Why spirituality is more advance than todays Science

[Antonio Alejandro]

Why is Mysticsm more advance than todays science?
Science has not yet realized that nothing exist until after we perceive it
A scientist would say: The speed of light is 186,000 miles per second.
The mystic would say: The perceive speed of light is 186,000 miles per second.
In mysticsm, the nature of concepts are studied thoroughly, and nothing about it is assumed.
Where science chooses to gain knowledge by examining concepts, mysticsm examines the nature of concepts.
Science's knowledge are of a conceptual nature.
Mysticsm's attempts to go beyond the conceptual.
We use logic and reason to survive and make our lives better.
Mysticsm tries to understand why ultimately, everything ends.
I personally do not discount science and conceptual truths, however, I understand that there has to be more than a conceptual realm.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
Science has not yet realized that nothing exist until after we perceive it Proof of this?

edited to add:

That is to say, what proof have you that nothing exists until after we perceive it? I wasn't asking for proof that "science has not yet realized..."

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro

In mysticsm, the nature of concepts are studied thoroughly, and nothing about it is assumed.

Really, when and how? Do you have evidence of this? to what mysticism are you referring? Ancient Judaism, Norse, pagan, Celtic, eastern, Indian?

Or is there a blanket Mysticism movement I am unaware that in fact studies the nature of concepts thoroughly? I thought the ancient greek philosophers did a pretty good job with Platonic forms and Lucretius' examination of physical matter, but apprently you are aware fo some better stuff out there, so if you have, please don't hold it only for your self.


Where science chooses to gain knowledge by examining concepts, mysticsm examines the nature of concepts.

See, that's so funny, because I thought the scientific method involved recording observable evidence of physical phenomena and then examining the hard data that is both reproduceable and lab controlled. I always thought the concepts came after and subordinate to the physical evidence, but again, you seem willing to make an authoritative statement that this is not the case... that science is in fact some mystical mumbo-jumbo. (Note use of adjective in preceding sentence.)


Science's knowledge are of a conceptual nature.



Really? I was unaware that volumes of recorded data, repeatable expirements and careful observation were of a conceptual nature. I thought data was just data...


Mysticsm's attempts to go beyond the conceptual.


Into what? The meta-conceptual?


We use logic and reason to survive and make our lives better.


Yep, sounds pretty good to me....and also pretty reliable, practical, and grounded in reality.


Mysticsm tries to understand why ultimately, everything ends.

Well, good luck. While mysticism is busy TRYING to understand, science has a pretty good handle on why living things die...why the universe will either crush itself or fizzle out, why stars explode, and galaxies collapse, why orbits decay, and fires go out....etc. Does mysticism have something more valuable to add, or have you just not read enough good science books? In the meantime I'd rather go home to my nice warm house, crack open a can of beer, and watch the game than sit in a cave in the dark somewhere debating pointlessly about why everything must come to an end.


I personally do not discount science and conceptual truths, however, I understand that there has to be more than a conceptual realm.

There is, it's called evidence, experiementation, and demonstrable cause and effect.

You keep using this word, "Science." I do not think it means what you think it means.

[Bluegill]

What is your definition of "more advanced"?

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
...
Science's knowledge are of a conceptual nature.
Mysticsm's attempts to go beyond the conceptual.
...

I think these two statements in your post about sum it up.

Science does one thing whereas religion does something else.

[EdipisReks]

my pet snail is more advanced than spirituality because spirituality only tries to apologize for ignorance, and my pet snail tries to cover everything in slime. this statement is roughly as valid as the one that began this thread.

[Nyarlathotep]

To claim that Mysticism is more advanced than science is absurd.

The computer on which this little screed was typed is a product of science, not of mysticism. Several years ago I was involved in an accident that, had it occured even a generation ago would have cost me my leg if not my life, today I walk around with only a slight limp and the surgery that made it possible was a result of science, not mysticism. If I care to learn about dinosaurs, other planets or just about any subject you care to name, the facts about these things are revealed through science, not mysticism.

Here is a short list of the benefits that mysticism has bestowed upon me personally or mankind in general.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I can't see how the original poster could make his calim and keep a straight face.

