# Atheists



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Apr 28, 2012)

Oh you guys are gunna LOVE who wrote this lol 

Atheists are of three kinds.​

The mere stupid man. (Often he is very clever, as Bolingbroke, Bradlaugh and Foote were clever). He has found out one of the minor arcana, and hugs it and despises those who see more than himself, or who regard things from a different standpoint. Hence he is usually a bigot, intolerant even of tolerance.
The despairing wretch, who, having sought God everywhere, and failed to find Him, thinks everyone else is as blind as he is, and that if he has failed&#8212;he, the seeker after truth!&#8212;it is because there is no goal. In his cry there is pain, as with the stupid kind of atheist there is smugness and self-satisfaction. Both are diseased Egos.
The philosophical adept, who, knowing God, says &#8220;There is No God,&#8221; meaning, &#8220;God is Zero,&#8221; as qabalistically He is. He holds atheism as a philosophical speculation as good as any other, and perhaps less likely to mislead mankind and do other practical damage as any other. Him you may know by his equanimity, enthusiasm, and devotion. I again refer to Liber 418 for an explanation of this mystery. The nine religions are crowned by the ring of adepts whose password is &#8220;There is No God,&#8221; so inflected that even the Magister when received among them had not wisdom to interpret it.

There is a fourth kind of atheist, not really an atheist at all. He is but a traveller in the Land of No God, and knows that it is but a stage on his journey&#8212;and a stage, moreover, not far from the goal. Daath is not on the Tree of Life; and in Daath there is no God as there is in the Sephiroth, for Daath cannot understand unity at all. If he thinks of it, it is only to hate it, as the one thing which he is most certainly not (see Liber 418, 10th Æthyr. I may remark in passing that this book is the best known to me on Advanced Qabalah, and of course it is only intelligibile to Advanced Students).This atheist, not in-being but in-passing, is a very apt subject for initiation. He has done with the illusions of dogma. From a Knight of the Royal Mystery he has risen to understand with the members of the Sovereign Sanctuary that all is symbolic; all, if you will, the Jugglery of the Magician. He is tired of theories and systems of theology and all such toys; and being weary and anhungered and athirst seeks a seat at the Table of Adepts, and a portion of the Bread of Spiritual Experience, and a draught of the wine of Ecstasy.

(My words) I'd like to think atheists of today are a combination of these... I think one and two are the most frequent mixes.​


----------



## delvite (Apr 28, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Oh you guys are gunna LOVE who wrote this lol
> 
> Atheists are of three kinds.​
> 
> ...


id like to mail him this.............................................http://atheismblog.blogspot.co.uk/2008/05/100-reasons-to-believe-that-god-does.html


----------



## tyler.durden (Apr 28, 2012)

All one has to do is acknowledge the source. Crowley's writings and philosophy have as much merit as your own. I'd consider your post more seriously if it were written by Big Bird...


----------



## scroglodyte (Apr 28, 2012)

i'm sick of people questioning my atheism, goddam it!


----------



## robert 14617 (Apr 28, 2012)

agnostic , how hard is that for you to understand


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Apr 28, 2012)

/sigh, you cant BE agnostic. Agnostic is a position you take, not something you are. You can be agnostic atheist, agnostic theist, agnostic deist etc. etc. etc. Heis helped me figure this one out.


----------



## robert 14617 (Apr 28, 2012)

i may be beyond help , just doin my thing rolling with the flow


----------



## cannabineer (Apr 28, 2012)

tyler.durden said:


> All one has to do is acknowledge the source. Crowley's writings and philosophy have as much merit as your own. I'd consider your post more seriously if it were written by Big Bird...


Before or after Elmo? cn


----------



## robert 14617 (Apr 28, 2012)

ok by the definition of agnostic i am noncommittal, so i can't commit to being atheist


----------



## DSB65 (Apr 28, 2012)

robert 14617 said:


> ok by the definition of agnostic i am noncommittal, so i can't commit to being atheist


im not sure what i want to be


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Apr 28, 2012)

Zaehet Strife said:


> /sigh, you cant BE agnostic. Agnostic is a position you take, not something you are. You can be agnostic atheist, agnostic theist, agnostic deist etc. etc. etc. Heis helped me figure this one out.


*sigh* most peoples definition of agnostic is believing that theres some form of higher power but they dont really stress too much thinking about it... Drop the literal terminologies and get with the program, man.


----------



## mindphuk (Apr 28, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> *sigh* most peoples definition of agnostic is believing that theres some form of higher power but they dont really stress too much thinking about it... Drop the literal terminologies and get with the program, man.


Someone that believes there is some sort of higher power is by definition a theist. Drop the ambiguous terminologies and shifting of the goalposts just to suit your position.


----------



## Doer (Apr 28, 2012)

*Wikipedia:

Agnosticism* is the view that the truth values of certain claimsespecially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claimsare unknown or unknowable.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP] Agnosticism can be defined in various ways, and is sometimes used to indicate doubt or a skeptical approach to questions. In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the difference between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief. In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who is undecided about the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively.[SUP][2][/SUP] In the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify the belief that deities either do or do not exist. Within agnosticism there are agnostic atheists (who do not believe any deity exists, but do not deny it as a possibility) and agnostic theists (who believe a deity exists but do not claim it as personal knowledge).


----------



## tyler.durden (Apr 28, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> Before or after Elmo? cn


B.E., of course  Old Testament, baby...


----------



## lefty11 (Apr 28, 2012)

All I know is there ain't no atheists in a foxhole and thats the truth.


----------



## Heisenberg (Apr 28, 2012)

lefty11 said:


> All I know is there ain't no atheists in a foxhole and thats the truth.


I believe we have narrowed this down to one of two reasons. Jesus is in the foxhole and the atheist sees him, becoming a theist. Or else fear and uncertainty are really what motivates theists to believe, and a foxhole is the scariest situation they can imagine themselves in, which really has nothing to do with atheists.


----------



## tyler.durden (Apr 28, 2012)

lefty11 said:


> All I know is there ain't no atheists in a foxhole and thats the truth.


How very sad for your first post...


----------



## DoctorSmoke (Apr 28, 2012)

so what definition am i if i think religion was invented to enslave the minds of ppl?


----------



## Heisenberg (Apr 28, 2012)

DoctorSmoke said:


> so what definition am i if i think religion was invented to enslave the minds of ppl?


This would seem to make you anti-religious while saying nothing about your opinion of god's existence or our ability to comprehend it.


----------



## robert 14617 (Apr 28, 2012)

i am agnostic , i am not convinced this how i describe myself get over it , i will be a theist if there is proof , or i will be a atheist if it is proven , i am not convinced therefore i am agnostic


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Apr 29, 2012)

wtf is a foxhole? lol


----------



## DoctorSmoke (Apr 29, 2012)

i know i remember asking my grandfather before he died "who made god", because he told me god made everything. i was in kindergarden back then when he died so i could have been younger (5 yo or younger) when i asked him. basically as soon as i could comprehend the idea of god i questioned it, or asked a whole bunch of questions and didnt understand the answers (how could god make himself). i guess i dont have the genetics to believe in something like god if i wasnt convinced when i was 4-5yo.


----------



## DoctorSmoke (Apr 29, 2012)

its not from lack of trying as i went to catholic school from kindergarden to gr3, then catholic school for a while in gr8 in ontario. and church on sunday when i was a kid. went to a few catholic schools. religious ppl all around me. idk...


----------



## Vindicated (Apr 29, 2012)

The foxhole line was an old argument, meaning when you face death, like soldiers in the heat of the war, you will pray that god will help you. It's a little insulting because it assumes that a person has to believe in their god no matter what.

I've faced death before a lot of times. Close calls with drugs, nearly falling off a cliff, countless times almost getting hit in a car, and the most recent was when I was drunk and driving 130+ on the freeway, when I spun out and crashed into a wall. Not sure how I survived, but everything was in slow motion. Point being, none of those experiences made me look to God. I never had that foxhole moment. I always think, shit I hope I this isn't the end, then I freeze, and my mind goes silent. 

A person's belief is a product of upbringing. If you take a Buddhist monk and put a gun to their head, do you honestly think they're going to suddenly believe in jesus? No! Of course not. And no reasonable person would think otherwise. 

I personally know of two types of atheists. Strong and soft atheists. A strong atheist is a person who cannot fathom a deity as real. It's like trying to convince a Christian to believe in Thor. It's just not going to happen without some crazy brain washing. A soft atheist is a person who looks at their life, questions god or becomes angry towards god and decides they don't want to believe anymore. This is more common. Lots of people, even christians will go through this phase at least once in their life. A women who has an abortion, a father who loses their child, a person who lives through genocide or terrorism could easily be lead to question their faith. However it's usually short lived. Eventually the person will stop being mad at god and start to believe again. A fence sitter, I mean an agnostic, is a person who refuses to take a position. They either use arguments like it's impossible to know or they simply don't care either way. However in the end, eventually the agnostic leans more one way or the other. Kind of like how some people are bi-sexual. I don't care if you eat pussy, if you suck dick your still gay. Same thing with agnostic. If you don't accept a god as real or logical, to me your an atheist. 

I am a strong atheist. I've tried for years to believe because I like the idea of heaven and god, but I'm a very logical thinker. Its difficult for me to accept. I've come to conclude that I just have a different belief and it's at my very core that it's not going to change unless something very dramatic, like jesus himself appearing before me, will change. I don't hate god, I'm not angry towards any religion. It's just not my belief. My moral compass comes not from the bible, but common sense. When I need extra guidance as to what is right I turn to the philosophy of ethics, such as what Emmanuel Kant teaches. However, I accept even these systems are flawed. Kant (and christians) have a hard time with the holocoaust dilemma. 

Imagine for a moment you're a German during WWII. Your best friend and their family, that you've know all your life come knocking at your door. They are jews and plead for help. They ask you to hide them because the Nazis are coming. Your inner moral compass says the right thing to do is to hide them, but then the Nazis come and ask if they are there. Telling a lie is wrong, but somehow in this case, it seems right. Yet the Bible, Kant, and countless other systems of ethics have a hard time with this. When does one wrong cancel out another? Only you can decide this.


----------



## Heisenberg (Apr 29, 2012)

robert 14617 said:


> i am agnostic , i am not convinced this how i describe myself get over it , i will be a theist if there is proof , or i will be a atheist if it is proven , i am not convinced therefore i am agnostic


You can call yourself agnostic if you want, no need to feel defensive. We're just pointing out that, unless we are privy to whats in your head, hearing that your agnostic doesn't tell us much.

I could believe that the universe obviously had a creator as evident by design, and yet feel that none of the world's religions do anything to help us know that creator. In this case I would be an agnostic believer. 

Anything that doesn't entail theism, agnostic or not, is atheism. There is no middle ground. The theist has defined atheism in such a way that it includes anything that isn't their side of the fence, which includes the middle. The theist is the one who cries atheism, without the theist, atheists wouldn't exist. The prefix 'a' meaning not, anything that is not belief in a higher power, is not-theism, undecided or not.

The theist is not happy to wait until you find proof before he calls you an atheist. Rejection of his claim/proof is enough.

In fact, "atheism" is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a "non-astrologer" or a "non-alchemist." We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs. 
&#8213; ​Sam Harris


----------



## BA142 (Apr 29, 2012)

Agnosticism is just a cop out for people that don't believe in God but are too scared to denounce it


----------



## Heisenberg (Apr 29, 2012)

[video=youtube;swkAGExZCII]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swkAGExZCII[/video]


----------



## DreamTime (Apr 29, 2012)

BA142 said:


> Agnosticism is just a cop out for people that don't believe in God but are too scared to denounce it


How were you able to determine that all agnostics don't believe?


----------



## mindphuk (Apr 29, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> The prefix 'a' meaning not, anything that is not belief in a higher power, is not-theism, undecided or not.


the prefix also means "lack of", "without", or "absence of" such as amoral does not literally mean 'not moral' which in my mind can be interpreted as immoral, but lack of morality in general much like atheism is 'without any theistic belief.'


----------



## cannabineer (Apr 29, 2012)

I wonder if what is popularly termed the atheist stance isn't in fact antitheist. cn


----------



## abandonconflict (Apr 29, 2012)

lefty11 said:


> All I know is there ain't no atheists in a foxhole and thats the truth.


That's not the truth at all. Prove it.


----------



## cannofbliss (Apr 29, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Oh you guys are gunna LOVE who wrote this lol
> 
> Atheists are of three kinds.​
> 
> ...



wow... i thought that you were either incredibly fucking stupid, far gone, or purposefully ignorant, or just plain lost all sense of reality...

that is until i read the above post you made on this thread... just by your attempts to classify why people dont believe in any supernatural being...

i stand corrected... because of your "posts" i will "renounce" my abhorrently "sinful" ways, and turn to jesus... 

i will buy into the legal trap that i was "born" an evil person and that the only way i can ever "redeem" myself is to accept and relinquish my freedoms and rights over to "a higher authority"...

so i can be a good little sheep and have whomever "claims" to be in authority due to "divine right" can violently oppress me and break my will to live, so that way their sick and megalomaniacal will be done...

wtf... seriously... of course "god" exists... it was and always will be a thought and idea, derived from as a byproduct of typical humanistic/animalistic behavior that there is "something greater" than the natural...


----------



## DoctorSmoke (May 1, 2012)

we are atheists because we dont buy into the BS we were born into. some ppl just dont believe religion, my guess is genetics.


----------



## SirLancelot (May 1, 2012)

Vindicated said:


> The foxhole line was an old argument, meaning when you face death, like soldiers in the heat of the war, you will pray that god will help you. It's a little insulting because it assumes that a person has to believe in their god no matter what.
> 
> I've faced death before a lot of times. Close calls with drugs, nearly falling off a cliff, countless times almost getting hit in a car, and the most recent was when I was drunk and driving 130+ on the freeway, when I spun out and crashed into a wall. Not sure how I survived, but everything was in slow motion. Point being, none of those experiences made me look to God. I never had that foxhole moment. I always think, shit I hope I this isn't the end, then I freeze, and my mind goes silent.
> 
> ...


You know I used to be a hardcore athiest the one thing that has always stuck with me was an argument someone brought up too me one time, I believe the "Kalam argument?"
"


Whatever begins to exist has a cause
The universe began to exist
Therefore, the universe has a cause


Something cannot come into being from nothing
If things really could come into being uncaused out of nothing, then it becomes inexplicable why just anything and everything do not come into existence uncaused from nothing.
The first premise is constantly confirmed in our experience.


As well as the Fine-Tuning argument... Just thought I'd share


----------



## Doer (May 1, 2012)

But this theological perspective is what has to be bought on faith. It's the attribution of deity or Design through human logic. Why do things need a cause to exist? And a bit of hubris in the idea that we have to understand it at all. And therefore we can't get used to it, but it is truly *inexplicable.*


----------



## SirLancelot (May 1, 2012)

I agree why couldn't it just happen by chance, but then I think dude are we really that lucky? Do humans really deserve this 1 in a 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999(it's much bigger number)chance that everything would fall into place so perfectly in the universe to support human life.


----------



## Doer (May 1, 2012)

abandonconflict said:


> That's not the truth at all. Prove it.


*




Originally Posted by lefty11  
All I know is there ain't no atheists in a foxhole and thats the truth.

*

You guys know the Tillman Story? Medal of Honor, turned out to be friendly fire. The situation is that he was 
murdered on the battlefield. He was a scoffing atheist, by all accounts, walking back to the Humvee in plain 
sight, not 100 yrds out. 

Killed by the platoon's "preacherman." (no, not the Chaplin) It was such a tense situation, Tillman's buddy eased
off 3-4 yards and knelled down with his hands on his helmet. He says he told Tillman they weren't shitting around, 
but Tillman would not kneel. This is the story the family got out of everyone with the Freedom of Information Act
and then cross referencing the highly redacted reports until they were sure who the buddy was and had him verify it. 
Then they made a documentary.

So, that proves there are no atheists in the foxhole.


----------



## Heisenberg (May 1, 2012)

SirLancelot said:


> I agree why couldn't it just happen by chance, but then I think dude are we really that lucky? Do humans really deserve this 1 in a 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999(it's much bigger number)chance that everything would fall into place so *perfectly in the universe to support human life*.


Although I do understand what you're saying, you may be overstating it a bit. Most of the universe will not support life of any kind. The earth itself was very hostile to life for a very long time, and much of it still is today. If the goal was human life, it sure seems like a really inefficient plan. I am not sure we can assign the universe one single purpose, and certainly that purpose can't be human existence.


----------



## SirLancelot (May 1, 2012)

ah touche! maybe the goal isn't human life in particular but life in general including bacterias and other living single celled organisms. I think there's a general consensus among astrologists that there's billions of solar systems similar to ours that are capable of supporting life this is what I meant by the universe supporting human life


----------



## Doer (May 1, 2012)

Unfortunately, that's playing the numbers game. And the numbers game says it's just as likely that we are truly alone. It's because
in the numbers game, as you are proposing it, all probabilities are equally possible, including it's just us. Need more data.

The numbers game is often a reason given that it has to be Intelligently Designed. But, again, wiithout more data, it could
just as easily be one of the myriad of outcomes. All the Constants aligning, all the Fine Tuned arguments are at the moment
specious, at best. Things don't exist because of cause. That's faith.


----------



## SirLancelot (May 1, 2012)

ok good point, not enough sufficient data. but I still just can't tear away from the fact that everything that begins to exist has a cause, and something can't come from nothing.


----------



## Zoltan44x (May 1, 2012)

Even if there's a god and people in this world are making money+power just by playing this stupid game,fooling us, 
controlling masses, manipulating ,destroying others lifes, starting wars based on lies..
And still can get away with it..

That god doesnt have a word to say or intention to stop this bullshit.
Why would I believe in such god ?


----------



## SirLancelot (May 1, 2012)

How would you handle the situation? I bet he doesn't either

Just for clarification your talking about the Christian god right?


----------



## Doer (May 1, 2012)

SirLancelot said:


> ok good point, not enough sufficient data. but I still just can't tear away from the fact that everything that begins to exist has a cause, and something can't come from nothing.


