Straight to the business at hand

[rubyraks]

Re: Straight to the business at hand

I am not saying that the double standard is people not taking the leap. The double standard I speak of is the fact that many have said that there is no ?proof? without physical evidence i.e as science could prove.

I am saying that evidence does come non-physical, non-chemicla forms and others here say that the only evidence is that which can be proven through science

If that is the case then the big bang has the exact same amount of discredit that God does as far as science goes because the big bang can not be proven with any tests.

I would say that this statement goes to the very root of what many here have been trying to get across to you. You can't prove the big bang (though attempts are being made) and you can't prove god. Hence the term, belief.

[cowardly dj]

Re: Straight to the business at hand

going to start a new thread about consciousness so perhaps some who do not frequent this thread will participate

post your thoughts on human consciousness there

[cowardly dj]

Re: Straight to the business at hand

[quote=KinKyJ;385629 Just look at the rise of cosmetics for men.[/quote]

This is new to me because I do not watch TV (surprise surprise huh)

anyway wouldnt it be said that the industry was fueled by the fact that deep inside we all are preoccupied with self.

People were worrying about their appearance long before there was even the thought of an industry

[KinKyJ]

Re: Straight to the business at hand

^^^ Yup, that's why I've put worry between parantheses. I guess we're agreeing on something at last CDJ

However, I think you need to take another thing into account. Yes, the fact that we're preoccupied with how we look is basicly because of awareness like you said, but it's mainly boosted and fueled by the industry. Cosmetics, fashion, gyms, ... They all want a bill from your wallet. Just look at the rise of cosmetics for men.

[cowardly dj]

Re: Straight to the business at hand

Animals don't work out, diet We do those things because we eat crap and sit on our asses all day long.

so true, so very true, and sad at the same time

Animals do "worry" about their looks though, mainly the males (weird, opposite of with humans ), because only the strongest/most beautiful male will get a female to mate with)

While I was posting this the image was in my head about a bird, not sure which one, that puffs up its chest to attract a mate.

That is still instinct IMO. It is simply to attract a mate to propigate the species. Not because he wants companionship and the likes.

There is no worry over "how do I look", I guess it would be more or less summed up as "is this working" for that bird

[KinKyJ]

Re: Straight to the business at hand

Now that may sound funny on paper but give that some thought. We are aware that other people know we exist. Animals do not spend time worrying about their looks in hopes to affect what other people think about hem. We groom ourselves, go on diets, work-out etc. Why? We know other people are aware of us, and want that awareness to be of a nature that will give them a positive awareness of us.

Animals don't work out, diet 'n' shit because they don't have to when they're in the wild. We do those things because we eat crap and sit on our asses all day long.

Animals do "worry" about their looks though, mainly the males (weird, opposite of with humans ), because only the strongest/most beautiful male will get a female to mate with)

[cowardly dj]

Re: Straight to the business at hand

Because at this point you're more than likely delving into the subconscious mind which IS the unknown...until enough of our brains are actually studied and understood, the fact remains that we use less than 10% of it *actively*....the rest just can't be understood r studied "as we know it."

isn?t that one of the most interesting things about being human though

That we are sefl-aware?

In all the articles I have read about consciousness it seems to always be defined by all scientists as "being self-aware. I on the other hand have formulated my own theory about consciousness.

Being self aware does not constitute a consciousness as far as it being the only attribute to define it. I am sure that animals are aware they exist to a certain degree.(though I can not prove that it is just my thought)

They eat when hungry, sleep when tired, they know things that is usually attributed to instinct. Instinct to me is just another name for aware that you have needs.

So when I think of consciousness I see it as multi-staged.
1. You are aware that you exist.
2. You are aware that others are aware that you exist.
3. You are aware that others are aware that they are aware that they exist.

Now that may sound funny on paper but give that some thought. We are aware that other people know we exist. Animals do not spend time worrying about their looks in hopes to affect what other people think about hem. We groom ourselves, go on diets, work-out etc. Why? We know other people are aware of us, and want that awareness to be of a nature that will give them a positive awareness of us.

Think about that for a while and then tell me what you think.

BTW this is the first time I have ever told this to anyone. Never discussed this with another person so I am interested in some feedback on it.

[FM]

Re: Straight to the business at hand

I am not talking about the physical firing of nuerons and the such, of course that is recordable it is a physical/chemical reaction. I am talking about the thought that sets the firing into motion. That is in no wise recordable.

