to fuck off as I'm being thrown into the fiery pits of hell. Tyrants suck.

And that's the truth. I don't have time to make up bullshit.


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinechemkid
Be excellent toeach other

Registered: 06/21/02
Posts: 506
Loc: Between a rock and a hard...
Last seen: 17 years, 2 months
Re: Einstein A Father of Science Believed in GOD... [Re: Sclorch]
    #933026 - 10/04/02 10:10 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

GOOD RESPONSE Sclorch....You're right....I guess I didn't consider the possibility that you're a swell guy afterall :cool:

Anyway....Let's assume that the Judaeo/Christian version of God and the Bible was proven beyond a doubt.

You say you wouldn't believe anything dogmatically....but that is the present Sclorch. You don't think you would change if you found out that by not believeing you would be delivered into the worst imaginable hell.  You say that God would notice that you are basically decent guy so you would make into heaven but if not then fuck him. That seems pretty ego driven. If you can't have it your way then forget everyone.

This is just me but if I knew without a doubt that all of it was true I would eat a major chunk of crow pie, beg for forgiveness and live the way you are supposed to.

It is really difficult to debate this without knowing the specific differences between heaven and hell. But given a choice (indulge my descriptions for a sec) between a hot, nasty place that smells like rotting corpses and old cheese with the worst noncessable pain, thirst, hunger, blah, blah, blah

--OR--

Clean, fun, loving, beautiful people with no hunger, thirst, emptiness. All the knowledge you could imagine, blah,blah,blah

You wouldn't bow your head in deferrence to make it into the latter category..........boy, you so crazy!!!! 


--------------------
An open mind is the greatest journey of all.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineNiamhNyx
I'm NOT a 'he'
Female User Gallery

Registered: 09/01/02
Posts: 3,198
Last seen: 12 years, 3 months
Re: Einstein A Father of Science Believed in GOD... [Re: chemkid]
    #933261 - 10/05/02 12:05 AM (18 years, 11 months ago)

Ah, einstein, i love this guy. He understood so very much, I wish he was alive so I could converse with him about the nature of the universe and our interpretations of the divine.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Anonymous

Re: Einstein A Father of Science Believed in GOD... [Re: NiamhNyx]
    #933275 - 10/05/02 12:14 AM (18 years, 11 months ago)

Not replying directly to you, just this thread in general:

:grin: :grin: :grin: :grin: :grin: 


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleSclorch
Clyster

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 07/13/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
Re: Einstein A Father of Science Believed in GOD... [Re: chemkid]
    #933838 - 10/05/02 04:54 AM (18 years, 11 months ago)

You say you wouldn't believe anything dogmatically....but that is the present Sclorch.
True... but's it's been the past Sclorch for as long as I've known, too.

You don't think you would change if you found out that by not believeing you would be delivered into the worst imaginable hell. You say that God would notice that you are basically decent guy so you would make into heaven but if not then fuck him.

All I have is RIGHT NOW. That's all anyone ever has. And RIGHT NOW, a hateful God is at the top of my shit list. Take it or leave it.

That seems pretty ego driven. If you can't have it your way then forget everyone.

Isn't "save your ass" pretty ego driven as well?

This is just me but if I knew without a doubt that all of it was true I would eat a major chunk of crow pie, beg for forgiveness and live the way you are supposed to.

You're basically talking about Pascal's wager.
Pascal's wager isn't true belief. It's gambling. And it's a lie.

You wouldn't bow your head in deferrence to make it into the latter category...
If God were an asshole... do you really think he/she would just LET me get away with sucking it up at the last minute? I'd still get the big burn treatment... fuck 'em (at least I'll be one of the few to say it).


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinejohnnyfive
Burning withCircles!
Registered: 07/02/02
Posts: 886
Loc: Hell
Last seen: 17 years, 4 months
Re: Einstein A Father of Science Believed in GOD... [Re: Sclorch]
    #934257 - 10/05/02 12:15 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

"I want to know the thoughts of god, anything else is details" - Einstein

This was copyed and posted from an unknown source but its been on my computer for awhile. Its some interesting stuff!

