It's hard to describe, yes, it's a feeling of not having boundaries but it's not just that or an absence of pain/suffering or a feeling of oneness with someone else, it's also a feeling of pleasure. I don't have romantic love in my life. But I love my dad, my dogs, one of my bosses, and (some of) my students.

Bryan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What are there so many names for love? I don't
> know.
>
> For some people, love is the opposite of hate.
> Except that kind of love (romantic love) is not
> the pure love that is god, but a mental concept, a
> mental creation. a duality based on thought.
>
> Then there is compassion, which is sort of love,
> but really is pity and mercy. Compassion is a poor
> substitute for pure love.
>
> In the song "What a Wonderful World", Louis
> Armstrong sings: "I see friends shaking
> hands.....sayin'.. how do you do / They're really
> sayin'......i love you." To me, this feels like
> love.

That's a great song.

I remember, at a bar with some people, had played some pool, didn't feel like drinking, didn't feel like dancing, was somewhat depressed & watching this couple dance. They weren't great dancers, neither was particularly good looking but I loved the way they looked at each other & moved with each other. They were obviously "in love" (probably the type of love you might say "isn't real" & watching them was somewhat magical. I wasn't coveting the girl for myself, I wasn't wishing I was the guy, I hadn't "turned off my mind" or "blocked out the whole world except them", I was really in awe of them though & was just happy to see them dancing together, in the flow of life. Had the girl left him & came over to me & started flirting I wouldn't have been as happy. I was just enjoying them altruistically.

Not to say there's anything wrong with covetiveness & the desire for the admiration of women & the awe & fear of men. Power is delicious (and in fact one cannot "give" if one has no power) & powerlessness is terrible (and anyone who glorifies it is misguided at best) just sharing that I understand Bryan's definition of love (though I feel bad for him that he feels the need to shun all other kinds of "less pure" love).

Arugula, I don't have dogs but I have loved dogs. I love my cats very much. I thought my boy Scruff had gotten eaten up by coyotes cause I hadn't seen him up here in two days but he came back to me tonight as if nothing had happened. Tonight he'll probably be very affectionate.

this is for CB:

heh, I love doggies too I just love kitties more.

If I'd grown up with dogs & not cats I'd probably feel the opposite.

John Rose Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "...neurocardiologist have found that 60 to 65% of
> the cells of the heart are actually neural cells,
> not muscle cells as was previously believed."
> [www.appliedmeditation.org]
> s_joseph_chilton_pearce.shtml

Very cool John Rose.

Thanks for sharing.

Hey coco,

I was pretty harsh in my criticism of Osho. I didn't mean to impugn your taste.

Sorry.

arugula Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh, sorry Omega, I didn't mean for anyone to take
> my response as to your first point, it was only
> the second that I addressed.

If you do believe that the question of whether or not God exists can be found outside of your field of study, and you haven't been engaged or educated in those fields, then how can you be so sure that God does not exist?

> Some people's opinions are more important to me than
> others in this matter, such as the ones who are in a
> position to make a more accurate assessment. Those
> would be the ones who have made it a life's work to
> understand more of the natural world than I have. There
> really aren't that many people around like that.

> Regarding people who have impeccable credentials
> who have also had NDEs, well certainly I respect
> all the brutally demanding work they did to get
> their educations. But that doesn't mean I give
> their personal brushes with the supernatural more
> credence than anyone else's.

Let's say a person more educated than you in the hard sciences -- who I assume would be in a position to make what you refer to as "a more accurate assessment" -- has a near-death experience that moves them from hardened atheist to spiritual believer (or knower). It appears that that highly educated scientist then loses credibility with you because of his or her embracement of spiritual belief.

Doesn't that mean that you have already pre-determined what in your view is the correct "assessment" and that you only grant credibility to those highly educated scientists with whom you agree?

