# Are any of you here a Sensitive?



## Canna Sylvan (Nov 13, 2012)

A Sensative is a person with latent "psychic power." I have no idea if it's a force we don't know about or a part of you from another life passed on through heredity. You can experience things others can't.Like feel a place is hot or cold when others don't


----------



## Nutes and Nugs (Nov 14, 2012)

It sorta sucks. You know certain things will happen but not sure when. You cannot predict the lottery or anything.
It's like a place in the brain where past, present and future all come together and ever so often the door opens.


----------



## Dank You, More Please (Nov 14, 2012)

I'm an empath, if you've heard of that. It means I have the ability, to project emotions into others and recieve emotions from others, I'm not only extremely sensitive to picking up on what others around me are feeling and able to project my emotions into them, but I can tell when someone comes within a close proximity to me, for instance, I could be alone in a large field, and when someone gets ohhhh about 1/4 mile away I can sense their presence. The ability is usually latent, although recently, and after much practice, I've been able to communicate with others who are asleep while I'm in a lucid dream-state. I don't have any extra sense of the future or anything, it's all strictly "in the moment" if you will, but I think it's related to what you're asking. 

And of course, MJ does wonders for heightening it!


----------



## tyler.durden (Nov 14, 2012)

I'm a Mental Dominant: I can make others do anything I ask, _anything_. The problem is that when I use this force, I hemorrhage deep inside my nasal cavity and get severe nose bleeds. It's not bad for small stuff like, "Give me your iPad" or, "You want to let me in this concert without a ticket". But when I tell someone to jump off a building, or that they're blind, my nose gushes something nasty. I am also a little psychic, as I have hit winning lottery numbers four times for a total of over $500k. I thought I was the only one with these special powers, but it's good to see I'm not alone...


----------



## Canna Sylvan (Nov 14, 2012)

Padwan,
Can you please close this thread? You said you were interested, but I can see people are going to be fuckers. Oh it's ok to have a sky daddy but not this. Screw it.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Nov 15, 2012)

Hey guys, try to keep the trolling to a minimum, a few people would like to seriously discuss this topic, thanks, I appreciate it!


----------



## Canna Sylvan (Nov 15, 2012)

So any of you have any questions? Shoot.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Nov 15, 2012)

Canna Sylvan said:


> A Sensative is a person with latent "psychic power." I have no idea if it's a force we don't know about or a part of you from another life passed on through heredity. You can experience things others can't.Like feel a place is hot or cold when others don't



What is "latent psychic power"?

What do you mean by "you can feel a place is hot or cold when others don't"?


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Nov 15, 2012)

I dont see how the hot and cold thing has to do with being psychic, I think thats just a mind over matter thing and everyone experiences temperatures differently, just like everyone sees colors differently. Maybe 'mind over matter' has an explanation that doesnt fit these accepted ideas of reality, who knows, I dont think psychic would be the word for it though. 

I think once upon a time everyone had full control over their psychic abilities, then a catastrophic event happened and destroyed everything that reality used to be and now we are left with ghost like clues to what reality is. We are a species with amnesia and we obliviously have these psychic abilities but we have no control over them what so ever, and when they happen we call them coincidences.


----------



## tyler.durden (Nov 15, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> I dont see how the hot and cold thing has to do with being psychic, I think thats just a mind over matter thing and everyone experiences temperatures differently, just like everyone sees colors differently. Maybe 'mind over matter' has an explanation that doesnt fit these accepted ideas of reality, who knows, I dont think psychic would be the word for it though.
> 
> I think once upon a time everyone had full control over their psychic abilities, then a catastrophic event happened and destroyed everything that reality used to be and now we are left with ghost like clues to what reality is. We are a species with amnesia and we obliviously have these psychic abilities but we have no control over them what so ever, and when they happen we call them coincidences.


LMAO! C'mon, dude. Pad said no more trolling...


----------



## Canna Sylvan (Nov 15, 2012)

Chief,
You absolutely have no idea what I mean by hot and cold spots. In a uniform cold or hot area, it's a spot became the exact opposite temp. When you sense it and no one else does, either you're crazy or something is there. That's up to you to decide.