But, how can you say its a fact? To me it's more courageous to say there is no "because," no answer to "why?" that is presently known. Not in science, not in Religion, and not in any other belief or practice. Some advertising copy writer said it best, I think. Why ask why? It can come from nothing but we can't yet define nothing. And if you are talking about causality in time, then you must know, at least, in quantum math, causality is not at all necessary for existance.

So, you feel a feeling, but you can't feel a fact.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (May 1, 2012)

SirLancelot said:


> ok good point, not enough sufficient data. but I still just can't tear away from the fact that everything that begins to exist has a cause, and something can't come from nothing.


Is it not just as plausable, that existence has always existed, rather than existence spawning from nothing?


----------



## Doer (May 1, 2012)

SirLancelot said:


> How would you handle the situation? I bet he doesn't either
> 
> Just for clarification your talking about the Christian god right?


Isn't the prohibition of Moses to have no other god before the one true GOD? So, there is only one God, right? No this god or that one, no my god or yours.

God only. Not the God of the Jews vs the God of Christians vs the God of Islam. That's against the rules of the Religion, isn't it?


----------



## SirLancelot (May 1, 2012)

Don't know....

One thing that's always bugged me is the hypocrisy of religion, it's perfectly OK to believe in YOUR god but as soon as someone talks about another God it's uncompromisable and impossible! 

I wish I could remember the author to this short story I read quit funny about how Aliens put humans here and have been documenting us like a reality show, the story is based around WWI and WWII talking about how good of a show it was and how the sequel was way better than the first, it was really funny I'll try and find that.


----------



## SirLancelot (May 1, 2012)

Zaehet Strife said:


> Is it not just as plausable, that existence has always existed, rather than existence spawning from nothing?


But I can't think of anything that comes out of nothing, 

ahh now were getting tricky and having to deal with definitions, what exactly is existence and always existing? I thought the general consensus was that the Universe began *13.75 ± 0.11 billion years* therfore the universe began.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (May 1, 2012)

SirLancelot said:


> But I can't think of anything that comes out of nothing,
> 
> ahh now were getting tricky and having to deal with definitions, what exactly is existence and always existing? I thought the general consensus was that the Universe began *13.75 ± 0.11 billion years* therfore the universe began.


Yes those thoughts are correct, but you forgot about the thought of string theory, and multiple universes, which could make the "existence has always existed" theory even more plausible. Whos to say this universe is the only one?


----------



## Zaehet Strife (May 1, 2012)

Heis, wherever you are, this one is for you.


----------



## SirLancelot (May 1, 2012)

Zaehet Strife said:


> Yes those thoughts are correct, but you forgot about the thought of string theory, and multiple universes, which could make the "existence has always existed" theory even more plausible. Whos to say this universe is the only one?


Right but that's a theory, for simplicity Im just sticking to the things that we can actually observe and from my knowledge something doesn't appear from nothing.


----------



## ginjawarrior (May 1, 2012)

SirLancelot said:


> Right but that's a theory, for simplicity Im just sticking to the things that we can actually observe and from my knowledge something doesn't appear from nothing.


all your doing tho is passing the question down the line. where did god come from? he couldnt have appeared from nothing...


----------



## Heisenberg (May 1, 2012)

SirLancelot said:


> ah touche! maybe the goal isn't human life in particular but life in general including bacterias and other living single celled organisms. I think there's a general consensus among astrologists that there's billions of solar systems similar to ours that are capable of supporting life this is what I meant by the universe supporting human life


Yes it is very likely that many planets are capable of life, a few have been all but confirmed to have the correct conditions. So I accept that the universe could support much life. Since we know nothing about alien life, it could exist in such a way that if one (or more) of the cosmological constants were changed, it wouldn't matter. So while the universe may seem fine tuned for human life, it's not an observation we can make about any other life outside of earth. Other life may see it as 'broad tuning'.

And as I argued earlier, it's not really an observation we can make about human life either.


----------



## ginjawarrior (May 1, 2012)

ginjawarrior said:


> all your doing tho is passing the question down the line. where did god come from? he couldnt have appeared from nothing...


and look up quantum fluctuations stuf does appear and dissapear from seeeming nothing and thats test able


----------



## Zaehet Strife (May 1, 2012)

You are absolutely correct, we have no proof of anything ever coming to being out of nothing. So wouldn't that mean... most reasonably, wouldn't it make more sense that something would have had to always exist? Hmmmm.... I don't know...

Circles...


----------



## Heisenberg (May 1, 2012)

Zaehet Strife said:


> Heis, wherever you are, this one is for you.
> 
> View attachment 2149986


Good one


----------



## Doer (May 1, 2012)

ginjawarrior said:


> all your doing tho is passing the question down the line. where did god come from? he couldnt have appeared from nothing...


But, why does god have to come from, or go to for that matter?  No need for gender or appearance, right? For me there is NOW. There is no sequencing necessary. As IT was in the beginning, IT is NOW and ever shall be. Word without end.


----------



## ginjawarrior (May 1, 2012)

Doer said:


> But, why does god have to come from, or go to for that matter?  No need for gender or appearance, right? For me there is NOW. There is no sequencing necessary. As IT was in the beginning, IT is NOW and ever shall be. Word without end.


no god is necessary either infact he's superfluous and wasnt the premise that "something cant come from nothing"? you cant wave that away by denying sequencing or time NOW isnt an answer


----------



## SirLancelot (May 1, 2012)

ginjawarrior said:


> all your doing tho is passing the question down the line. where did god come from? he couldnt have appeared from nothing...


good point and I struggle with this one as well, the only argument I've ever heard on this point is that God has always existed and never "began" to exist. I find this uneasy to digest though.


----------



## Heisenberg (May 1, 2012)

SirLancelot said:


> good point and I struggle with this one as well, the only argument I've ever heard on this point is that God has always existed and never "began" to exist. I find this uneasy to digest though.


It would seem odd to accept perpetual existence for the question of God, and not the question of the universe. If god made the universe, he must be even more complex and fine tuned himself, meaning we wave off the 'design' of god for the same reason we question the design of the universe.


----------



## Heisenberg (May 1, 2012)

Doer said:


> But, why does god have to come from, or go to for that matter?  No need for gender or appearance, right? For me there is NOW. There is no sequencing necessary. As IT was in the beginning, IT is NOW and ever shall be. Word without end.


I can see where you are coming from, I think. 'Now' is subjective to the point that it is everything, everytime. Something along those lines?


----------



## ginjawarrior (May 1, 2012)

SirLancelot said:


> good point and I struggle with this one as well, the only argument I've ever heard on this point is that God has always existed and never "began" to exist. I find this uneasy to digest though.


but you say you were an atheist untill you heard the "nothing can exist" so you added god and yet still in same position but thats enough for you to believe in god?

you sure you were an atheist?


----------



## mindphuk (May 1, 2012)

SirLancelot said:


> ok good point, not enough sufficient data. but I still just can't tear away from the fact that everything that begins to exist has a cause, and something can't come from nothing.


I'm not sure anyone believes anything came from nothing. I have heard people talk about the big bang that way but IMO, it was used figuratively. Prior to the 'bang' or the inflationary period that we call the big bang the entire universe was a small dense point and was all energy, no matter existed yet. However, it was still our universe and no one knows how long that singularity existed before it inflated. The universe could be eternal which would eliminate the need for something from nothing or the universe could be the result of something outside of the universe. M-theory proposed that universes are created all of the time when two branes interact. We don't know what was around prior to our universe or if it is possible for anything to be outside of it but the 'something from nothing' idea is a red herring.


----------



## tyler.durden (May 1, 2012)

Doer said:


> But, how can you say its a fact? To me it's more courageous to say there is no "because," no answer to "why?" that is presently known. Not in science, not in Religion, and not in any other belief or practice. Some advertising copy writer said it best, I think. Why ask why? It can come from nothing but we can't yet define nothing. And if you are talking about causality in time, then you must know, at least, in quantum math, causality is not at all necessary for existance.
> 
> 
> So, you feel a feeling, but you can't feel a fact.



Interesting point you bring up, the question of why. My best friend raised my consciousness about this some years ago, and I've always taught my son to ask how instead of why regarding natural phenomena (_how_ is the sky blue, _how_ does gravity pull things together). It seems that 'why' presupposes a purpose, and 'how' is easily explained by the physical laws...


----------



## Doer (May 1, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> I can see where you are coming from, I think. 'Now' is subjective to the point that it is everything, everytime. Something along those lines?


Yes, Now as the only stillness, from which the memories and regrets, the anticipation and fear fans out in all dimensions and vectors, known and unknown. All entropy moves thru and around Now and all in existence are subject to entropy. 

And coming to silent, thoughtless Knowlege of Self, Now allows understanding that Self can stand beyond time and entropy and be un-named, Identity free and still be Self. Thus Eternity, and Forever are two completely different concepts. Eternity is Now, regardless of existence or any other qualifier, ime.

EDIT:

Oh and Z.Strife and I were chatting about the 360 degree view. It really does have to include beyond MEST and existence itself, to be truely 360, right? That's the compass of Now from Self's point of view and is why Self and IT are good buddies, so to speak.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (May 1, 2012)

Doer said:


> EDIT:
> 
> Oh and Z.Strife and I were chatting about the 360 degree view. It really does have to include beyond MEST and existence itself, to be truely 360, right? That's the compass of Now from Self's point of view and is why Self and IT are good buddies, so to speak.


I think i may be destined to have chameleon vision for the rest of my dreams... practice practice practice. 

Though, how i perceive your note on "Time", is that i see it as, from our perspective as humans... the past lives only in memory, the future lives only in imagination... the only real time, is NOW! Is that kinda what you were trying to say, or am i completely wrong?


----------



## Doer (May 1, 2012)

Yes, there is a thread on my view in the Science section. But, I mean it much more absolute than you seem to be allowing. Not just from a human perspective. Actually. The human perspective is everything but Now. The rocks didn't invent time. But, Now is very difficult to experience as it turns out because our chatterbox, internal dialog, nattering is so compelling. So, you can say without any overtone at all, religious, spiritual, practical or otherwise, Now is the only Truth. In the nature of poet, Truth is Beauty, Beauty is Truth. Perception is only Now. If we can perceive Now that extends beyond existence even, without causality, then there IT is.

And if I may, speaking only from experience, there is a lot more Self available than the chatterbox, sitting and enjoying entropy's pleasures will allow. In this perspective the core concept in all religion is absolutely correct, and also sadly twisted by the very chatterbox that maintains these ideas of matter energy time and space. Our meat robot is expert in MEST but somehow inventing Clock Time has put chattermind in charge. The religious analogies abound, so I must not stray to close, we must not un-wittingly intersperse dogma. 

And that's my summary of the problem. It's all here. Be here now. Good advice, but how, really to escape Mr. Mind? Practice.


----------



## cannabineer (May 1, 2012)

SirLancelot said:


> I agree why couldn't it just happen by chance, but then I think dude are we really that lucky? Do humans really deserve this 1 in a 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999(it's much bigger number)chance that everything would fall into place so perfectly in the universe to support human life.


I'm late to this party, but if you don't mind my getting all anthropic about it, one thing that we surely know about our universe is that the chance of our existence has collapsed from one in (large number) to unity. 
I am fascinated by the idea that nothing exists without cause. I do not believe that, but can't put my finger on why. I'm following my rule of thumb that there may be things beyond our understanding. cn


----------



## Doer (May 1, 2012)

I just want to emphasis the need for utter completeness in this view of Now.

It requires a rather large shift of the definition of "I" and therefore identity itself.
The human body is not I.
The brain is not I.
All identity is not I.
Information about me is not I.
Leaves only the blistering light of Self that's not subject to entropy. Much more like everything than nothing.


----------



## cannabineer (May 1, 2012)

Doer said:


> I just want to emphasis the need for utter completeness in this view. It requires a rather large shift of the definition of "I" and therefore identity itself.
> The human body is not I.
> The brain is not I.
> All identity is not I.
> ...


But what if Self is not a special thing (y'know, soul) but rather a condition of the thinking meat? Perhaps nothing beyond physics and chemistry need be invoked to make a complete person. I worry that seeking the nature of Self is a blind alley strongly suggested by our neurochemical makeup ... but ultimately empty. It's an awesomely self-referent, self-defined problewm ... what if our sense of self blocks us from asking the _right _questions about self? cn


----------



## SirLancelot (May 1, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> I'm late to this party, but if you don't mind my getting all anthropic about it, one thing that we surely know about our universe is that the chance of our existence has collapsed from one in (large number) to unity.
> I am fascinated by the idea that nothing exists without cause. I do not believe that, but can't put my finger on why. I'm following my rule of thumb that there may be things beyond our understanding. cn


I believe I read an article not too long ago about a test done at the HydronCollidor in Europe (however it's spelled) anyways that had two particles collide and the output was something that has never been witnessed before, infact it went against our known laws of physics. Since this one incedent they haven't been able to replicate the results but are still trying some say it may just be faulty machinery either way I agree there is WAY more than we know, we've got a long way to go.


----------



## cannabineer (May 1, 2012)

SirLancelot said:


> I believe I read an article not too long ago about a test done at the HydronCollidor in Europe (however it's spelled) anyways that had two particles collide and the output was something that has never been witnessed before, infact it went against our known laws of physics. Since this one incedent they haven't been able to replicate the results but are still trying some say it may just be faulty machinery either way I agree there is WAY more than we know, we've got a long way to go.


If you're referring to the superluminal neutrino result ... yah. I half-remember that one was laid to rest with an equipment issue being at he root of the impossible numbers. cn


----------



## Doer (May 1, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> But what if Self is not a special thing (y'know, soul) but rather a condition of the thinking meat? Perhaps nothing beyond physics and chemistry need be invoked to make a complete person. I worry that seeking the nature of Self is a blind alley strongly suggested by our neurochemical makeup ... but ultimately empty. It's an awesomely self-referent, self-defined problem ... what if our sense of self blocks us from asking the _right _questions about self? cn


Ultimately correct. We are our own worse and only enemy. I recently proposed a neurochemical answer to the Eternity after death concept. Did you catch that post? 

I might also add the reward for the experience of Self in Now unfolds in it's course. It is self evident and self fulfilling. A unique experience. Without the commentary track of chatter that induces sense of duration, after a while, an emerging perspective takes hold. Each little tiny glimpse adds up. So, I would not suggest seeking, rather finding the hidden facet of Self. It turns easily into the actual sense of Self, simply for the broadness of these aspects of Now.

And I'm not seeking any other knowledge but Now. So not talking about life after death. I'm talking about merging deep into the quantum entangled stillness of Now to perceive additional Knowledge of Self. Hard to explain. Real to experience.

If the perception of Self can be larger and awesomely self-referent it's better than not so much, right? And I don't see myself missing any boats of redemption otherwise, do you? We have always somehow perceived there is something more.....Self still Now, I say is worth some exploring. Not the question, the answer.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (May 2, 2012)

So are you trying to say, that becoming aware of Self and Now gives you knowledge about yourself? (ex. who you are, why you think they way you think etc.) Or are you saying that this will give us hidden knowledge about things outside of ourselves? (ex. what happens when you die, is there a god etc.)

If it's the first one, i would have to completely agree.

If it's the second one, i would have to ask myself... how do i know im not making these answers up? Especially when all i have to go on is my emotions and feelings, not evidence or facts.


----------



## Doer (May 2, 2012)

Zaehet Strife said:


> So are you trying to say, that becoming aware of Self and Now gives you knowledge about yourself? (ex. who you are, why you think they way you think etc.) Or are you saying that this will give us hidden knowledge about things outside of ourselves? (ex. what happens when you die, is there a god etc.)
> 
> If it's the first one, i would have to completely agree.
> 
> If it's the second one, i would have to ask myself... how do i know im not making these answers up? Especially when all i have to go on is my emotions and feelings, not evidence or facts.


I'm offering my experience. I have perhaps managed to get a point where eyes open or closed, still or not I Know there is more to Consciousness of Self than the yack-yack mind will allow. Mr. Mind seem offended that I would want some peace. Ah, so I'm on the right track. 

I am not proposing any dogma or explanation beyond that, I can say it seems to me that it is an experience of extra, but not necessarily exterior, perception, and, the experience is completely uncategorized by language. So, to attribute any meaning would be dogma. But, please allow this fine point. It's not information about myself, no psychological "working on myself." It's a self directed shift of my understanding of Identity. Just the experience does the shifting.

Once words are left behind, concepts are meaningless. The Knowledge of Self. What does that even mean? Assigning meaning is my definition of dogma.

Are you familiar with the Plato's Cave conjecture? That's a pretty close analogy. I see it very simply. We can perceive in another "direction" with Minds eye. We can perceive, wordlessly, another part of Self. We have it, we don't use it,. Does that help me? I say it does. How?...that would be dogma. That's it. No fairy tales, no promises. We make of it what we will, or not.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (May 2, 2012)

It just seems to me... that whenever i talk to mystics or fanatics of spirituality, they all come up with the same concept. That we are really some sort of light beings/individual entities of consciousness, and that when we die we continue to exist but just get transferred into another "vehicle" for experience, and which vehicle we are given is dictated by the "good/bad" things that we do.

They claim this as truth, and to me that is the epitome of ego. 

It seems to me like they really struggle with the thought of ceasing to exist.

Actually i wrote a paper a year ago for my colledge philosophy class about the alagory of the cave, let me find it, ill post it up, i think its really good.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (May 2, 2012)

The allegory of the cave has intrigued students of plato since it first appeared. Do you think it fairly expresses the way we experience knowledge? for instance, in childhood, everything is black and white, but with experience, we discover rich nuances and hues, as it were. what level are you on? society in general? the world? explain. Do you believe in levels of reality? in enlightenment? why or why not?

I think the way Plato describes the allegory of the cave as being one of the best ways to describe how humans learn to experience things through sense perception. You start out in the cave as a child, knowing nothing but what you can hear, see, smell, taste and touch. You can only see shadows on the wall in front of you, hear the shadows owners seem to speak. I think that is saying that as we are young we tend to see things very simply. We are easily manipulated and very gullible. We see only the shadows of what we think may be the truth, only the glimpses. I think hes trying to tell us that we are who we make ourselves to be, but we our knowledge is limited depending on the experiences life takes us through from the time we are born until the time we die.

