Most of what I write about is a combination of both the natural world and the spiritual world and while I agree with most of modern science to date, I do think there is also a spiritual layer to reality.

Sift through the PAGES and POSTS for more interesting information guaranteed to make you think and question.


#1 Nothing is No Information

#2 Something is Some Information

#3 NoThing is Infinite/Unlimited information

Be careful how you understand NOTHING to be and how the word is used when you read my pages and articles on the web. I hold that the true vacuum energy of our universe and of in fact everything is from NOTHING of Infinite Information, is dynamic, and full --not empty, stagnate, and of zero information.

All the information collected from this process of existence and life is also retained inside of the Nothing. Who knows how many times existence and life have happened. I don't think information is lost or destroyed, and I don't think it returns into a zero-information kind of nothing.

Both understandings of nothing look very similar. They are both undefinable, unquantifiable, immeasurable...but they are opposites. The difference between zero and infinity.

FYI: There is One thing all of life wants, even human life and that is the effects of LOVE.



Nothing- Nothing and everything are but different forms of the same.

Nothing- Nothing and everything are but different forms of the same.
Nothing is everything, but everything is not nothing.

From Spirit to Nature

From Spirit to Nature

Monday, April 28, 2014

Dawkins and Hitchens -Get Real!

On Hitchen's/ Dawkin's Rants -Get Real!

Don't get me wrong, I like these guys. I criticize everyone, religious people too.

1) Christianity and religion is the cause of all evil and other stupid rants by Dawkins...

He says Stalin is atheist and what happened had nothing to do with atheism
Yet, with Hitler, somehow his romancing Catholicism was relevant and his Christian soldiers and is somehow relevant to what they did. After all, the Jews killed their Christ —as if this is how it is taught or understood to any intellectually honest Christian—

It’s not intellectually honest of him frankly. 

How come when Stalin kills, it is not because of Atheism and when Hitler kills it is because of his Christianity. 

Religion is not the cause of all evil or even most of it!

Get real!

If religion disappeared tomorrow, people would find another excuse to kill each other. 

It is simply a TOOL, or an EXPRESSION of something deeper within human nature.

Frankly, you can see that dark nature in Chimpanzees as well and by eradicating religion, Chimpanzees wouldn't be all peace and love either.


2) Abortion and other ridiculous notions...

He says killing a human fetus at the first or second trimester is okay, because it has no nerves, no feelings yet. However killing an animal is wrong, because it has nerves and can't understand the stance anti-abortionists take. 

I myself am pro choice, however I fail to see his conviction as being justified. An animal is killed before it is eaten!  If it is killed in a humane way, it does't feel much of anything at all when killed, and when eaten...well I think we can safely say it has no feelings then.

The real issue would be the cruel conditions animals have to live in before they are eaten. This is where I have an issue with eating meat. But the only reason this problem exists is because of big corporation and their greed to make money, Which is the same reason why we have so many cars, so much pollution, and such a poor public transportation system. 

And all of this fails to consider the fact of when a fetus acquires consciousness and when it actually does have an emotional capacity to feel. Scientifically we do know that a fetus gets its nerves in the 8th week and these receptors are transmitted to the brain in the 28th week, but its body does move to pain before that and so we can't be really sure! This only addresses issues of physical pain however. 

Get Real Dawkins!

3) We are not unique? But we are. 

I believe it might have been Krauss and possibly Dawkins as well who said that we are not unique and that there is other life out there. My argument is that we know through probability that other life is out there most likely, we haven't actually come in contact with it as far as mass acknowledgement though I think it is possible a few have.

Aliens in my view would not be this militaristic army wanting to destroy us and unless we had something they desperately needed to survive, why would they kill us? I'm sure they could find other planets that are habitable out there and food on other planets. No, if aliens come to Earth they will be the teachers and intellects and scientists and the curious minded. They would investigate and observe us and maybe even conduct a few experiments on a few of us.

However, they would not be like us. We would all share the same basic building blocks, sure.

But how these building blocks express themselves would be very different planet to planet. What is the likelihood of other planets having the same conditions of ours, having the same random mutations, the same accidents, and living the same length of time as us so that they would be just like us?

Aliens would be completely different from us. Their evolution would likely have taken a different course altogether!

Now, I've heard one of them argue that a scientist friend says it would likely be that a meteorite from our planet would have hit another plant and so the life we meet would be like our own. REALLY!

In order for this to happen, not only would a meteorite from our plant have tosurvive its travel through space and find a habitable plant on the brink of its biological evolutionary period in order to mix with it, Then this life would have to succeed and survive. Then for this to be the kind of life we would likely find,this would have to happen a whole bunch of times!

Sure, maybe it has happened a few times, maybe not. But I doubt at all this is the kind of life we would run into. If this life is anything like us it surely destroyed itself before it even advanced to the capability of interstellar travel.

Once again, GET REAL GUYS!

4) On Hitchens and his comment about tyrannical Rabbis

Hitchens said it was Rabbinical tyranny before Spinoza - does he possess some supernatural power that enables him to know the thoughts and emotions of the millions of Jewish people before Spinoza? That they felt their rabbinical teachers tyrannical? I doubt they would. I bet most of them would be glad to have someone who cares, listens, and offers help.