----------



## Canna Sylvan (Nov 15, 2012)

Padwan,Are the five senses we have all that exists in the real world?I have 20/14 vision.If you have 20/40 vision. Would my superior vision be magic?Don't we have machines like glasses that give you closer to my vision?Who says what I exp a machine detects


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 15, 2012)

...cs, the first 4 senses are the 'rivers' of eden. Mouth, nose, ears and eyes. It goes on from there all the way to Uranus.

(...actually not kidding there )


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 15, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> I think once upon a time everyone had full control over their psychic abilities, then a catastrophic event happened and destroyed everything that reality used to be and now we are left with ghost like clues to what reality is.


...we start out as kids, fully psychic. This just means that we haven't learned to gauge by experience, only by feel. Later, the catastrophic event is based in sex, the first form of 'feeling' we have. It is quite clear that all of our senses go toward that end after we've had it once. 

...they say that if we can 'cleanse' those senses, the others 'come back'. The 12 apostles are just that. They are the other senses / messengers we have 'latent / atrophied'.

...and so on


----------



## D3monic (Nov 15, 2012)

Ive started imparting commands to my dog telepathically. I can convince her to roll over with thought... which is a pretty big feat since I could never get her to do it with hand commands. Getting ready to move up to people.


----------



## meechz 024 (Nov 15, 2012)

I'm an Empath. Ever since I was a young kid, I felt strong emotions and felt other people's.

I can read people like a book. I watch and listen carefully the little things that the average person doesn't sense and I'm able to figure out how and why certain behaviors are triggered.

I can figure out somebody's motives in why they are behaving a certain way, almost always.

If I'm face to face with someone, I will figure out your motives. I will know if the other person is trying to big me up or spare feelings before they talk to me, or if they are trying to hide something from me.
I may not know the specifics, but I'll sense you're deceptions.

I can also make people feel good without being corny and babying them. I just make them feel at ease by empathizing with them and they sense that I understand them


----------



## greenswag (Nov 15, 2012)

Same here with the empath, I'm also sensitive to the 'other side' or whatever you would like to call it. I can feel when something is around a d whether it's good or bad. It's extremely rare for me to see something, less rare but still rare to hear something. Last night i actually had an encounter ill describe when i get home to a computer.

edit-home

Okay so last night. Two years ago I was taking an air conditioner out of a window in my room and knocked my old ass TV onto the floor and broke it. I plugged it in, and something was broken inside because it wouldn't even turn on. After that I've had it sitting for two years on the floor of my room unplugged, which gives it more than enough time for all of the left over power in the cells to die. Last night I woke up needing to blow my nose (stupid cold), reached to my left where my tissues usually are and they weren't there. I was like, alright weird but whatever. I got out of bed and turned on the light in my room thinking they were going to be on my desk. When the light came on I got a bad feeling but blew it off as being tired, I looked at the desk and the tissue box wasn't there, I looked back to where I thought it was but couldn't feel it, and boom now it's there. I shrugged that off too and grabbed a tissue. With the tissue in my left hand, arm slightly raised because I was in the middle of pulling it up to my nose, my right arm is now on the light switch about to turn it off. As soon as I flip the switch off, there's maybe a half second delay, and the broken TV which has been unplugged for two years, and doesn't even work when plugged in, flickered three times in a row lighting up my room in front of me in quick gray/white light. I was petrified, I stood for a good 30 seconds unable to move as the uneasy somethings here feeling overwhelmed me with the tissue still only halfway raised to my nose. After about 30 seconds I was able to compose myself enough to crawl into bed, my adrenaline completely clearing my nose for me and lied there with my eyes wide open for about 15 minutes with no more things happening before I could get myself to start falling asleep.

I didn't close my eyes or throw the covers over me like people tend to do because I have the stupid fear that even if I blink (yes I did blink, it's impossible not too after so long) as soon as I re-open my eyes, there will be something right in my freakin face. Just thought I would share my most recent story. As for being able to change the direction of the wind, I did a lot of reading in magic/paganism and I don't recall hearing about that, but I do remember reading that you can create or dissipate clouds. I've gotten clouds to form over me when doing what was instructed, and was able to make parts of clouds dissipate, but whether that was me or coincidence I don't really know because I never cared to do it more than once or twice. Also I might just be brain dead right now, but I don't know what you mean by some folks say tuition is like being able to see around corners.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 15, 2012)

greenswag said:


> Same here with the empath, I'm also sensitive to the 'other side' or whatever you would like to call it.