Plato describes four different levels of reality. So i would like to describe what each level means to me personally.

D. Those chained to the wall of shadows are imprisoned in the shadowy world of imagination and illusion.

I think this level is describes the most basic human beings in existence. People who have chained themselves to the unmoving walls of what they believe is real without ever asking themselves where the light comes from. They fear change almost as much as they fear the unknown. Not wanting to be free they bind themselves to the safest possible way of life. Is this way of life good or bad? As we all know, what is good and what is bad is based on everyone's own individual perception. In my opinion it is neither a bad, nor good way to live. It is to me, a very sad and lonely way to live.

C. Those loose within the cave occupy the "common sense" world of perception and informed opinion.

This level to me describes human beings that are started to wonder if there is something outside of the cave. They are wondering what is making that light, and where the sounds are coming from. People who have broken the chains of forced knowledge and have started to roam in the cave of illusion. These people are starting to ask themselves why there are here and wondering if there is a way out. Blind, lost and in the dark, confused and disoriented from the echoes of truth and lie they wander aimlessly waiting for a guide or a sign to show them the way out.

B. Those struggling through the passageway to the surface are acquiring knowledge through reason.

Human beings who have seen a gimps of the light and are making their way toward the mouth of the cave. To me these people have pried there eyes open and gritted their teeth as they let the burning sunlight sting their eyes for the first time. Not many make past this point, or even to this point. As the rays hit the open slits of your eyes many cant bear the pain and clamp their eyelids shut. Fear and pain holds them back, but some force their eyes open to the truth. This level to me is the true beginning to self realization. To push further, to accept the pain and fear as they try to escape from the their prison.

A. The rich surface world of warmth and sunlight is the highest level of reality, directly grasped by pure intelligence.

The highest point in life you can get. The completion of self realization. This level describes humans as being "enlightened". People who have chosen truth, logic, reason, knowledge and wisdom. Gaining the ability to think with reason instead of fear, this group of people are in my opinion the elite human beings. Don't get this confused with being "better" than other humans because that is not what i am trying to portray. These are a group of people who have no little or no attachment to the physical world, choosing to fill their lives with improving the self and the mind. As they walk along the land of truth they contemplate, doubt and question everything their senses can touch, and give thanks to everything in existence, be it good or bad.

I think that there are different levels of reality, and that each and everyone of us are on a different one all depending on where our perspectives lie. That we can change levels depending on what situation we are in or what experiences we have been through. I also think that something very drastic has to happen in our lives for us to discard our chains of faith, open our eyes, escape the cave... and accept the truth of absurdity.


----------



## Doer (May 2, 2012)

Zaehet Strife said:


> It just seems to me... that whenever i talk to mystics or fanatics of spirituality, they all come up with the same concept. That we are really some sort of light beings/individual entities of consciousness, and that when we die we continue to exist but just get transferred into another "vehicle" for experience, and which vehicle we are given is dictated by the "good/bad" things that we do.
> 
> They claim this as truth, and to me that is the epitome of ego.
> 
> ...


Oh yes, the push to explain is almost overwhelming. That's why I say religious analogies abound, but let's not go there. You understand I've never proposed this or any dogmatic explanation. Nothing of the past or future, only my experience of Now.

So, perhaps there are even more levels to the Cave analogy but we can't know until we get to the Surface. To me the surface
is the interface where talking internally naturally drifts off, perhaps doesn't stop, but "I" pay no attention. My valuable
coin of attention is elsewhere.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (May 2, 2012)

This i can understand Doer^


----------



## ginjawarrior (May 2, 2012)

Zaehet Strife said:


> This i can understand Doer^


really? i thought he was sounding alot like eye exaggerate there


----------



## Doer (May 2, 2012)

ginjawarrior said:


> really? i thought he was sounding alot like eye exaggerate there


I'll take that as a compliment, thank you very much.  But, if you really don't see the difference then perhaps
there isn't one....for you.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (May 2, 2012)

ginjawarrior said:


> really? i thought he was sounding alot like eye exaggerate there


I understand the fact that he has never said anything dogmatic like, for example hes never said anything about being spiritual or life after death or anything like that.


----------



## ginjawarrior (May 2, 2012)

Doer said:


> I'll take that as a compliment, thank you very much.  But, if you really don't see the difference then perhaps
> there isn't one....for you.


i see the premises about higher/ quantum consciousness to be very similar to what eye exaggerate believes the end conclusion might be slightly different but the building blocks look the same 



Zaehet Strife said:


> I understand the fact that he has never said anything dogmatic like, for example hes never said anything about being spiritual or life after death or anything like that.


lol he might have taken a great effort not to mention the words but all the hallmarks are there from what i see


----------



## Doer (May 2, 2012)

ginjawarrior said:


> i see the premises about higher/ quantum consciousness to be very similar to what eye exaggerate believes the end conclusion might be slightly different but the building blocks look the same
> 
> 
> 
> lol he might have taken a great effort not to mention the words but all the hallmarks are there from what i see


Well, I'm not making premises or conclusions. If you don't see the distinction and think I'm carefully crawling around to propose anything, well, I have nothing to propose. I'm not asking for faith or for you to believe in what I say. It matters not to anyone to anyone, I hope, what you surmise or suspect, and certainly not to me. And it is quite the problem with words and why I choose to describe my perceptions the way I do. It's an attempt to submit raw experience only, not playing silly buggers with emotional manipulations or artsy analogies (not that there is anything wrong with that) I think it is a universal experience. I think a lot of confusing explains have been written, perhaps about this, but I set that all aside. I attempt to suspend belief. If someone leaps then, to what it seems to them, well, that's the problem with words. 

Wasn't Paul Simon that sang this? "A man hears what he wants hear and disregards the rest." Nothing wrong with that. You do realize I never said "higher" or placed a postional value at all, on my perception. Your words.


----------



## ginjawarrior (May 2, 2012)

Doer said:


> I just want to emphasis the need for utter completeness in this view of Now.
> 
> It requires a rather large shift of the definition of "I" and therefore identity itself.
> The human body is not I.
> ...





Doer said:


> Ultimately correct. We are our own worse and only enemy. I recently proposed a neurochemical answer to the Eternity after death concept. Did you catch that post?
> 
> I might also add the reward for the experience of Self in Now unfolds in it's course. It is self evident and self fulfilling. A unique experience. Without the commentary track of chatter that induces sense of duration, after a while, an emerging perspective takes hold. Each little tiny glimpse adds up. So, I would not suggest seeking, rather finding the hidden facet of Self. It turns easily into the actual sense of Self, simply for the broadness of these aspects of Now.
> 
> ...





Doer said:


> I'm offering my experience. I have perhaps managed to get a point where eyes open or closed, still or not I Know there is more to Consciousness of Self than the yack-yack mind will allow. Mr. Mind seem offended that I would want some peace. Ah, so I'm on the right track.
> 
> I am not proposing any dogma or explanation beyond that, I can say it seems to me that it is an experience of extra, but not necessarily exterior, perception, and, the experience is completely uncategorized by language. So, to attribute any meaning would be dogma. But, please allow this fine point. It's not information about myself, no psychological "working on myself." It's a self directed shift of my understanding of Identity. Just the experience does the shifting.
> 
> ...





Doer said:


> Well, I'm not making premises or conclusions. If you don't see the distinction and think I'm carefully crawling around to propose anything, well, I have nothing to propose. I'm not asking for faith or for you to believe in what I say. It matters not to anyone to anyone, I hope, what you surmise or suspect, and certainly not to me. And it is quite the problem with words and why I choose to describe my perceptions the way I do. It's an attempt to submit raw experience only, not playing silly buggers with emotional manipulations or artsy analogies (not that there is anything wrong with that) I think it is a universal experience. I think a lot of confusing explains have been written, perhaps about this, but I set that all aside. I attempt to suspend belief. If someone leaps then, to what it seems to them, well, that's the problem with words.
> 
> Wasn't Paul Simon that sang this? "A man hears what he wants hear and disregards the rest." Nothing wrong with that. You do realize I never said "higher" or placed a postional value at all, on my perception. Your words.


hmm ok your right there isnt "higher" uttered. wheres the part that didnt sound to be woo tho?


----------



## Doer (May 2, 2012)

"woo"? sounds to who, you? If it seems like something to you, I'm having a hard time understanding just what that is or which parts might not be.


----------



## ginjawarrior (May 2, 2012)

Doer said:


> "woo"? sounds to who, you? If it seems like something to you, I'm having a hard time understanding just what that is or which parts might not be.


http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Woo
Woo most always contains most of the following characteristics: 


A simple idea that purports to be the one answer to many problems (often including diseases)
A "scientific-sounding" reason for how it works, but little to no actual science behind it, quote mines of studies that if bent enough could be described in such a way to support it, or outright misapplication of studies.
It involves the supernatural and paranormal (not necessarily)
A claim of persecution, usually perpetrated by the pharmaceutical, medical, or scientific community
An invocation of a scientific authority
Lack of scientific research, but abundant testimonials
A claim that scientists are blind to the discovery, despite attempts to alert them
A disdain for objective, randomized experimental controls, especially double-blind testing
And, usually, an offer to share the knowledge for a price.

in you attempt to not sound spiritualistic/ religious you left me in a deal of confusion as to what you mean as well.


----------



## Heisenberg (May 2, 2012)

I think when our discussions do not pretend to contain answers, but rather interpretations, then the subject doesn't really matter. If it's simply a naked expression of what is in your brain, then it's nothing more than an attempt to describe the world. If actual woo took this stance, well most of it wouldn't exist.

If someone says, 'this is what I think and I don't expect it to mean anything to anyone but me', what more could you ask for?


----------



## Doer (May 2, 2012)

ginjawarrior said:


> http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Woo
> Woo most always contains most of the following characteristics:
> 
> 
> ...


Hmmm...seriously, I've never heard of that. But, I don't get out much.  This is meaningful to me that you have the reaction. I have to admit from the list, I'm having a hard time understanding just when I swerved into "woo" (funny word) Can you point a particular number and reference.

I assure you, I'm not attempting to do more than describe as baldly as possible. But, should I just say xyr2 or some variable placeholder that has no significance or meaning? Isn't that Scientology for example? Looks like woo, quacks like woo, must be woo.
Is that what you mean? For the largest scale items I place my words as plainly as possible but you may be substituting more charged words or building extra charge into my words, perhaps because of this definition. I'm only asking you to consider that.

I do find the reaction quite interesting. I would like to see why it creates a great deal of confusion? Do you subscribe to the idea there is nothing besides the inner dialog in here? Is it my fault all the good words are taken and abused?


----------



## abandonconflict (May 2, 2012)

Doer said:


> *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I suggest you familiarize yourself with his story.

First off, Tillman didn't get the CMoH. Secondly, he had an appointment to speak with Noam Chomsky upon his return and he was very critical of Dubya. This made him extremely unpopular in a unit where in order to join, you have to complete a qualification called Ranger Indoctrination Program. His diary still hasn't turned up. The army killed it's poster boy because he was going to tell the country the type of BS they were stirring up. He was an outspoken critic of the Iraq invasion and would have been a very effective anti-war activist.

The first official story was that he died heroically fighting the enemy, at the hands of the enemy. At this time, authorities already knew it was a lie. Stanley McChrystal knew it was a lie when he wrote the citation on his silver star that he was a hero.

The current official story is that it was an accident, subsequently, the same officials who pushed both stories have admitted that it may have been a murder.

He was an atheist though. So was I when I was there. There are plenty of atheists in fox holes.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (May 2, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> I think when our discussions do not pretend to contain answers, but rather interpretations, then the subject doesn't really matter. If it's simply a naked expression of what is in your brain, then it's nothing more than an attempt to describe the world. If actual woo took this stance, well most of it wouldn't exist.
> 
> If someone says, 'this is what I think and I don't expect it to mean anything to anyone but me', what more could you ask for?


I pretty much took this stance with Doer already, this is what he thinks and he doesn't really expect anyone to understand but him...accept if you do something that you cant really explain how to do, you can think the same exact way.


----------



## Doer (May 2, 2012)

abandonconflict said:


> I suggest you familiarize yourself with his story.
> 
> First off, Tillman didn't get the CMoH. Secondly, he had an appointment to speak with Noam Chomsky upon his return and he was very critical of Dubya. This made him extremely unpopular in a unit where in order to join, you have to complete a qualification called Ranger Indoctrination Program. His diary still hasn't turned up. The army killed it's poster boy because he was going to tell the country the type of BS they were stirring up. He was an outspoken critic of the Iraq invasion and would have been a very effective anti-war activist.
> 
> ...


Just remembering what I saw in the documentary. My point was if atheists are too outspoken they better chose carefully their foxholes. And this version just says that out-speakers against the Green Machine are even more in danger. Didn't mean to offend. It was sorta a lame joke, IAC, sorry.


----------



## abandonconflict (May 2, 2012)

Doer said:


> Just remembering what I saw in the documentary. My point was if atheists are too outspoken they better chose carefully their foxholes. And this version just says that out-speakers against the Green Machine are even more in danger. Didn't mean to offend. It was sorta a lame joke, IAC, sorry.


It's all good, I'm not surprised that religious groups have seized upon the story to push propaganda just like the army did.


----------



## james76208 (May 2, 2012)

so what if your not religious but believe in ghost


----------



## Doer (May 2, 2012)

james76208 said:


> so what if your not religious but believe in ghost


So, what if you do? Religion doesn't own the rights to Ghosts. Not really really sure what you mean.


----------



## skunkd0c (May 2, 2012)

i gave up on the debate as to weather god exists or not many years ago, i decided that since i will not follow a god or be subordinate willingly to such an entity
the existence of god is irrelevant from my standpoint 
to be created for the purpose of worshiping another to the point of obedience does not appeal to me 

i feel that religiously minded people are those that tend to have subordinate personalities 
they do not question the nature of things, and fear death a little too much 
religion or god gives them the idea they have someone other than themselves looking out for them 
and gives them some kind of insurance policy against death with the promise of heaven and such things 
it's a lovely idea, but not the reality i know 

peace


----------



## overgrowem (May 2, 2012)

Numbers 1 and 2 0f post#1 seem to describe conservative Christians and Evangelicals better than atheists.


----------



## robert 14617 (May 3, 2012)

pens vid sold me , i am an atheist , all the way until you can prove otherwise


----------



## robert 14617 (May 3, 2012)

james76208 said:


> so what if your not religious but believe in ghost


gullible...............?


----------



## Doer (May 3, 2012)

Zaehet Strife said:


> I pretty much took this stance with Doer already, this is what he thinks and he doesn't really expect anyone to understand but him...accept if you do something that you cant really explain how to do, you can think the same exact way.


Not exactly since we are talking about what is here with us right now, perhaps right next to thought but begins when the attention turns from the inner thoughts. I can explain how I practice, don't get me wrong. But, this is a tough crowd. I get accused of "woo" but then can't find out where I went into it. I hope I stay away from it. But, to offer any advice or explanation of how to get Peace FROM Mind....let's just say that it not a casual idea to be debated. That's religion, theology, woo, etc.

I have been trained and I have practiced for many decades. So, I know it's a nit, but what I try to do for the vaguely interested is to describe as mildly as I can, that there is more to consciousness, to me, than they might suspected and how that relates to Now. Yet, still, it might seem like peddling woo. 

So, I would not like it if you thought like me. Nor would I suggest my path. It's a strange and rocky road. I mean if everyone is caught in the roar of thinking and one person is trying to relieve themselves from that tyranny, I could not begin to suggest how to practice or how to start looking. Or if you even should. Not needed, it seems to me.

BELIEF ALERT - perhaps by just considering the idea, ones own Self can lead.


----------



## ginjawarrior (May 3, 2012)

Doer said:


> Hmmm...seriously, I've never heard of that. But, I don't get out much.  This is meaningful to me that you have the reaction. I have to admit from the list, I'm having a hard time understanding just when I swerved into "woo" (funny word) Can you point a particular number and reference.
> 
> I assure you, I'm not attempting to do more than describe as baldly as possible. But, should I just say xyr2 or some variable placeholder that has no significance or meaning? Isn't that Scientology for example? Looks like woo, quacks like woo, must be woo.
> Is that what you mean? For the largest scale items I place my words as plainly as possible but you may be substituting more charged words or building extra charge into my words, perhaps because of this definition. I'm only asking you to consider that.
> ...


im of the idea that my conscious thought is just a small part of what makes me me the mammoth portion goes to my subconscious mind which as cannabineer said was thinking meat, a process of chemical reactions which guides my body and shaped the thoughts of my conscious mind.

out of that list i'd say you were a
3


Doer said:


> If we can perceive Now that extends beyond existence even, without causality, then there IT is.





Doer said:


> I just want to emphasis the need for utter completeness in this view of Now.
> 
> It requires a rather large shift of the definition of "I" and therefore identity itself.
> The human body is not I.
> ...


and extra marks on this one for getting quantum (strong mark of woo not in list) in this one


Doer said:


> And I'm not seeking any other knowledge but Now. So not talking about life after death. I'm talking about merging deep into the quantum entangled stillness of Now to perceive additional Knowledge of Self. Hard to explain. Real to experience.


its not out and out hardline woo but with just a few tweaks it would be indistinguishable from the heavy woo


dont get me wrong i think the power of our subconscious mind is highly underestimated by most people. they don't realise that nearly everything that they do which is a learned ability is carried out by the subconscious (your not good at something if you have to think about what your doing while doing it) and that techniques to shut off the internal chatter of the conscious mind could be beneficial for alot of people its just the 
"quantum" and "The human body is not I. The brain is not I." brings up the alarm bells of woo

i liked this look at the subconscious
[youtube]LM_iiPFkNas[/youtube]


----------



## ginjawarrior (May 3, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> I think when our discussions do not pretend to contain answers, but rather interpretations, then the subject doesn't really matter. If it's simply a naked expression of what is in your brain, then it's nothing more than an attempt to describe the world. If actual woo took this stance, well most of it wouldn't exist.
> 
> If someone says, 'this is what I think and I don't expect it to mean anything to anyone but me', what more could you ask for?


i wasn't trying to ask for anything really i just saw similarities between the ideas and pointed them out. perhaps the tone came across slightly different from intended


----------



## overgrowem (May 3, 2012)

robert 14617 said:


> gullible...............?


