Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Unum · 01-04-2003, 01:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi-Still Retired

Originally posted by Unum: Are you aware of the fact that infinity and zero never, ever appear alone.

Koy: Are you aware of the fact that those are human terms used to explain incomprehensible constructs for mathematical purposes?

Unum: Yes, they are human names for concepts that are very real. In fact, they are used everyday in all sorts of calculus equations. Without them, we probably woulnd't have cars, airplanes, know anything about space, or even design something so simple as a transitor (so no computers either).

Koy: Yes, I know, but you've missed my point. They are "very real," but that doesn't make them mystical.

I'm looking up above at my previous responses and I can't seem to find where I called them mystical. Maybe I can't find it because I never did call them mystical. Perhaps, once again, you tried putting words in my mouth. Oh well, it's not the first time.

Quote:

Unum: In fact, I think when we fully study string theory that this shape will show up again.

Koy: Doubtful, considering string theory is predicated upon a tenth dimensional (or twenty sixth dimensional) construct and the yin-yang is only two-dimensional.

Unum: The yin-yang is two-dimensional in form, yet multi-dimensional in concept.

Koy: What isn't? How this affirms mysticism, however, is still not established.

I reiterate my charge that you are doing little more than pointing to the dark, claiming mystery equals mysticism and then saying, "That is the One! The ONE!" (cue music)
[/QUOTE]

Again, I can't seem to find where I called anything mystical. You must be trying to put words in my mouth, AGAIN.

Quote:

Unum: Also, there very well may be 10, 11 or 26 dimensions as currently postulated by string theory, however these can still be broken down into smaller and smaller dimesions for us to study. Just as a 3-dimensional object can be represented by a point in physics equations for ease of study.

Koy: Yes, I know. Fascinating isn't it? Not evidence of mysticism, however, but let's not get back on topic. These posts are too long (something I thought I'd never say).

Hey, there you go with mysticism again. I think I've already addressed this above and in my previous post and in the one before that.

Quote:

Unum: Do you see any good whatsoever in any religion?

Koy: Not so far. At least nothing that would outweigh the "bads."

Unum: That may be. I'm not a fan of organized religion as I already said above. However, I think the good equals out the bad and it is a wash.

Koy: That's a tragic flaw in your analysis, IMO, and, not to beat a dead horse, but more evidence for the mill.

A tragic flaw in my analysis? Is that it? Are you going to expound upon what the flaw is? Can you show me where religion has caused more harm than good? Can you pin the cause directly upon religion in all these cases? Don't worry, I'll wait.

Quote:

Unum: If I were to see one atheist commit a heinous crime, should I blame the crime on his atheism and all his atheist friends (I'm sure this has been before) or should I blame it only on the person who commited the action?

Koy: Ahh, yes, this chestnut again. I particularly enjoy the "court of law" standard you've erroneously forced upon the question as well as the exploded extreme. Never mind that we have been discussing questions of influencing behavior, let's go directly to the court of law, where sociological questions of group consciousness and the detrimental effects of slave mentality instilled into a culture over centuries have no relevance.

That's the best strawman you've built so far.

Slave mentality instilled into a culture over centuries???? You need help.

Quote:

Could we now, however, place the argument back into its proper context? That of a ruling elite that concocts these myths in order to control and subjugate, or do you want to continue to avoid a discussion of the detrimental effects on society and "man's inhumanity to man" inherent in slave mentality by trying to make it seem as if there are no such influences and every single person is on this earth is educated so well that we have the ideal of self rule firmly established.

Yes, I do believe that every adult on this earth is educated enough to know what self rule means. They may want it or they may not want it, however I do believe they know what it is.

Also, what sort of myth am I concocting? That there is One? This is no myth. As I've said before and I'll say again, this is a fact of nature as much as gravity is. Even modern theoretical physics at this very day is trying to develop the Theory of Everything (TOE). Obviously to be called a theory of everything, it must describe and attempt to everything including science, religion, philosophy amongst other things. The word everything represents one concept. It's equivalent to infinity. Infinity is the largest number that can be. Infinity encompasses all numbers, yet can be represented by one symbol. Everything encompasses all things yet can be represented by one word.

You call this cult mentality, but where am I trying to enslave people? Where am I trying to subjugate people? How is this fact of nature detrimental to humankind or lead to more injustice? This cult mentality garbage you keep bringing up is ridiculous.