...some folks say intuition is like being able to see around corners.


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 15, 2012)

meechz 024 said:


> I'm an Empath. Ever since I was a young kid, I felt strong emotions and felt other people's.
> 
> I can read people like a book. I watch and listen carefully the little things that the average person doesn't sense and I'm able to figure out how and why certain behaviors are triggered.
> 
> ...


You seem to simply be describing empathy and compassion. I find it easy to do all the things you describe, but I believe it is because people are simple and preoccupied. It's not hard to gauge someones attitude, guess their motivation, read their cadence and body language, ect. Deception is easy to spot when it comes from the average individual, someone who isn't practiced. People's emotions are transparent and therefore easily manipulated. 

"Colors blind; Sound deafens; Beauty beguiles; The enemy of stillness is desire, remove desire and you are left with only truth." - Kwai Chang Caine


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 15, 2012)

^ nice quote, very true.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Nov 15, 2012)

I'm not psychic, but sometimes when i look at an animal and try to make it do something or stop something with my mind and it happens, sometimes i can do that with bugs and the wind direction too (but not very often at all). Sometimes i can predict what my friend is going to say right before they say it, or how someone feels just by their body language or facial expressions. Sometimes i say the same exact thing at the same time with my friends and were like woah, we hang out way too much! 

Even though i'm not psychic or an empath, i am very empathetic and it can sometimes seem like im psychic. Not sure if i would even want that power, not unless i could use it to make me fly.


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 15, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> I think *once upon a time* everyone had full control over their psychic abilities, then a catastrophic event happened and destroyed everything that reality used to be and now we are left with ghost like clues to what reality is.


Nice story. Glad you started it like most fairy tales begin because that's what it is when you make shit up. There is a world of difference between thinking that there might be some latent ability, force or part of nature that we haven't discovered yet and revisionist history that runs contrary to every historical and archeological fact about the development of the human species. Don't confuse sci-fi/fantasy fiction with reality. 



> We are a species with amnesia and we *obliviously *have these psychic abilities but we have no control over them what so ever, and when they happen we call them coincidences.


Some of us are more oblivious than others.


----------



## greenswag (Nov 15, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> Nice story. Glad you started it like most fairy tales begin because that's what it is when you make shit up. There is a world of difference between thinking that there might be some latent ability, force or part of nature that we haven't discovered yet and revisionist history that runs contrary to every historical and archeological fact about the development of the human species. Don't confuse sci-fi/fantasy fiction with reality.
> 
> 
> Some of us are more oblivious than others.


I enjoyed the idea of it. I don't know if I believe it, but it's nice to think about. I don't see why you are being so critical. I'm the same with the idea of Bahamut, I don't necessarily BELIEVE it, though like every other religion or idea of that type, it's just as credible/possible as all the others because that's all it is, an idea about something we have no way of proving or disproving, but like I said I don't believe it. But I AM, amused by the idea of it and enjoy how it makes us feel so small and insignificant.

[video=youtube;CeUGeNTTD9k]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeUGeNTTD9k[/video] The description is at 2:30 in the video


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Nov 15, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...we start out as kids, fully psychic. This just means that we haven't learned to gauge by experience, only by feel. Later, the catastrophic event is based in sex, the first form of 'feeling' we have. It is quite clear that all of our senses go toward that end after we've had it once.
> 
> ...they say that if we can 'cleanse' those senses, the others 'come back'. The 12 apostles are just that. They are the other senses / messengers we have 'latent / atrophied'.
> 
> ...and so on


I THINK I understand you. Are you talking about our aging process and the things we go through? I believe babies see a whole different world and are able receive thoughts and know that they arent their own. Are you saying our primitive sex drive brings us farther away from experiencing these psychic abilities? 

You really gotta post your sources man. Is this from the same guy that demonstrated Adam and Eve was symbolism for an atom and an electron?


