Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

'What do you know about 'The Urantia Papers'?'


c.s.lewis

Recommended Posts

Just now, Hammerclaw said:

Occam's Razor makes short shrift of all that, Mr Walker, meaning self-delusion is far more probable. You are, of course, free to go on tilting at windmills, none-the-less.

Occam's razor is a useful tool, but  often wrong 

Again it depends on your own experiences and beliefs

You believe self  delusion is always the answer  (and are justified in that belief due to your own experiences)   I know that it is not,  due to my own experiences, and expert professional advice. 

In the land of the blind, a sighted person would be considered delusional.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Sheri

Odd that a guy invites people to discuss and has nothing to say when directly questioned.

Not really. Isn't the OP the same person who used to post book covers without context?

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, XenoFish said:

Not really. Isn't the OP the same person who used to post book covers without context?

Hi Xeno

Yeah I forgot about that till you mentioned it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Occam's razor is a useful tool, but  often wrong 

Again it depends on your own experiences and beliefs

You believe self  delusion is always the answer  (and are justified in that belief due to your own experiences)   I know that it is not,  due to my own experiences, and expert professional advice. 

In the land of the blind, a sighted person would be considered delusional.   

Yes, I've used that rather shop-worn trope, myself. Yet extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but in the regard, you and others like you, talk a good act, but your performance is always lacking.

Edited by Hammerclaw
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Analysis appears to  show more than one author of the writings  

Well, yes, even the UB believers here have acknowledged that several previously published works were "used" (meaning copied without attribution). Also, the standard history of the UB discusses a "forum" of collaborators with Dr Sadler.

So multiple authorship isn't an issue at this point in the discussion.

9 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

That a human being had visions or dreams, even a genuine contact with the universal  consciousness,  which were then recorded by others is quite possible.

Yes, but the "historical sleeping subject" is a lot like the "historical Jesus." Whether or not either one was a real person is inconsequential now. In both cases, it was his "disciples and their disciples" or "forum members" who did the actual work of (1) gathering the lore and then writing something down decades later and (2) promoting that writing to the wider world (with revision along the way as needed). That is work that they might have undertaken without a real person to inspire them.

Neither the sleeping subject nor Jesus is depicted as launching a new "spiritual or religious" movement by any overt act during their natural lives. Except that the sleeping subject was supposedly a patient of Dr Sadler in the Chicagoland of the early 1900's, little specific biographical information is available about him, and none of that is verifiable. Jesus, ditto.

On a recurring point

2 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

I learned to snow ski about 50 years ago 

All I have of that now is memory 

Il learned to ride a dragon about the same time ago

All I have of that is memory  

So, Which was "real" ?

I don't know whether you learned to ski, and I don't know what "riding a dragon" means outside of fairy tales. I find it more likely that you learned to ski than that you learned to "ride a dragon" in any sense that requires a physical dragon to exist.

I think it is far less likely that you have any memory of learning to ride to a dragon than that you have instead exercised your usual semantic gymanstics to pretend that dragon-riding and snow-skiing are comparably real events.

Yes, we have evolved the ability to be semantic athletes like that, but some of us have outgrown it.

Edited by eight bits
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Just to answer your first few points 

Everything exists, for us, only in our mind and memories 

Ie I learned to snow ski about 50 years ago 

All I have of that now is memory 

Il learned to ride a dragon about the same time ago

All I have of that is memory  

So, Which was "real" ?

There is no difference in our mind between memories of dreamed experiences and of real ones, which is why we need contextual and reality checkers to tell which occured while we were awke and which while we were asleep 

Now i have enough personal evidences to know that i can project my consciousness to  real places while I am asleep 

And so its debatable (and certainly not provable) whether my dream experiences were "real" or not  Some have been proven to be real by later scientific discoveries Others not  yet

I hope you  never need or require help from  the cosmic consciousness, but I also hope that if you  do, your mind is open to hearing and acting on its help and advice  It can mean the difference between your life and your death( or simply being able to achieve something, help another person, or find a car park right in front of where you want to go  :) 

 

think about the ridiculousness of this statement you made

 If you cannot provide evidence then it does not exist.