[Antonio Alejandro]

I am sorry i cannot respond to this. You have not demonstrated that you understand what is mysticsm. I cannot discuss prejudices ...as prejudices are illogical.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
I am sorry i cannot respond to this. You have not demonstrated that you understand what is mysticsm. I cannot discuss prejudices ...as prejudices are illogical.

If you think I don't understand what mysticsm is and you actually want to discuss the subject (as opposed to merely wanting to say your piece and leave) then it seems to me that you ought to explain what YOU mean by mysticsm. mysticism is one of those words like 'religion' that means different things to different people.

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
I am sorry i cannot respond to this. You have not demonstrated that you understand what is mysticsm. I cannot discuss prejudices ...as prejudices are illogical.

strange, that is exactly what my pet snail said. i can set you two up on a date, if you'd like. btw the way, prejudices aren't necessarily illogical, if one's prejudice against something is based upon examination of that subject.

[whitefork]

Can the mystical be shown if it cannot be said?

The right method of philosophy would be this: To say nothing except what can be said, i.e. the propositions of natural science, i.e. something that has nothing to do with philosophy: and then always, when someone else wished to say something metaphysical, to demonstrate to him that he had given no meaning to certain signs in his propositions. This method would be unsatisfying to the other -- he would not have the feeling that we were teaching him philosophy -- but it would be the only strictly correct method.

- Wittgenstein Tractatus 6.53

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
I am sorry i cannot respond to this. You have not demonstrated that you understand what is mysticsm. I cannot discuss prejudices ...as prejudices are illogical. :id:

Antonio, there were only a handful of responses to your post and yet you've already decided that we do not "understand what is [sic] mysticism." If you find prejudices to be illogical, then abandon your own and continue the discussion.

Surely you didn't expect that your claim would go unchallenged?

edited to add:
Why is it that smug hit and run posters bother me?

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
...as prejudices are illogical.

I agree . But yet you show prejudice towards science. That is illogical.

Be well my new friend.

[Antonio Alejandro]

This computer is not a product of science. Science is lifeless actually.. This computer is directly the product of the mind, of knowledge and of creativity. Long before someone defined science, people were making tools, wheels and thing to make life better. Long before there were grand institutions, there were the creative few that challenged paradigms.
You can however say that a computer is a product of science. I choose to say that a computer is a product of mental elements (creativity, knowledge and insight).

[Andonyx]

Oh jeez, another poster with an alliterative name and Interesting Ian's same "it means what I say it means," perspective....

Nifty.

In the meantime, Mr. Safire, would you care to define "mysticism, " for us?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
This computer is not a product of science. How wonderfully off topic.

How does this back your claims above?

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
You have not demonstrated that you understand what is mysticsm.

'Mysticism' is the attempt to discover the secrets of the universe by someone too lazy to study physics.

[shemp]

:tr:

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
Long before someone defined science, people were making tools, wheels and thing to make life better. Long before there were grand institutions, there were the creative few that challenged paradigms.

Just because science (and engineering) had yet to be defined, it doesn't mean they didn't exist. And what do grand institutions have to do with creativity?

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne


Just because science (and engineering) had yet to be defined, it doesn't mean they didn't exist. And what do grand institutions have to do with creativity?

Wait wait wait...Ian...remember he already told us that nothing exists until you observe it.

[Antonio Alejandro]

It would be nice to have some clear understanding of what some of the things we are discussing. No one here has said anything indicating that they have some kind of understanding what is mysticsm. To some, mysticsm is some kind of wizard with a pointy hat and a magic wand. To others, it has something to do with god, the bible, angels, getting nail to a cross. How can you blur out arguments against something which you are not sure what it means. How can you properly counter a remark.
Also I defined existence as that which has duration and space.
However. I can work with your definition of existence.

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
It would be nice to have some clear understanding of what some of the things we are discussing. No one here has said anything indicating that they have some kind of understanding what is mysticsm. To some, mysticsm is some kind of wizard with a pointy hat and a magic wand. To others, it has something to do with god, the bible, angels, getting nail to a cross.