Quote:

In other words, are you going to continue to hide behind non-real world standards, because, such sophistry is really starting to annoy me.

It's just too bad that every single person on this globe isn't fully educated to the level of enlightenment that you have achieved, but f*ck them, right? You're an island unto yourself and can't concern yourself with the thousands of insidious ways in which otherwise innocent, ignorant people are manipulated and controlled.

No, I would never do that to my brothers and sisters of humanity. I write and I speak so that others can learn from me, just as I have learned from others who I talk to and have read. We are all teachers here, we all have something to teach one another. I learn new things everyday from the people I meet and talk to. Hopefully, they also learn new things from me. I can't force them to learn things from me, but if they ask I will tell them anything that I know. I don't hold anything back. If it were up to me everyone would exchange knowledge and ideas freely. There would be no charging money for these things. If one has something that can benefit all of mankind, I would urge them to give it away so that it can truly benefit everyone. If one charges money for it, it only goes to the select few that can afford it. Either way the person will get paid back. If one charges they will be paid back monetarily, if one doesn't charge and gives it away they will be paid back spiritually. As for me, I choose the spiritual payment to the monetary payment almost everytime.

Quote:

It's funny, too, since we've had your "enlightenment" around for thousands of years, followed diligently by billions of people in subtle, yet non-substantive variations and yet...oh, sorry, I keep forgetting that your response to all of this is to basically stick your head in the sand and say, "Hey, it's all ok from where I can see."

Not everyone has reached enlightenment. It is not an easy goal to reach. Anyone can, but very, very few actually and earnestly try. To reach enlightenment requires one to give everything up. It means being able to do without food, water, shelter, companionship, desires, wants, needs, literally everything. As you can see it's a very difficult choice to make as it takes an enormous amount of faith and trust in the One. This is probably why very few people have done it and also the reason why the people who have are the ones we remember the most. Just because "enlightenment" has been around for a long time, doesn't mean that many people have succeeded at finding it (or having it find them).

Quote:

And if that "act" is to condone slavery (either directly or indirectly)? Or to demand that one's disciples must hate their mother and father and sister and brother and wife and own life, etc., or they can't be your disciple?

The verse you are speaking of is Luke 14:26 "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters--yes, even his own life--he cannot be my disciple." However, here is what Luke 14:33 says "In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple." I hope you now see that it has to do with enlightenment. If one desires to be enlightened all of those things must be given up. Like I said, it ain't easy.

Quote:

Or what if that "act" is to convince innocent, ignorant people that their suffering from an oppressive elite is a good thing and that they should love their oppressors for the oppression? How about that crime?

That is not what Jesus said.

Quote:

How about the crime of deliberate fraud in order to subjugate and control millions of people? Would that be up for your consideration?

Yes, it sure would. However, it would require you to have hard evidence to back up your claim. Sadly, you don't have any.

Quote:

Unum: The person's atheism wasn't responsible for the act, it was the person themselves.

Koy: And if it could be demonstrated that it was, indeed, the atheism that was to blame; that had the person, for example, not been influenced by atheism in some manner not currently evident, he would not have committed whatever act he is being accused of? What then?

Sure, then it could be considered a crime. But I highly doubt that anyone at anytime could ever prove what you are saying. Not to mention the fact, that nowhere does Jesus condone the killing of others. In fact, he taught exactly the opposite, that one should embrace and pray for those who persecute you.

Quote:

But, ironically, not of cult mentality and the detrimental effects such thinking has on both the individual and the society (the One!).

Curious.

I don't like cult mentality either. You claim that is what I am talking about, but I get to differ. I am speaking of the One. In fact, I've given evidence (that you have failed to dispute) that shows that it is perfectly logical to believe in this One. That's it. I've not told people how to live their lives as cults do, I have not said that people must believe me or get sent to hell or who knows where as some cults do. I have done none of these things, yet you still accuse me of cult mentality. I honestly do not know where you are getting this from. What I do think is happening is that you are judging me based upon other people you know who hold my belief. That is unfair because you do not know me. You don't even know exactly what I believe. You think you do, as has been evidenced by your trying to put words in my mouth over and over again. Yet, I never said those things you claimed I said, in fact, I often believe something entirely different that what you try to attribute to me. You have been building an army of strawmen and burning them down one by one. Fortunately for me, these strawmen you built are far away from where I stand, as I have been unscathed from your fire.