PROLOGUE
WHO OR WHAT KILLED EINSTEIN?
It might be a strange question to ask, but ask it nonetheless. Who or what killed Einstein? What entity or force ended the life of perhaps the greatest mind of our era, that scientist whose name is synonymous with intelligence? Well, it was clearly not a butler who did it, nor, as far as we know, was it an assassin belonging to some sinister governmental agency. To put it bluntly, it was the reality process which killed the great Einstein. Now, although this deceptively simple answer may seem reminiscent of a Woody Allen joke, what I mean to convey is that all of us, regardless of age, sex, race or creed, are born out of, and are destined to die, within a massive on-going process consisting not only of the evolution of life on Earth but the evolution of the Universe also. It is this relentless, all-encompassing, and outrageously complex process within which we are all so intimately embedded which we term 'reality'. We might also call such a process Nature. Thus, another obvious way of answering my unusual question is to say that 'natural causes' killed Einstein. Which means that Nature killed him. Well, to be sure about it, Nature gave birth to him, gave him 76 years of existence and then summarily dispatched him.
Call it Nature or call it reality, either way they are but small words for one vast process which flows inexorably onward. Whatever one's preferred term, it most certainly is a process, a word whose Latin roots mean 'to advance' or 'move forwards', and there can be little doubt that reality is, at heart, a single universal process which has been running non-stop for some 15 or so billion years. Not bad. Pretty impressive in fact.
So what? you might ask. Well, what this book is concerned with is the ultimate point of this creative but fatal reality we find ourselves in. To put it bluntly once more, are we biologically woven into an accident or is reality somehow directed? This is quite some question, perhaps the most profound we can ask in our short earthly sojourn, and one we know to have crossed Einstein's mind while he lived. Consider, for example, a famous remark of his which went something like:
"The most incomprehensible thing about the Universe is its comprehensibility".
What Einstein meant by this sublime statement (of which there are many paraphrased versions) is that it is astonishing not only that Nature is intelligible, and not only that Nature works so well, but that Nature has somehow conspired, through a process of organic evolution, to build biological brains endowed with minds capable of understanding these things. Why? Why exactly should Nature be that way? Why should the Universe have been endowed with such a staggeringly creative capacity to construct and organise itself, even to the point of eliciting conscious human beings? Could it have been otherwise?
Whatever the case, should we believe the reality process to be essentially a mindless accident or even a series of mindless incidents, then we might conceive ourselves to be hapless mortal prisoners entrapped in the process. Or, if we instead believe reality to be purposeful and meaningful in some way then we might consider ourselves fortunate functional components of the process. Whatever you may have read let me assure you that this issue has most definitely not been settled. It is neither completely obvious that reality is a purely accidental affair, nor is it at all clear that reality is purposeful. Neither science nor religion - arguably the two dominant strands of thinking which tend to confront the fundamental nature of reality - have absolutely conclusive evidence at hand.
But if we look to science for clues - since science has enjoyed more evident practical success than religion - then clearly over the last 300 or so years since the time of Newton and the development of classical physics, science has made great headway in elucidating how reality works; not why it works but how. Because the process of reality is so obligingly intelligible and comprehensible, then we see that science has enjoyed a kind of dialogue with Nature in which information is accessed through scientific experiment. In this way, scientists like physicists, chemists, biologists, and cosmologists have acquired a wealth of information concerning the sub-atomic, chemical, biological, and astronomical aspects of reality and have subsequently built elaborate models detailing them. However, how one interprets the informational language of Nature, how one translates the objective data collated by science into a theory about the ultimate nature of reality is a subjective affair very much up for debate. Thus, our 'big question' awaits a satisfactory answer and Einstein's killer remains very much on the loose.
At heart, if we wish to know what, if anything, the reality process is really up to, we can do no more than assess all the relevant information revealed by collective science and the information or intuitive wisdom accrued via personal experience, and then attempt to form some viable theoretical overview. Absolute truths, it would seem, are all but inaccessible, and thus the true nature of Einstein's creator and killer might forever remain a mystery. But, whatever we believe about the reality process, we are, willy-nilly, most definitely all 'in it together' whether we like it or not, and it is for this terrifying or wonderful reason that I have taken it upon myself to explore by any means necessary just what it is that is driving reality, whether the driver is blind or has vision.
Before I reveal to you my particular mode of investigation, lets briefly review the status of science in relation to such a decidedly daunting issue. As it is, current scientific thought definitely veers towards a purposeless and mechanistic account of how the reality process works, an account which is, with all due respect, depressing and devoid of spirit. Although our scientific knowledge of the world reveals its microscopic and macroscopic complexity and highlights the universal mathematical precision of things like physical law, such knowledge has in effect reduced the Universe to a kind of reasonless mechanism devoid of high intelligence apart from our own. Everything from a cell to an orchid to the emergence of our species is generally reduced to a set of 'merelys'. Indeed, the more successful a scientist is in reducing whatever facet of Nature he or she is working on to 'merely this' or 'merely that', then the more warmly is their work received. To argue otherwise by, say, suggesting that Nature is purposeful in some way, is to ostracise oneself from mainstream science. Certainly it is the case that nobody will win a Nobel prize for planting purpose in Nature despite the uplifting appeal that such an intentional theory of reality would undoubtedly carry.
But is it valid to build a new and overtly optimistic theory concerning the ultimate nature of the reality process solely because our current theories are not uplifting enough? Obviously not. Such a new theory would represent whim, an artifice whose lax roots lie in an imagination galvanised into action because the consensus 'truth' about reality is perceived to be too gloomy and unpalatable. Indeed, to enthusiastically infer that the human species has some kind of special purpose in the reality process, that we are somehow at the centre of an intentional Universe, smacks of the pre-scientific beliefs confined to the pages of history books, to a time when supernatural thinking governed the minds of men. Such anthropocentric religious ideology has now been all but crushed by rational scientific thought which firmly places our kind on a mere satellite circling a mere star amongst billions. We are no more than the product of evolution, one particular species out of countless millions whose only real claim to fame is our big brains with their ability to think and direct complex behaviour.