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Nov 15, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> Nice story. Glad you started it like most fairy tales begin because that's what it is when you make shit up. There is a world of difference between thinking that there might be some latent ability, force or part of nature that we haven't discovered yet and revisionist history that runs contrary to every historical and archeological fact about the development of the human species. Don't confuse sci-fi/fantasy fiction with reality.
> 
> 
> Some of us are more oblivious than others.


Cool story bro... Mine is cooler


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Nov 15, 2012)

Canna Sylvan said:


> Chief,
> You absolutely have no idea what I mean by hot and cold spots. In a uniform cold or hot area, it's a spot became the exact opposite temp. When you sense it and no one else does, either you're crazy or something is there. That's up to you to decide.


I still dont see how that has to do with being psychic. When you say 'something is there', are you talking about a spirit or w.e? What do you think causes these temperature changes that only you can feel? I dont think you would be crazy if nothing supernatural was going on, I think it would just be something wrong with the nervous system. I still think the mind over matter theory might play a part in it as well, perhaps the subconscious mind.


----------



## cannabineer (Nov 15, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...we start out as kids, fully psychic. *This just means that we haven't learned to gauge by experience, only by feel.* Later, the catastrophic event is based in sex, the first form of 'feeling' we have. It is quite clear that all of our senses go toward that end after we've had it once.
> 
> ...they say that if we can 'cleanse' those senses, the others 'come back'. The 12 apostles are just that. They are the other senses / messengers we have 'latent / atrophied'.
> 
> ...and so on


Dissenting opinion. "Psychic" has an irreducible meaning-component of magical power ... clairvoyance, telepathy, paranormal what-have-you. I have deep-enough memories of childhood to know that i was not even a bit psychic. cn


----------



## sunni (Nov 15, 2012)

i think i am......i really do


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 15, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> Dissenting opinion. "Psychic" has an irreducible meaning-component of magical power ... clairvoyance, telepathy, paranormal what-have-you. I have deep-enough memories of childhood to know that i was not even a bit psychic. cn


...agreed, and I should clarify how I am using the word "psychic". Full mental integration. The cataclysmic event (a la cwe) is the 'breaking apart' of that psychism.

*this is my current apprehension of this.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 15, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> I THINK I understand you. Are you talking about our aging process and the things we go through? I believe babies see a whole different world and are able receive thoughts and know that they arent their own. Are you saying our primitive sex drive brings us farther away from experiencing these psychic abilities?
> 
> You really gotta post your sources man. Is this from the same guy that demonstrated Adam and Eve was symbolism for an atom and an electron?


...not from the same guy. I don't know about that one. I've known about that through other studies, ooooooooold stuff. I'd list sources but I have thousands of bookmarks to go through. I'm just speaking from the soup of info in (and of) my experiences.

...yes, I think primitive sexual nature chases away much of what we could do. Think about it this way, if man and woman's seed can create life, what could it create if stored in the 'womb of the body', retained and not fired off (scattered) into infinity. Does the energy released from that spasm go anywhere? Back to the sun to come back to us to try again? Or, kept in the system to sustain it? Your _choice_.

...crazy sht.


----------



## cannabineer (Nov 15, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...agreed, and I should clarify how I am using the word "psychic". Full mental integration. The cataclysmic event (a la cwe) is the 'breaking apart' of that psychism.
> 
> *this is my current apprehension of this.


Sort of a pre-Freudian state, before Superego made Metropolis safe for language, justice and the American way. I still like the Id though ... with his volcanic fortress ... cn


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 15, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> Sort of a pre-Freudian state, before Superego made Metropolis safe for language, justice and the American way. I still like the Id though ... with his volcanic fortress ... cn










...lol - instant association to the forge of vulcan


----------



## cannabineer (Nov 15, 2012)

... how Farr can we take this? cn


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 15, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> ... how Farr can we take this? cn


...dunno, my left thumb and middle finger have strong indents in them.  My magic mouse is acting like it's in one of those sticky traps so not very mobile at the moment. And, I'm being desensitized by scissor hash


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 15, 2012)

Me and my best friend often say the same things at the same time, I chalk it up to being around each other so frequently that we start to think the same things, as we have similar taste in humor, etc. I believe that when you've been close with someone for 15+ years you assimilate parts of the other persons personality into your behavior. 