Quote:

Unum: Even a cult of personality is scary. I would never wish on myself and I would likewise never wish it upon someone else. It distorts the real person into something that they were not. Yes, this happens in religion, but that doesn't mean it has to. I can read the teachings of Mohammed, Jesus, Buddha or anyone else and filter out what I think is the junk that was added to it later on.

Koy: Well, that's good for you, then isn't it, because you're an island unto yourself in your journey to reject society so that you can then (somehow) become a better part of society, right?

Are you beginning to see the cognitive dissonance cult mentality (aka, mystical thinking) induces yet?
[/QUOTE]

Yes, I see myself as an island. In fact, I see myself as one island of many, many islands, yet I know, deep down, that underneath the water that binds us and separates us we are connected into One.

I do not reject society, I reject the parts of society that I do not like. I dislike greed, therefore I will not be greedy. I dislike untruthfulness, therefore I will tell the truth. I dislike cheating, therefore I will not cheat.

If only everyone thought this way. However, I know that not everyone does. I also know that I can not make people act this way, they have to choose to act this way themselves. What I can do though, is make myself do things this way. It's better than doing nothing at all. It's the only way I can truly change the society that I love.

Quote:

Unum: I might not be perfect at doing it, but I don't have to be perfect. No matter what, I question everything I read, even everything I sense. It's the only way I can come to my own conclusions. If the conclusions I come up with are similar to others, so be it. It still won't stop me from questioning.

Koy: How about answering?

Ask me a question and I will attempt to answer it.

Quote:

Unum: You keep talking about cults and such, but you do not know where I have been or what I have experienced.

Koy: I do not talk about cults and such per se as much as I talk about the detrimental effects of cult mentality (aka, mystical thinking) and how there is ample evidence, IMO, of those detrimental effects to be found in your "One" construct and posts; that your poetic interpretations demonstrate how cult mentality detrimentally effects cognitive processing so that you can see black and think white.

I would love to hear these detrimental effects of this One that I am talking about. Although I would like to hear them about what I have actually said about it, not what you think that I mean with it.

Quote:

Unum: To debunk, would require you to address my original post that started this thread. I have yet to see you do this.

Koy: No, actually it would not. I'm perfectly capable of debunking anything anyone writes at any given time, wherever it is they may write it, but if you'd like me to directly address what others already more than adequately have, I'll look into it.

As it is, the post I did initially respond to was the only one I saw of your�s that merited a response. Which is, of course, precisely why I presented one.

Fine, debunker, go back and debunk my original post. If you think others have debunked it already, I would be happy to hear the names and posts of those people whom you think debunked it.

Quote:

Unum: God is the singularity.

Koy: Yes, so you have asserted again.

Unum: You have also failed to address this from my original post.

Koy: You're very observant. Was there a counter-point, however, to my observation that this is nothing more than an assertion on your part, because I can find nothing relevant in your first post, which is where I am assuming you were directing me for illumination?

Right, you can find nothing relevant? What I presented in my first post was that there is evidence of there being One entity. This One entity would be all-powerful, all-knowing, all-mighty, it would possess consciousness, it would offer a universal revelation to all people and all things at all times, and it would be our reality itself. The ironic thing about this One that I have presented evidence for is that it shares many of these facets with some people have called God, Allah, The Tao, and other religious concepts. I believe this is what these people were talking about when they spoke of these concepts. If there is something, it is perfectly logical to believe that there then is One thing. Dispute that.

Quote:

Unum: I would like to see you address mine now.

Koy: Sufficient?

No. Please address my evidence of the One.

Quote:

Unum: Those NT authors that you call sophomoric are in the most printed book in human history. Not too bad of an accomplishment if you ask me.

Koy: Well, setting aside two obvious points (how many prints a book has does not reflect how many people purchased the book nor does it bear any relevance to the veracity of the book), funny how thousands of years of victimization, torture and mass murder based entirely upon a fear of eternal damnation and a dogma that depicts a savior of peace who came not to bring peace, but a sword can have that effect on otherwise innocent, ignorant people, hunh?

A �own this book or burn in hell� mentality is certainly a strong one, yes?

But again. Don't blame the baby Jesus. It makes him cry.

It's funny, you try to belittle the Bible yet even 2000 years after it is written we are still talking about it. Do you think you could write a book that will be talked about 2000 years later?