Provide me with evidences for what you had for breakfast exactly one  week ago 

You can't, yet that breakfast  (if you  had one) patently existed 

Provide me with evidences for what you dreamed last night (or evidences that you did not dream if you had none) or what you were thinking an hour ago

You can't, and yet you KNOW those things. 

Prove to me (by providing evidences)  the last words you spoke before reading this 

Almost everything which we know happened to us, cannot be proven to another, using evidences.  

If I can't provide evidences, then you are rationally entitled not to believe me, (and I am totally happy with that)   but it doesn't mean  that  I am wrong, lying, mistaken,  or that these things do not exist. 

 

 

 

The point you are leaving out is that one could evidence what they had for breakfast, or dig pictures of themselves on a ski slope, or find receipts from a ski trip etc. With Facebook, and Instagram people routinely post their ski trips etc. With a bit of effort one could substantiate a claim if it is a fact, unless the claim includes fantastical nonsense such as riding a dragon, of course to conclude that it is ones imagination perhaps influenced by the books they read, in fact, I read a post of yours not to long ago on a dream thread where you explain how the things a person does in their day to day for example: watching Shrek movies or reading dragon books this would, could, can and does influence their dreamscape. 

I think honing ones critical thinking is the opportunity here. 


 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Mr Walker said:
  On 12/13/2021 at 1:09 AM, Sherapy said:

There is no such thing as spiritual insight, IMHO 

  On 12/13/2021 at 2:15 AM, Sherapy said:

Cosmic consciousness? Enhanced spiritual perception? 

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:.

I understand your laughter .Luis  but It might be worth your while trying to explain these concepts to Sherapy 

On the other hand she might well understand them but not be prepared to admit they exist  as forms of human cognition.

it l s like those people who have never really experienced the full power of human love and insist it  is simply some chemical reaction They deny that t real love exists  

 

Ill try to explain it in non religious terms to Sherapy, but it also applies to religious beliefs and faiths.

 Spiritual insight includes feeling understanding and appreciating the nature of a human spiritual response to something 

That something could be a beautiful summers day, a great piece of art or music or a loved one such as a parent,  child or partner.

  Iti s only the spiritual part of a person which enables them to feel and appreciated the power and beauty of such things. 

This also applies in the realm of religions and beliefs.  It is the same sense of power and beauty you can feel for your sons 

Enhanced spiritual perception is just the ability to be more aware, feel more deeply,  and understand spirituality more  completely..

ill give a traditional  description of thercosmic copiousness 

quote  

Forms of consciousness[edit]

In Cosmic Consciousness, Bucke stated that he discerned three forms, or degrees, of consciousness:[1]

Simple consciousness, possessed by both animals and mankind

Self-consciousness, possessed by mankind, encompassing thought, reason, and imagination

Cosmic consciousness, which is "a higher form of consciousness than that possessed by the ordinary man" [2]

According to Bucke,

This consciousness shows the cosmos to consist not of dead matter governed by unconscious, rigid, and unintending law; it shows it on the contrary as entirely immaterial, entirely spiritual and entirely alive; it shows that death is an absurdity, that everyone and everything has eternal life; it shows that the universe is God and that God is the universe, and that no evil ever did or ever will enter into it; a great deal of this is, of course, from the point of view of self consciousness, absurd; it is nevertheless undoubtedly true.[3]

Moores said that Bucke's cosmic consciousness is an interconnected way of seeing things "which is more of an intuitive knowing than it is a factual understanding".[4] Moores pointed out that, for scholars of the purist camp, the experience of cosmic consciousness is incomplete without the element of love, "which is the foundation of mystical consciousness".[4]

Mysticism, then, is the perception of the universe and all of its seemingly disparate entities existing in a unified whole bound together by love.[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_Consciousness