Ghosts exist I've seen at least 3. The first was hard to spot,#2 was easier and #3 made himself known to me.One way to experience a ghost is go to a fire where an old wood frame building is burning but not to far gone. If there is a ghost (often is) he will be forced out, will be PISSED and will let U know it...


----------



## Doer (May 3, 2012)

Ginga fair enough i see the swerves now. 
A few tweaks and no woo 
nothing even similar 
no need to upset anyone
Thanks


----------



## tyler.durden (May 3, 2012)

overgrowem said:


> Ghosts exist I've seen at least 3. The first was hard to spot,#2 was easier and #3 made himself known to me.One way to experience a ghost is go to a fire where an old wood frame building is burning but not to far gone. If there is a ghost (often is) he will be forced out, will be PISSED and will let U know it...



...........


----------



## ginjawarrior (May 3, 2012)

Doer said:


> Ginga fair enough i see the swerves now.
> A few tweaks and no woo
> nothing even similar
> no need to upset anyone
> Thanks


lol while i enjoy being contentious i rarely get upset by it


----------



## Doer (May 3, 2012)

ginjawarrior said:


> lol while i enjoy being contentious i rarely get upset by it


No, sorry, I didn't mean you. I was typing from my silly iPhone. Now, at a real keyboard I say that upset was the shorthand for confused and made to think of woo. Don't want that, not pushing that. But it does seem interesting that
a real experience exposed to language can come out sounding woo. And then there is the chicken and egg question.

But, may I be allowed some license since the thread is about Atheists and God, Religion and such? You see the conundrum about describing a subjective experience? For some, not you probably, just saying that it is subjective is enough for dismissal. 

Aren't Christian and Atheist somewhat alike here? They both insist their's is the Objective experience.


----------



## tyler.durden (May 3, 2012)

Doer said:


> No, sorry, I didn't mean you. I was typing from my silly iPhone. Now, at a real keyboard I say that upset was the shorthand for confused and made to think of woo. Don't want that, not pushing that. But it does seem interesting that
> a real experience exposed to language can come out sounding woo. And then there is the chicken and egg question.
> 
> But, may I be allowed some license since the thread is about Atheists and God, Religion and such? You see the conundrum about describing a subjective experience? For some, not you probably, just saying that it is subjective is enough for dismissal.
> ...


*
*
All experiences are subjective, as all data we receive is processed through our own filters, preferences and biases. and I don't think that most atheists here are insisting that their experience is objective. I think we're touting a better methodology to get to the closest approximation of true objective reality. Skepticism, critical thinking, science, etc.. These methods are superior to religious dogma, and other unsupported forms of woo, in getting to the closest approximation of reality imho. Even with these shared methodologies leading to the same conclusions, each atheist here will experience the reality of that knowledge subjectively. 

There's nothing wrong with speaking about any subjective experiences, as long as we don't present it as objective reality without adequate support. I don't think you were doing that. It seems like you were relating your subjective experience without presenting it as anything more...


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (May 3, 2012)

overgrowem said:


> Ghosts exist I've seen at least 3. The first was hard to spot,#2 was easier and #3 made himself known to me.One way to experience a ghost is go to a fire where an old wood frame building is burning but not to far gone. If there is a ghost (often is) he will be forced out, will be PISSED and will let U know it...


Burning down buildings is not the way to prove ghosts, but if I see a burning building I'll be sure to keep my eye out for pissed off spirits... I find it funny that all the hardcore atheists never had a supernatural experience, or if they have then they convince themselves there just seeing things because what they seen contradicts their die-hard beliefs... Maybe theres some kinda rule where ghosts arent suppose to expose themselves to narrow minded shit heads because it would prove something that they should of figured out on their own lol who knows though, I guess their needed in this world to a certain extent.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (May 3, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Burning down buildings is not the way to prove ghosts, but if I see a burning building I'll be sure to keep my eye out for pissed off spirits... I find it funny that all the hardcore atheists never had a supernatural experience, or if they have then they convince themselves there just seeing things because what they seen contradicts their die-hard beliefs... Maybe theres some kinda rule where ghosts arent suppose to expose themselves to narrow minded shit heads because it would prove something that they should of figured out on their own lol who knows though, I guess their needed in this world to a certain extent.


All PEOPLE have never had a supernatural experience. Your perception, preconceived notions (all the movies you've seen, stories you've heard), and personal bias lead you to believe what you might have experienced was a ghost. That's it. People who experience what they think are ghosts aren't stupid or crazy, they just aren't aware of or can't accept the explanation. It isn't enough, people *want *to think they've seen a ghost. Just look at your own post, it's screaming "I've seen a ghost and stupid dumb stupid atheists haven't, they're dumb, that makes me spiritually superior!". 

Yet again, _we're_ the closed minded ones... 

The idea of ghosts is so logically absurd it's not even worth explaining, and if you took more than a moment to actually consider all the implications that come along with ghosts existing, you would realize that. 

What would be the point of a ghost? Why wouldn't it go to Heaven or Hell, assuming the soul exists, which would be the 'ghost'? 

I bet your ghost was wearing clothes too, huh? How do you explain that? What, the guys clothes died along with him? 


Have you ever seen _1408_? I'm John Cusack's character, your ghost stories don't impress me, buddy..


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (May 3, 2012)

Padawanbater2 said:


> All PEOPLE have never had a supernatural experience. Your perception, preconceived notions (all the movies you've seen, stories you've heard), and personal bias lead you to believe what you might have experienced was a ghost. That's it. People who experience what they think are ghosts aren't stupid or crazy, they just aren't aware of or can't accept the explanation. It isn't enough, people *want *to think they've seen a ghost. Just look at your own post, it's screaming "I've seen a ghost and stupid dumb stupid atheists haven't, they're dumb, that makes me spiritually superior!".
> 
> Yet again, _we're_ the closed minded ones...
> 
> ...


That top paragraph is a perfect example of people trying to rationalize the supernatural lol thank you for posting an example =)


----------



## cannofbliss (May 3, 2012)

Padawanbater2 said:


> All PEOPLE have never had a supernatural experience. Your perception, preconceived notions (all the movies you've seen, stories you've heard), and personal bias lead you to believe what you might have experienced was a ghost. That's it. People who experience what they think are ghosts aren't stupid or crazy, they just aren't aware of or can't accept the explanation. It isn't enough, people *want *to think they've seen a ghost. Just look at your own post, it's screaming "I've seen a ghost and stupid dumb stupid atheists haven't, they're dumb, that makes me spiritually superior!".
> 
> Yet again, _we're_ the closed minded ones...
> 
> ...




your post was clear, concise, logical, and full of good sense...

unfortunately... something tells me that logic and reason, sadly doesn't work when communicating to the religious or the superstitious...


----------



## cannofbliss (May 3, 2012)

what does (insert your favorite deity here) need with a starship???

had to find two vids to complete the scene here for all you trekkies...  

[video=youtube;QkT1-N0VqUc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkT1-N0VqUc[/video]


----------



## cannofbliss (May 3, 2012)

then second part here...

[video=youtube;vweSLmSgO-k]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vweSLmSgO-k&amp;feature=related[/video]


----------



## cannofbliss (May 3, 2012)

THEN just replace the word "starship" with YOU thats right the religious the superstitious...

what does a supposed "all powerful being" need with you so "you" may "carry its wisdom"...

AND it turns out that the "supposedly all powerful" being depicted here IS ACTUALLY YOU... IN YOUR MIND so you view yourself as "carrying the so called "power of superiority... and then you the religious act "in violence" to anyone who doubts your beliefs"...

you are the ones that "think you are acting in "said deity's" will when in FACT its just your OWN will...

mull that one over why dont ya???


----------



## Padawanbater2 (May 3, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> That top paragraph is a perfect example of people trying to rationalize the supernatural lol thank you for posting an example =)


Supernatural - happens OUTSIDE of nature. Nature encompasses all of existence, so please, tell me, what was your supernatural experience?


----------



## overgrowem (May 3, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Burning down buildings is not the way to prove ghosts, but if I see a burning building I'll be sure to keep my eye out for pissed off spirits... I find it funny that all the hardcore atheists never had a supernatural experience, or if they have then they convince themselves there just seeing things because what they seen contradicts their die-hard beliefs... Maybe theres some kinda rule where ghosts arent suppose to expose themselves to narrow minded shit heads because it would prove something that they should of figured out on their own lol who knows though, I guess their needed in this world to a certain extent.


.....Don't burn a building, U might become the target of a ghosts rage.A rage that could become a life threatening situation to anyone nearby.I saw this first hand.Your idea that ghosts don't expose themselves to jerks may have merit.When a ghost revealed himself (communicated with) to me I was just the person at that place at that time,but I was in the prosses of doing a kind deed .That may be why the ghost came forward?...Looks like some good thinking on your part....


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (May 3, 2012)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Supernatural - happens OUTSIDE of nature. Nature encompasses all of existence, so please, tell me, what was your supernatural experience?


Well I had more than a few, the main ones dont have to do with ghosts but it is of that nature I guess. Its not like telling you of such things is going to convince of anything, its just going to further confirm your opinion of me, which is BAT-SHIT-CRAZY lol.


----------



## overgrowem (May 3, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> That top paragraph is a perfect example of people trying to rationalize the supernatural lol thank you for posting an example =)


...This guy is a poster child for your thoughts....


----------



## Heisenberg (May 3, 2012)

[video=youtube;9L2lDHNmRFw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9L2lDHNmRFw[/video]


----------



## Padawanbater2 (May 3, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Well I had more than a few, the main ones dont have to do with ghosts but it is of that nature I guess. Its not like telling you of such things is going to convince of anything, its just going to further confirm your opinion of me, which is BAT-SHIT-CRAZY lol.


I just said people who see ghosts aren't stupid or crazy, they're just unaware or ignorant of what's really going on. 

I was asking so I could identify the flaw(s) in your reasoning which led you to believe you experienced a supernatural event.


----------



## overgrowem (May 3, 2012)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Supernatural - happens OUTSIDE of nature. Nature encompasses all of existence, so please, tell me, what was your supernatural experience?


....Why do ghosts have to be in the realm of Religion or known nature(what we know evertthing?)I would be one of the first to say there may be things undiscovered in physics..We suspected electricity for centuries,but only got a handle on it 120 or so years ago...


----------



## Padawanbater2 (May 3, 2012)

overgrowem said:


> ....Why do ghosts have to be in the realm of Religion or nature(what we know evertthing?)I would be one of the first to say there may be things undiscovered in physics..We suspected electricity for centuries,but got a handle on it 120 or so years ago...


What would be the purpose of a ghost?

How do you define ghost?


----------



## overgrowem (May 3, 2012)

Padawanbater2 said:


> I just said people who see ghosts aren't stupid or crazy, they're just unaware or ignorant of what's really going on.
> 
> I was asking so I could identify the flaw(s) in your reasoning which led you to believe you experienced a supernatural event.


..How about the Govs. remote seers who have located downed aircraft on the other side of the world,or accuratly drawn military facilities in Siberia?Rare,yes,but the odds are beyond astronomical....


----------



## tyler.durden (May 3, 2012)

overgrowem said:


> ..How about the Govs. remote seers who have located downed aircraft on the other side of the world,or accuratly drawn military facilities in Siberia?Rare,yes,but the odds are beyond astronomical....


Links please...


----------



## overgrowem (May 3, 2012)

Padawanbater2 said:


> What would be the purpose of a ghost?
> 
> How do you define ghost?


Why does a ghost need a purpose?Can't he be more like a remnant.....Define ghost...Way above my pay grade.1000 people would give 1000 definitions. I do believe ghosts have or are energy,which waxes and wanes.How Idon't know.


----------



## overgrowem (May 3, 2012)

tyler.durden said:


> Links please...


 Sorry no links google them and U might get something.the Ruskies used them first,We then started during ,I believe,the Clinton era(maybe before).There were a few jaw dropping sucesses reported,who knows what was stamped secret.Disbanded after 3 or 4 years.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (May 3, 2012)

overgrowem said:


> Why does a ghost need a purpose?Can't he be more like a remnant.....Define ghost...Way above my pay grade.1000 people would give 1000 definitions. I do believe ghosts have or are energy,which waxes and wanes.How Idon't know.


The first step is defining what you mean by 'ghost', because like you said, you get very inconsistent definitions when you talk to people about these kinds of things. How can we say something exists without previously having defined what it is and what would be the purpose of speculating that it does exist without having first defined it? 

Without a definition we can't take step 2.


----------



## Heisenberg (May 3, 2012)

overgrowem said:


> Sorry no links google them and U might get something.the Ruskies used them first,We then started during ,I believe,the Clinton era(maybe before).There were a few jaw dropping sucesses reported,who knows what was stamped secret.Disbanded after 3 or 4 years.


It kinda hard to listen evidence such as crash sites being located across the world, if that evidence is kept secret. Is there anything that would distinguish this claim from fantasy?

Remote viewing would be extremely simple to demonstrate and prove. We simply place an object or a written note some place isolated and the viewer tells us what he sees. In fact, a number of magicians and skeptics do that very thing. They keep an object hidden in a safe place, and ask remote viewers to identify it. Several of them offer a reward for the correct answer, and there is always the JREF million dollar prize.

So considering that remote viewing would be extremely simple and very lucrative to test, no one has shown even the slightest ability. It would seem rather strange for this to be so if remote viewing were true.


----------



## tyler.durden (May 3, 2012)

overgrowem said:


> Sorry no links google them and U might get something.the Ruskies used them first,We then started during ,I believe,the Clinton era(maybe before).There were a few jaw dropping sucesses reported,who knows what was stamped secret.Disbanded after 3 or 4 years.


All I can find is kookie sites and rational people calling bullshit. I can't find anything where either gov.t confirms such findings. Usually when one makes a extraordinary claim here, they support it with links to legitimate sites as a courtesy. Otherwise it could easily be dismissed as woo...


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (May 3, 2012)

Padawanbater2 said:


> I just said people who see ghosts aren't stupid or crazy, they're just unaware or ignorant of what's really going on.
> 
> I was asking so I could identify the flaw(s) in your reasoning which led you to believe you experienced a supernatural event.


I told Doer (think thats his name) of my spiritually gifted friend and his mind reading abilities, I already abolished his explanation of micro-expressions that many con-artists use to trick people. I told this story too many times on here already, only about three times but still its a long story. Basically the short story is that this kid who I thought was fucking bonkers answered a question that I THOUGHT of on a silent walk to get some weed. On the walk back I was freakin out that this kid was able to read my mind (I looked composed though) and so my anxiety lead me to shameful thoughts that I didnt want him knowing and by me thinking those shameful thoughts I knew that he knew those thoughts so my mind became panicked. Near the end of that silent walk he turned to me and said "your faults are what define you, they are the diamond of your being". Those words put me at ease because theres almost no judgement to this guy... Unless your christian, then he hates you.
I no longer thought of him as a nutcase and communicated with him through thought on multiple occasion, cant hear his thoughts though. I've experienced more than mind reading with him, mind reading is not even that impressive after I experienced what else he could do. I tried my best to get him to make this knowledge public but he doesnt want the attention I guess, just willing to spread his knowledge to a select few. 
Well if you didnt think I was crazy before, I bet you do now xD


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (May 3, 2012)

Calling me crazy or a liar is really the only way to dismiss these events.


----------



## ginjawarrior (May 3, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Calling me crazy or a liar is really the only way to dismiss these events.


i do believe there is the third option of "dribbling idiot"

but all fun and games aside your accession awaits collect your uniform from the table on the left and move into the holding area where we will be serving refreshments to rdy ourselves for the final step to the dimensions beyond


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (May 3, 2012)

overgrowem said:


> Sorry no links google them and U might get something.the Ruskies used them first,We then started during ,I believe,the Clinton era(maybe before).There were a few jaw dropping sucesses reported,who knows what was stamped secret.Disbanded after 3 or 4 years.


You will soon find out that this is not the place to talk about spiritual stuff, its really a place where these guys tell you that your beliefs are irrational and they take pride in thoroughly explaining why it is irrational... Very ironic I know lol The title of this forum is very misleading.


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (May 3, 2012)

ginjawarrior said:


> i do believe there is the third option of "dribbling idiot"
> 
> but all fun and games aside your accession awaits collect your uniform from the table on the left and move into the holding area where we will be serving refreshments to rdy ourselves for the final step to the dimensions beyond


lol my fan club never fails to bring me smiles =)


----------



## james76208 (May 3, 2012)

Doer said:


> So, what if you do? Religion doesn't own the rights to Ghosts. Not really really sure what you mean.


well most people group the two. Im not religious but i have seen ghost which makes me question whats really going on


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (May 3, 2012)

I dont know how these guys can classify every supernatural claim that was ever made as merely a trick of the mind or you convincing yourself you seen something. They cant accept that a lot of the millions of claims ever made are true, they cant even accept that ONE of the millions and millions of supernatural claims ever made is true lol. It really shows you how they think. Im glad I never developed a limited mindset like that.


----------



## james76208 (May 3, 2012)

im opened minded as they get but I dont open it up so much my brain falls out


----------



## ginjawarrior (May 3, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> I dont know how these guys can classify every supernatural claim that was ever made as merely a trick of the mind or you convincing yourself you seen something. They cant accept that a lot of the millions of claims ever made are true, they cant even accept that ONE of the millions and millions of supernatural claims ever made is true lol. It really shows you how they think. Im glad I never developed a limited mindset like that.





james76208 said:


> im opened minded as they get but I dont open it up so much my brain falls out


[youtube]T69TOuqaqXI[/youtube]


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (May 3, 2012)

ginjawarrior said:


> [youtube]T69TOuqaqXI[/youtube]


xD atheists turning the "closed-minded" argument on us, how cute =)


----------



## james76208 (May 3, 2012)

I am and have always been non religious but a few years ago {not going into spooky story}i had a ghostly encounter and it shattered everything i knew 
Just wandering if i wasn't alone


----------



## Heisenberg (May 3, 2012)

[video=youtube;NjyGeDKhEoM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjyGeDKhEoM[/video]


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (May 3, 2012)

Your not alone man, the world is more crazy than you can imagine. If every aspect of reality all of the sudden appeared in front of you, you wouldnt believe it, if you did believe it than you might go crazy for a little bit trying to understand it but eventually you would calm down. I know this from experience.