Peace,

Unum

Unum · 01-04-2003, 02:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi-Still Retired

Originally posted by Unum: Are you aware of the fact that infinity and zero never, ever appear alone.

Koy: Are you aware of the fact that those are human terms used to explain incomprehensible constructs for mathematical purposes?

Unum: Yes, they are human names for concepts that are very real. In fact, they are used everyday in all sorts of calculus equations. Without them, we probably woulnd't have cars, airplanes, know anything about space, or even design something so simple as a transitor (so no computers either).

Koy: Yes, I know, but you've missed my point. They are "very real," but that doesn't make them mystical.

I'm looking up above at my previous responses and I can't seem to find where I called them mystical. Maybe I can't find it because I never did call them mystical. Perhaps, once again, you tried putting words in my mouth. Oh well, it's not the first time.

Quote:

Unum: In fact, I think when we fully study string theory that this shape will show up again.

Koy: Doubtful, considering string theory is predicated upon a tenth dimensional (or twenty sixth dimensional) construct and the yin-yang is only two-dimensional.

Unum: The yin-yang is two-dimensional in form, yet multi-dimensional in concept.

Koy: What isn't? How this affirms mysticism, however, is still not established.

I reiterate my charge that you are doing little more than pointing to the dark, claiming mystery equals mysticism and then saying, "That is the One! The ONE!" (cue music)
[/QUOTE]

Again, I can't seem to find where I called anything mystical. You must be trying to put words in my mouth, AGAIN.

Quote:

Unum: Also, there very well may be 10, 11 or 26 dimensions as currently postulated by string theory, however these can still be broken down into smaller and smaller dimesions for us to study. Just as a 3-dimensional object can be represented by a point in physics equations for ease of study.

Koy: Yes, I know. Fascinating isn't it? Not evidence of mysticism, however, but let's not get back on topic. These posts are too long (something I thought I'd never say).

Hey, there you go with mysticism again. I think I've already addressed this above and in my previous post and in the one before that.

Quote:

Unum: Do you see any good whatsoever in any religion?

Koy: Not so far. At least nothing that would outweigh the "bads."

Unum: That may be. I'm not a fan of organized religion as I already said above. However, I think the good equals out the bad and it is a wash.

Koy: That's a tragic flaw in your analysis, IMO, and, not to beat a dead horse, but more evidence for the mill.

A tragic flaw in my analysis? Is that it? Are you going to expound upon what the flaw is? Can you show me where religion has caused more harm than good? Can you pin the cause directly upon religion in all these cases? Don't worry, I'll wait.

Quote:

Unum: If I were to see one atheist commit a heinous crime, should I blame the crime on his atheism and all his atheist friends (I'm sure this has been before) or should I blame it only on the person who commited the action?

Koy: Ahh, yes, this chestnut again. I particularly enjoy the "court of law" standard you've erroneously forced upon the question as well as the exploded extreme. Never mind that we have been discussing questions of influencing behavior, let's go directly to the court of law, where sociological questions of group consciousness and the detrimental effects of slave mentality instilled into a culture over centuries have no relevance.

That's the best strawman you've built so far.

Slave mentality instilled into a culture over centuries???? You need help.

Quote:

Could we now, however, place the argument back into its proper context? That of a ruling elite that concocts these myths in order to control and subjugate, or do you want to continue to avoid a discussion of the detrimental effects on society and "man's inhumanity to man" inherent in slave mentality by trying to make it seem as if there are no such influences and every single person is on this earth is educated so well that we have the ideal of self rule firmly established.

Yes, I do believe that every adult on this earth is educated enough to know what self rule means. They may want it or they may not want it, however I do believe they know what it is.

Also, what sort of myth am I concocting? That there is One? This is no myth. As I've said before and I'll say again, this is a fact of nature as much as gravity is. Even modern theoretical physics at this very day is trying to develop the Theory of Everything (TOE). Obviously to be called a theory of everything, it must describe and attempt to everything including science, religion, philosophy amongst other things. The word everything represents one concept. It's equivalent to infinity. Infinity is the largest number that can be. Infinity encompasses all numbers, yet can be represented by one symbol. Everything encompasses all things yet can be represented by one word.

You call this cult mentality, but where am I trying to enslave people? Where am I trying to subjugate people? How is this fact of nature detrimental to humankind or lead to more injustice? This cult mentality garbage you keep bringing up is ridiculous.