Bucke identifies three layers of consciousness, each built upon the lower: Simple Consciousness — a basic awareness, which most non-human animals also possess; Self-Consciousness, which render one aware not only of trees, rivers, and one’s own body, but also of oneself as “a distinct entity apart from all the rest of the universe,” capable of treating one’s own thoughts and feelings as objects of consciousness itself; and Cosmic Consciousness, which Bucke defines as an awareness of “the life and order of the universe.” In a passage of striking consonance with William James’s framework of transcendent experiences, he writes:

Along with the consciousness of the cosmos there occurs an intellectual enlightenment or illumination which alone would place the individual on a new plane of existence — would make him almost a member of a new species. To this is added a state of moral exaltation, an indescribable feeling of elevation, elation, and joyousness, and a quickening of the moral sense, which is fully as striking and more important both to the individual and to the race than is the enhanced intellectual power. With these come, what may be called a sense of immortality, a consciousness of eternal life, not a conviction that he shall have this, but the consciousness that he has it already.

In language that closely parallels the way people describe the effects of psychedelics, Bucke limns the nature and sequence of this revelatory experience:

Like a flash there is presented to [the person’s] consciousness a clear conception (a vision) in outline of the meaning and drift of the universe. He does not come to believe merely; but he sees and knows that the cosmos, which to the self conscious mind seems made up of dead matter, is in fact far otherwise — is in very truth a living presence. He sees that instead of men being, as it were, patches of life scattered through an infinite sea of non-living substance, they are in reality specks of relative death in an infinite ocean of life.

[…]

The person who passes through this experience will learn in the few minutes, or even moments, of its continuance more than in months or years of study, and he will learn much that no study ever taught or can teach. Especially does he obtain such a conception of THE WHOLE, or at least of an immense WHOLE, as dwarfs all conception, imagination or speculation, springing from and belonging to ordinary self consciousness, such a conception as makes the old attempts to mentally grasp the universe and its meaning petty and even ridiculous.

https://www.themarginalian.org/2019/04/11/cosmic-consciousness-maurice-bucke/

 

 

This is NOT some airy fairy mystic experience

It is a real cognitive gnosis, or enlightenment.

  It can be real, and totally empowering, and transforming.

  Experience it, and you and your life can never be the same again. 

I encountered it aged about 13, and have lived with it ever since. 

It does exactly what these descriptions  say it does, but also much, much, more. 

Here is a modern psychological explanation of it .

 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/out-the-darkness/201703/cosmic-consciousness

 

At best you are undergirding what it means to be human to you with your own beliefs which are religiously inspired. I have no issue that you find it imperative to color your life with hues of religion and imagination.  I truly hope it adds to your life, sincerely MW, knock yourself out. :P
 

With that being said, the missing element is you aren’t offering any facts for me to consider, it isn’t personal hun, humans have consciousness,  Neuroscience does a good job of explaining it, beyond that I am asking for evidence and you cut and paste someone else’s words, go figure. The guy that needs the spotlight, gets it, then cuts and pastes others words to speak for him. :P Being awestruck or moved by life and those in it is part and parcel of the human condition and a function of the human brain. I think science does a good job of explaining love, being in awe etc. and where it doesn’t I am fine with saying I don’t know and it is okay with me. None the less, thank you for your response and I am glad you have something that works for you. All the best. 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

 If you cannot provide evidence then it does not exist.

Provide me with evidences for what you had for breakfast exactly one  week ago 

You can't, yet that breakfast  (if you  had one) patently existed 

Provide me with evidences for what you dreamed last night (or evidences that you did not dream if you had none) or what you were thinking an hour ago

You can't, and yet you KNOW those things. 

Prove to me (by providing evidences)  the last words you spoke before reading this 

Hi Walker

I know this is off track once again so am not going to delve to deep into this as I have extended an invitation to you to start a thread about this. The bit about evidence is kinda sorta on track. Preaching alien religious constructs affects the lives of others or has the potential to and it is reasonable to ask for tangible evidence, you have one alien and the UB has over 300 alien worlds or rather is claimed to and have been travelling the galaxies for eons so given descriptions of where they lived on this planet and the time frame there should be evidence and there is not. That leaves us with it is likely a work of fiction as it cannot be supported,  that is not to say there is no potential for aliens to exist but they are not of the UB variety given that they are not technically evolved to travel here and most accounts of alien visitations past or present have no supporting evidence. If there is nothing then there is no reason to consider that the UB and your alien exist as described.