----------



## overgrowem (May 3, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> It kinda hard to listen evidence such as crash sites being located across the world, if that evidence is kept secret. Is there anything that would distinguish this claim from fantasy?
> 
> Remote viewing would be extremely simple to demonstrate and prove. We simply place an object or a written note some place isolated and the viewer tells us what he sees. In fact, a number of magicians and skeptics do that very thing. They keep an object hidden in a safe place, and ask remote viewers to identify it. Several of them offer a reward for the correct answer, and there is always the JREF million dollar prize.
> 
> So considering that remote viewing would be extremely simple and very lucrative to test, no one has shown even the slightest ability. It would seem rather strange for this to be so if remote viewing were true............................................................................................Your lack of information on the U.S.remote viewing program is blinding.The locating of the crashed U.S.plane was widly reported when the program was declassified. Why do U say the crash is secret I didn't say so, and U don't know....Remote viewing HAS been tested(don't tell me U didn't know that).Some people consistently out perform random chance in controled tests.I hardly think a magicians performance is a valid test.


----------



## james76208 (May 3, 2012)

so what would someone call an atheist that believes in ghost


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (May 3, 2012)

overgrowem said:


> Heisenberg said:
> 
> 
> > It kinda hard to listen evidence such as crash sites being located across the world, if that evidence is kept secret. Is there anything that would distinguish this claim from fantasy?
> ...


----------



## Heisenberg (May 3, 2012)

overgrowem said:


> Your lack of information on the U.S.remote viewing program is blinding.The locating of the crashed U.S.plane was widly reported when the program was declassified. Why do U say the crash is secret I didn't say so, and U don't know....Remote viewing HAS been tested(don't tell me U didn'tknow that).Some people consistently out perform random chance in controled tests.I hardly think a magicians performance is a valid test.


You don't think placing an object in hiding and then asking the viewer to describe it is a valid test? What exactly did they do when they found the airplane? Was it not hidden somewhere and they were asked to see it?

As for the secret evidence, I am simply asking you to point to the reports you talk about. If it was widely reported, this should be an easy task. Also any controlled scientific test must be reported somewhere, link please?


----------



## ginjawarrior (May 3, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> xD atheists turning the "closed-minded" argument on us, how cute =)


notice how you cannot speak against anything said in the video. if its wrong must be easy for you to disprove anything they have to say.

i'll just hold my breath for it


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (May 3, 2012)

james76208 said:


> so what would someone call an atheist that believes in ghost


Someone who believes in a higher power? If theres ghosts than theres spirits. There has to be something thats organizing these spirits, not that we are under its control, we are our own Gods, those who watch over us just have more experience, Im sure we'll be smoking blunts with Buddha one day as his equal.


----------



## james76208 (May 3, 2012)

pretty cool video though it was a vid of a statement not much argument for it accept the lamp scenario


----------



## james76208 (May 3, 2012)

i just cant put ghost in a scientific class to explain what it is.I don't believe anything godly is behind


----------



## overgrowem (May 3, 2012)

james76208 said:


> so what would someone call an atheist that believes in ghost


 Able to think on more than 1 level.Right or wrong.


----------



## overgrowem (May 3, 2012)

james76208 said:


> i just cant put ghost in a scientific class to explain what it is.I don't believe anything godly is behind


the Bible recognizes ghosts


----------



## james76208 (May 3, 2012)

Your right. I'm hard core seeing is believing and dont try to put what i know on anyone or discredit anyones beliefs. I wish i could take everyone one and watch there faces when something like a ghost blows there mind lol wish i had mine


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (May 3, 2012)

ginjawarrior said:


> notice how you cannot speak against anything said in the video. if its wrong must be easy for you to disprove anything they have to say.
> 
> i'll just hold my breath for it


That video does nothing to disprove my words. Every single supernatural claim that was ever made falls under the categories this well spoken British guy presents? Gimme a break. Its silly to think that all those millions and millions of people must be mistaken, because for ONE to be right about what they experienced (just one) it would go against your view on reality.


----------



## james76208 (May 3, 2012)

Oh man not trying to bring the bible into this


----------



## ginjawarrior (May 3, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> That video does nothing to disprove my words. Every single supernatural claim that was ever made falls under the categories this well spoken British guy presents? Gimme a break. Its silly to think that all those millions and millions of people must be mistaken, because for ONE to be right about what they experienced (just one) it would go against your view on reality.


you really had no idea at all what he was saying did you?


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (May 3, 2012)

ginjawarrior said:


> you really had no idea at all what he was saying did you?


Avoid my argument with an insult to my intelligence, good thinking! though when people catch on to that it kinda makes you look stupid...


----------



## cannofbliss (May 3, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> [video=youtube;9L2lDHNmRFw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9L2lDHNmRFw[/video]



LOL hahaha hilarious...


----------



## Heisenberg (May 3, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> That video does nothing to disprove my words. Every single supernatural claim that was ever made falls under the categories this well spoken British guy presents? Gimme a break*. Its silly to think that all those millions and millions of people must be mistaken*, because for ONE to be right about what they experienced (just one) it would go against your view on reality.


If it's silly to think that, then you must be silly yourself. Millions of people believe in Jesus and make claims to have seen and experienced him. If just one of them is right, it would go against your view of reality.


----------



## james76208 (May 3, 2012)

ok im not religious but im pretty sure a guy named jesus existed as in walked the earth kinda lot info em


----------



## overgrowem (May 3, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> You don't think placing an object in hiding and then asking the viewer to describe it is a valid test? What exactly did they do when they found the airplane? Was it not hidden somewhere and they were asked to see it?
> 
> As for the secret evidence, I am simply asking you to point to the reports you talk about. If it was widely reported, this should be an easy task. Also any controlled scientific test must be reported somewhere, link please?


I've answered this,they hid objects and some people were able to beat random chance.I didn't say the tests not valid .I said doing it for a magicin in a nightclub is not valid.When they located the plane I'm sure they went there to get recorders,loose bombs, bodies,etc..As for reports links,etc..I'm not the skeptic ,you are ,do your own homework as U said easy..
.


----------



## ginjawarrior (May 3, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Avoid my argument with an insult to my intelligence, good thinking! though when people catch on to that it kinda makes you look stupid...


you showed you were closed minded to even understand what he was getting at...?

you claim to have intelligence to insult?


----------



## Heisenberg (May 3, 2012)

overgrowem said:


> I've answered this,they hid objects and some people were able to beat random chance.I didn't say the tests not valid .I said doing it for a magicin in a nightclub is not valid.When they located the plane I'm sure they went there to get recorders,loose bombs, bodies,etc..As for reports links,etc..I'm not the skeptic ,you are ,do your own homework as U said easy..
> .


The burden of proof falls on the party making the claim. Why should it be up to any of us to vet your sources, especially when you wont provide them? I can just as easily say, it was widely reported that the airplane was never found, and that scientific testing has shown remote viewing to be worse than random chance. If I do not back these statements up, they mean nothing. Also, I said nothing about a nightclub. I said a number of people keep objects hidden away and publicly ask for ANY remote viewer to describe it, some offer a cash reward.


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (May 3, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> If it's silly to think that, then you must be silly yourself. Millions of people believe in Jesus and make claims to have seen and experienced him. If just one of them is right, it would go against your view of reality.


Yes, compare completely plausible claims (plausible to you, realistic to me) to the millions that believe in a fairy tale. Totally shows the logic of my thinking<--- sarcasm... Nice try though... Btw I believe that Jesus may have indeed existed, not under the name Jesus of course. Theres too many characters that have been born on dec 25th, died on the cross, came back to life and ascended into heaven. Jesus just happens to be the most recent interpretation of that character, a very stupid interpretation.


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (May 3, 2012)

ginjawarrior said:


> you showed you were closed minded to even understand what he was getting at...?
> 
> you claim to have intelligence to insult?


twice you used that tactic... Boy your smart =) Ima wait for you to do it a third time, since the nature of oblivious blind fools is predictable.


----------



## ginjawarrior (May 3, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> twice you used that tactic... Boy your smart =) Ima wait for you to do it a third time, since the nature of oblivious blind fools is predictable.


you had a nice little cartoon to watch, the person speaking by your own admission was "well spoken" yet you did not understand him 

what do you want a cookie or something?


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (May 3, 2012)

ginjawarrior said:


> you had a nice little cartoon to watch, the person speaking by your own admission was "well spoken" yet you did not understand him
> 
> what do you want a cookie or something?


xD you did it a third time! I got you dancing like a puppet now, lets see if he goes in for number four.


----------



## james76208 (May 3, 2012)

lol the video was just to explain both mindsets right


----------



## mindphuk (May 3, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Yes, compare completely plausible claims (plausible to you, realistic to me) to the millions that believe in a fairy tale. Totally shows the logic of my thinking<--- sarcasm... Nice try though... Btw I believe that Jesus may have indeed existed, not under the name Jesus of course. Theres too many characters that have been born on dec 25th, died on the cross, came back to life and ascended into heaven. Jesus just happens to be the most recent interpretation of that character, a very stupid interpretation.


So an appeal to popularity is only valid when it's an idea you already believe is plausible.. Yea, sure, right. 

Still waiting on you to answer my posts but I assume you will continue to ignore them seeing as how you actually don't have any responses besides ridicule and insults.


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (May 3, 2012)

Yeah... "you're closed minded!... NO, you didnt consider the possibilities so YOU'RE closed minded" thats an argument that goes nowhere.


----------



## ginjawarrior (May 3, 2012)

ginjawarrior said:


> i do believe there is the third option of "dribbling idiot"
> 
> but all fun and games aside your accession awaits collect your uniform from the table on the left and move into the holding area where we will be serving refreshments to rdy ourselves for the final step to the dimensions beyond





ginjawarrior said:


> you really had no idea at all what he was saying did you?





ginjawarrior said:


> you showed you were closed minded to even understand what he was getting at...?
> 
> you claim to have intelligence to insult?





ginjawarrior said:


> you had a nice little cartoon to watch, the person speaking by your own admission was "well spoken" yet you did not understand him
> 
> what do you want a cookie or something?





Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> xD you did it a third time! I got you dancing like a puppet now, lets see if he goes in for number four.


i believe i've insulted your intelligence 4 times tonight already.. this will be number 5

no wonder you wanted more math taught in school


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (May 3, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> So an appeal to popularity is only valid when it's an idea you already believe is plausible.. Yea, sure, right.
> 
> Still waiting on you to answer my posts but I assume you will continue to ignore them seeing as how you actually don't have any responses besides ridicule and insults.


We just need one more member of the Smarty-Pants's here and you guys will be complete lol


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (May 3, 2012)

ginjawarrior said:


> i believe i've insulted your intelligence 4 times tonight already.. this will be number 5
> 
> no wonder you wanted more math taught in school


The insult count started when I stated you avoided my argument with an insult... That brings us back to four =) ... Nice try though, you tried hard on that one! A+ for effort!


----------



## cannofbliss (May 3, 2012)

oh well f this... wow have i wasted my time on you guys... 

cause apparently any time i post something with any real substance or logic and reason... it just apparently zooms right past you... 

and also you guys obviously have nothing to offer in retort to any of my statements, and nothing to offer with having any method of a viable defense for your ideologies...

have fun makin up meaningless shit to argue about... (to theological crowd)... 

i think ill go and just start posting meaningless shit in tnt from now on... cause this is just fing stupid... why do i bother trying to have a real debate when all is happening is blah blah and NONE of you can OWN up to your "claims"... 

later... to the religious crowd here... dont expect the same "credulousness" that you guys apparently have, with regards to having anyone believe in the crap i see coming from your so called "arguments"... the lack of them having ANY real substance OR credibility... have really bored the shit out of me... 

let me know when you come up with something "original" and substantially credible... then we'll talk... 

later...


----------



## ginjawarrior (May 3, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> The insult count started when I stated you avoided my argument with an insult... That brings us back to four =) ... Nice try though, you tried hard on that one! A+ for effort!


now who's dancing?


----------



## Padawanbater2 (May 3, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> I told Doer (think thats his name) of my spiritually gifted friend and his mind reading abilities, I already abolished his explanation of micro-expressions that many con-artists use to trick people. I told this story too many times on here already, only about three times but still its a long story. Basically the short story is that this kid who I thought was fucking bonkers answered a question that I THOUGHT of on a silent walk to get some weed. On the walk back I was freakin out that this kid was able to read my mind (I looked composed though) and so my anxiety lead me to shameful thoughts that I didnt want him knowing and by me thinking those shameful thoughts I knew that he knew those thoughts so my mind became panicked. Near the end of that silent walk he turned to me and said "your faults are what define you, they are the diamond of your being". Those words put me at ease because theres almost no judgement to this guy... Unless your christian, then he hates you.
> I no longer thought of him as a nutcase and communicated with him through thought on multiple occasion, cant hear his thoughts though. I've experienced more than mind reading with him, mind reading is not even that impressive after I experienced what else he could do. I tried my best to get him to make this knowledge public but he doesnt want the attention I guess, just willing to spread his knowledge to a select few.
> Well if you didnt think I was crazy before, I bet you do now xD



How old were you when that happened? Age can be a factor. What question did you have in your mind and what was his answer? How can you conclude from that that he "read your mind"? As unlikely as it is for him to simply have been thinking about the exact same thing as you at that exact moment in time, it is *infinitely *more likely than what you're proposing. 

What exactly did you interpret his quote to mean?

You 'communicated' through thought, but you couldn't hear his thoughts? How were you communicating with him exactly?

What else can he do?



Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Calling me crazy or a liar is really the only way to dismiss these events.



Or, as I suspect, you're either unaware of the mechanisms fused in your physiology that simply trick your mind, as easily demonstrated multiple times, an example being something as basic as our ancestors ability to distinguish between the different sounds predators make and the wind in their environment, beneficial for survival, to today, your ability to distinguish between a bus and a bike without looking, beneficial for survival. All 5 of your senses are subject to change under different circumstances. I'm sure you've even experienced it yourself. Smoking weed alters your state of mind, drinking alcohol alters your state of mind and body, taste, touch, sight, smell, sound, all of them can be altered, this is a fact, there for you can't rely on only them to determine the truth about reality. This is why science is so useful. 



james76208 said:


> so what would someone call an atheist that believes in ghost


Confused


----------



## james76208 (May 3, 2012)

confused would be a slight understatment


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (May 3, 2012)

ginjawarrior said:


> now who's dancing?


Still you, Cpt. Oblivious lol


----------



## mindphuk (May 3, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> We just need one more member of the Smarty-Pants's here and you guys will be complete lol


Anyone else find this ironic after I accuse him of using ridicule as a substitute for actual discussion? 

Chief, incessantly attacking me and others that are asking you questions and trying to have a conversation is not going to help anyone understand your position. Personally, I think I have been very forthcoming and thorough in my responses to you and what I typically get is a single line response that attempts to portray me as the villain because I am skeptical. If you have nothing to contribute to a dialogue then why are you here? Do you only care to converse with like-minded people and banish anyone that questions what you believe? Then there are plenty of websites that cater to that, this is not the place for you.


----------



## james76208 (May 3, 2012)

really?confused thats it


----------



## Heisenberg (May 3, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> We just need one more member of the Smarty-Pants's here and you guys will be complete lol


[video=youtube;EUuXIVsooV0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUuXIVsooV0[/video]


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (May 3, 2012)

Padawanbater2 said:


> How old were you when that happened? Age can be a factor. What question did you have in your mind and what was his answer? How can you conclude from that that he "read your mind"? As unlikely as it is for him to simply have been thinking about the exact same thing as you at that exact moment in time, it is *infinitely *more likely than what you're proposing.
> 
> What exactly did you interpret his quote to mean?
> 
> ...


Damnit! I really have to tell this long ass story again? well so be it... This happend about 8 months ago and it wasnt really a question he answered, he corrected a statement I thought of.(already an inconsistency, I know)... I got to start from the beginning though... This kid claimed to be a creation of Archangel Michael to which I thought he was fucking nuts then he said "dont believe me? I'll make you my slave for the rest of eternity" to which I said "WTF? theres slavery in the afterlife? the bullshit never ends" We both were kidding of course but I still acknowledged that he was probably insane.. But after listening to him talk a few times I realized he actually had some knowledge about spirituality, more than I had at the time, he would say stuff that Buddha would say and some profound shit like that, I respected him but I still thought he was a little crazy. So I began listening to everything he has to say to see if I can find truth and rationality to what he was trying to teach, and everything he said that I thought was crazy I found just down right entertaining. 

So that night when he read my mind, a group of us went on a walk to get a bag of weed. We were just enjoying the silence and I got to thinking of his words and the topic was auras (which I didnt believe in at the time) so I THOUGHT in my head "He said I could have a divine aura like his, wtf does that mean?" and suddenly, out of silence he said "No you cant, shane" to which I said "WHAAT?!?!". My mind was completely blown, I was too shocked to ask if he read my mind so we all just kept walking silently. So on the way back my mind was racing, my anxiety and insecurities took over and I thought things like "Does he know this about me? SHIT! He does now because I just thought of it!". So after a while of that panicked thinking and near the end of the walk, he turned around and said "Shane, your faults are what define you, they are the diamond of your being" and that made me calm again. My interpretation of that is I have noting to be ashamed of, I am who I am, the faults are really attributes and they define me, what I am is neither good or bad, I am ME. 

It was a couple days later when I confronted him on reading my mind, at this point I realized he wasnt crazy. I said "You read my fucking mind and I want to know what you know!". I was very excited throughout the conversations that we had, and when ever I had trouble wording a question I would say things like "what if I...uhhmm.." and then I would just look at him silently and he would answer the SPECIFIC question that I was thinking about. Sure you can say thats just a matter of guesswork on his part but guesses arent 0 accurate every single time like he is. That is what I meant by communicating with the mind. One time when I was still very uncomfortable around him because I felt like I had no privacy, I stood behind him and thought "hey buddy, hows it going? STFU! get outta my head you asshole!" then he turned around and laughed and so did I. Its not his intention to read peoples minds btw, if you include him in your thought process then that thought gets sent to him, he has no control over that. I would often think "get out of my head" and you could see his visible discomfort because he didnt want to be in my head in the first place.