Check into some of the research done by some neurologist and you will see that a persons "thoughts" are considered in the realm of the unknown for lack of scientific evidence and the ability to test the thoughts.

Because at this point you're more than likely delving into the subconscious mind which IS the unknown...until enough of our brains are actually studied and understood, the fact remains that we use less than 10% of it *actively*....the rest just can't be understood r studied "as we know it."

[FM]

Re: Straight to the business at hand

^^^although you missed the thread posted that scientists are now trying to do "mini bangs" to help *maybe* prove the theory of multiple dimensions or *maybe* how the big bang evolved...really, first of its kind.

Screw the thread...here's an article link:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/story.cfm?c_id=325&objectid=10400645

[cowardly dj]

Re: Straight to the business at hand

when people are unwilling to make that leap to "god DOES exist" you start saying there's a double standard going on.

I am not saying that the double standard is people not taking the leap. The double standard I speak of is the fact that many have said that there is no ?proof? without physical evidence i.e as science could prove.

I am saying that evidence does come non-physical, non-chemicla forms and others here say that the only evidence is that which can be proven through science

If that is the case then the big bang has the exact same amount of discredit that God does as far as science goes because the big bang can not be proven with any tests.

and for the record, I have continued to try to have an intelligent discussion with you on the matter throughout, without throwing insults your way. The fact that you've skirted many of the more intelligent questions that were posed with your condescending, albeit unintended, attitude is a bit dismaying.

as I have stated before I am not avoiding any questions intentionally

if there is a particular question(s) you are referring to then please quote them and I will answer them.

P.S. Using that small text makes it even more difficult to read your arguments...

not intended . I am not exactly sure why that happens. Maybe because I type my responses in word and paste here

[toasty]

Re: Straight to the business at hand

when I first saw this thread title (Straight to the business at hand), I thought CDJ was going to talk about masterbation. After reading 4 pages on if God exists, I wish this thread was on masterbation

dare to dream...

[speciale]

Re: Straight to the business at hand

when I first saw this thread title (Straight to the business at hand), I thought CDJ was going to talk about masterbation. After reading 4 pages on if God exists, I wish this thread was on masterbation

[rubyraks]

Re: Straight to the business at hand

I am sure that some of you will come up with many different reasons for the double standard and I am even willing to go out on a limb and guess that some will even say that there is no double standard at work here. Clearly there is though. I have given clear and concise proof that non-physical, non-chemical evidence is at work in everyday life so that can not be denied. If you can say non-physical, non-chemical evidence in one aspect is credible then say non-physical, non-chemical evidence is not viable proof of anything in another aspect then certainly you can see that there is some very serious inconsistency at work here.

Again I ask why the double standard?

The burden of proof is not that non-physical, non-chemical evidence exists and is used in everyday life, the proof lies in someone proving that it does not exist and is not used in everyday life therefore proving that it can not be used to determine creation over evolution and the existence of God over the non-existence of God.

Until that is done then non-physical, non-chemical evidence has 100% credibility and can be used.

Again, here is where you become condescending.

Your arguments earlier regarding motivation for murder and then the one regarding love are used to show that your proof could be used similarly to lead one to believe that "god COULD exist", but when people are unwilling to make that leap to "god DOES exist" you start saying there's a double standard going on.

Now that is condescending. You see, right then and there, you took a "leap of faith" not based on fact, but merely because in your mind you've refuted all other evidence contrary to creation and your conclusion is, well, since I can't disprove god and it is the only possible explanation left, therefore it must be the answer. That is not proof, nor is it a double standard for others not to take the same leap that you did.

This is why many people here have become frustrated with your discussions here. You insist you're right and refuse to realize that your own proof is based on your own personal scientific process of elimination. Unfortunately, that process only truly works where there are no other possible explanations. Merely because science hasn't provided any other explanations to your satisfaction doesn't make it so. Following your line of reasoning, you have to show me why no other explanations are even possible, whether already thought of or not. Good luck.

and for the record, I have continued to try to have an intelligent discussion with you on the matter throughtout, without throwing insults your way. The fact that you've skirted many of the more intelligent questions that were posed with your condescending, albeit unintended, attitude is a bit dismaying.

P.S. Using that small text makes it even more difficult to read your arguments...

[Jenks]

Re: Straight to the business at hand

[DancingQueen]

Re: Straight to the business at hand

^^^ Coles notes is the brand name I guess you'd call it for the cliff notes books for like every book....assumed they were in the US too

*shrugs*