Nobody cares what I ate for breakfast nor is it any of their business but they can conclude that I do eat as I have not starved to death. The only evidence I have to give is to my clients existing and future and that is supported by referrals and not advertising and yes i do keep photo journals on all my jobs. I don't ask them to believe anything because they saw my work at a friend or associates and asked for me.

The last thing I said to anyone before reading your post was goodby have a great day, I live by myself who do you think I talk to?:lol: 

Well it is now 7 am and I can legally fire up the back pack blower and clear sidewalks before everyone packs them down so see you in a bit.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

See the source image

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing that I find interesting is that they used a person who was supposedly asleep so that some entity could relay messages.  That was done before wasn't it?  Who came first "The sleeping prophet" or Urantia materials.   At least Edgar Cayce did not rely on other psychology writings for his "chanelings".   And it was his children or friends who created the Association for Research and Enlightenment.   He was a well known person, not some secret sleeper and his material was know by the time the Urantia group started compiling their book.   Very convenient  that the "sleeper" is never named and that they actually use other people's work to enhance their book.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, eight bits said:

Well, yes, even the UB believers here have acknowledged that several previously published works were "used" (meaning copied without attribution). Also, the standard history of the UB discusses a "forum" of collaborators with Dr Sadler.

So multiple authorship isn't an issue at this point in the discussion.

Yes, but the "historical sleeping subject" is a lot like the "historical Jesus." Whether or not either one was a real person is inconsequential now. In both cases, it was his "disciples and their disciples" or "forum members" who did the actual work of (1) gathering the lore and then writing something down decades later and (2) promoting that writing to the wider world (with revision along the way as needed). That is work that they might have undertaken without a real person to inspire them.

Neither the sleeping subject nor Jesus is depicted as launching a new "spiritual or religious" movement by any overt act during their natural lives. Except that the sleeping subject was supposedly a patient of Dr Sadler in the Chicagoland of the early 1900's, little specific biographical information is available about him, and none of that is verifiable. Jesus, ditto.

On a recurring point

I don't know whether you learned to ski, and I don't know what "riding a dragon" means outside of fairy tales. I find it more likely that you learned to ski than that you learned to "ride a dragon" in any sense that requires a physical dragon to exist.

I think it is far less likely that you have any memory of learning to ride to a dragon than that you have instead exercised your usual semantic gymanstics to pretend that dragon-riding and snow-skiing are comparably real events.

Yes, we have evolved the ability to be semantic athletes like that, but some of us have outgrown it.

A humor break:D

Edited by Sherapy
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Sherapy said:

With that being said, the missing element is you aren’t offering any facts for me to consider

Exactly, and it is the above that differentiates angels from wives/dogs and is why it is false to say that we have 'only memory' to differentiate riding dragons from snow-skiing. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Exactly, and it is the above that differentiates angels from wives/dogs and is why it is false to say that we have 'only memory' to differentiate riding dragons from snow-skiing. 

Exactly, memory is not enough in and of itself if one’s objective is to evidence a claim. There is a saying in mindfulness circles “ to know what you teach and teach what is known and always use facts for the science minded. 
 

Critical thinking shows its skills by including the facts, it isn’t anymore complicated than this, and when one doesn’t have facts say so, IMHO the issue is a lack of practicing critical thinking. 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

Yes, I've used that rather shop-worn trope, myself. Yet extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but in the regard, you and others like you, talk a good act, but your performance is always lacking.

No. Every claim requires the same evidences. 

Every experience we have requires testing by the same evidentiary standards. 

I cant prove to you what I've had to eat today (one spoonful of peanut paste so far)   and I can't prove to you that i am in contact with "the cosmic consciousness" However both would require similar transferable proofs if I wanted to prove either to you.

