User Avatar Image

The "whatever's on your mind" thread

posted by GuruGuru214 on - last edited - Viewed by 183.8K users

One of the things that's great about this forum is its randomness. Well, this is the epitome of it: a thread for whatever random thought happens to be passing through your mind.

For example, I've just been struck by the most random craving for Taco Bell nachos.

38.4K Comments - Linear Discussion: Classic Style
  • I call Shredder/Bobba Fett.

  • I hate driving. I'm a little saddened. I've seen so many deaths on the road lately. A few young people. I have to drive that nightmare, death trap 2 days a week. I hate it , I don't want to be out there. I don't want to live any where where I have to drive in such dangerous conditions. I've seen enough people loose their lives. People with lots of friends, and family that loves them. It really upsets me. Everyone, any one deserves better, it's a stupid situation.

    There's too many idiot drivers, no one deserves to die like that. The whole thing pisses me off.

  • I have no idea when my next day off is. Overtime, yay, but I'm going to get really exhausted by the time this is through.

  • same. I just bought a new shaver and GPU though, so... the money will be nice.

  • A coworker just quit out of the blue and another just went on vacation, so there is literally no room for me to even have a single day off. *sigh* I'm probably going to work until at least monday.

  • Every now and then I'm reminded of why I don't talk music with people.

    Got someone trying to convince people that Def Leppard is the greatest live band performance wise.

    We're all going to die.

  • @Vainamoinen said: The most religious man I ever met - and religious meant here in an entirely positive sense for a change - was a chemist by trade. A VERY good one at that. Worked with my grandfather for Bayer.

    You're being confronted with a lot of fundamentalist religious thought in the States, and that definitely makes science and religion incompatible. It might be very different somewhere else.

    Not saying that scientists CAN'T be religious, but the two do tend to conflict. Also, as far as science goes, chemistry is one of the easiest sciences to resolve with religion because religion is relatively mum on how chemistry works and chemistry is relatively mum on how religion works.

    It's a good deal harder to resolve, say, biology where you're constantly confronted with issues like twins. I honestly don't understand twins. Not fraternal twins, mind you. Identical twins. According to religious tradition, the moment egg and sperm join the resulting zygote is infused with a soul. But identical twins result when a zygote (or the subsequent morula) splits and then forms two separate individuals from the same DNA (instead of using the totipotent cells to make a single individual). It's hard to resolve what happens to the soul at this point from the perspective of a scientist. Did it split? Did one twin get the soul and the other did not? If so, which one? Or maybe ensoulment doesn't come until later, which would make stem cell research a viable and morally okay option.

    I tried asking religious people about that and they just got upset when I used "zygote" instead of "baby" and accused me of trying to confuse them with scientific terms. But it's questions like this that make it difficult to accept both because thinking rationally and deeply about simple things in life, leads one to ask questions for which there is no satisfying answer that also agrees with religious teachings.

  • @Alcoremortis said: Not saying that scientists CAN'T be religious, but the two do tend to conflict. Also, as far as science goes, chemistry is one of the easiest sciences to resolve with religion because religion is relatively mum on how chemistry works and chemistry is relatively mum on how religion works.

    It's a good deal harder to resolve, say, biology where you're constantly confronted with issues like twins. I honestly don't understand twins. Not fraternal twins, mind you. Identical twins. According to religious tradition, the moment egg and sperm join the resulting zygote is infused with a soul. But identical twins result when a zygote (or the subsequent morula) splits and then forms two separate individuals from the same DNA (instead of using the totipotent cells to make a single individual). It's hard to resolve what happens to the soul at this point from the perspective of a scientist. Did it split? Did one twin get the soul and the other did not? If so, which one? Or maybe ensoulment doesn't come until later, which would make stem cell research a viable and morally okay option.

    I tried asking religious people about that and they just got upset when I used "zygote" instead of "baby" and accused me of trying to confuse them with scientific terms. But it's questions like this that make it difficult to accept both because thinking rationally and deeply about simple things in life, leads one to ask questions for which there is no satisfying answer that also agrees with religious teachings.

    I would like to point out that the soul, as used in the above context, is not native to the original Christian conception and is more akin to Greek infusions of what the soul is. The Judaism root did not believe in an afterlife or a soul that ascended to it. As a part of progressive revelation teachings subscribed to by the church, the notion of the soul is teased out by about 700 B.C. You can see evidence of this in the Book of Ecclesiastes, which ponders what happens to a man after they die, and even says that nobody knows if man is different from an animal in their death.

    By 700 B.C. You start to see divine revelations that impart knowledge of an eternal kingdom and some sort of solid afterlife. By the time of Christs birth thus leads to a schism in Judaism in the religious leaders, with one camp believing in an afterlife, and the more traditional believing there is none.

    Without meaning to offend anyone, it's my belief that if there is a soul, it's not pre existing. It isn't placed in anyone, but is emergent, a sort of collective memory developed through life either long or short. Christianity and Judaism certainly do not normally subscribe to pre existence, or the thought that the soul is placed into man and existed beforehand. Traditionally they do not, anyway. At best they say the soul is developed in man sometime during birth, that the spirit is formed in the womb sometime during development.

  • There is a difference between approaching religion in a literal way , and in a philosophical way. And there is a difference between a spiritualist and a religious fanatic.

    This argument simply isn't true. People are all different. There simply is no argument.

    Dr. Fred Alan Wolf quantum spiritualist and physicist

    Dr. Dan Winter another quantum spiritualist and physicist

    Brian David Josephson won a noble prize ( any one here win a noble prize?) studies intangible subjects like the soul , is a leading expert in parapsychology.

    Nassim Haramein, genius and physicist , studies sacred Geometry and Unified Fields

    Laura Eisenhower physicist , worked at NASA , and is a spiritualist

    Dr. Steven Greer worked on backward engineered technology ( so the record says) has spiritualistic views.

    Some one I met on line a student in physics , father worked for NASA and both of them are spiritualists ....
    http://www.youtube.com/user/TessTheScLientist?feature=plcp

    Bruce Greyson, MD, PhD, (United Nations, speaks about life after complete flat lined brain wave activity , is a spiritualist )
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_qBIw7qyHU&feature=plcp

    Another world expert, Phd, a genius in neurology has some spiritual views...
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFRd6g3DJSg&list=FLbhtGGw9jycxclJwZuQ31oQ&index=37&feature=plpp_video

    Ervin Laszlo another PHD ...
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGZvkoD4z9I&list=FLbhtGGw9jycxclJwZuQ31oQ&index=40&feature=plpp_video

    Charles Gilchrist , artist and mathematical genius, another spiritualist.

    And do we even need to go into how many scientists had religious backgrounds in the scientific revolution and how they remained religious throughout their lives?

    William A. Tiller, Ph.D. is professor emeritus of Materials Science and Engineering at Stanford University...spiritualist.

    Any one who argues that there is no link to spiritualism and science ESPECIALLY on the quantum level is closed minded.

    I've spoken my mind. That's enough for now. I've given you reputable sources and they can stand in as a factual example for how the two have been constantly connected in this decade and prior. Spiritualism and science. It's not a argument, it's a fact.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeFuc-qFKoA&feature=related

    Southern Jameson West

    WAYNE W. DYER, PH.D

    I could list spiritual scientists from this point on literally until tomorrow

This discussion has been closed.