Actually, several people have asked you to define it...you have ignored them.

Up to this moment you have done nothing to demonstrate that you have any understanding of what mysticism is.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
How can you blur out arguments against something which you are not sure what it means. That is why it is your responsibility to clarify precisely what you mean.

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
Why is Mysticsm more advance than todays science?
Science has not yet realized that nothing exist until after we perceive it
A scientist would say: The speed of light is 186,000 miles per second.
The mystic would say: The perceive speed of light is 186,000 miles per second.
In mysticsm, the nature of concepts are studied thoroughly, and nothing about it is assumed.
Where science chooses to gain knowledge by examining concepts, mysticsm examines the nature of concepts.
Science's knowledge are of a conceptual nature.
Mysticsm's attempts to go beyond the conceptual.
We use logic and reason to survive and make our lives better.
Mysticsm tries to understand why ultimately, everything ends.
I personally do not discount science and conceptual truths, however, I understand that there has to be more than a conceptual realm.

Actually, the real difference between science and mysticism is that science deals with facts and evidence, while mysticism manufactures the evidence and makes up the 'facts'.

[Lord Kenneth]

I think this guy is simply delusional...

[Andonyx]

I'm just gonna claim AA = II's sock puppet.

Actually probably not...he hasn't called anyone something really offensive yet. But the message is the same.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
It would be nice to have some clear understanding of what some of the things we are discussing. No one here has said anything indicating that they have some kind of understanding what is mysticsm. To some, mysticsm is some kind of wizard with a pointy hat and a magic wand. To others, it has something to do with god, the bible, angels, getting nail to a cross. How can you blur out arguments against something which you are not sure what it means. How can you properly counter a remark.
Also I defined existence as that which has duration and space.
However. I can work with your definition of existence.

I do not know what mysticsm is and I have not said that I do.

Perhaps if you would be kind enough to define what mysticsm is, then others could post a cogent response.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
This computer is not a product of science. Science is lifeless actually.. This computer is directly the product of the mind, of knowledge and of creativity. Long before someone defined science, people were making tools, wheels and thing to make life better. Long before there were grand institutions, there were the creative few that challenged paradigms.
You can however say that a computer is a product of science. I choose to say that a computer is a product of mental elements (creativity, knowledge and insight).

Yep, and long before there ws such a thing as a cookbook people were cooking anyway so does that make thise worthless too?

Yes, knowledge creativity etc. are all very important elements in making anything new. But those things are not mysticism. In fact, they are more closely related to science, since science is, at its most basic level, a way of taking the ideas that we come up with and seeing if they are true. Mysticsm has always seemd to me to be more about taking certain ideas and just assuming them to be true, evidence or lack thereof be damned.

Even when people had no concept of sceince as such, they were still doing it in a primitive way. Millenia ago when some anonymous caveman first figured out how to make fire, he was engaging in science. He figured that rubbing two sticks together might make fire (his hypothesis) and he went out, got two sticks and tried it (his experiment). He may not have been able to rationalize it as such, he may not have even thought about it at all but it was sceince on a very basic level. All that has cahnged today is the level of complexity.

So therefore this computer is a product of science. Someone (or more accurately a bunch of different people) had certain ideas and then by testing them, found out which ideas worked and which ones didn't. They then used the workable ideas to come up with the basic ideas behind the CPU, the monitor, etc. After that, all that remained was for someone else to come along and actually build the devices theorized by the ideas. a few years of this and further perfecting the ideas and thus the devices and, voila, your computer. Without the science to filter these ideas and find which ones work and which ones don't (or, later, which ones work better than others) no computer. Your 'Mental elements' are science by any other name.

[roger]

Originally posted by Andonyx
Up to this moment you have done nothing to demonstrate that you have any understanding of what mysticism is.

Nor science. I wonder why he feels he can "blur out arguments against" it.