I would say a tyrant is someone who comes into a group of people to dictate to them what his perception of life and reality ought to be and if they don't agree than they are somehow inferior, intellectually dishonest or lazy. Cuz that must be what religious folk are, right? Then takes a bunch of money he is paid and leaves never to see those people again. 

He asked what can a religious person do that he can't. I'd say he can't stay with us for years to help us through our troubles, our emotions, our financial strains, and our personal needs.  But the man on his right can, why? because he is a rabbi. That is his purpose. 

The atheist agenda loves to say things like the "religious authority controls you". As if people who go to temple, church or synagogue do so because they fear otherwise. They make a choice every week. Most continue because it serves a purpose in their life. It works. 

The religion they speak of is that of a mad man, Not the average man. 

Get real Hitchens!

5) On Hitchens calling religious people liars

Hitchens say the Jewish man is lying because he comforts them with the idea of god, and afterlife. He says he has no information to know this. But isn’t he lying too to say there is nothing after life and you have no soul or spirit that will continue. That there is no god, but you lived and good. Where did he get this info? What info his he privy to that we don’t have? Has he been there to the other side and back to report?

Get real Hitchens!


No comments:

Post a Comment

What is God?

For myself, I view God as a Spirit. An infinite, illimitable, eternal Spirit. What is a Spirit? For myself, I view a Spirit as the most fundamental form, most simple form of energy.

I think to call the Spirit/God as intelligent or conscious, restricts and limits our own understanding of it. This is because we view life and nature through our own intelligence and consciousness. Ours evolved naturally from simple to complex and is restricted by body/space/time.

A God would not have these limits, would not have evolved and would not be complex. Therefore its "intelligence" and "conscious" would be nothing like we understand.

God is not a consciousness inside a brain or an intelligence inside a brain or even a mind inside a brain. Though a mind might be the closest we can think of it. God would exist outside of space and time and inside of it; therefore, its "consciousness" would encompass past-present-future and even before time. Its intelligence could be much like a mathematical genius quantum computer. Perhaps an Awakened Energy-Spirit- would be a better definition.

There are two kinds of energy in my view. Spiritual and Physical. When we understand virtual particles and fundamental particles better, I think we come closer to understanding what Spiritual Energy can do as well.

Spiritual Energy >>Withdrawal>>Space Forms>>Physical Energy Emerges>>Fields> Virtual Particles> Forces>Fundamental Particles>Everything Physical Forms.

Science examines the natural/the physical, not the spiritual.

I agree with everything from science, except when biologists (not mathematicians) use words like purposeless, without guide, directionless, without goals.

I agree with mathematicians assessment of randomness.

The reason is because in biology, we are talking about things without a consciousness -processes and mechanisms are non living things and can't have a purpose in the sense that they are using the word. They don't have a consciousness. They are not aware.

We are examining processes and mechanisms, but what is this substance (energy) that these processes and mechanisms are using. From where does this substance (energy) come?

Those are essentially the questions at the crust of the real inquiry into what is reality.

Simply because the process or mechanism is not conscious itself, does not mean they were not structured deliberately or without intent or thought, or that a spiritual energy does not exist.

This simply means that physical things and processes and mechanisms without a consciousness don't have a conscious purpose/goal.

Well, Duh.

So, I agree biological evolution doesn't have a conscious purpose/goal in and of itself -because we are examining only the physical Things, the physical processes and physical mechanisms.

This says nothing about the spiritual significance.

However, they do have a natural purpose/goal.

All energy persists toward entropy =Death.
All life persists to survival =Life

Further, all energy follows a pattern from simple>complex, chaos>order, from heterogenous>homogenous, from random>non random, from death>life>death.

These patterns are reflected in our natural laws.

So, all of energy does follow a guide or a direction. It is the direction or reflection of the natural laws.

is Nothing all there is?

Science seems to be going in the direction that true nothingness does not exist. This is because whenever you find nothing, you find virtual particles.

I would have to agree not just with the science, but with that concept in my view of life and reality.

Nothing does not exist, because whenever you find nothing--you actually find everything just in its most simple and fundamental form. Nothing is NoThing, not the non-existence of everything.

The most simple and fundamental form of reality is NoThing and this is why this happens in my opinion.

The real question for me is, how much of life experience and memories is retained in this simple fundamental form that makes up our universe and our everything?

How is it retained?

We can see cells seem to have a sense of memory and experience, but do virtual particles too?

Do all our memories and life experiences retain themselves in some fundamental form of energy?

Could what we call the soul or spirit be an echo of nature itself?

It does seem that virtual particles have to behave certain ways. It pops as a gluon only to become a photon or such...because it seemingly has to conform to the existence it pops into. Some virtual particles might pop into our existence as anti-quarks, but most have to conform and so we see the photon it is supposed to be.

Why do virtual particles conform? What rules are they following? It seems they are somehow aware of what is around them if they are conforming. (Not to imply this awareness has to be conscious.)