I dont know the full extent of his abilities, when he sleeps its a totally new fully conscious world that he lives in, its still earth but its the spiritual side that we cant see I guess. From what I experienced from him, he can read minds and then fully enter your mind/heart, theres a big difference. He needs to be in a meditative state to enter your body. I told him to go inside my past out friends mind, so he went into a meditative state and entered MY mind instead, it was an amazing experience. I heard a low frequency pulsating vibration all around me, and I could feel him in my head and in my heart, especially my heart. In my chest it felt like a warm buzzing beehive of love that was very uplifting, a similar sensation was in my head, best way I can describe it. I was trying to sleep at the time and in my closed eyes I could see a symmetrical psychedelic shape shifting orb hovering over me... He said when I seen that, thats when I felt threatend and my "spirit body" kicked him out, though the buzzing in and around me stayed the same for a while. 

And that is the story of my spiritually gifted friend... If it didnt convince you than I hope it entertained you... Well obviously I didnt convince you of anything because those are just my words... so I hope I entertained you lol


----------



## tyler.durden (May 4, 2012)

^^ Have you ever asked yourself why this 18 year old spiritually gifted guy would rather skate and party than use his gift to reach as many as possible? I mean, he has access to this amazing spiritual realm, and he chooses to skate and party instead. Doesn't say much for the wonders of the spiritual...

P.S. Yes, I finally showed up. I saw the TD beacon in the sky over my place...


----------



## mindphuk (May 4, 2012)

Everyone guessing how this could be are going to be way off because of something that occurs in these situations and that's selective and enhanced recall. It is virtually impossible for anyone to remember any events precisely, especially when there is more going on than a person can know. The mind fills in blanks which is actually information that is inferred, not experienced. Someone here quoted Ian Rowland. As a performing mentalist, he is able to implant suggestions as to what was actually witnessed which reinforces this process that our brains are already wired to do. Of course I'm not a professional, but I have studied and performed magic for over 30 years, the last 10 spent almost exclusively in mentalism. IOW, I have seen this work for me and I'm not anywhere as talented as someone like Derren Brown or Marc Salem, or even people you would never know about unless you were in the field such as Jerome Finley, Christopher Carter and John Riggs. John is so good at cold reading that he has convinced himself that he is in fact psychic, yet he performs mindreading using tricks (he even markets his methods), but his actual "readings" are real. Not only do some people walk away from me thinking I read their minds, when they describe their experience to someone else, many of the details get lost and forgotten. I have had people literally not remember they wrote something down on a piece of paper. 

I have no doubt Chief feels he experienced everything he says he has and remembers it vividly. Of course he will accuse me of claiming his friend used magicians tricks but of course I'm not even claiming that, in fact I don't even think that. I am merely giving examples of things we know about how the brain works, especially when thinking something extraordinary is occurring. Of course I cannot deny that his story as presented would be confounding if it happened to me. The problem is that these stories are all too common and these people with incredible abilities are always too spiritual or of such a higher purpose to ever be put to a test by skeptics. Of course the ones that do agree to be tested end up failing miserable, but they are the fakes, the REAL ones would never submit to being tested even if they would make a load of money, which they don't care about even thought they can donate it, etc.


----------



## kpmarine (May 4, 2012)

lefty11 said:


> All I know is there ain't no atheists in a foxhole and thats the truth.


Really? I've been both an atheist, and in a foxhole. I also know many other foxhole-dwelling atheists personally.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (May 4, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> ...so I THOUGHT in my head "He said I could have a divine aura like his, wtf does that mean?" and suddenly, out of silence he said "No you cant, shane" to which I said "WHAAT?!?!".


That's not conclusive enough. As much as you don't want to hear that. He could be remarking about anything, who knows? No follow up questions were asked.



Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> I stood behind him and thought "hey buddy, hows it going? STFU! get outta my head you asshole!" then he turned around and laughed and so did I.


Again, inconclusive. He could have been laughing about anything, about the way your face looked, something in your teeth, who knows? 



Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Its not his intention to read peoples minds btw, if you include him in your thought process then that thought gets sent to him, he has no control over that.


Why don't you and I set up an experiment with your friend?



Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> *From what I experienced* from him, he can read minds and then fully enter your mind/heart, theres a big difference. He needs to be in a meditative state to enter your body. I told him to go inside my past out friends mind, so he went into a meditative state and entered MY mind instead, it was an amazing experience. I heard a low frequency pulsating vibration all around me, and I could feel him in my head and in my heart, especially my heart. In my chest it felt like a warm buzzing beehive of love that was very uplifting, a similar sensation was in my head, best way I can describe it. I was trying to sleep at the time and in my closed eyes I could see a symmetrical psychedelic shape shifting orb hovering over me... He said when I seen that, thats when I felt threatend and my "spirit body" kicked him out, though the buzzing in and around me stayed the same for a while.


Sounds really similar to a lot of religious testimonies out there. What you don't realize, accept and/or understand is that these experiences can be created by our own brains to make us think/feel a certain way, couple that with personal biases and preconceived notions and we really do genuinely think we're having a religious or spiritual experience. All it really is is a slightly different combination of chemicals inside your brain. How else would you explain people speaking in tongues or exorcisms? 


What it comes down to is what is the value of something like this if it can't be scientifically proven? 

If you skip this entire response, just answer that.


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (May 4, 2012)

tyler.durden said:


> ^^ Have you ever asked yourself why this 18 year old spiritually gifted guy would rather skate and party than use his gift to reach as many as possible? I mean, he has access to this amazing spiritual realm, and he chooses to skate and party instead. Doesn't say much for the wonders of the spiritual...
> 
> P.S. Yes, I finally showed up. I saw the TD beacon in the sky over my place...


Im guessing that he doesnt want the attention that has to do with spreading all this knowledge. I can relate to him when trying to explain this stuff, you can instantly feel the ignorance when trying to explain this stuff to people. For him to start sharing this knowledge to the public eye is a very daunting task, NO ONE would believe him so he would have to show off his abilities every single time he wanted to convince people. Wouldnt you feel like the MC of a circus if you had to gather a following in such a way? That would be something he has to commit to if he wanted everyone to know these things. So he just tells those who are willing to listen, and all his friends know of what he can do, but they are not willing to listen, they get annoyed at me and him when we have our deep conversations, they know he can do amazing things but its almost like it scares them, they are stupid and weak just like most of the general public. He just wants to enjoy life and teaching is not one of his passions, he got annoyed enough from all the questions I asked him. I do relate to your question though, I want him to teach people but he just doesnt want to. He only figured out who he really was over a year ago.


----------



## Heisenberg (May 4, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Yes, compare completely plausible claims (plausible to you, realistic to me) to the millions that believe in a fairy tale. Totally shows the logic of my thinking<--- sarcasm... Nice try though... Btw I believe that Jesus may have indeed existed, not under the name Jesus of course. Theres too many characters that have been born on dec 25th, died on the cross, came back to life and ascended into heaven. Jesus just happens to be the most recent interpretation of that character, a very stupid interpretation.


Colorless green ideas sleep furiously, nice that you have finally understood this.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (May 4, 2012)




----------



## tyler.durden (May 4, 2012)

Padawanbater2 said:


>


*Like* Speaking of reading minds, I had that _exact_ outfit on last Friday


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (May 4, 2012)

Padawanbater2 said:


> That's not conclusive enough. As much as you don't want to hear that. He could be remarking about anything, who knows? No follow up questions were asked.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Like I said my intentions were not to convince you of anything, Im just telling my experiences with this gifted fellow, though the things you pointed out may be a tiny bit inconclusive, Im assuming the things you didnt point out were conclusive. Is there any other reason why he would say "No you cant, Shane"? hes not one to dwell on what people say so he wouldnt be referring to a previous conversation (even though he was because my thoughts were referring to a previous conversation). Was he just taking a stab in the dark hoping he could convince me that he was reading my mind? That doesnt sound likely... And when I was behind him and he read my thoughts and laughed, he laughed as he was turning and then made eye contact with me, he wasnt talking to anyone else. If the experiment your thinking of has to do with you thinking about him and him receiving the thoughts than it wont work, he doesnt know you, you dont know him, you dont know who your thinking of, theres also the distance factor. I find myself thinking of his words everyday so he'd probably tell me to SHUT THE FUCK UP if thoughts were able to travel that distance... And if some religious and spiritual testimonies sound similar to what I experienced, shouldnt that tell you of the slivers of truth that lie within religion and spirituality =p. I know, from your point of view it doesnt, just thought I'd say that... And who says it cant be scientifically proven? Im sure if he was willing to be studied than scientists would be shitting their pants in astonishment. Why would he do that if he feels he has nothing to prove? Because he knows hes able to do these things, you only need to prove God to yourself... But I contradicted myself, here I am explaining things when I said my intention wasnt to convince lol Take what you can from the story, perhaps the testimonies you heard of werent tricks of the mind.


----------



## mindphuk (May 4, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Like I said my intentions were not to convince you of anything, Im just telling my experiences with this gifted fellow, though the things you pointed out may be a tiny bit inconclusive, Im assuming the things you didnt point out were conclusive. Is there any other reason why he would say "No you cant, Shane"? hes not one to dwell on what people say so he wouldnt be referring to a previous conversation (even though he was because my thoughts were referring to a previous conversation). Was he just taking a stab in the dark hoping he could convince me that he was reading my mind? That doesnt sound likely... And when I was behind him and he read my thoughts and laughed, he laughed as he was turning and then made eye contact with me, he wasnt talking to anyone else. If the experiment your thinking of has to do with you thinking about him and him receiving the thoughts than it wont work, he doesnt know you, you dont know him, you dont know who your thinking of, theres also the distance factor. I find myself thinking of his words everyday so he'd probably tell me to SHUT THE FUCK UP if thoughts were able to travel that distance... And if some religious and spiritual testimonies sound similar to what I experienced, shouldnt that tell you of the slivers of truth that lie within religion and spirituality =p. I know, from your point of view it doesnt, just thought I'd say that... And who says it cant be scientifically proven? Im sure if he was willing to be studied than scientists would be shitting their pants in astonishment. Why would he do that if he feels he has nothing to prove? Because he knows hes able to do these things, you only need to prove God to yourself... But I contradicted myself, here I am explaining things when I said my intention wasnt to convince lol Take what you can from the story, perhaps the testimonies you heard of werent tricks of the mind.


Yet do you disbelieve his claim about archangel Micheal? Wouldn't his claim support Xianity, a religion you don't accept as true?


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (May 4, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> Yet do you disbelieve his claim about archangel Micheal? Wouldn't his claim support Xianity, a religion you don't accept as true?


I dont accept the religion as a whole, but the archangels are in Christianity, Islam, and I THINK Judaism. There is truth in most religions but I wouldnt follow one because the words and teachings have been so disgustingly twisted. If I were to pick one than it would be Buddhism... My friend hates Christianity, even though theres some truth, Christianity was purposely invented to control people. He said that the God Christianity refers to was killed by other Gods because he thought he was perfect, which does kinda explain the mindset of christians lol. He said the Quran has way more truth in it but its still very twisted information.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (May 4, 2012)

There is no inherent metaphysical truth unless you have the psychological need for it, if that's the case, you just make it up or barrow it from others and pretend it's the truth. Aint nothin wrong with that, cept for the whole lying to yourself part...


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (May 4, 2012)

Zaehet Strife said:


> There is no inherent metaphysical truth unless you have the psychological need for it, if that's the case, you just make it up or barrow it from others and pretend it's the truth. Aint nothin wrong with that, cept for the whole lying to yourself part...


From your point of view, yes.


----------



## ThE sAtIvA hIgH (May 4, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> From your point of view, yes.


its not a point of veiw its the truth .


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (May 4, 2012)

ThE sAtIvA hIgH said:


> its not a point of veiw its the truth .


No, its a point of view... He feels hes lying to himself if he believes in any aspect of spirituality because he doesnt KNOW them to be true... What I believe in I know to be true from experience, as you probably read. Not every supernatural claim can be rationalized with "tricks of the mind", it would be ignorant to believe that every single person who claimed to have experienced something spiritual is mistaken.


----------



## Wordz (May 4, 2012)

*&#8203;I hate having to conform to societal standards. I always get mocked by the "cool" christian kids at school. Rebecca Jennings called me a heathen at lunch yesterday. Then her boyfriend Scott Frederick came over and knocked my lunch on the ground. It was friggin pizza day too. They always slide tracts into my locker but i use them and 666th page of the bible for joints now. Last week in third block math class Cole Sprigger definitely thought he was talking to god. He was just sitting there looking all stupid but I could tell he was thinking about it. My mom says we can't get the cable back at our house because I was wearing her dress and make up trying to get down Nikki Minaj's new dance moves. She thinks blacks are punished people who can't get into heaven because their skin is flawed I try telling her science proves otherwise but she always says science is a trick of the devil to put doubt in a good mans heart.*


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (May 4, 2012)

Wordz said:


> *&#8203;I hate having to conform to societal standards. I always get mocked by the "cool" christian kids at school. Rebecca Jennings called me a heathen at lunch yesterday. Then her boyfriend Scott Frederick came over and knocked my lunch on the ground. It was friggin pizza day too. They always slide tracts into my locker but i use them and 666th page of the bible for joints now. Last week in third block math class Cole Sprigger definitely thought he was talking to god. He was just sitting there looking all stupid but I could tell he was thinking about it. My mom says we can't get the cable back at our house because I was wearing her dress and make up trying to get down Nikki Minaj's new dance moves. She thinks blacks are punished people who can't get into heaven because their skin is flawed I try telling her science proves otherwise but she always says science is a trick of the devil to put doubt in a good mans heart.*


Who are you talking to? I see no Christians


----------



## overgrowem (May 4, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> The burden of proof falls on the party making the claim. Why should it be up to any of us to vet your sources, especially when you wont provide them? I can just as easily say, it was widely reported that the airplane was never found, and that scientific testing has shown remote viewing to be worse than random chance. If I do not back these statements up, they mean nothing. Also, I said nothing about a nightclub. I said a number of people keep objects hidden away and publicly ask for ANY remote viewer to describe it, some offer a cash reward.


My statements are not claims,just statements of fact.If U are not curious to check it out so be it,Not worth my time to educate a wilfully in the dark naysayer.Magicians were your go to group to prove whether remote viewing was valid or not,last I heard they haunted clubs,theaters etc.not labs.Debate rule#2,do some opposition research,other than"I know U are but what am I.


----------



## bowsa (May 4, 2012)

hay chief was in a littel bar in n dakota a freind introduced me to a guy his name was cheif walking eagle i asked my freind whats with the name he turned to me and said it used to be chief flying eagle but now its walking eagle cause hes to full of shit to fly! thought iwould share the joke with you i lmao plenty of indians in north dakota and drunk farmers way of life in north dakota gus alittel humortry to lightin it up a littel


----------



## ginjawarrior (May 4, 2012)

overgrowem said:


> My statements are not claims,just statements of fact.If U are not curious to check it out so be it,Not worth my time to educate a wilfully in the dark naysayer.Magicians were your go to group to prove whether remote viewing was valid or not,last I heard they haunted clubs,theaters etc.not labs.Debate rule#2,do some opposition research,other than"I know U are but what am I.


how does he even know where to check all you gave was vague account. if these are indeed facts then you could happily point us to where to see them no?
he pointed to the 1million dollar prize because it is there for proof of paranormal events. the fact that a magician put up the prize fund would have no more relevance than say donald trump putting up the prize money. the money is there its been certified, they regularly test people who claim to have abilities and as yet no ones "powers" have carried on working when properly tested. before any applicant takes the test there has to be agreement between the testers and the tested that the procedure is fair and within in realms of what the person said they can do

saying that they arent scientists isnt vaild either if you'd done enough research on randi you would have found where he emplyed some actors to go take part in a scientific paranormal experiment and they fooled the scientists doing the test.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Alpha

oh look how easy it was to supply a link to that

[youtube]KayBys8gaJY[/youtube]


----------



## Doer (May 4, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> I told Doer (think thats his name) of my spiritually gifted friend and his mind reading abilities, I already abolished his explanation of micro-expressions that many con-artists use to trick people. I told this story too many times on here already, only about three times but still its a long story. Basically the short story is that this kid who I thought was fucking bonkers answered a question that I THOUGHT of on a silent walk to get some weed. On the walk back I was freakin out that this kid was able to read my mind (I looked composed though) and so my anxiety lead me to shameful thoughts that I didnt want him knowing and by me thinking those shameful thoughts I knew that he knew those thoughts so my mind became panicked. Near the end of that silent walk he turned to me and said "your faults are what define you, they are the diamond of your being". Those words put me at ease because theres almost no judgement to this guy... Unless your christian, then he hates you.
> I no longer thought of him as a nutcase and communicated with him through thought on multiple occasion, cant hear his thoughts though. I've experienced more than mind reading with him, mind reading is not even that impressive after I experienced what else he could do. I tried my best to get him to make this knowledge public but he doesnt want the attention I guess, just willing to spread his knowledge to a select few.
> Well if you didnt think I was crazy before, I bet you do now xD


The reason I accept this is because it is a direct experience being described. So, .duran, thanks for the reply, back there. I just have to go one more step. To me, if it's all subjective, it's all there is. We have to remember a period where where can't remember. Those first two years of life, more or less. It means we were trained, unknowingly in the consensual hallucination we call objective reality. It's pretty easy for me to understand as the world morphs from superstition to science, that the objective reality itself might actually be changing.

And there a entire school of thought that see it the other way. Ann Rynd. Objectivity. But, when the eastern thought turns to this it might be "what is the sound of a tree falling if no one is there" No science, for them to get in the way of the perception/conception puzzle.

I don't have an answer but it to me is the greatest puzzle. Is it only Self or is there other. We try to prove that there is Objective Reality. But, the more we peel it, the more it doesn't make sense.


----------



## Heisenberg (May 4, 2012)

overgrowem said:


> My statements are not claims,just statements of fact.If U are not curious to check it out so be it,Not worth my time to educate a wilfully in the dark naysayer.Magicians were your go to group to prove whether remote viewing was valid or not,last I heard they haunted clubs,theaters etc.not labs.Debate rule#2,do some opposition research,other than"I know U are but what am I.


You shouldn't be worried about educating me. The questions I am asking have easy answers, and you should have asked them yourself. You brought up some half remembered bogus hype and now you expect our brains to be impressed. If it was so wideley reported it would be easy to provide a link for us, yet you have now doged this request three times.

I already know which studies you speak of, because when I was curious about remote vewing, I asked question and sought answers. The program you speak of was called Project Stargate, it had a reported budget of 20 million which it depleted, and was subsequently abandoned after _24 years_ due to lack of results. The remote viewers had complete control over the testing conditions, and still failed. The participants have _all _gone public and gave accounts of their activities. None of them are being paid by the government currently, none have been kidnapped or mysteriously disappeared. The government is no longer interested in these people nor concerned with what they reveal about their time on the project. Does this sound like a successful program?

An independent government panel was assigned to study the merit of project stargate. This is their conclusion.



> The foregoing observations provide a compelling argument against continuation of the program within the intelligence community. Even though a statistically significant effect has been observed in the laboratory, it remains unclear whether the existence of a paranormal phenomenon, remote viewing, has been demonstrated. The laboratory studies do not provide evidence regarding the origins or nature of the phenomenon, assuming it exists, nor do they address an important methodological issue of inter-judge reliability.
> 
> Further, even if it could be demonstrated unequivocally that a paranormal phenomenon occurs under the conditions present in the laboratory paradigm, these conditions have limited applicability and utility for intelligence gathering operations. For example, the nature of the remote viewing targets are vastly dissimilar, as are the specific tasks required of the remote viewers. Most importantly, the information provided by remote viewing is vague and ambiguous, making it difficult, if not impossible, for the technique to yield information of sufficient quality and accuracy of information for actionable intelligence. Thus, we conclude that continued use of remote viewing in intelligence gathering operations is not warranted.





> A CIA report noted that in the case of remote viewing there was a large amount of irrelevant, erroneous information that was provided and there was little agreement observed among the reports of the remote viewers


The most outspoken participant is Joseph McMoneagle, who likes to use his time on the project as a way to give credit to his abilities. (even though he doesn't deny the project ended with the government being disinterested, the government wouldn't fund any more research, ect) Joseph agreed to be tested on a TV show. He was asked to find a girl who producers told to go to one of four possible locations.



> The four locations were a life size treehouse in a giant tree, a tall metal waterslide at an amusement park, a dock along the river, and the Water Wall, a huge cement fountain structure. The girl was at the dock. Here is what McMoneagle said:
> 
> *There's a river or something riverlike nearby, with manmade improvements.* Houston is a famous river town, so this was a pretty good bet. It applies equally well to the waterslide and to the dock.
> 
> ...


As you can see, his remote viewing revealed nothing definitive. This was the star of the project, who had complete control over the conditions of the project, and who admits the project failed, failing yet again.

As ginja already pointed out, we only have to look at project alpha to see how magicians tricks can easily be used to supply the results needed to simulate remote viewing. Banachek can pass the remote viewing test every time, difference is he doesn't claim to be psychic at all, just good at deception. These tricks may be enough to keep researchers interested for quite a while, but because they are tricks, they never reveal anything useful, never provide actual external knowledge.

Would you like to continue to call me willfully ignorant and chide me for lack of research?

And since you brought up debate rules, it seems you need to familiarize yourself with the concept of Burden of Proof.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargate_Project
http://www.skepdic.com/remotevw.html


----------



## jessy koons (May 4, 2012)

Warning.  Satire follows.  Please don't write me any angry responses.


I am in a remote viewing phase right now. I see lots of stuff that nobody else can see and some of it is hidden. Jenny from next door is showering at the moment but I can't remote view her 'cause it's all steamy, drat. Somebody who is reading this has some coins in their pocket. How's that, huh?

I'm not going to tell you how I do it, you'll just have to believe me. I can read minds too. The other day I tried to read the minds of people posting on this forum and it was a little disappointing. There were a few minds that were working really well ( I won't name any names but you know who you are ) and the minds in other peoples' bodies were just running around in circles, kind of like a squirrel's. They would start to think clearly but then dark thoughts of faith and blind obedience commandeered the whole works and made them stupid. Very sad but very common.

Any way, I can see what everybody is doing so behave yourselves. 

P.S. I can see that someones plants need watering. Your welcome


----------



## Padawanbater2 (May 4, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Like I said my intentions were not to convince you of anything, Im just telling my experiences with this gifted fellow, though the things you pointed out may be a tiny bit inconclusive, Im assuming the things you didnt point out were conclusive. Is there any other reason why he would say "No you cant, Shane"? hes not one to dwell on what people say so he wouldnt be referring to a previous conversation (even though he was because my thoughts were referring to a previous conversation). Was he just taking a stab in the dark hoping he could convince me that he was reading my mind? That doesnt sound likely... And when I was behind him and he read my thoughts and laughed, he laughed as he was turning and then made eye contact with me, he wasnt talking to anyone else. If the experiment your thinking of has to do with you thinking about him and him receiving the thoughts than it wont work, he doesnt know you, you dont know him, you dont know who your thinking of, theres also the distance factor. I find myself thinking of his words everyday so he'd probably tell me to SHUT THE FUCK UP if thoughts were able to travel that distance... *And if some religious and spiritual testimonies sound similar to what I experienced, shouldnt that tell you of the slivers of truth that lie within religion and spirituality* =p. I know, from your point of view it doesnt, just thought I'd say that... And who says it cant be scientifically proven? Im sure if he was willing to be studied than scientists would be shitting their pants in astonishment. Why would he do that if he feels he has nothing to prove? Because he knows hes able to do these things, you only need to prove God to yourself... But I contradicted myself, here I am explaining things when I said my intention wasnt to convince lol Take what you can from the story, perhaps the testimonies you heard of werent tricks of the mind.



Like I asked before, what is the value of having this ability if you can't prove it? What's the difference from you saying "I have a friend who can read minds, but he doesn't want the attention, so he doesn't show many people.." and me saying "I have a friend who can fly, but he doesn't want the attention, so he doesn't show many people..."? There is no fundamental difference, both statements are meaningless. 

Carl Sagan's invisible dragon bit tackles that exact problem. Alonzo Harris said it best;

http://www.hark.com/clips/bcjkxjmkvz-its-not-what-you-know-its-what-you-can-prove


Religious testimonies sound similar to what you described because other humans, also with the exact same built in flaws that we discussed earlier, have them. The flaws originated during our evolution, everybody else has them as well. It takes knowledge and awareness of the tricks your mind is capable of playing to recognize and understand them so you're better equipped to see through them to what reality actually is. My mind plays tricks on me every day, I just know what to look out for and know not to base my thoughts on emotions or not to jump to any irrational conclusions. You have the exact same ability, you just have to pay attention and train yourself.


----------



## HydroDawg421 (May 4, 2012)

Mary put out like every other woman has since the beginning of time! She laid on her back, spread her legs and Joe dropped seed. Immaculate conception my ass. More like an immaculate lie !!!


----------



## Doer (May 4, 2012)

However, if someone can, let's say, walk on water, it's best not demonstrate that. Even today, or I should say, especially today, that person would be seen as in the demon state and very dire trouble for him, one way or another. It would be not be worth it, right? History proves that.


----------



## mindphuk (May 4, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> I dont accept the religion as a whole, but the archangels are in Christianity, Islam, and I THINK Judaism. There is truth in most religions but I wouldnt follow one because the words and teachings have been so disgustingly twisted. If I were to pick one than it would be Buddhism... My friend hates Christianity, even though theres some truth, Christianity was purposely invented to control people. He said that the God Christianity refers to was killed by other Gods because he thought he was perfect, which does kinda explain the mindset of christians lol. He said the Quran has way more truth in it but its still very twisted information.


OMG! You finally answered a question of mine without resorting to ridicule or attacks. Thank you so much. I am serious BTW, I do appreciate having an actual dialogue.


----------



## mindphuk (May 4, 2012)

overgrowem said:


> My statements are not claims,just statements of fact.


Do you even know what a claim is? 

Verb:

State or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.

 Noun:

An assertion of the truth of something, typically one that is disputed or in doubt.


You can't say you made a statement of fact and then deny it was a claim to relieve yourself of the burden of providing evidence. Asking others to go verify something that YOU brought up is rude and definitely against normal rules of civilized debate. Asking someone to do a little research or reading is not wrong but it should be up to you to guide us to the place where we can do such reading. 

Remote viewing has been thoroughly discredited. The DoD and CIA stopped their research into this area because it wasn't demonstrating any actual benefit. I would give you a link to prove what I said but I'm sure you can google it yourself, right?


----------



## Padawanbater2 (May 4, 2012)

Doer said:


> However, if someone can, let's say, walk on water, it's best not demonstrate that. Even today, or I should say, especially today, that person would be seen as in the demon state and very dire trouble for him, one way or another. It would be not be worth it, right? History proves that.


What would that matter if you were the creator of the universe? If your goal is to prove you're the Messiah, and you go walking on water to prove it and somebody says you're a demon, simply do something else Jesus did back in the day, feed a crowd of 10,000 with a single loaf of bread, water to wine, any of them.. maybe even take a modern day request?


----------



## mindphuk (May 4, 2012)

ginjawarrior said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Alpha


I have met Steve Shaw who now goes by the name Banachek, many times. I think I have everything he has published. The guy is very creative. He continues to fool the pants off people that know all of the normal tricks. He still tells some great stories from his Project Alpha days.


----------



## mindphuk (May 4, 2012)

Padawanbater2 said:


> What would that matter if you were the creator of the universe? If your goal is to prove you're the Messiah, and you go walking on water to prove it and somebody says you're a demon, simply do something else Jesus did back in the day, feed a crowd of 10,000 with a single loaf of bread, water to wine, any of them.. maybe even take a modern day request?


The interesting thing is that Yahweh tells his followers not to follow someone because of the miracles they can do as they could be a false prophet that Yahweh himself has sent to the people to test them. This is why it is so ironic when Xians use the miracles of Jesus to support that he was who he says he was. 

_If prophets or those who divine by dreams appear among you and promise you omens or portents, 
and the omens or the portents declared by them take place, and they say, "Let us follow other gods" (whom you have not known) "and let us serve them," 
you must not heed the words of those prophets or those who divine by dreams; for the LORD your God is testing you, to know whether you indeed love the LORD your God with all your heart and soul._
Deut 13:1-3


----------



## tyler.durden (May 4, 2012)

HydroDawg421 said:


> Mary put out like every other woman has since the beginning of time! She laid on her back, spread her legs and Joe dropped seed. Immaculate conception my ass. More like an immaculate lie !!!


&#8220;Which is more likely: That the whole natural order was suspended or that a Jewish minx should tell a lie?&#8221; - Christopher Hitchens


----------



## tyler.durden (May 4, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> You shouldn't be worried about educating me. The questions I am asking have easy answers, and you should have asked them yourself. You brought up some half remembered bogus hype and now you expect our brains to be impressed. If it was so wideley reported it would be easy to provide a link for us, yet you have now doged this request three times.
> 
> I already know which studies you speak of, because when I was curious about remote vewing, I asked question and sought answers. The program you speak of was called Project Stargate, it had a reported budget of 20 million which it depleted, and was subsequently abandoned after _24 years_ due to lack of results. The remote viewers had complete control over the testing conditions, and still failed. The participants have _all _gone public and gave accounts of their activities. None of them are being paid by the government currently, none have been kidnapped or mysteriously disappeared. The government is no longer interested in these people nor concerned with what they reveal about their time on the project. Does this sound like a successful program?
> 
> ...



Damn! overgrowem = Pwned...


----------



## overgrowem (May 4, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> You shouldn't be worried about educating me. The questions I am asking have easy answers, and you should have asked them yourself. You brought up some half remembered bogus hype and now you expect our brains to be impressed. If it was so wideley reported it would be easy to provide a link for us, yet you have now doged this request three times.
> 
> I already know which studies you speak of, because when I was curious about remote vewing, I asked question and sought answers. The program you speak of was called Project Stargate, it had a reported budget of 20 million which it depleted, and was subsequently abandoned after _24 years_ due to lack of results. The remote viewers had complete control over the testing conditions, and still failed. The participants have _all _gone public and gave accounts of their activities. None of them are being paid by the government currently, none have been kidnapped or mysteriously disappeared. The government is no longer interested in these people nor concerned with what they reveal about their time on the project. Does this sound like a successful program?
> 
> ...


................CIA.run project Stargate yielded considerable scientific evidence for the reality of the phenomenon"...."Growing #s of individuals could be found to demonstrate high Quality remote viewing such as Hellen Hammond"....In 2nd yr.Pat Price was assigned to provide data on a soviet site of operational significance...."Several details conserning the technology of the Soviet Palatinsk site appear to dovetail with data from other sources".It was noted this was not the projects greatest success.Didn't locate the plane but it is out there.I do not believe your cut and paste indicated the phenom was fake ,bogus or did not exist,just that it was not up to a very high standard but does not question the phenominas ACTUAL EXISTANCE.


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (May 4, 2012)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Like I asked before, what is the value of having this ability if you can't prove it? What's the difference from you saying "I have a friend who can read minds, but he doesn't want the attention, so he doesn't show many people.." and me saying "I have a friend who can fly, but he doesn't want the attention, so he doesn't show many people..."? There is no fundamental difference, both statements are meaningless.
> 
> Carl Sagan's invisible dragon bit tackles that exact problem. Alonzo Harris said it best;
> 
> ...


So your saying even if I am telling the truth and my friend can do what he says he can do, it doesnt mean anything unless he does it for a scientist? ...*shakes head* Theres really no convincing people with your mindset unless you experience it first hand, but even then you would try to convince yourself that your mind is playing tricks on you, because you are convinced that everything witnessed that was said to be supernatural is a trick of the mind.


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (May 4, 2012)

Doer said:


> However, if someone can, let's say, walk on water, it's best not demonstrate that. Even today, or I should say, especially today, that person would be seen as in the demon state and very dire trouble for him, one way or another. It would be not be worth it, right? History proves that.


Thats partly the reason my friend doesnt want a bunch of attention, they would ask him if hes associated with Jesus or w.e and then he would announce his disgust for Christianity (because I know he would lol) and then an army of bible thumpers are chasing him with torches and pitch forks.


----------



## mindphuk (May 4, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> So your saying even if I am telling the truth and my friend can do what he says he can do, it doesnt mean anything unless he does it for a scientist? ...*shakes head*


No. A scientist does not need to be involved. However, you are correct, claims do not mean anything to a person that has not or cannot have that experience. They are merely claims and there is no way to differentiate between something that actually happened to you and something completely fabricated or anything in-between. Why do you find this concept so wrong?


> Theres really no convincing people with your mindset unless you experience it first hand


I would bet a large sum of money that you would hold this exact same skeptical approach with many other claims. In fact you continually have dismissed the claims of many Xians that have experienced Jesus working in their life and attribute that to another cause. 



> but even then you would try to convince yourself that your mind is playing tricks on you, because you are convinced that everything witnessed that was said to be supernatural is a trick of the mind.


 This is untrue and a strawman. If you can demonstrate something under appropriate controlled conditions, I would have no option but to accept it as reality. However, I would no go so far as to label it supernatural. I would still consider many phenomena like forms of ESP natural until proven otherwise.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (May 4, 2012)

ginjawarrior said:


> how does he even know where to check all you gave was vague account. if these are indeed facts then you could happily point us to where to see them no?
> he pointed to the 1million dollar prize because it is there for proof of paranormal events. the fact that a magician put up the prize fund would have no more relevance than say donald trump putting up the prize money. the money is there its been certified, they regularly test people who claim to have abilities and as yet no ones "powers" have carried on working when properly tested. before any applicant takes the test there has to be agreement between the testers and the tested that the procedure is fair and within in realms of what the person said they can do
> 
> saying that they arent scientists isnt vaild either if you'd done enough research on randi you would have found where he emplyed some actors to go take part in a scientific paranormal experiment and they fooled the scientists doing the test.
> ...


Plus Rep dude! Man, everyone in the world should be required to watch this until they understand it, and if they don't understand it, they should be put into an insane asylum. This is the fuckin shit man, i love it so much. I want to memorize every word so i can make fun of people who pretend to know things that they really don't know. I know, some may perceive that as mean...but i perceive it as constructive teaching...and humorous.

Thank you Ginja, you the man.


----------



## mindphuk (May 4, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Thats partly the reason my friend doesnt want a bunch of attention, they would ask him if hes associated with Jesus or w.e and then he would announce his disgust for Christianity (because I know he would lol) and then an army of bible thumpers are chasing him with torches and pitch forks.


If your friend is interested in winning the $1 million which he can donate to his favorite cause if he doesn't want money, I will call Banachek and ask if he can use a psuedonym to protect his identity so when he wins, the crazy Xians and others won't be able to find him.


----------



## overgrowem (May 4, 2012)

Has anyone ever debunked the work of Uri Geller?


----------



## Heisenberg (May 4, 2012)

[video=youtube;NnDHPOWXFVI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnDHPOWXFVI[/video]


----------



## Doer (May 4, 2012)

Padawanbater2 said:


> What would that matter if you were the creator of the universe? If your goal is to prove you're the Messiah, and you go walking on water to prove it and somebody says you're a demon, simply do something else Jesus did back in the day, feed a crowd of 10,000 with a single loaf of bread, water to wine, any of them.. maybe even take a modern day request?


I know, it didn't work out for him, its a real problem. Peter, I say, got the man killed by fronting that Palm Sunday stunt. And if you know the story of Stone Soup, it doesn't take a miracle to get people to share, when you start bringing out a bit of free food, Stone Soup, to start it off. I can't inagine more than 1000 or so. The region's population was slight.