[Antonio Alejandro]

I should define mysticsm?
There are quite a few post here.
Why are all of these post here? Why remark about something which you have very little knowledge of? No one here needs to define science for me. I can adequately remark about science.
In actuality I did not expect people in this forum to be verse in Eastern Mysticsm. However, I did make a statement, (that nothing exist until after we perceive it) because it can lead to an introduction to what mysticsm is about. But so far all i get are negative remarks about a subject which you clearly do not understand.
If you want to educate yourself about what is mysticsm, go to google and type mysticsm.
After you read a little bit about what it is, come back and remark intelligently.

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
I should define mysticsm?
There are quite a few post here.
Why are all of these post here? Why remark about something which you have very little knowledge of? No one here needs to define science for me. I can adequately remark about science.


Actually, no you can't. Nothing you've said about science so far is remotely close to the truth....and before you try some puffery be aware of the actual amount of real live scientists here on this board.

In the meantime. I did in fact ask you which type of mysticism you were referring to, and one of the possibilities I offered was Eastern mysticism.

So not only are you talking a lot of trash about a subject you quite clearly do not comprehend. You are too lazy to even read the posts repsonding to you thoroughly.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro

After you read a little bit about what it is, come back and remark intelligently.

You should take your own advice but replace the word 'myticism' with 'scientific method' since you seem to be pretty clueless on the subject yourself.

In fact that would be easier since if you ask 15 people for a definition of 'myticism' you will get 16 differnet responses. Since you are the one claiming that "Mysticism is more advanced than science" then you should explain what you mean, i.e. what variety of mysticism are you talking about.

[Ian Osborne]

As several people have pointed out, mysticism means different things to different people. The next step in this thread must be for you to define how *you* see mysticism, otherwise the discussion will go nowhere.

At present, i'm sticking to my defenition - mysticism is an attempt to unlock the secrets of the universe by someone too lazy to study physics. Can you tell me where, or if, I'm going wrong?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
But so far all i get are negative remarks about a subject which you clearly do not understand.Antonio,

I think you'll find on this board that negative remarks are usually brought about by poor or rude behavior rather than subject of your posts.

Further, this is a skeptic's forum. If you make claims and do not support or clarify them, why do you expect anyone to take you seriously?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Boy, we do get an interesting assortment of people here, don't we?

~~ Paul

[Marquis de Carabas]

All right, I did my research. Since you do not feel obligated to define what you mean, I shall have to pick, from my research, the definition I choose to use. So I go with the following:

3. Vague, groundless speculation.
from http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=mysticism

So, why is vague, groundless speculation 'more advanced' than science?

[LawnOven]

oh, my my my...

well I'm thoroughly convienced that mysticism is better than science, why aren't the rest of you?

I don't get it.

I mean it should be quite obvious that "Vague, groundless speculation. " is far superior to science in everyway.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
I am sorry i cannot respond to this. You have not demonstrated that you understand what is mysticsm. I cannot discuss prejudices ...as prejudices are illogical.
You have not demonstrated that you understand what science OR mysticism is.

[Marquis de Carabas]

On further reflection, I feel I must concede that mysticism is far more advanced than science. Science still has to deal with all that tedious stuff like backing up what you say, attempting to falsify hypotheses, and, horror of horrors, conforming to the world and the forces and objects in it. Mysticism is so much more freeing than that. It gets at the reality behind all that boring science stuff. Don't speak to me your causes and your effects. I will now shoot myself in the head. Your science tells me I stand a high chance of dying, yet that is just your bigoted Western mind's way of seeing things. I think the bullet will open my mind to exciting new possibilities. Vague? Yes. Groundless? Yes. Advanced? Y-- <bang>

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Upchurch
:id:

Antonio, there were only a handful of responses to your post and yet you've already decided that we do not "understand what is [sic] mysticism." If you find prejudices to be illogical, then abandon your own and continue the discussion.

Surely you didn't expect that your claim would go unchallenged?

edited to add:
Why is it that smug hit and run posters bother me?

Now that this thread has gone on a while I wouldn't say he is a hit and run poster (i.e. Billiefan) but I don't know which is worse, the hit and runners or people like this guy who post in defense of their ideas but don't actually say anything except "Hmph! None of you understand what I'm talking about!"

It's as if they don't realize that if no one understands what you are talkinga bout, then you might not be making any sense.