"I never learned to distinguish between illusion and miracle.
I didn't need to. I trusted in love's confusing joy."
poet James Broughtton-" Memento of an Amorist'"from
Packing Up for Paradice:

[Doesn't that mean that you have already pre-determined what in your view is the correct "assessment"]

Yes. And 93% of the highly educated have the same "assessment." We don't believe in flying spaghetti monsters.

arugula

i don't see what the problem is

you persist in saying that if something cannot be proven it cannot exist

so?

accept that that is how you feel and move on with your life

yeah, it is too bad that you can't feel "comforted" or inspired by any other source unless it is tangible

but hey... you can't always get what you want

Is love tangible?

Love's effects are tangible, Sundancer : )

LaV, I don't have a problem, I am just responding to various people who are asking me questions.

arugula Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes. And 93% of the highly educated have the same
> "assessment."

You mean the highly formally educated (and in some instances, miseducated).

Can you provide a link to the 93% figure?

> We don't believe in flying spaghetti monsters.

Neither did atheists A.J. Ayers and George Rodonaia, until experience taught them otherwise.

> LaV, I don't have a problem, I am just responding
> to various people who are asking me questions.

I think she was referring to your insulting others' spiritual belief/knowledge.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/09/2009 09:08PM by Omega.

[Can you provide a link to the 93% figure? ]

I already did.

[I think she was referring to your insulting others' spiritual belief/knowledge.]

What about the people insulting me?

(oops, that must have been another thread. I just posted data from it this time).

[www.stephenjaygould.org]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/09/2009 09:37PM by arugula.

That 93% figure includes agnostics.

So now believing in the possibility of God is also a correct assessment in your view?



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/09/2009 10:21PM by Omega.

According to arugula's link:

27.8% of "greater" scientists believe in God or the possibility of God.

31.2% of "greater" scientists believe in human immortality or the possibility of human immortality.

That's pretty good for the "greater" scientific community (but in the past those numbers were much higher).



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 03/09/2009 10:45PM by Omega.

To be fair, I think arugula meant that 72% of "greater" scientists in 1998 agreed with her point of view.

Still a high number, but not as high as 93%.

Bizarre how you two interpret it. The letter in Nature begins with the sentence

"The question of religious belief among US scientists has been debated since early in the century. Our latest survey finds that, among the top natural scientists, disbelief is greater than ever — almost total."

All you science bashers really don't know what it is that you are bashing. I'd encourage all of you to go back to a major university and get a degree in physics.

It takes a great deal of concentrated effort, using one's mine to the fullest, long hours of toil, many nights without sleep, searching for the truth, trying to advance the state of knowledge by even a tiny bit.

And that's just for a BS.

Now multiple the effort by 10 or more for a Ph.D. and this will be on fast-food wages if you are lucky enough to get financial support through assistantships.

But bash away, you who have no idea what it takes because maybe then you would respect it. And science in general.

No you don't have to worship at the temple of big pharam, or the ridiculous state of US healthcare, but a comparably few greedy MBAs don't negate all the people who advanced the state of biology, organic chemistry, and biochemistry to our benefit.

arugula Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bizarre how you two interpret it.

Two? There's only me.

> The letter in
> Nature begins with the sentence
>
> "The question of religious belief among US
> scientists has been debated since early in the
> century. Our latest survey finds that, among the
> top natural scientists, disbelief is greater than
> ever — almost total."

The word "disbelief" in that line is being defined as "those without personal belief" which is 93%, but that includes agnostics.

