Explain how the brain functions if you're going to insist it functions in such a way that everything is perfectly as it seems (to you.)

You're a little ant building a hill, oblivious to the mountain behind you.

I choose my thoughts, but find it strange that this act requires no thought. I'm gonna think something silly now, orangutan pie.

Does anybody else think that's weird?

Okay I'll stop blurting.

Blurt
blurt
blurt

The faculty of reason isn't a person, though you could argue that the person of God is flawlessly reasonable. But we know for a fact God is a person, so, no, you're wrong.

No, God is a person.

So, fundamentally, we don't know what the brain is, how it does what it does...at all...yet we know all there is to know about consciousness.

History will expand your mind beyond its current girth, guaranteed. You do not have the explanation, nor do you understand in the least what's happening here.

Just sayin. Maybe stop calling people stupid while making declarative statements on a subject matter that isn't even in its infancy.

It's greed/lack of imagination. It is cruel, if not malicious. The people at the top just want more and more money, influence, and prestige. People at the bottom work their way up for the same cause: MORE money. The richest are all born into wealth. They say they're "job creators," as though it's charitable to enslave millions to make all this "wealth" that is polluting the planet. In order to succeed, you must have greed.

I think Bartricks saw one too many George Burns movies.

What color is God's public hair? Or does he wax.

God doesn't denote a person, but a being, a being which is the living universe, which meets the criteria of the definition of God. Jesus is sacrilege.

Who are you to say, though, really. God is everything, whether you agree or not. Who am I to say?

Someone special.

God has all power which exists, because God is the sum total of all things. Nothing more, nothing less.

Spiritual energy is derived from the energy of the body, which is always extant, as the contemporary idea of time and entropy are an illusion.

He said it to be provocative and make pretense to having some noble, unseen cause, talking out his ass as scholars do.

With what we're doing to the planet, how can we be anything but dumb. It's really, really grotesque and really wrong. There are way, waaay too many of us, supplemented by original minds who somehow have to deliver seven billion people from this clusterfuck. And they are equally subject to the ego mind rot of corporate America.

It's all in the parables. They seem to have come from a speaker rather than a writer. But, then again, we can't give people enough credit. There were wise men in dark ages, though we wouldn't recognize them.

Anything that is a threat is a lie, though.

Neuroscience hasn't explained jack, and consciousness relying on a brain means jack when that brain is subject to nin-linear time, as has been proven to be the case.

We don't even know what matter, time, or the brain are, so save your certainty for the feeble minded.

Death is only imagined as worse because it's associated with the visage of ugly, stiff, rotting corpses.

It's the spark of life, the ephemeral beauty of it, that defies reason. That defies our fate to decompose into what can only be described as Hellish.

The question is, why isn't life Hellish at all then? And by that I mean reasonable life. It's the opposite. Whatever we are, and whatever this spark of life is, is so beautiful that we literally celebrate it non-stop. Even though it's fated to decay when the pulse stops.

The buck doesn't stop there, though. What is more natural than rigor mortis is love. Call it supernatural, if you will.

I personally don't think it's completely and entirely unreasonable to believe something profound occurs at death; that, perhaps, the essence of who we are is firmly rooted in a deeper reality.

I do and don't care. I just feel that everything that's important to us, our lives, aren't the one thing the universe wastes completely.

I also am a firm believer that the past is as real as the present. I cannot say for sure what that says about my consciousness.

I said no. It's just Joe being Joe, trying to be dangerous, being cocky.

But with his massive audience, he has to understand that the-powers-that-be won't allow him to upset the status quo, the methodological social order.

We don't know what the physical or mental are, so saying we're "physical" is a moot point. You can't possibly know what you mean by that, as you lack global perspective.

Someone once said that the distinction between past, present, and future was a persistent illusion. We have to come to terms with the fact that the past still is the present; then you can talk about how brain damage proves we're our brains.

There are a myriad of ways of survival of consciousness after death, but not if you're so myopic you can only see the small picture. And the breadth of some of your philosophies is very narrow indeed. Think in the box much?

It's just an interesting idea.

Or it might. What is required is a hegemony between the two, regardless of how horrific.

And let's acknowledge that eternal life is infinitely scarier than death.

Leave that shir behind already. In acting like it has no prowess you're granting it power. What of the facts we've seen?!

There can, honestly, be life beyond the parameters of time without these notions of beginnings or endings.

If you're going to revolve your whole philosophy around SCRIPTURE that's most definitely YOUR PROBLEM.

We've entered a real scientific paradigm beyond any of this, and you're all willfully ignoring weird, strange science for scripture.

Theology definitely.

But we. as wild men, shouldn't be throwing anything out with the bathwater. It's just a treatise with death.

Honestly, the universe should have proven itself more than we can muster by now. Until proof settles in, which is a long way off, keep an open mind.

Or fall off the edge of the earth.

Retain the mere possibility...that this universe is grander than our perceptions. Which are VERY grand.

There is zero scientific evidence one way or the other. What makes me angry is when people lie to support their personal bias.

OMG I've had this startling revelation, everyone! Death is "harmful"!

That's not your claim. Your claim is that death is totally horrendous so people instinctively try desperately to avoid it, ergo it must be awful. Which is total rubbish.

We don't try that hard to avoid death. We border on seeking it out. Your premise that we avoid death because "it must be really bad" is plain old dumb.

Yes, I'm sure the vast proliferation of life is a conspiracy.

You've considered death. Now consider that the content of every person's life is, without surety, instinctively regarded as greater, and tell me what that implies.

To be enlightened isn't glorious at all. At best it's a twinkle in the eye for life, with no guarantee of respect.

When you've seen things, and you know, that's all you've got. There's no reason at all you should also be eloquent or 100% understanding.

Thank you _db for not being an idiot.

Every facet of our society is idiotic, so it figures. I can tell people are getting dumber; it's pretty pronounced, actually.

God what a sociopathic "theory." My brain's in my head, want to cut it up? Yeah, that's normal.

Science is 50% math, 50% imaginary.

Our very physical form is already outside of its respective mind, entering the minds of others, and alive. Enough of the materialist cult that only sees death and forces everyone else to only see death.

Time is far nearer than distance.

Time is Now.

Describe Now.

The last thing we need is for philosophy to become an institution like science, directing people's thought to someone's whim. No.

There are deeper questions, like is anything real temporal, that pertain, that don't rely on a linear framework of time, and time is not linear as we know it. What exactly is death in a reality where the past is as real as the present? This is not known.