Quote:

In other words, are you going to continue to hide behind non-real world standards, because, such sophistry is really starting to annoy me.

It's just too bad that every single person on this globe isn't fully educated to the level of enlightenment that you have achieved, but f*ck them, right? You're an island unto yourself and can't concern yourself with the thousands of insidious ways in which otherwise innocent, ignorant people are manipulated and controlled.

No, I would never do that to my brothers and sisters of humanity. I write and I speak so that others can learn from me, just as I have learned from others who I talk to and have read. We are all teachers here, we all have something to teach one another. I learn new things everyday from the people I meet and talk to. Hopefully, they also learn new things from me. I can't force them to learn things from me, but if they ask I will tell them anything that I know. I don't hold anything back. If it were up to me everyone would exchange knowledge and ideas freely. There would be no charging money for these things. If one has something that can benefit all of mankind, I would urge them to give it away so that it can truly benefit everyone. If one charges money for it, it only goes to the select few that can afford it. Either way the person will get paid back. If one charges they will be paid back monetarily, if one doesn't charge and gives it away they will be paid back spiritually. As for me, I choose the spiritual payment to the monetary payment almost everytime.

Quote:

It's funny, too, since we've had your "enlightenment" around for thousands of years, followed diligently by billions of people in subtle, yet non-substantive variations and yet...oh, sorry, I keep forgetting that your response to all of this is to basically stick your head in the sand and say, "Hey, it's all ok from where I can see."

Not everyone has reached enlightenment. It is not an easy goal to reach. Anyone can, but very, very few actually and earnestly try. To reach enlightenment requires one to give everything up. It means being able to do without food, water, shelter, companionship, desires, wants, needs, literally everything. As you can see it's a very difficult choice to make as it takes an enormous amount of faith and trust in the One. This is probably why very few people have done it and also the reason why the people who have are the ones we remember the most. Just because "enlightenment" has been around for a long time, doesn't mean that many people have succeeded at finding it (or having it find them).

Quote:

And if that "act" is to condone slavery (either directly or indirectly)? Or to demand that one's disciples must hate their mother and father and sister and brother and wife and own life, etc., or they can't be your disciple?

The verse you are speaking of is Luke 14:26 "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters--yes, even his own life--he cannot be my disciple." However, here is what Luke 14:33 says "In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple." I hope you now see that it has to do with enlightenment. If one desires to be enlightened all of those things must be given up. Like I said, it ain't easy.

Quote:

Or what if that "act" is to convince innocent, ignorant people that their suffering from an oppressive elite is a good thing and that they should love their oppressors for the oppression? How about that crime?

That is not what Jesus said.

Quote:

How about the crime of deliberate fraud in order to subjugate and control millions of people? Would that be up for your consideration?

Yes, it sure would. However, it would require you to have hard evidence to back up your claim. Sadly, you don't have any.

Quote:

Unum: The person's atheism wasn't responsible for the act, it was the person themselves.

Koy: And if it could be demonstrated that it was, indeed, the atheism that was to blame; that had the person, for example, not been influenced by atheism in some manner not currently evident, he would not have committed whatever act he is being accused of? What then?

Sure, then it could be considered a crime. But I highly doubt that anyone at anytime could ever prove what you are saying. Not to mention the fact, that nowhere does Jesus condone the killing of others. In fact, he taught exactly the opposite, that one should embrace and pray for those who persecute you.

Quote:

But, ironically, not of cult mentality and the detrimental effects such thinking has on both the individual and the society (the One!).

Curious.

I don't like cult mentality either. You claim that is what I am talking about, but I get to differ. I am speaking of the One. In fact, I've given evidence (that you have failed to dispute) that shows that it is perfectly logical to believe in this One. That's it. I've not told people how to live their lives as cults do, I have not said that people must believe me or get sent to hell or who knows where as some cults do. I have done none of these things, yet you still accuse me of cult mentality. I honestly do not know where you are getting this from. What I do think is happening is that you are judging me based upon other people you know who hold my belief. That is unfair because you do not know me. You don't even know exactly what I believe. You think you do, as has been evidenced by your trying to put words in my mouth over and over again. Yet, I never said those things you claimed I said, in fact, I often believe something entirely different that what you try to attribute to me. You have been building an army of strawmen and burning them down one by one. Fortunately for me, these strawmen you built are far away from where I stand, as I have been unscathed from your fire.

