Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by LimbicLoser

  1. I self-studied Hindi from high school, and live with a family from India for about 2 years--during which time I worked as a sariwala. (selling saris) Why, may I ask, do you wonder, please?

  2. Anyway, just for the purpose of sharing, here: This is not going to cut it at all. First of all the usage of the word 'thing,' is misleading. The sentiment of 'self' is deeper than the processing which amounts to the condition of having a state of consciousness. (1) The state of having consciousness does not always mean that 'self' is identified. Sometimes what is normally registered as 'self' (that is, one's own body, or mental processing results) is registered as 'not self.' In these cases, self is broken because brain processing has gone astray.(2) This is incorrect in a num
  3. To those whom it may concern: Is the allowance of such, surely obviously insincere as to explaining in any at least understandably-so degree of scientific thinking posting allowed to continue for some particular purpose? To the OPP. You are mistaken because--as the evidence most clearly demonstrates--you have failed to keep up with what is known, as opposed to what had been imagined in the Bhramic, Vedic, and Yogic traditions of the Arians. Additionally, you have never worked in clinical situations, nor have been exposed to them, where the brain processing which amounts to the 'self'
  4. Two conditions (at least) will have to be met to demonstrate any high enough truth value in your assertion to even leave it as plausible enough to not throw in the garbage can. For one, you will have to demonstrate that with evidence. Secondly, that evidence will have to out weigh the evidence for the conclusion that brain is required for consciousness, and a certain dynamic processing across and amoung certain rather specific structures within the brain, is required for consciousness. It very much appears that you are skating on the thin ice of a wild-eyed imagination--be it one that make
  5. I am going to take a different approach here. First of all, we need to take care of the linguistic aspects as best we can--working towards higher accuracy and correctness in a more pragmatic, and accepted standard. This is incorrect terminology. Since the word 'god' is a countable noun (and thus has multiply references) it must receive the standard, correct English handling. One can be a theist, and conceive of a god, or the 'the god of something, something theist-involved belief system, or, one can conceive of 'gods' in different, various ways. Additionally, it may also soon be ar
  6. Oh but for the fun of having fun for no more better, nor of greater fun, than that reason of simply having fun! After a short break for other things here, and not wanting to get back into the deadhead thread I had been in with revolving images of a brain which does nothing more than revolve, I was well humored by this one. Thanks guys ! (of course, congregation would surely have been a better word choice than 'church,' but suffice it to say that the point has been taken.)
  7. In responding to the OP, and the circumstances of any particular person committing suicide, my heart-felt emotional surge rises in the moment. It is sad, most sad, that such will happen (suicide, that is) regardless of any state, or putative cause. I lost a dear and very loving sister in that manner. (Bipolar had been doing its evil work for some 10 or more years, and it finally took over.) As for bullying, I personally think that is too, is too bad--a blemish in social animals which we humans, one would think, would have overcome by now; alas. As for whether her suicide attempt coul
  8. Hi there Notexceling ! First of all, let me sincerely express my appreciation for the trouble you have gone to in presenting your hypothesis. I know that can be hard work, and I know it represents a good chunk of your time, energy, and researching abilities. I do, honestly, appreciate that. Let me also say that I can, in some idiosyncratic way, empathize with your wordiness, and length of OP. I am (and I will put this in a fair way) guilty of doing the same, at times. (Although there are times when 'guilty of' would be a stretch of the imagination, in all pragmatic fairness... we do, at
  9. Thank you for the notice and heads up, iNow. I do appreciate that. I checked out the score, pitched the idea around of starting a new thread to present and discuss the finer points with any interested and capable, but eventually have decided to go ahead and stick with this one. I am now only looking towards readership at large, and not directed in any ways towards the OPP. (Although from the start I had not worried so much about whether the OPP had been reading up.) I will continue. While there are actually a good number of instances which I do have lined up (and, to be honest, surel
  10. Oh boy, oh girl, oh me, oh my... now how in the world did I miss that one too? (hee, hee, hee... as though to insinuate that it were strange for me to make such mistakes in my typing and spelling in general) Thanks for the heads up. I find, sadly, that I can no longer edit that post. Immortal, I am still waiting for your answers, rather than very, very unrelated quotes stuck in a post which says nothing to deny what the quote actually presents. You have some work to do. You will need to go out and bring a bit of hard, cold evidence back and put it on the barrelhead here. I am waiti
  11. I see. I will yet give a touch of the benefit of a doubt a bit longer, and see. I cannot, in the same breath, so fully and drastically disagree with the notion entertained. (Oh, and in appreciation, you helped me find an error in my spelling--which happens at times--which I have now corrected in the main text. Thanks !) I do appreciate that. I can fully and quite strongly emotionally feel, that nothing less than very good luck will draw those out.