Over a few centuries, in particular from the seminal publication of Darwin's The Origin of Species in 1859 (which can be cited as the definitive turning point in our concepts of man's place in Nature), the ideological pendulum has thus swung through 180 degrees, from a position in which humanity was the crowning glory of creation to a position in which we are but speckish organic bystanders in an essentially pointless Universal exercise of physics and DNA-orchestrated biochemistry. Life is accidental, mostly hard and then you die - a tough fact, best swallowed with a large brandy.
To revert to the ancient view in which human life, and in particular human consciousness, is considered to be somehow significant therefore seems completely out of the question, a futile move serving only to stir up false hope in a Universe that basically 'just don't give a damn'. This is especially so if our only motivation is a dislike of current scientific reasoning. Only if such a new theory were driven primarily by direct conscious experience could it possibly hope to possess validity. And not just wishy-washy conscious experience either. The experience, if it were to bear upon notions of the ultimate nature of reality, would have to be remarkably compelling and potentially accessible to all. It would have to provide incontrovertible evidence that we have some significant role to play in the reality process. But could a direct conscious experience really afford us such an insight into the 'big question'?
Well, if we keep in mind that science proceeds through verifiable experimentation in which information is gained via perceptual experience and that we depend upon our conscious experience however it should arise to build models of reality, then it would indeed appear to be a possibility. Which is to say that new forms of conscious experience might well offer us a glimpse into the biggest questions that face our mortal existence. Which brings me to the central fact permeating this book, namely that conscious experience is entirely mutable. And herein lies the hope of any new optimistic theory concerning the significance of human consciousness within the reality process.
The mutability of consciousness. What does such a concept imply? Well, first of all we should consider the fact that consciousness, whatever it is exactly, is the 'stuff' which mediates all science and, for that matter, all types of reasoning and all of our theories about the world. Consciousness can therefore be understood as the very ground of our being, the 'factor x' which makes us what we are. In order to fully engage the reader in the important point I am here trying to convey, consider the following simple thought experiment.
Imagine, if you will, that all scientists wore identical spectacles and that these spectacles determined the perceptual view of the things being scrutinised by the scientists. All the data amassed by these scientists would be related in some intimate way to the effects of their spectacles since all their perceptions will have passed through the self-same lenses. Now, it isn't pushing credulity too far to suggest that the scientists would do well at some point - possibly over their morning coffee break, or perhaps at a stage when their theories are proving to be inadequate - to reflect upon the characteristics of their shared state of 'bespectacledness'. In other words, it would be quite a breakthrough for these scientists to suddenly cease their traditional research in order to focus upon the nature of the factor mediating their research, namely, their glasses. What they would soon come to realise is that their glasses represent a subject worthy of analysis since they are, in a sense, the closest thing to them.
This imaginary situation is not unlike the real world, only this time it is our consciousness, or rather our state of consciousness, as opposed to glasses, through which we view and experience Nature. For simplicity's sake, we can call this 'normal consciousness', a kind of shared lens through which science and scientific interpretation proceeds. Thus, it is quite legitimate to reflect upon this 'lens of normal consciousness' and ask whether, perhaps, it could be altered or enhanced. In other words, one might well wonder if it is possible to improve upon the lens of normal consciousness and attain a state of mind in which the essence of Nature is more clearly discernible.
Although such a science is clearly specialised and seemingly remote from the affairs of modern culture, it was only due to their dedicated ethnomycological investigations that the Wassons learned of sacred Mexican mushrooms, sought to find them, experienced them first-hand, and thence gave psilocybin (the as yet unnamed active constituent of the mushroom, pronounced either 'silla-sigh-bin' or 'sigh-le-sigh-bin') to the West. Once discovered, ethnomycological science suddenly acquired a distinctly mystical edge allowing it to breach the domains of religion and psychology. It also provided a new impetus to mankind's enduring quest to access transcendental knowledge and there can be no doubt that Wasson's discovery and vivid description of the effects of the psilocybin were crucial in generating the subsequent cultural wave of psychedelic experimentation that soon followed in the 60's. Moreover, as we shall eventually see, the mushroom also reveals itself as the key to unveiling the secrets of consciousness and the hidden riches of Nature. Theophany, mind, and reality; these three most profound of topics are all met in some way through use of the psilocybin mushroom. But, before we jump into the deep end who, pray, was this Wasson fellow, this financier-cum-adventurer, and how had he come to penetrate the Earth's secret psychedelic dimension? Who was he to bring news of sacred fungi into the Western world?
In effect, Wasson's Life article was timed to coincide with the release of his magnum opus 2-volume book Mushrooms, Russia, and History, co-written with his wife Valentina. It is this work which fully reveals the extent of Wasson's long-standing interest in the cultural use of fungi and how he finally came to be at the door of perception marked 'psilocybin'.
With only 512 handcrafted copies luxuriously bound and printed, Mushrooms, Russia, and History stands as a rare piece of art. Indeed, by the late 70's its value had reached some $2500 making it the most valuable book in existence at that time whose author was still alive. It is a highly polished book, written in a lively style that reflects the love of ethnomycology borne by the Wasson's. It represents the distilled wisdom drawn from their extensive studies into the role that various species of mushroom played in different cultures and culminates in their discovery of the sacred mushroom ceremonies still being conducted in Mexico, a discovery important enough to warrant the further account in the more accessible pages of Life magazine.


