On Jun 14, 9:54Â pm, "bigflet...@
gmail.com"
gmail.com>
wrote:> On Jun 14, 2:32Â pm, turtoni
fastmail.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>> On Jun 13, 3:18Â pm, "bigflet...@
gmail.com"
gmail.com>
>> wrote:>
>>> On Jun 13, 2:39Â pm, turtoni
fastmail.net> wrote:>
>>>> "I am a physics student myself and was looking for books by top
>>>> scientists whose insight lead them to radical new world views. And
>>>> indeed, this book proposes a new paradigm that appears consistent with
>>>> both science and some aspects of different religions. It contains
>>>> interesting observations and ideas; so far so good.
>
>>>> Unfortunately, Peter Russell doesn't write like a scientist, but as a
>>>> person with religious convictions. He has lost his sense of skepticism
>>>> and presents his ideas as a truth that will inevitably become the new
>>>> "metaparadigm".
>
>>>> Worse, the book gives an incomplete picture and leaves the critical
>>>> reader with some rather concerning questions that were never answered.
>>>> What happens when we die? After we die? Is there a purpose with life?
>>>> Another disturbing issue is that even though he claims love and
>>>> respect to be all important to the new paradigm, there are no
>>>> arguments as to why this would be. In fact, the paradigm seems like
>>>> the mass murderers dream - everybody will forgive you, and the light
>>>> that shines within you and defines you is invariant. The light is God,
>>>> meaning, God is an invariant. There simply are no consequences.
>>>> Perhaps the answers lie somewhere in eastern religions/philosophies
>>>> and are assumed to be known, but I can't be impressed with a book that
>>>> proposes a new "metaparadigm" without bothering to address such
>>>> fundamental issues.
>
>>>> In the end, Peter's ideas are just speculation that can't be proved
>>>> right or wrong for now. They could contain elements of truth, but many
>>>> other ideas exist that are equally valid, consistent both with both
>>>> modern science and elements of religion. Some of these give a much
>>>> more complete picture than Peter offers here, making them more
>>>> convincing candidates for new paradigms in my eyes."
>
>
>>> So what would he have to say to convince you ?
>
>> of what? god?
>
> No, so the rest of your diatribe is based on your premise, not mine or
> his.
what do i mean by god?
>>if there is such a thing in my opinion i'd imagine he'd
>> be going down the ladder due to his materialistic nature; the book
>> deals, the paid lectures, the money, money, money.
>
> Good evidence of your interpretation.
indeed. reincarnation. you will not be tied down because you know
you're full of hot air.
>> in the scenario of there being a god; the people going up the ladder
>> are the ones that have very little and dedicate themselves to helping
>> others and living a simple life of honesty and love.
>
> Notice ,it is you that have brought up the subject of 'god', in an
> attempt to whitewash the objective truth , the sort that Dawkins and
> Russell espouse.
what objective truth?
>> but personally i believe:
>
>> "Humanism features an optimistic attitude about the capacity of
>> people, but it does not involve believing that human nature is purely
>> good or that each and every person is capable of living up to the
>> Humanist ideals of rationality and morality. If anything, there is the
>> recognition that living up to one's potential is hard work and
>> requires the help of others. The ultimate goal is human flourishing;
>> making life better for all humans, and as the most conscious species,
>> also promoting concern for the welfare of other sentient beings. The
>> focus is on doing good and living well in the here and now, and
>> leaving the world better for those who come after."
>
> And how is that working for you and your fellow believers.....
very well thanks. wtf are you talking about?
my honesty to suggest that "In focusing on the capacity for self-
determination, humanism rejects the validity of transcendental
justifications, such as a dependence on belief without reason, the
supernatural, or texts of allegedly divine origin. Humanists endorse
universal morality based on the commonality of the human condition,
suggesting that solutions to human social and cultural problems cannot
be parochial." ?
> You are talking "motherhood and apple pie"....
you're talking gibberish as per usual.
> At the levels that they are talking, the rules of engagement can be
> seen differently, that what many believers try to establish, have the
> opposite effect.
gibberish brian.
> A good example is the way to try to attack me as opposed to my views.
so now you aren't your views? i have attacked a few snippets of
information you've posted about your purchasing a rolex watch
recently, your penthouse and reported millions of dollars in wealth.
you were virtually laughing in the faces of posters with scott about
how nice and easy your lifestyle is?
you're the quintessential wealthy conceited mumbo jumbo believing nut
job. i rather listen to that gas pump attendant.. you're a million
miles away..
> But as you said recently "just figures of speech"
your sense of social guilt brought on by your extreme wealth has
pushed you to justify your inaction and decedance with this self
serving concocted egostical narcissistic clap trap.
get real brian.