  12. I am going to be busy for awhile now here and the particular rubbish (that portion which is such) which is being passed forward by immortal is being done so with an attitude that has presented itself as being unfixable, and I have another thread (or two [at the moment) which I wish to focus my energies and time for SFN on. Over a few more posts, other than correcting for a few errors, I will simply see if I can get responsible, matture answers to some of the questions I had asked along the way here, which were not answered. The first thing you need to deal with, immortal, is my prime ques
  13. For a quick response, if you will, probably there is no absolute answer. I envisage this due to the possible fact that it may depend on the person and the social in-grouping of a person doing so. It may also depend on the actual make up of the beads themselves. To the best of my knowledge the 'prayer beads' (or 'worry beads') were prevalent in Buddhism and Hindism before they were taken up into the Roman Catholic tradition. Here in Japan today, if one were to wear a set of beads around their neck which were clearly of the make up of those used for the Mahayana theist-involved Buddhist syst
  14. Leaving all the other saliently vehement figments aside, this especially quite appears to be, if not an outright lie, an extremely gross instance of blanket statement. At best, you will need to refine your subject class, and then will need to refine your usage range and contextual setting. This is gross error--again. The failure to correct for all the error you have been making all this time, ought, we can more commonly understand through common rationing, make one at least work to present more accurately and clearly. (And optimally correct error once it has been called to the attention of
  15. There is so much to iron out, and so seemingly, so little willingness on your part, immortal, to actually open the eyes of coherent exchange of pieces of evidence and thoughts, and try to fit all the puzzle pieces together to at least a more coherent whole. Anyway, deadlines have pressurized the time for me at the moment, so I have to break things down into smaller chunks spread farther apart chronologically. I'll stick with basics for a moment. This is the second time that you have said that--although I cannot recall your verbatim form in the first instance, and do not have time now t
  16. You quoted a portion of the explanation backing that up; did you not actually read it? What I know is not true is spelled out there, so, it may be good to back through that again. That you are arguing that it is true, is no surprise to anyone following. This is spinning here. Please stay on track! Speaking of quantum, this is a perfect example of where the cliche 'quantum jump' came from. A jump from one point that falls within a contextual setting of presentative theme, and jumping to a totally irrelevant (once again) point which is in no way supported by the earlier. What you
  17. While we do find misuse, and lack of care (as has come to be overly practiced, especially by those who have little invested time in research on the matter), it is clear among all the examples of proper usage in English, that we do have a major distinction between the word form 'god' and 'God'--and 'goddess' as well. There is a quite clear rule of thumb for capitalization in English--which I have touched on at another point in this sub-forum. Over the course of my dealing with this, I have found, for example of one instance of error, that a few have tried to apply the capitalization rule of
  18. This is simply not true, immortal. I know for a fact that it is not something that you will ever be able to get over, so I don't have any pressure to invest much more here. You have very clearly proven on far more than just a few examples, that there are some major errors in some of the finer points which build the ideas behind some terms which you misuse, as well as some fault in being able to reason correctly. Misconstruction is often enough found in your several posts, so as to undermine your very position to a very high degree. Scientific method, in the broadest sense, is what can b
  19. Quite spot on, Moontanman! There is a little more to it in the detail, of course, but that is the correct overall matter. Of course in the Western area of the world--'Christendom' if you will--folks will more generally refer to the documents of canon within that single volume book called the Bible. I have been for some while now (not talking of this forum) working on trying to adjust for accuracy and correctness pertaining to some degree of detail in that. The several scrolls which made up the Torah--the law--were rather finalized in the Second Temple period, even though the law had be
  20. While I of course appreciate your sharing your thoughts and imaginations, Denise, I really wish to encourage your more careful and detailed thinking over sound and valid knowledge. You have mentioned that you feel you do not wish to come, read, or/and post here much more--for whatever reason that may be--yet you have signified that you wish to think about things further. Well, this is why I wish to encourage you, namely, because as one thinks, it is necessary to get the predicates of the thoughts as accurate and correct as possible. In you above post there is a high degree of error due to n
  21. Of course, a very thought provoking piece--and I mean this literally, and not in the simple, usual cliche usage. However, it is old hat--nothing new at all. Of course, among the several classes of believers, there are responses which, in varying degrees, undermine the unspoken details of what, for example, Mosaic law might mean, and so on. In my concerned opinion, the effort is noteworthy, as it always has been, but is far to lacking in secure detailed understanding and accuracy of presentation. Of course, at the same time, I understand that one could not do that in a singe You Tube shot.
  22. Oh my, you silly little girl. It's not funny at all, how you keep casting your line in a different spot each time. No, no goal posts have been moved at all. Look over all my recent posts that have anything to do the fundimentals of the argument and position you are coming from (even on another thread about 'If Science Could One day...'). I have never been using any loose, overly collective term like 'science' as far too many folks, on both sides of the table, even, far too often tend to do. That word will never be able to function so precisely as its users wish it to because a collective,
  23. I am pretty sure I have essentially and substantially enough pointed out, that I am not talking about this 'science' some folks can never outgrow. The usage is so misleading that it's pathetic. As for scientific method, in the broadest sense, why of course it is the only way to know of anything at all. In that I have amply enough provided an example of what the required action to subtantiate and demonstrate the claims of immortal would be, the fact that no one of the face of the earth has to date been able to execute that consistently over large sample space and length of time, fully demons
  24. I will hold a paragraph or two on the known history, and historical artifacts, by which it can be more soundly and logically deduced as to how the concept of a god developed in early human social groups, aside for later. Here I wish to extend firstly on the English; the word forms and the bare noun. This will entail a bit of grammatical concerns too, but please do bear with me on that, for it is perhaps a necessary evil in understanding more properly. As touched on above (and this may come up a number of times to ascertain having the readership more fully grasp the importance of the ma
  25. I see. As I get a little more time, I may come back and clear this up for the third party. You are still adding error on top of error,immortal, and until you actually show a far more intellectually honest demeanor, one wiling to get down to the details in a chronological and material degree of weightiness manner, there is little other to tell you, yourself, than that you are grossly mistaken, effectively misleading and misrepresenting--almost so that it would appear that some charge such as 'lying through one's teeth' would not seem to be so far fetched a charge--and must be warned about to
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.