[Upchurch]

Hm...

Silence from our newest poster. And I thought sure he was going to hand down The Truth (tm) that only he, and perhaps a lucky few, could impart to us lowly un-enlightened masses.

[Denise]

This thread has been reported. I want to remind people that the report post button is not, I repeat not a toy. If one is going to report a post they should have, at the very least a complaint. It would also be tres cool if the complaint was somewhat legitimate.

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by Denise
This thread has been reported. I want to remind people that the report post button is not, I repeat not a toy. If one is going to report a post they should have, at the very least a complaint. It would also be tres cool if the complaint was somewhat legitimate.

I've never reported a post, can you do that without filling out some sort of explanation as to what you think is wrong?

[Upchurch]

I think you can report a post without a written complaint.

However, no one has broken any rules in this thread that I can see. I wonder who reported what. :rolleyes:

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Denise
This thread has been reported. I want to remind people that the report post button is not, I repeat not a toy. If one is going to report a post they should have, at the very least a complaint. It would also be tres cool if the complaint was somewhat legitimate.

WTF? Why would anyone report this thread? This goes straight to the top of my list of 'Stupid things I have heard today'

I really do not envy the moderators their jobs, this BS is a prime example of why.

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep


WTF? Why would anyone report this thread? This goes straight to the top of my list of 'Stupid things I have heard today'

I really do not envy the moderators their jobs, this BS is a prime example of why.

Well Denise implies that just clicking a button can do it. If so maybe it was just a mistake?

Or is there more to it than that?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Andonyx

Or is there more to it than that? There is more. Hitting the report button takes you to a screen where you can enter text to explain your complaint and then you have to hit a submit button. I imagine it's very hard to do on accident.

[Denise]

Without revealing the name of the poster ie snip

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=1870125138#post1870125138

This is part of this thread:
Why spirituality is more advance than todays Science
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=28271

This is the reason that the user gave:
more advance
1) enhance knowledge
2) knowledge that improves your life.


Here's a second one
again snipping the name

Re: Why spirituality is more advance than todays Science
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=1870125092#post1870125092

This is part of this thread:
Why spirituality is more advance than todays Science
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=28271

This is the reason that the user gave:
What is your definition of existence?

This message has been sent to all moderators of this forum, or all administrators if there are no moderators.

Please respond to this post as applicable.

[Martin]

Originally posted by Andonyx
Well Denise implies that just clicking a button can do it. If so maybe it was just a mistake?No, you have to hit another button afterwards. Try it and see.

[Denise]

Originally posted by Andonyx


Well Denise implies that just clicking a button can do it. If so maybe it was just a mistake?

Or is there more to it than that?

You click on the report post and you have to fill out a form, then hit submit.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I think you can report a post without a written complaint.

However, no one has broken any rules in this thread that I can see. I wonder who reported what. :rolleyes:

If I were a betting man I know who MY money would be on as the reporter of this thread.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro

Science has not yet realized that nothing exist until after we perceive it


But after you perceive something, it is a memory - it doesn't exist. It is not now.

I understand the concept that our realness is dependent on a continual series of snapshots. But since I have a brain more complex than a helper monkey, I can confidently rely on a continuous pattern of memories and a priori situations and familiar objects. I don't need to worry about now.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

If I were a betting man I know who MY money would be on as the reporter of this thread. Perhaps someone unfamiliar with the discussion style and/or rules of the forum?

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
If I were a betting man I know who MY money would be on as the reporter of this thread.

And I bet his complaint didn't exist until it was perceived... :D

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Perhaps someone unfamiliar with the discussion style and/or rules of the forum?

Yep. Especially after looking at Denise's post on the specifics (if you can call it that) of the complaints. It looks more like cluelessness than childish petulance, which is what I first thought.

Of course it could be childish petulance DISGUISED as cluelessness, but I am cynical sometimes.