Quote:

Unum: Even a cult of personality is scary. I would never wish on myself and I would likewise never wish it upon someone else. It distorts the real person into something that they were not. Yes, this happens in religion, but that doesn't mean it has to. I can read the teachings of Mohammed, Jesus, Buddha or anyone else and filter out what I think is the junk that was added to it later on.

Koy: Well, that's good for you, then isn't it, because you're an island unto yourself in your journey to reject society so that you can then (somehow) become a better part of society, right?

Are you beginning to see the cognitive dissonance cult mentality (aka, mystical thinking) induces yet?
[/QUOTE]

Yes, I see myself as an island. In fact, I see myself as one island of many, many islands, yet I know, deep down, that underneath the water that binds us and separates us we are connected into One.

I do not reject society, I reject the parts of society that I do not like. I dislike greed, therefore I will not be greedy. I dislike untruthfulness, therefore I will tell the truth. I dislike cheating, therefore I will not cheat.

If only everyone thought this way. However, I know that not everyone does. I also know that I can not make people act this way, they have to choose to act this way themselves. What I can do though, is make myself do things this way. It's better than doing nothing at all. It's the only way I can truly change the society that I love.

Quote:

Unum: I might not be perfect at doing it, but I don't have to be perfect. No matter what, I question everything I read, even everything I sense. It's the only way I can come to my own conclusions. If the conclusions I come up with are similar to others, so be it. It still won't stop me from questioning.

Koy: How about answering?

Ask me a question and I will attempt to answer it.

Quote:

Unum: You keep talking about cults and such, but you do not know where I have been or what I have experienced.

Koy: I do not talk about cults and such per se as much as I talk about the detrimental effects of cult mentality (aka, mystical thinking) and how there is ample evidence, IMO, of those detrimental effects to be found in your "One" construct and posts; that your poetic interpretations demonstrate how cult mentality detrimentally effects cognitive processing so that you can see black and think white.

I would love to hear these detrimental effects of this One that I am talking about. Although I would like to hear them about what I have actually said about it, not what you think that I mean with it.

Quote:

Unum: To debunk, would require you to address my original post that started this thread. I have yet to see you do this.

Koy: No, actually it would not. I'm perfectly capable of debunking anything anyone writes at any given time, wherever it is they may write it, but if you'd like me to directly address what others already more than adequately have, I'll look into it.

As it is, the post I did initially respond to was the only one I saw of your�s that merited a response. Which is, of course, precisely why I presented one.

Fine, debunker, go back and debunk my original post. If you think others have debunked it already, I would be happy to hear the names and posts of those people whom you think debunked it.

Quote:

Unum: God is the singularity.

Koy: Yes, so you have asserted again.

Unum: You have also failed to address this from my original post.

Koy: You're very observant. Was there a counter-point, however, to my observation that this is nothing more than an assertion on your part, because I can find nothing relevant in your first post, which is where I am assuming you were directing me for illumination?

Right, you can find nothing relevant? What I presented in my first post was that there is evidence of there being One entity. This One entity would be all-powerful, all-knowing, all-mighty, it would possess consciousness, it would offer a universal revelation to all people and all things at all times, and it would be our reality itself. The ironic thing about this One that I have presented evidence for is that it shares many of these facets with some people have called God, Allah, The Tao, and other religious concepts. I believe this is what these people were talking about when they spoke of these concepts. If there is something, it is perfectly logical to believe that there then is One thing. Dispute that.

Quote:

Unum: I would like to see you address mine now.

Koy: Sufficient?

No. Please address my evidence of the One.

Quote:

Unum: Those NT authors that you call sophomoric are in the most printed book in human history. Not too bad of an accomplishment if you ask me.

Koy: Well, setting aside two obvious points (how many prints a book has does not reflect how many people purchased the book nor does it bear any relevance to the veracity of the book), funny how thousands of years of victimization, torture and mass murder based entirely upon a fear of eternal damnation and a dogma that depicts a savior of peace who came not to bring peace, but a sword can have that effect on otherwise innocent, ignorant people, hunh?

A �own this book or burn in hell� mentality is certainly a strong one, yes?

But again. Don't blame the baby Jesus. It makes him cry.

It's funny, you try to belittle the Bible yet even 2000 years after it is written we are still talking about it. Do you think you could write a book that will be talked about 2000 years later?

Peace,

Unum

Keith Russell · 01-04-2003, 06:42 PM

Unum:

We already have a name for the entirety of the universe: the universe.

We don't need an additional concept to overlay over an already perfectly acceptable concept. There is no need to call 'the unvierse' 'the One'. Calling it 'the universe' is just fine.

As for the 'theory of everything', that isn't the One--and has nothing to do with 'the One'. A theory of everything is simply a way to try to explain everything. Having one theory does not mean that we believe that there is only 'One' thing.

The theory has not yet been perfected, because there are things we don't yet understand. These things are different from the things we do understand, if in no other way than that we don't yet understand them.

Matter is a form of energy, but there are at least these two different forms: matter, and energy.

Thus, energy can't be 'the One', either.

Keith.

Unum · 01-06-2003, 01:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Keith Russell

We already have a name for the entirety of the universe: the universe.

We don't need an additional concept to overlay over an already perfectly acceptable concept. There is no need to call 'the unvierse' 'the One'. Calling it 'the universe' is just fine.

Likewise, I can say we already had many names for the entirety that is the universe, namely Brahmin, God, Allah, YHWH, The Tao, etc. Why did we need an additional concept to overlay these acceptable concepts? It really doesn't make one bit of difference what we call this thing as long as we are referring to the same concept. It's like this, I can call you Keith, Mr. Russell, KR, K-Rus, or many other names, though the names are all different, when I use them, I am referring to you. The ability to do this is one of the many facets of language. It allows me to say "I'm (thrilled, happy, glad, ecstatic, etc.)" all equivalent labels in the sense that they all represent a form of positive emotion.

Calling it "the universe" is just fine. Just remember that when you call it that though, that you are referring to something that is singular, all-powerful, all-knowing, possesses consciouness, and is our supreme reality, amongst other things.

Quote:

As for the 'theory of everything', that isn't the One--and has nothing to do with 'the One'. A theory of everything is simply a way to try to explain everything. Having one theory does not mean that we believe that there is only 'One' thing.

The theory has not yet been perfected, because there are things we don't yet understand. These things are different from the things we do understand, if in no other way than that we don't yet understand them.

What does the word everything mean to you?

Say we have an infinite amount of things. There will be one and only one set that will encompass every thing. This set can be considered perfect as it will be the only whole and complete set. Also, if each and every thing has power, the One set will contain all of this power. It will be the only set that can be considered all-powerful. Also, no thing will ever be able to be removed or added to this set, as it encompasses every thing.

Here is where the infinite regress of the duality comes in however. To have a set that is every thing, means there is a set that is no thing. Yet, a set is a thing, so this no thing set must be encompassed by the every thing set. But, this just leads back on itself as this every thing set, means there must be a no thing set outside of it. However, no thing can exist outside of every thing. The infinite regress is at work.

As far as I can see, I don't see how this question or paradox can ever be answered. Somehow it works. I don't know how. It is at this point that I suspend my logical way of viewing the world and go completely on faith.

Quote:

Matter is a form of energy, but there are at least these two different forms: matter, and energy.

Thus, energy can't be 'the One', either.

Matter is energy, energy is matter. Fundamentally, they are the same one thing. They are related through the speed of light squared constant. I tend to view it as energy, but I could just as easily view it as matter. Either way, it wouldn't make a difference.

Although, the more that I think about it, the more that I believe there is a reason why I tend to view it more often as energy as opposed to matter. Like I said, it doesn't make a difference either way as they are essentially equivalent concepts, but there is a reason why I've chosen energy as my default view. I just don't know what that reason is yet.

Peace,

Unum

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-04-2003, 06:42 PM	#83
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	Unum: We already have a name for the entirety of the universe: the universe. We don't need an additional concept to overlay over an already perfectly acceptable concept. There is no need to call 'the unvierse' 'the One'. Calling it 'the universe' is just fine. As for the 'theory of everything', that isn't the One--and has nothing to do with 'the One'. A theory of everything is simply a way to try to explain everything. Having one theory does not mean that we believe that there is only 'One' thing. The theory has not yet been perfected, because there are things we don't yet understand. These things are different from the things we do understand, if in no other way than that we don't yet understand them. Matter is a form of energy, but *there are at least* these two different forms**: matter, and energy. Thus, energy can't be 'the One', either. Keith.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.