You, however, wouldn't argue about what I had eaten, or demand proof.  

 The problem of acceptance  is a matter of belief, not evidences, Ie people believe ordinary claims, even though they are often untrue, but are skeptical of extra ordinary claims  

Thus, with a child, every thing  must either be proven, or believed in, to be accepted 

As adults we assume we know stuff, based on our own  wider experiences but, where those experiences don't exist, we are like children and have to either believe or disbelieve

One of my ex-students was saying this week  that her young child was complaining  because it wasn't snowing and everyone "knew" it snowed at Christmas  (because he had seen so much of this on American TV programmes )  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/14/2021 at 2:28 AM, Sherapy said:

MW, the imaginary friend that saves you is your amygdala, it is the brains innate hardwiring that is geared towards survival, fight, flight or freeze. 
Let’s use a bunny to illustrate this: so a little bunny pops out of her little burrow and she sees a fox, but the fox doesn’t see her so her amygdala sends a signal and tells her to freeze, same bunny is spotted by the fox and her amygdala tells her to run (flight) ruh roh the little bunny is overtaken by the fox and her amygdala is telling her to fight for her life. 

 

1EBE80AB-6EAC-45CE-8D7C-2D09A81BAF54.jpeg

That  is your belief but untrue 

Imaginary constructs CANNOT affect, or alter, the real world nor leave traces behind. They CANNOT physically save your life using external force/energy or physical manifestation or appear before other witnesses. The y ONLY exist in your head, and while they can be useful as cognitive constructs, they  are very limited. 

Plus, humans have a better survival mechanism than flight and fight reflex. It is called intelligence Planning, precaution, logic and wisdom save more humans than flight and fight   These abilities are not available to the poor bunny. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Walker

I know this is off track once again so am not going to delve to deep into this as I have extended an invitation to you to start a thread about this. The bit about evidence is kinda sorta on track. Preaching alien religious constructs affects the lives of others or has the potential to and it is reasonable to ask for tangible evidence, you have one alien and the UB has over 300 alien worlds or rather is claimed to and have been travelling the galaxies for eons so given descriptions of where they lived on this planet and the time frame there should be evidence and there is not. That leaves us with it is likely a work of fiction as it cannot be supported,  that is not to say there is no potential for aliens to exist but they are not of the UB variety given that they are not technically evolved to travel here and most accounts of alien visitations past or present have no supporting evidence. If there is nothing then there is no reason to consider that the UB and your alien exist as described.

Nobody cares what I ate for breakfast nor is it any of their business but they can conclude that I do eat as I have not starved to death. The only evidence I have to give is to my clients existing and future and that is supported by referrals and not advertising and yes i do keep photo journals on all my jobs. I don't ask them to believe anything because they saw my work at a friend or associates and asked for me.

The last thing I said to anyone before reading your post was goodby have a great day, I live by myself who do you think I talk to?:lol: 

Well it is now 7 am and I can legally fire up the back pack blower and clear sidewalks before everyone packs them down so see you in a bit.

   Its reasonable to ask for tangible evidences if you want to accept what I say as true 

However that is not the point or my aim

Once ive told my experiences i will defend them and explain/expand on them but i cant prove them 

That does NOT make them untrue  ,

it allows you the choice of belief or disbelief.

And you are correct, no one cares what i ate for breakfast   AND YET  it requires the same level of proofs as any other claim.    

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, eight bits said:

Well, yes, even the UB believers here have acknowledged that several previously published works were "used" (meaning copied without attribution). Also, the standard history of the UB discusses a "forum" of collaborators with Dr Sadler.

So multiple authorship isn't an issue at this point in the discussion.

Yes, but the "historical sleeping subject" is a lot like the "historical Jesus." Whether or not either one was a real person is inconsequential now. In both cases, it was his "disciples and their disciples" or "forum members" who did the actual work of (1) gathering the lore and then writing something down decades later and (2) promoting that writing to the wider world (with revision along the way as needed). That is work that they might have undertaken without a real person to inspire them.