The correct % of greater scientists that agree with your position is 72.2%, not 93%.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/10/2009 12:41AM by Omega.

i thought it came from this part where it says:

In 1996, we repeated Leuba's 1914 survey and reported our results in Nature [3]. We found little change from 1914 for American scientists generally, with 60.7% expressing disbelief or doubt. This year, we closely imitated the second phase of Leuba's 1914 survey to gauge belief among "greater" scientists, and find the rate of belief lower than ever — a mere 7% of respondents.

if 7% are beleivers that leaves 93% as nonbelievers ...

well thats what i understood it to be anyways

watching this thread is like watching ping pong

...Jodi, the banana eating buddhist

Jgunn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> i thought it came from this part where it says:
>
> In 1996, we repeated Leuba's 1914 survey and
> reported our results in Nature [3]. We found
> little change from 1914 for American scientists
> generally, with 60.7% expressing disbelief or
> doubt. This year, we closely imitated the second
> phase of Leuba's 1914 survey to gauge belief among
> "greater" scientists, and find the rate of belief
> lower than ever — a mere 7% of respondents.
>
> if 7% are beleivers that leaves 93% as
> nonbelievers ...

There were actually 3 categories in the study -- "Personal belief," "Personal disbelief," and "Doubt or agnosticism."

93% were "non-believers" in the sense that they were not in the first group ("Personal belief", but that 93% figure is actually comprised of BOTH the 2nd and 3rd categories, and therefore includes agnostics.

arugula is an atheist ("Personal disbelief" category) and 72.2% of the greater scientists held that position.

However, arugula cited 93% as agreeing with her position and that is incorrect.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/10/2009 12:58AM by Omega.

No, my position is consistent with that of the author of the letter, it is anything that isn't included in the 7% who describe themselves as believers.

Are you suggesting that the author of the letter himself is incorrect?

Also:

From whence comes the idea that I am agnostic? I never described myself as such, at least not on this forum. Maybe I did when I was 11 but not now. It's hard to remember that far back.

arugula Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No, my position is consistent with that of the
> author of the letter, it is anything that isn't
> included in the 7% who describe themselves as
> believers.
>
> Are you suggesting that the author of the letter
> himself is incorrect?

I suggest that you look at the data yourself instead of relying on someone else's interpretation of it.

72.2% of the 1998 sample was atheist, and that is the ONLY category that matches your position.

[www.stephenjaygould.org]

That's rich, Omega. Not only do you think the guy who wrote the letter is wrong. It's too bad that you can't correct this former Harvard professor, he's dead, you are also telling me what I do and don't believe.

Now that's really insulting when you think about it. Among other things.

Is this thread offering support to one another, or has it become another vehicle for communitybuilder's incessant need for debate? I've banned communitybuilder for a month because of his lack of keeping to the spirit of this forum, which is to offer each other support.

Do I need to delete this thread? Are you all feeling supported by this thread, or attacked?

>Is this thread offering support to one another, or has it become another vehicle for communitybuilder's incessant need for debate? I've banned communitybuilder for a month because of his lack of keeping to the spirit of this forum, which is to offer each other support.<

Good decision, Bryan. I think we all need to practice more cooperation, tolerance and kindness on the board, and in asking CB to leave for a month you have given us all a clear signal that contentiousness will not be tolerated.

I personally felt neither supported nor attacked by the thread, because every time I would go to read the latest installment my eyes would just kind of glaze over from the snarky content. ;-p

Sharrhan:


[www.facebook.com]

arugula

<<LaV, I don't have a problem, I am just responding to various people who are asking me questions.>>

but why?

why bother?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/10/2009 10:09AM by la_veronique.

[I personally felt neither supported nor attacked by the thread, because every time I would go to read the latest installment my eyes would just kind of glaze over from the snarky content. ]

Hello! What about all the ones you made yourself?

arugula


You still didn't answer my previous question so if I may refocus or redirect:

Why are you expending all your ATP jousting with something that you feel to be too beneath your sphere of intelligence to even consider to begin with?

Certainly, you do yourself a greater favor sparring about more tangible matters, do you not?

Why can't you just be satisfied in not believing in anything that can't be proven instead of trying to "respond" to those who do believe in that which is unseen?

Its like someone who is color blind trying to "respond" to those who can see those particular colors. It is :

1) confounding
2) comical
3) makes u wonder
4) all of the above
5) none of the above

I don't get it.