Whatcha think?



--------------------
And the gameshow host rings the buzzer (brrnnntt) oh and now you get a face full of face!


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineBleedingSickness
Friend OfAttention Whore
Registered: 08/02/02
Posts: 412
Loc: Northern USA
Last seen: 14 years, 10 months
Re: Einstein A Father of Science Believed in GOD... [Re: johnnyfive]
    #934786 - 10/05/02 05:03 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)


Well I personally thought that the paper "or excerpt from the book" wasn't put together very well and used repetative words there was some good theories and idea's/information in the article but they weren't put together in an orderly fashion which sometimes made the article dry and a bit hard to read through ya really had to pump out the interesting info but it did make sense in some areas he should have avoided saying Clearly"when his own point wasn't clear enough" First of all"he said this a TON there were more then five of em I'm sure I didn't go through and count but it did stick out in my mind alot after I finished reading the paper." Also he jumped around alot he'd be describing one thing then suddenly jump to something else never totally following through to his point but with those English things in the past.

There were quite a few interesting ideas within the paper that did tye themselves together. That was just my view others may think differently and that's why you posted it wasn't it to get others thoughts;)


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineBleedingSickness
Friend OfAttention Whore
Registered: 08/02/02
Posts: 412
Loc: Northern USA
Last seen: 14 years, 10 months
Re: Einstein A Father of Science Believed in GOD... [Re: sir tripsalot]
    #934835 - 10/05/02 05:40 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

It is true that many people are threatened by evolution others embrace it like a new religion but they don't totally disregard god I see no reason why we can't believe in both perhaps god created us so that we could evolve maybe that was part of his plan for us to see how far we could go but maybe that's a threatening comment as well hehe......

In reply to:

Lozt Soul
einstein was a great mind... and a grand spirit... he changed the world for the better...
thanks for the post, bleedng... i enjoyed that quotes a lot...




In reply to:

Joshua Indeed he did, however his idea of God is far different than that of mainstream religion. I am glad you posted those quotes, I think they do justice toward his true feelings of God.




NO problem I enjoyed reading through them and I'm also glad that all of you did as well I agree that his idea's of GOd are different from mainstream but I myself have a great respect for that and for him haha then again he is Einstein. I also agree that he did change the world for the better and hopefully he will continue to do so through his ideas and theories of which we haven't quite totally deciphered (sp) yet.

In reply to:

Mr_Mushrooms
That quote is my all-time favorite of Albert Einstein's. It is found in part on the PBS documentary of him




In reply to:

Learyfan
His beliefs about God closely mirror mine. Here's my favorite quote of the two



I don't really think I had a favorite of all of them I enjoyed his thoughts on all of them but the one that you chose for the first one was the one I found very intrigueing(sp)
In reply to:

Mitchnast
did einstein not say something like "i want to know gods immagination, the rest is just details" ?



I wish I had caught that one to post up above it is also a great quote.