Neither the sleeping subject nor Jesus is depicted as launching a new "spiritual or religious" movement by any overt act during their natural lives. Except that the sleeping subject was supposedly a patient of Dr Sadler in the Chicagoland of the early 1900's, little specific biographical information is available about him, and none of that is verifiable. Jesus, ditto.

On a recurring point

I don't know whether you learned to ski, and I don't know what "riding a dragon" means outside of fairy tales. I find it more likely that you learned to ski than that you learned to "ride a dragon" in any sense that requires a physical dragon to exist.

I think it is far less likely that you have any memory of learning to ride to a dragon than that you have instead exercised your usual semantic gymanstics to pretend that dragon-riding and snow-skiing are comparably real events.

Yes, we have evolved the ability to be semantic athletes like that, but some of us have outgrown it.

Its not inconsequential in establishing both context and likelihood  ie trance like states and visionary narratives are reasonably common among humans.

  Here it appears the thoughts /narratives became of interest totothers  

On the dragon

I learned to snow ski about 50 years ago.  I learned to ride bareback about the same time  Id been water skiing barefoot since child hood ) .  I learned to ride a dragon about 60 years  ago 

Today I only have memories of those things But i can  describe in detail e the movement of the dragon's muscles on my thighs as it flew.

I can describe the dampness on my face as we flew through clouds, the feel of the wind and sun on my face, the feel of the scales.

I can describe every detail about both things 

One interesting thing I found was that when I learned to ride bareback i was surprised how similar it was to riding a dragon, 

When i  first flew though the clouds  on a hang glider in real life ( about 45 years ago)   I was amazed how similar it was to my memory of flying a dragon through clouds 

My point here is that memories of dreams are identical to memories of waking events,  not that this means the dreams are real 

It takes impendent verification to establish if a dream is an extension of consciousness into the real world. 

Oh  incidentally the dragons weren't on earth, they were on other planets and used by the inhabitants for transport, recreation, and warfare :)  I experienced the sensations while mind linked to the beings who were riding them.  Ie their minds felt  the muscles move, and so my mind felt them and learned to respond to the movement. This then became part of my memory and life experience.  Things I learned to do in dreams often made learning similar skills in waking life  much easier, eg the balance and control I learned while flying dragons made it a lot easier to learn to ride a horse in waking life,    and you can learn and practice something like baseball through dreamed practice.     

https://hbr.org/2012/04/practicing-in-dreams-can-improve-your-performance

 

Semantics is important.

Communication is improved by clear semantic understanding. It makes for greater precision and accuracy of expression    Many humans neither think clearly, nor communicate clearly, and this is even harder  to do in a written communication. 

 

 

Edited by Mr Walker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

No. Every claim requires the same evidences. 

Every experience we have requires testing by the same evidentiary standards. 

I cant prove to you what I've had to eat today (one spoonful of peanut paste so far)   and I can't prove to you that i am in contact with "the cosmic consciousness" However both would require similar transferable proofs if I wanted to prove either to you.

You, however, wouldn't argue about what I had eaten, or demand proof.  

 The problem of acceptance  is a matter of belief, not evidences, Ie people believe ordinary claims, even though they are often untrue, but are skeptical of extra ordinary claims  

Thus, with a child, every thing  must either be proven, or believed in, to be accepted 

As adults we assume we know stuff, based on our own  wider experiences but, where those experiences don't exist, we are like children and have to either believe or disbelieve

One of my ex-students was saying this week  that her young child was complaining  because it wasn't snowing and everyone "knew" it snowed at Christmas  (because he had seen so much of this on American TV programmes )  

That's just more of your typical obfuscation to deflect from the obvious lack of substance. If you want to talk about what you eat, go to Facebook, because nobody here gives a damn. This discussion isn't about ordinary proof of ordinary things; it's about extraordinary evidence to back up  extraordinary claims. Frankly, old friend, you don't have be a child to tell that someone is full of it.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hammerclaw said:

That's just more of your typical obfuscation to deflect from the obvious lack of substance. If you want to talk about what you eat, go to Facebook, because nobody here gives a damn. This discussion isn't about ordinary proof of ordinary things; it's about extraordinary evidence to back up  extraordinary claims. Frankly, old friend, you don't have be a child to tell that someone is full of it.

