Theos-Talk Archives (August 2002 Message tt00280)

You mean there is evidence that supports SD creation myth that man 
does not derrive from chimps ?
Brian

--- In theos-talk@y..., leonmaurer@a... wrote:
> What neurobiological theories are you referring to? And what makes 
Hofstadter 
> an authority? 
> 
> But, I suppose you consider those assertions and references as a 
really 
> rational answer to our refutations of your unfounded assertions and 
> prejudicial opinions. 
> 
> Obviously, your dependence on questionable authorities and obliquely 
labeling 
> anything that refutes your false statements as "anti intellectualism," is 
a 
> sure sign that you don't know what you are talking about. 
> 
> Of course, I understand how you must, "at all costs," convince us that 
only 
> non-Americans like you are "rational" and "intellectual"... (Whatever 
that 
> means in your conceptions? :-)
> 
> LHM
> 
> In a message dated 08/30/02 9:59:56 PM, brianmuehlbach@y... 
writes:
> 
> >Brian: If neurobiologists are correct, most brains will come to 
> >understand reality if properly nurtured. It is ignorance which provides
> >the necessity for just-so stories, with all the tragic consequences that
> >follow when people defend a flawed worldview at all costs. 
> >
> >The number of ant-rational responses has been increasing on this 
list 
> >lately. There is a good book I have been reading two weeks ago, 
and 
> >that is good for all to read dealing with Theosophical literature.
> >
> >It is Richard Hofstadter's: Anti-Intellectualism in American Life. Its
> >available in almost all bookstores today, for free in most libraries.
> >And covers all of the issues brought up here lately.
> > 
> > Brian
> >--- In theos-talk@y..., leonmaurer@a... wrote:
> >> 
> >> In a message dated 08/29/02 6:08:02 PM, brianmuehlbach@y... 
writes:
> >> 
> >> > If your belief is based on "inner feelings" (the "inner man") , 
> "religion"
> >> >("Theos-" ) or even so-called "common sense" as you might 
claim, it
> >> >is far more likely to be wrong than theories based on scientific 
evidence.
> >> >
> >> > If what you claim is based on more then religious faith then
> >> > present the evidence that supports SD creation myth, the 
posting below
> >> >and the content of your two previous postings. And I' be glad to 
discuss
> >> >them. 
> >> > 
> >> >Brian
> >> 
> >> Waste of time -- since all your "limited" physicalist scientific 
evidence
> >> is based solely on the lowest or densest "material" plane of 
universal 
> >> involution and evolution, and hasn't a clue about the cause, nature,
> >> experience, or mechanisms of consciousness, thought, perception, 
> awareness, 
> >> etc... And, cannot discuss the relationship between, or "binding" of 
brain 
> >> and mind from an objective scientific level, or explain ESP, ASC, 
action 
> at a 
> >> distance or quantum entanglement, and other seminal questions 
that 
> >> completely baffle established reductive science (but not 
theosophical 
> >> "deductive science"). 
> >> 
> >> Besides, the SD does not support the "creation myth" of universal 
origin 
> ex 
> >> nihilo, since its teachings re universal Cosmogenesis -- originating 
> lawfully 
> >> out of the primal singularity or zero-point of infinite potential 
angular
> >> momenta or "spinergy" -- are based solely on fundamental cyclic 
laws that 
> >> are logically and mathematically sound... Some of which 
(re: "coadunate 
> >> but not consubstantial enfolded fields" in at least three to ten+ 
> dimensions,
> >> following laws of electricity as well as quantum and relativity 
physics,
> >> zero-point energy, zero-point origination of all fields, etc.) has 
been 
> fully 
> >> confirmed by the cutting edge developments of Superstring/M-
brane theory
> >> that has falsified or modified much of conventional modern physics 
(which
> >> they admit, doesn't have to be correct or truthful, so long as it 
works 
> in the 
> >> limited area of its concern... i.e., The metric physical "space time
> >> continuum." 
> >> 
> >> So, the fact that quantum physics can give us digital computers, 
CD's and 
> >> cell phones, doesn't mean it knows anything about how the metric 
physical 
> >> universe composed of the "particles" they work with, came about, 
or 
> >> originated... And, from where or what? As for anthropological 
opinions of 
> >> Man's origins and evolution -- their "evidence " is so sparse, and 
their
> >> conclusions so far from being "scientific" as to be completely 
ignored as 
> a 
> >> basis of logical discussion.
> >> 
> >> Suggest you seriously study the "Secret Doctrine" and find out for 
> yourself 
> >> what it really teaches, instead of basing your prejudicial denials of
> >> theosophy and bashing of HPB on second hand opinions, Nazi 
propaganda, and 
> >> flawed physical science.
> >> 
> >> LHM
> >
> >