That stone was rolled in place and no one was guarding it. Big men can roll it back.. The 12 best friends had left town. They didn't even see him buried. Then there were a series of "sightings" but Peter didn't see anything. It's all devotional praise. Signs and miracles.

Heal the sick? There was no medicine so no real definition of sick. There was begging and charity. How many of the "sick' went back to begging? Virgin birth? Something Buddha's mom made up 500 years before. 

The water into wine was in Herrods court, I think. This alone might have lead Piliny, was it, 10 years after the execution to write of a Galilean said to "perform paradoxical feats." It's the only independent historical reference I know of.


----------



## mindphuk (May 4, 2012)

overgrowem said:


> Has anyone ever debunked the work of Uri Geller?


Uri has moved away from the claim of being truly psychic and now just calls himself a performer like the vast majority of magicians. Ben Harris has written a book called Gellerism Revealed that exposes many of the methods used by Uri. Many magicians have expanded many of his methods to create even better performances. 

[video=youtube;ZlsAEncM6cQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlsAEncM6cQ[/video]


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (May 4, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> If your friend is interested in winning the $1 million which he can donate to his favorite cause if he doesn't want money, I will call Banachek and ask if he can use a psuedonym to protect his identity so when he wins, the crazy Xians and others won't be able to find him.


Im with you man, I want him to take that million dollar challenge more than anybody lol but he wont and I dont know all the reasons why. Im pretty sure one of the reasons is that he doesnt want to teach people, because I annoyed him with all the questions I asked him, I dont think any of them were stupid questions he just got frustrated from answering them.


----------



## overgrowem (May 4, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> Uri has moved away from the claim of being truly psychic and now just calls himself a performer like the vast majority of magicians. Ben Harris has written a book called Gellerism Revealed that exposes many of the methods used by Uri. Many magicians have expanded many of his methods to create even better performances.
> 
> [video=youtube;ZlsAEncM6cQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlsAEncM6cQ[/video]


Maybe I am thinking of the wrong person.Before Uri was a spoon bender wasn't he a psyhcic who helped the police solve crimes.I remmember films of him (I think it was him)going to a crime scene,going to the location of the body and assuming the position of the body.Did this on film several times.also did the easy stuff like decribing suspects and their clothes,or revealing motives,etc,etc..Had some high profile succeses.Was this him?If not anyone know who that guy was.Has his ability in this area been investigated.


----------



## overgrowem (May 4, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> Do you even know what a claim is?
> 
> Verb:
> 
> ...


----------



## BA142 (May 4, 2012)

overgrowem said:


> mindphuk said:
> 
> 
> > Do you even know what a claim is?
> ...


----------



## overgrowem (May 4, 2012)

BA142 said:


> overgrowem said:
> 
> 
> > Like how Christian's claim there's a God without a shred of real evidence? Do you really not get how the burden of proof is on the people making the claim?
> ...


----------



## tyler.durden (May 4, 2012)

overgrowem said:


> BA142 said:
> 
> 
> > "Without a shred of evidence"I maintain as do the handlers that the hits in Project Stargate are evidence that remote viewing has validity.These are documented occurances.Isn't it up to U to debunk these events.
> ...


----------



## mindphuk (May 4, 2012)

overgrowem said:


> ...Yes I no doubt did not chose my words as carefully as I should have.My haste was due to the fact that the poster was denying the existance of Project Stargate,yet he had never heard of it......NO ACTUAL BENIFIT.....DISCREDITED...Neither of these mean nonexistant and I have seen no statements that it is NONEXISTANT.The original Question was name a supernatural phenomina.Well if remote viewing is not nonexistant....point made....On a lighter side many,many women share a power with the super hero, Shadow...."the ability to cloud mens minds


That's not what happened. No one denied existence of project Stargate. You made a claim in the form of a question, "*How about the Govs. remote seers who have located downed aircraft on the other side of the world,or accuratly drawn military facilities in Siberia?"
*
When you were asked to provide a link to this event occurring because some of us have not heard about it, you told them to google it. 
Heis came back and asked for more details considering that there have been many downed aircraft and he couldn't find any information as to the one you were referring. Your reply was that his inability to find the information was 'blinding' because it was widely reported yet you still never provided any details as to where and when this occurred.
Now you want to create a revisionist version of events where instead Heis claimed that the Project Stargate did not exist. Would you care to point out the post where he made this claim? 

BTW, I don't know why you have such a hard time with the quotes, just click the "Reply With Quote" button and start typing. You keep deleting part of the /quote tag and making your posts hard to read.


----------



## overgrowem (May 4, 2012)

tyler.durden said:


> overgrowem said:
> 
> 
> > Well, all the info. we have so far is from Heis, and it doesn't seem like the gov't thought Stargate had validity:
> ...


----------



## overgrowem (May 4, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> That's not what happened. No one denied existence of project Stargate. You made a claim in the form of a question, "*How about the Govs. remote seers who have located downed aircraft on the other side of the world,or accuratly drawn military facilities in Siberia?"
> *
> When you were asked to provide a link to this event occurring because some of us have not heard about it, you told them to google it.
> Heis came back and asked for more details considering that there have been many downed aircraft and he couldn't find any information as to the one you were referring. Your reply was that his inability to find the information was 'blinding' because it was widely reported yet you still never provided any details as to where and when this occurred.
> ...


My question was a question in the form of a question U made it a claim when U classified the events I cited as not factual W/O a link(my verasity be damed).Accept them as not falsehoods and the whole thrust of the post changes.I posted a quote from the prog. direct earlier validating the Ruskie base part of my post.As I have said the plane is out there also.Why would I tell a truth and a lie I could have framed my question with just 1 example and it would have been the same inquiry.I mentioned the plane because it was the headline project when this was being reported.As for the rest of your post,I'm sure I can bang out a rebutal to eachconcern.but I am tired tonight and see little or no positive info left to be shared on this subject I'm not going to track down the airplane I know the event happened.Feel free to look if your doubts are that strong .Basiclly I'm ready to move on to the next tempest in a teapot.


----------



## tyler.durden (May 4, 2012)

Okay, lets' take it point by point since you brought this up:



overgrowem said:


> ..*How about the Govs. remote seers who have located downed aircraft on the other side of the world,or accuratly drawn military facilities in Siberia?*Rare,yes,but the odds are beyond astronomical....


This hasn't been established, this is simply a claim you made with no support. So, no point made...



overgrowem said:


> Sorry no links google them and U might get something.the Ruskies used them first,We then started during ,I believe,the Clinton era(maybe before).*There were a few jaw dropping sucesses reported,who knows what was stamped secret.Disbanded after 3 or 4 years.*


No jaw dropping successes given, again just you making a claim with no support. We know that your facts can be WAY off as you stated disbanded after 3-4 years, Heis showed that the time span was 24 years...



overgrowem said:


> Your lack of information on the U.S.remote viewing program is blinding.The locating of the crashed U.S.plane was widly reported when the program was declassified. Why do U say the crash is secret I didn't say so, and U don't know....Remote viewing HAS been tested(don't tell me U didn't know that).*Some people consistently out perform random chance in controled tests.*I hardly think a magicians performance is a valid test.


You haven't supported this, just another claim...



overgrowem said:


> I've answered this,*they hid objects and some people were able to beat random chance*.I didn't say the tests not valid .I said doing it for a magicin in a nightclub is not valid.*When they located the plane I'm sure they went there to get recorders,loose bombs, bodies,etc..As for reports links,etc..I'm not the skeptic ,you are ,do your own homework as U said easy..*
> .


Again, just claims. Why should anyone believe you? You challenged Heis to do your homework for you, he did so, and the results were very different than your claims. It seems the actual evidence is against your claims, not for them...



overgrowem said:


> *My statements are not claims,just statements of fact*.If U are not curious to check it out so be it,Not worth my time to educate a wilfully in the dark naysayer.Magicians were your go to group to prove whether remote viewing was valid or not,last I heard they haunted clubs,theaters etc.not labs.Debate rule#2,*do some opposition research,other than"I know U are but what am I.*


Just because you say your statements are fact doesn't make them so, that's why credible links are so important in debate and why without them, rational people can simply dismiss the point you are trying to make...





overgrowem said:


> ................CIA.run project Stargate yielded considerable scientific evidence for the reality of the phenomenon"...."Growing #s of individuals could be found to demonstrate high Quality remote viewing such as Hellen Hammond"....In 2nd yr.Pat Price was assigned to provide data on a soviet site of operational significance...."Several details conserning the technology of the Soviet Palatinsk site appear to dovetail with data from other sources".It was noted this was not the projects greatest success.Didn't locate the plane but it is out there.I do not believe your cut and paste indicated the phenom was fake ,bogus or did not exist,just that it was not up to a very high standard but does not question the phenominas ACTUAL EXISTANCE.


It's obvious that it is very important to you that this phenomena has merit. They weren't trying to disprove the phenomena, they were attempting to prove it. And they aparantly couldn't. This doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it just means that even after decades and untold millions of dollars they couldn't prove anything. That's as good as non-existent in my book. Then again, I don't have a vested emotional interest in this ability existing...




overgrowem said:


> Yes I no doubt did not chose my words as carefully as I should have.My haste was due to the fact that the poster was denying the existance of Project Stargate,yet he had never heard of it......NO ACTUAL BENIFIT.....DISCREDITED...Neither of these mean nonexistant and I have seen no statements that it is NONEXISTANT.The original Question was name a supernatural phenomina.Well if remote viewing is not nonexistant....point made....On a lighter side many,many women share a power with the super hero, Shadow...."the ability to cloud mens minds


So, you started off with your statements as fact and refuse to do simple research. Somebody does it for you that goes against your claims and you move the goalpost from 'I'm stating facts' to 'it doesn't prove it doesn't exist'. Lastly, you attempt to backpedal out of your statements, but you're not fooling anyone here with that, either. If I were you, I would just say I was mistaken and give up, your refusal to do so simply takes away from your credibility...


----------



## Padawanbater2 (May 5, 2012)

tyler.durden said:


> *Like* Speaking of reading minds, I had that _exact_ outfit on last Friday


[youtube]mpaEYv8teGY[/youtube]


----------



## mindphuk (May 5, 2012)

overgrowem said:


> My question was a question in the form of a question U made it a claim when U classified the events I cited as not factual W/O a link(my verasity be damed).


WTF are you talking about? Your question was a claim that RV was used to find downed aircraft in Siberia. Neither I or anyone else said it was not factual. No one claimed that without a link it wasn't factual. We said no one knows what the hell you are talking about so how about a link so that we understand which event you were referring to. If it was not a claim then what was your question exactly? How about what?


> Accept them as not falsehoods and the whole thrust of the post changes.


No one claimed they were false at that point. Quit attributing posts of doubt as outright claims that you weren't truthful. 


> I posted a quote from the prog. direct earlier validating the Ruskie base part of my post.


You posted nothing until after this went on for 2 or 3 pages. 


> As I have said the plane is out there also.Why would I tell a truth and a lie I could have framed my question with just 1 example and it would have been the same inquiry.I mentioned the plane because it was the headline project when this was being reported.


Again, people were only asking for where, when and who. Typical questions a reporter might ask. No one said false or lie. You only inferred that. 


> As for the rest of your post,I'm sure I can bang out a rebutal to eachconcern.


Considering your inability to understand the most simplest of concepts like giving details or a link to this supposed event so we can evaluate what you are talking about, I doubt you can rebut anything I said since everything is in evidence in this thread. 


> but I am tired tonight and see little or no positive info left to be shared on this subject I'm not going to track down the airplane I know the event happened.


Yet no one else does. Just because you think it was 'widely reported' does not automatically mean that we saw these reports or remember them if we did. The fact that you can't or won't track down the information you are claiming is true says quite a lot about you and your character. 



> ]Feel free to look if your doubts are that strong .


Look where? You have given us so little to go on. If you personally can't find the information from a simple google search using the information you claim to know, how the hell are we supposed to verify it? 


Here's one for you. Remember that incident in Colorado with the guy that had the wheel thing that could give free energy? No? Well go look it up yourself, I'm not inclined to do your homework for you. This is exactly what you are doing. You made a claim about some interesting event yet cannot be bothered to give enough information so others can follow along. 



> Basiclly I'm ready to move on to the next tempest in a teapot.


You don't appear ready for anything if it involves interacting with others on an intellectual basis.


----------



## mindphuk (May 5, 2012)

BTW, just because something falls outside the statistical probability of random chance does not prove anything except that there was some non-randomness associated with the results. You still need to provide direct evidence that it was paranormal abilities that created this deviation from chance and not something else. 


For example, here are some chosen passages from _*An Evaluation of Remote Viewing: Research and Applications*_

As the parapsychologist John Palmer has recognized,
parapsychologists will have to go beyond demonstrating the presence of a statistical anomaly
before they can claim the presence of psychic functioning. This is because, among other things,
the existence of a statistical anomaly is defined negatively. Something is occurring for which we
have no obvious or ready explanation. This something may or may not turn out to be paranormal,
According to Palmer, parapsychologists will have to devise a positive theory of the paranormal
before they will be in a position to claim that the observed anomalies indicate paranormal
functioning.
Without such a positive theory, we have no way of specifying the boundary conditions for
anomalous mental phenomena. Without such a theory we have no way of specifying when psi is
present and when it is absent. Because psi or anomalous cognition is currently detected only by
departures from a null hypothesis all kinds of problems beset the quest for the claim and pursuit of
psychic functioning.

-----------
Here we encounter another way in which parapsychological inquiry differs from typical scientific
inquiry. In those sciences that rely on statistical inference, they do so as an aid to weeding out
effects that could be the result of chance variability. When effect sizes are very small or if the

experimenter needs to use many more cases than is typical for the field to obtain significance, the
conclusions are often suspect. This is because we know that with enough cases an investigator
will get a significant result, regardless of whether it is meaningful or not. Parapsychologists are
unique in postulating a null hypothesis that entails a true effect size of zero if psi is not operating.
Any significant outcome, then, becomes evidence for psi. My concern here is that small effects
and other departures from the statistical model can be expected to occur in the absence of psi.
The statistical model is only an approximation. When power is sufficient and when the statistical
test is pushed too far, rejections of the null hypothesis are bound to occur. This is another
important reason why claiming the existence of an anomaly based solely on evidence from
statistical inference is problematic.
This is one concern about claiming the existence of an anomaly on the basis of statistical evidence.
In the context of this report, I see it as a minor concern. As I have indicated, I am willing to grant
Professor Utts' claim that the rejection of the null hypothesis is probably warranted in connection
with the SAIC and the ganzfeld databases. I have other concerns. Both have to do with the fact
that no other science, so far as I know, would draw conclusions about the existence of
phenomena solely on the basis of statistical findings. Although it is consistent with scientific
practice to use statistical inference to reject the null hypothesis, it is not consistent with such
practice to postulate the existence of phenomena on this basis alone. Much more is required.​


----------



## overgrowem (May 5, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> WTF are you talking about? Your question was a claim that RV was used to find downed aircraft in Siberia. Neither I or anyone else said it was not factual. No one claimed that without a link it wasn't factual. We said no one knows what the hell you are talking about so how about a link so that we understand which event you were referring to. If it was not a claim then what was your question exactly? How about what?
> No one claimed they were false at that point. Quit attributing posts of doubt as outright claims that you weren't truthful.
> You posted nothing until after this went on for 2 or 3 pages.
> Again, people were only asking for where, when and who. Typical questions a reporter might ask. No one said false or lie. You only inferred that.
> ...


I'll make comment on 2 points and have no more to say on this subject.My Question contained 2 EXAMPLES IMO, different from a claim or assertion.
Early on I suspected either I was not expressing myself well or U are not cmprehending what U are reading.Your post of my quote about Airplanes on the otherside of the world and of drawing military instalations in Siberia and then morphing it into airplanes in Siberia, makes me suspect the latter is the case.As for for a lack of info,I googled Proj. Stargate and got hundred papers. The first I scaned gave the details on the Russian base project.


----------



## Heisenberg (May 5, 2012)

overgrowem said:


> I'll make comment on 2 points and have no more to say on this subject.My Question contained 2 EXAMPLES IMO, different from a claim or assertion.
> Early on I suspected either I was not expressing myself well or U are not cmprehending what U are reading.Your post of my quote about Airplanes on the otherside of the world and of drawing military instalations in Siberia and then morphing it into airplanes in Siberia, makes me suspect the latter is the case.As for for a lack of info,I googled Proj. Stargate and got hundred papers. The first I scaned gave the details on the Russian base project.


We all misspeak now and again. If your original post was meant as a question or just a suggestion for a topic to discuss then it seems I misunderstood you a bit. However you do still seem to be making claims, and still didn't post a link, despite saying you were reading a page yourself. So I suspect you'll continue to get heat for that. One thing your are sure to get is discussion about pseudoscience, and lots of demonstrations of critical thinking.

I am actually prepared to accept they found a plane, or any significant object, after 24 years of trying. This hardly defies chance and certainly doesn't count as extraordinary evidence. As I said before, remote viewing is so easily tested, so easy to demonstrate, that it seems someone would have some results by now, even if by accident alone. After 20 million in govt testing and who knows how many private attempts, we have no working mechanism to point to, no clear utility for such an ability, and no replicable results of any kind outside of some vague conjecture. Why do we not regularly see missing persons and pets being found by viewers? Why can't viewers see a simple random number generator in the next room? Why did none of them see the unfolding of 911, the Oklahoma bombing, or the ending to Lost? Why did it take the FBI so long to find the Unibomber? How many years did viewers have to find Osama? If the govt did gain something from it's project that it's keeping secret, there doesn't seem to be any evidence of it's use what-so-ever. And if the Russians learned anything, it's seems they are not putting it to practice either.


----------



## mindphuk (May 5, 2012)

overgrowem said:


> My Question contained 2 EXAMPLES IMO, different from a claim or assertion.


I will ask again. What was you question? You are saying you posted about recovering an airplane and drawing military bases. The problem that you keep seem to be ignoring, no matter if I conflated your two examples or not, is you actually did not ask a question as you proposed those as examples of successful RV. Am I wrong? The fact that you still don't believe you are making claims about RV being successful is truly astounding.


----------