It is always understandable but disappointing to get a reaction like this.

I guess i am just incredibly fortunate to have lived the life I have, and to have had the experiences I have

 

.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

That  is your belief but untrue 

Imaginary constructs CANNOT affect, or alter, the real world nor leave traces behind. They CANNOT physically save your life using external force/energy or physical manifestation or appear before other witnesses. The y ONLY exist in your head, and while they can be useful as cognitive constructs, they  are very limited. 

Plus, humans have a better survival mechanism than flight and fight reflex. It is called intelligence Planning, precaution, logic and wisdom save more humans than flight and fight   These abilities are not available to the poor bunny. 

 

Surprise surprise, the amygdala can influence the Cortex too. :D
 

It is called Bottom Up Triggering of Emotion ( links between perceptual representations and the amygdala) and Top Down Emotion Generation
(Links between high-level cognitive representations of stimulus meanings and the amygdala).
 

 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

I cant prove to you what I've had to eat today (one spoonful of peanut paste so far)   and I can't prove to you that i am in contact with "the cosmic consciousness" However both would require similar transferable proofs if I wanted to prove either to you.

You, however, wouldn't argue about what I had eaten, or demand proof.  

You'd probably get some argument about what you ate if instead you were claiming to have eaten a grilled filet of Loch Ness Monster, which is a better analogy to the cc.

45 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

The problem of acceptance  is a matter of belief, not evidences, Ie people believe ordinary claims, even though they are often untrue, but are skeptical of extra ordinary claim

No it's still a problem of evidence, that's what differentiates peanut paste from the cosmic consciousness, and snow skis from dragons.  You pretty much answer your own questions across your posts: "So, Which was "real" ?"  "It takes impendent verification to establish if a dream is an extension of consciousness into the real world.".  What does independent verification require?  Evidence.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Will Due Question for you on Urantia.  From a high level teachings standpoint, what is the biggest difference between what Jesus emphasizes in the Bible and what Jesus emphasizes in Urantia?  Does Urantia's Jesus teach all the same things as the biblical one, it's just that Urantia also includes a lot of other surrounding detail about other beings and I think the cosmos?  I think Urantia teaches that he performed all the miracles and such, but takes a little more Muslim of an approach and says that although Jesus was special he was one of many, which would seem to imply that the idea of sin or at least Salvation is quite a bit different in Urantia.

Also, was curious if Urantia includes sayings or teachings on what it is to be a good person like the Bible.  Are there any quotes concerning the virtues of humility and not being so self-absorbed?  Asking for a friend...

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Oh  incidentally the dragons weren't on earth,

Thanks for the clarification. Now it all makes sense.

  • Haha 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Liquid Gardens said:

@Will Due Question for you on Urantia.  From a high level teachings standpoint, what is the biggest difference between what Jesus emphasizes in the Bible and what Jesus emphasizes in Urantia?  Does Urantia's Jesus teach all the same things as the biblical one, it's just that Urantia also includes a lot of other surrounding detail about other beings and I think the cosmos?  I think Urantia teaches that he performed all the miracles and such, but takes a little more Muslim of an approach and says that although Jesus was special he was one of many, which would seem to imply that the idea of sin or at least Salvation is quite a bit different in Urantia.

Also, was curious if Urantia includes sayings or teachings on what it is to be a good person like the Bible.  Are there any quotes concerning the virtues of humility and not being so self-absorbed?  Asking for a friend...

Really great questions, LG.:D

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

It is always understandable but disappointing to get a reaction like this.

I guess i am just incredibly fortunate to have lived the life I have, and to have had the experiences I have

 

.

 

 

Why is it disappointing that he has a firm boundary on requiring evidence for your fantastical claims? 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • This topic was locked and unlocked
  • The topic was locked
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.