TO EVERYOne I enjoyed reading your thoughts:) just thougth that I'd let you all know that.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineAlbino_Jesus
Clearly Retarded
 User Gallery

Registered: 09/14/02
Posts: 1,698
Loc: Construction ahead...
Last seen: 11 years, 7 months
Re: Einstein A Father of Science Believed in GOD... [Re: BleedingSickness]
    #934859 - 10/05/02 05:48 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

holy shit man
I like your posts, but do you mind using a little punctuation now and then? 100 word run-on sentences are a bit hard to "decipher"


--------------------
The only difference between the Republican and Democratic parties is the velocities with which their knees hit the floor when corporations knock on their door.
-Ralph Nader



Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineBleedingSickness
Friend OfAttention Whore
Registered: 08/02/02
Posts: 412
Loc: Northern USA
Last seen: 14 years, 10 months
Re: Einstein A Father of Science Believed in GOD... [Re: Albino_Jesus]
    #934939 - 10/05/02 06:38 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

Hahaha agreed I do have a lacking in punctuation. Even as a writer I lack that I use huge run on setences but do occasionally add other marks I never use!!!! unless I'm messing around I could add more paragraphs...........and I do apologize about the run on sentences


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineMarkostheGnostic
Elder
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/10/99
Posts: 14,279
Loc: South Florida
Last seen: 7 months, 16 days
Re: Einstein A Father of Science Believed in GOD... [Re: ]
    #935470 - 10/06/02 12:05 AM (18 years, 11 months ago)

Not to mention the threat to their devolution.


--------------------
γνῶθι σαὐτόν - Gnothi Seauton - Know Thyself


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineMarkostheGnostic
Elder
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/10/99
Posts: 14,279
Loc: South Florida
Last seen: 7 months, 16 days
Re: Einstein A Father of Science Believed in GOD... [Re: Sclorch]
    #935499 - 10/06/02 12:18 AM (18 years, 11 months ago)

Just to note (semantics again), that metaphysical simply translates as 'before' or 'prior to' physics, and therefore the state of the universe 'shortly' after the Big Bang (perhaps up to 400,000 years) can be described as metaphysical insofar as 'physis' and the laws governing matter had not been created yet. What if, one talks of Mind becoming matter? I find nothing degrading in this, why do you?


--------------------
γνῶθι σαὐτόν - Gnothi Seauton - Know Thyself


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineBleedingSickness
Friend OfAttention Whore
Registered: 08/02/02
Posts: 412
Loc: Northern USA
Last seen: 14 years, 10 months
Re: Einstein A Father of Science Believed in GOD... [Re: MarkostheGnostic]
    #936797 - 10/06/02 05:13 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

A very interesting thought indeed. I personally am not offended by any person, or persons thoughts on creation or anything for that matter. I'm always very open to anything;) sure some things may seem a lil more likely to me but that doesn't mean something else couldn't convince me to think otherwise or interest me.

I think everything the talk of evolution and different creation scenario's (sp) should be respected not instantly rejected because of the basis of religion. Everyone has the right to believe and not believe in things it's only fair that someone who believes differently be allowed to voice their opinions. Just as the main branches have been allowed to voices theirs;)


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Anonymous

Re: Einstein A Father of Science Believed in GOD... [Re: MarkostheGnostic]
    #937038 - 10/06/02 06:48 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

I love it when you understand my icons.  I wish everyone didn't. :wink:


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract, Kratom Powder For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* When will you all understand? There is no god!
( 1 2 3 4 ... 13 14 )
Fliquid 20,207 263 09/22/11 12:30 PM
by Cactilove
* Are you a slave to a God that doesn't exist?
( 1 2 3 all )
Larrythescaryrex 7,134 42 07/30/02 06:00 PM
by Larrythescaryrex
* Thinking about the nature of God Ellis Dee 2,230 19 03/09/16 08:31 PM
by falcon
* Do you really believe in a god?
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Makaveli 11,866 64 03/09/01 03:18 PM
by holographic mind
* Einstein's Internal Conflict
( 1 2 all )
Sclorch 4,232 32 06/06/03 03:51 PM
by Zero7a1
* Does God Exist? part one
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )
MentalHygene 15,116 126 02/22/02 10:26 PM
by ArCh_TemPlaR
* Why God doesn't reveal himself anymore...
( 1 2 3 all )
plague member 4,377 46 04/13/08 10:13 PM
by Kinetic
* Dose God exist? Take a look around.
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Bavet 5,970 68 02/06/03 12:46 PM
by Strumpling

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, Jokeshopbeard, DividedQuantum
5,839 topic views. 0 members, 0 guests and 7 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Print Topic | ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2021 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.029 seconds spending 0.005 seconds on 14 queries.