[Upchurch]

Ooooh. I get it. Whoever it was hit the "Report" link instead of the "Quote" button. :rolleyes:

edited to add:
And Nyarlathotep got it a full minute or more before I did. There are only two kinds of posters in this world: the quick and the dumb.:rub:

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Ooooh. I get it. Whoever it was hit the "Report" link instead of the "Quote" button. :rolleyes:

edited to add:
And Nyarlathotep got it a full minute or more before I did. There are only two kinds of posters in this world: the quick and the dumb.:rub:
:confused:

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

:confused: Its a spoof.

"There are only two kinds of gunfighters in this world: the quick and the dead"

You were the quick one. Guess which one I am? ;)

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Play on words.

"There are only two kinds of gunfighters: the quick and the dead"

You were the quick one. Guess which one I am? ;)

Ah, I was dividing my attention between this forum and some "hurry up and wait"-type tasks at work, so for some reason it didn't click.

Either that or maybe neither one of us is all that quick......

[ImpyTimpy]

SO.. Will Antonio ever define what mysticism means? Will Antonio construct a valid argument? Or will wallowing in perceived crapulance be the order of the day? Stay tuned to this thread for more shocking info!

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
I should define mysticsm?
There are quite a few post here.
Why are all of these post here? Why remark about something which you have very little knowledge of? No one here needs to define science for me. I can adequately remark about science.
In actuality I did not expect people in this forum to be verse in Eastern Mysticsm. However, I did make a statement, (that nothing exist until after we perceive it) because it can lead to an introduction to what mysticsm is about. But so far all i get are negative remarks about a subject which you clearly do not understand.
If you want to educate yourself about what is mysticsm, go to google and type mysticsm.
After you read a little bit about what it is, come back and remark intelligently.

I asked you define mysticsm and instead you tell me to find my own definition via Google. Thus, I take it you will not define it on your own.

Well now, if you do not want to define mysticsm then that is fine by me.

However, I have better things to do than to define the thing you can defend but cannot define.

[Dancing David]

Sorry double A but that is just a crock, and I am a vary spiritua person to boot. Most mystics would benefit from applying the methods of science to thier cherished beliefs they would be better mystics and learn something to boot.

Most mystics are mentaly ill or dependant they have no desire to see anything that they don't want to see, which is why they puff themselves up egaging in satanic wars.

Welcome to the forum!

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
I am sorry i cannot respond to this. You have not demonstrated that you understand what is mysticsm. I cannot discuss prejudices ...as prejudices are illogical.

Gee Antonio, that is it , you come to a sceptics board, you make some bold claims in your post and then you cave!

It is not prejudice, it is the forum dude, go to a woo-woo forum if you want people to just blindly agree with you.
You could try to say something meaningful:

Mysticism and materialism are two different tools for percieving the world, the mystical view looks in and the material view looks out.

Mysticism says that for every choice there are consequences, and guess what so does materialism.

Mysticism says that all things are unique, and so does materialism .

Mysticism says that evrey thing is connected to everything else, as does materialism.

Mysticism says that all is illusion, as does materialism.(Because our thoughts only approximate reality , they are not reality istesef.)

The practise of spiritual beliefs can lead to two seperate conclusions : there is no self (the buddha), there is a self(transcendant). This is the one area that the two differ on.

Sorry double AA, I hope that you use antibiotics when you get infected.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Andonyx
snip...

You keep using this word, "Science." I do not think it means what you think it means. Hey Andonyx, just in case no one has yet acknowledged your timely use of this wonderful phrase, kudos!

My name is Inago Montoya...

[Suezoled]

It would be nice to have some clear understanding of what some of the things we are discussing. No one here has said anything indicating that they have some kind of understanding what is mysticsm. To some, mysticsm is some kind of wizard with a pointy hat and a magic wand. To others, it has something to do with god, the bible, angels, getting nail to a cross. How can you blur out arguments against something which you are not sure what it means. How can you properly counter a remark.
Also I defined existence as that which has duration and space.
However. I can work with your definition of existence.

Man... I miss all the good stuff. :(

How come I miss out on the "all knowing-know-nothing-ignorance-is-bliss" fundies who post and then run off? erm, not to say that this person who started the posting in this thread is like that. Um... yeah. This post is just coincidental to the subject matter and has little to do with this subject at hand.

Oh who am I kidding....

:nope: