Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[Ben Dhyan]

A theory that has been falsified. What we find is ourselves talking to ourselves. That is the reality I see in religion.

When the mind is still and free from thought, there is no I present talking or thinking, only after the subjective experience associated with a non-thinking mind will there be the beginning of the state of enlightenment. Now of course there are religious devotees who seek but have not realized the goal, and there will be a lot of misunderstanding of what and who they are in the greater universal context. 'Many are called but few are chosen'.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Show some evidence for it. This appears to be only a personal delusion of yours. Definitely not an organized one.

I have the feeling I am repeating this over and over yet you still do not understand. Religion is the path to a subjective state of relative enlightenment, one must seek the path, there is no objective evidence, only a subjective experience.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

If there was a God there is no reason that atheists could not "realize him". If you understood logic you just declared that there is no God.

Seek and you will find, it is my understanding that atheists are not seeking, but waiting. That's fine, that's reality, there is always going to be spectrum of understanding of the purpose of life among the human population.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have the feeling I am repeating this over and over yet you still do not understand. Religion is the path to a subjective state of relative enlightenment, one must seek the path, there is no objective evidence, only a subjective experience.

You just made another unjustified claim. What makes you think that you are any more enlightened than any one else? When you make claims, especially if you try to claim to have a superior trait of some sort you much justify it. Otherwise the proper thing to do is to reject your claim.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Seek and you will find, it is my understanding that atheists are not seeking, but waiting. That's fine, that's reality, there is always going to be spectrum of understanding of the purpose of have life among the human population.

And that is akin to admitting that you are wrong. Think about it. You might understand the huge error that you just made.

But like your earlier mistakes that you won't own up to I doubt if you will ever understand this one either.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Please use the correct language. There is a red shift that is extremely strong evidence that the stars are moving away. Your ideas have no believe or have been refuted. To believe that something will be refuted when you have no evidence is an irrational belief.

If the red shift is doppler, yes, expanding universe, but there may be another reason for the red shift other than doppler and while contemporary science may claim there is no other cause, imho, ongoing science into the future will ultimately reveal the truth. You seem to think that contemporary science has everything right, and while that is hubris imho, I am happy for you to believe what you believe.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It is always logical to ask for evidence. What you are just admitting is that your beliefs are irrational so it is illogical to ask for evidence. You might be right if you make your claims properly.

Sure, and is logical for you to understand that a spiritual experience is subjective, I can't put a spiritual mind state into your mind so that you could have evidence. It should be logical for you to see this.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You just made another unjustified claim. What makes you think that you are any more enlightened than any one else? When you make claims, especially if you try to claim to have a superior trait of some sort you much justify it. Otherwise the proper thing to do is to reject your claim.

Where did I make the claim I am more enlightened than anyone else?

 

[Subduction Zone]

If the red shift is doppler, yes, expanding universe, but there may be another reason for the red shift other than doppler and while contemporary science may claim there is no other cause, imho, ongoing science into the future will ultimately reveal the truth. You seem to think that contemporary science has everything right, and while that is hubris imho, I am happy for you to believe what you believe.

You need to stop making such obviously false claims. You have been the one to demonstrate that you have hubris. You are the one that demonstrated that you are unenlightened. How do I know? Because you regularly make errors and do not own up to them. Do you think that I am forgetting your off by a factor of a trillion error? You never owned up to that, though you did correct your notation in later posts, whic was a tacit admission at least that you were wrong.

When you made your error about the total energy of the universe where instead of following my more than reasonable suggestion where I handed you the answer you kept referring back to that article that you did not understand. You never looked up the total energy of the universe, or if you did you ignored the answer. Either way that shows arrogance and ignorance, a very bad mix.

Due to that attitude I knew that it would be of no use to simply lecture you and explain how you were wrong about that article. So I focused on the part that demonstrated your error and gave you a problem that if you are an EE that you do have enough physics to understand. Again displaying hubris and unenlightenment you ignored that reasonable request. I made it more than reasonable by offering to do your homework for you if you simply owned up to the fact that you could not do what you should be able to do.

You should never lecture others about either hubris or enlightenment.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Where did I make the claim I am more enlightened than anyone else?

The implication was there. You pretended that the religious are more enlightened than atheists. It appears that is very far from the truth.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And that is akin to admitting that you are wrong. Think about it. You might understand the huge error that you just made.

But like your earlier mistakes that you won't own up to I doubt if you will ever understand this one either.

Your mind seems somewhat odd, you seem to see things that aren't there. Honesty is a good quality to have if you ever consider spiritual understanding. To thine own self be true, and it follows, as night must follow day, thou canst not be false to any man.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure, and is logical for you to understand that a spiritual experience is subjective, I can't put a spiritual mind state into your mind so that you could have evidence. It should be logical for you to see this.

Please quit posting what appear to be very false doctrine, once again your behavior refutes your claims, that you cannot support.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your mind seems somewhat odd, you seem to see things that aren't there. Honesty is a good quality to have if you ever consider spiritual understanding. To thine own self be true, and it follows, as night must follow day, thou canst not be false to any man.

What do you think "is not there"? It is rather hard to deal with claims that are not clearly stated.. I can explain to you why you failed. I doubt if you will let yourself understand those explanations.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You need to stop making such obviously false claims. You have been the one to demonstrate that you have hubris. You are the one that demonstrated that you are unenlightened. How do I know? Because you regularly make errors and do not own up to them. Do you think that I am forgetting your off by a factor of a trillion error? You never owned up to that, though you did correct your notation in later posts, whic was a tacit admission at least that you were wrong.

When you made your error about the total energy of the universe where instead of following my more than reasonable suggestion where I handed you the answer you kept referring back to that article that you did not understand. You never looked up the total energy of the universe, or if you did you ignored the answer. Either way that shows arrogance and ignorance, a very bad mix.

Due to that attitude I knew that it would be of no use to simply lecture you and explain how you were wrong about that article. So I focused on the part that demonstrated your error and gave you a problem that if you are an EE that you do have enough physics to understand. Again displaying hubris and unenlightenment you ignored that reasonable request. I made it more than reasonable by offering to do your homework for you if you simply owned up to the fact that you could not do what you should be able to do.

You should never lecture others about either hubris or enlightenment.

I am happy for you to believe what you believe, reality is what it is. The wonderful future is unfolding, evolving, rejoice.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Please quit posting what appear to be very false doctrine, once again your behavior refutes your claims, that you cannot support.

'What appears to be', means you are not sure. That's not bad coming from an atheist, there's hope for you yet.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

What do you think "is not there"? It is rather hard to deal with claims that are not clearly stated.. I can explain to you why you failed. I doubt if you will let yourself understand those explanations.

Sorry, but imho, you do not possess the integrity required to be an impartial judge in these matters, nor the appropriate understanding. But thanks for the offer.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am happy for you to believe what you believe, reality is what it is. The wonderful future is unfolding, evolving, rejoice.

Please, now it just looks as if you are trolling.

'What appears to be', means you are not sure. That's not bad coming from an atheist, there's hope for you yet.

Unlike you I do have evidence and logic for my claims. You only have mere belief. You should be unsure of everything. Being unsure allows one to accept corrections. You unfortunately have a strong belief in things that are demonstrably wrong. And that makes it very hard for you to accept corrections.

Sorry, but imho, you do not possess the integrity required to be an impartial judge in these matters, nor the appropriate understanding. But thanks for the offer.

Please, you and I both know that I have demonstrated far more integrity here than you have. Need I remind you that you are still afraid to do your homework and do not have the guts to admit that you cannot do it? Why do you keep making obviously false claims about others?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Please, now it just looks as if you are trolling.

Unlike you I do have evidence and logic for my claims. You only have mere belief. You should be unsure of everything. Being unsure allows one to accept corrections. You unfortunately have a strong belief in things that are demonstrably wrong. And that makes it very hard for you to accept corrections.

Please, you and I both know that I have demonstrated far more integrity here than you have. Need I remind you that you are still afraid to do your homework and do not have the guts to admit that you cannot do it? Why do you keep making obviously false claims about others?

You have so much angst that you are unable to accept my sincerity when I say that I am happy for you to believe what you want to believe.

I am also pleased to hear that you think it right to be unsure of everything, in order to accept corrections, that's precisely my position on BB theory.

No, I don't know that, but I can recognize a scallywag by their mischievousness.

 

[Polymath257]

I understand that there is red shift measurements that suggests an expanding universe, but imho, there may be another reason for red shift, and so I look to the future for a correct conclusion. I also understand that contemporary science has already reached the conclusion of doppler red shift and thus an expanding universe, that's fine also. But it is the scientific correct conclusion concerning nucleosynthesis in the future that will establish an end to the speculation of a BB. Let's see.

Red shifts can be explained in a SS model. The CMBR cannot.

Find, in a SS theory, an explanation for a background Planck distribution that matches the theoretical curve to one point in 100,000 *and* matches predictions as to the *variations* from that theoretical curve. It is the most precise Planck curve we have ever detected, which excludes esentially all explanations in terms of background galaxies and such.

Red shifts are only one, rather small piece of evidence. You also need to explain the light element abundances, which again match the theoretical predictions, with deuterium being the most difficult to match. The expansion 'cuts off' the formation of equilibrium in the early universe. Again, no SS model manages to do this.

I can go one, with discussion of the details of gravitational lensing, of how angular distance changes with other distance metrics, etc.

The BB models fits all of these. No model without a universal expansion manages to get anywhere close, especially with the CMBR.

 

[Polymath257]

Religions convey the message that the reality represented by the concept of 'kingdom of god', is within, so any evidence will need to be subjective, not objective. Moreover, the seeking within is not a thinking process, it is a cessation of thought that nonconceptual reality will be present.

Which means, ultimately, that we are talking to ourselves. This is self-delusion as far as I can see.

Now it is fine for atheists to be atheists and believe that there is no 'expanded mind state' to be realized, but it is not logical for them to demand objective evidence when this state is a subjective experience.

If it is a subjective experience, you might at well rely on chemical stimulation. You will get a similar experience. What we want is objective evidence since that is what relates to *reality* as opposed to self-delusion.

What is, is what is, let atheists experience an atheistic life, and let religious folk do their thing.

Back at ya. How often have theist declared atheism to be immoral, dangerous, and n need of elimination? How often do the theists declare that we are a harm to society, should not be allowed to vote, etc?

Maybe the problem is that *theists* cannot stand to hear their precious ideas questioned and get defensive and aggressive when they are the subject of the smallest amounts of criticism?

Look at the history of theocracies. Then look at the histories of societies that take their politics on 'faith' (most totalitarian societies require this). Finally, look at the atheistic democracies. See which societies are the best.