I've certainly had deja vu from deams I've had, but they're few and far between. If you factor in how many dreams I have vs how many are relevant, it's still a statistical anomaly.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Nov 15, 2012)

I'll think of a movie 1-2 weeks ahead of time, just randomly think of a scene, for absolutely no reason. Then it'll appear on TV. This has happened so many times I've stopped keeping track. In the beginning, when I first started noticing it, I wrote it down, each time it would happen, ended up with a monthly average of 3-4 times. Seems odd.. Any movie I'd randomly think about, be it from the 70's, 80's.. 90's... 00's.. Didn't matter. Eventually, I got to the point where I'd think of a scene, then be absolutely sure it would play within a week or two and I'd coincidentally catch it, at whatever time it was on.. "What are the odds of this happening, over and over?" I wondered.. 

Today, I mark it all up as a coincidence. Nothing supernatural or abnormal about it. I see or think of scenes I like, I figure the majority of society enjoys them too, so networks provide them. What sort of supernatural connection would I have with media? Why would I have it? What makes my irrational explanation any more relevant or true than anything else? What would justify me concluding such a belief?..

So I can predict movies.. Science tells me I can't, and it's only a coincidence. Since I have nothing else to rationalize it with, I must accept the reality of the situation. It's "luck". I have no ability, only a more acute perception than normal, for, what probably is, a myriad of reasons. 

Nothing supernatural required.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 16, 2012)

...yesterday I thought of 2 friends while listening to a certain record. One of the two friends calls a couple of minutes after I put the music on. We talked about a show we are going to see. The other friend is coming also.

...haven't talked to them in ages.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 16, 2012)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Nothing supernatural required.


...natural would be 'normal'. Supernatural would be 'heightened normal'. Not like in the movies, I guess


----------



## meechz 024 (Nov 16, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> You seem to simply be describing empathy and compassion. I find it easy to do all the things you describe, but I believe it is because people are simple and preoccupied. It's not hard to gauge someones attitude, guess their motivation, read their cadence and body language, ect. Deception is easy to spot when it comes from the average individual, someone who isn't practiced. People's emotions are transparent and therefore easily manipulated.
> 
> "Colors blind; Sound deafens; Beauty beguiles; The enemy of stillness is desire, remove desire and you are left with only truth." - Kwai Chang Caine


Good post, I agree. I figure that I'm just more of an analytical person, and I also have introverted tendencies. I analyze a lot, so therefore things are more clear to me, such as behaviors and deceptions.

I called myself an Empath, because I did the internet test a while ago and it said I was.....but I take it as a grain of salt. You are right, you put it into perspective.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Nov 16, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...yesterday I thought of 2 friends while listening to a certain record. One of the two friends calls a couple of minutes after I put the music on. We talked about a show we are going to see. The other friend is coming also.
> 
> ...haven't talked to them in ages.


I like it when i have my phone in my hand and im getting ready to press send when the person i was just getting ready to call, calls me.... im like woah, that was AWESOME. Coincidence? Yea, most likely.


----------



## ganja man23 (Nov 16, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> Nice story. Glad you started it like most fairy tales begin because that's what it is when you make shit up. There is a world of difference between thinking that there might be some latent ability, force or part of nature that we haven't discovered yet and revisionist history that runs contrary to every historical and archeological fact about the development of the human species. Don't confuse sci-fi/fantasy fiction with reality.
> 
> 
> Some of us are more oblivious than others.


did you ever think that perhaps everything is based on perception and many others consider you just as oblivious (if not more)? the fact that you share similar beliefs with others doesn't give you any more validity then anyone else. do you consider yourself much more intelligent than others for limiting yourself to what you see in "your reality"? or perhaps you're like a verbal crusader taking down all who don't agree with you? 

people will read and come upon their own conclusions, similar to what they do to your post. personally i'm thankful for all insights. do you think we;re here tooting our own horns? can't be further from the truth. if i was a horn tooter i would be downtown right now handing out various pamphlets with various messages of bullshit on them.

the problem arises when someone is sharing information and rather then providing valuable counter information, you bring up fairy tales. how can you really prove anything you have been taught unless you witness it yourself? chances are you believe everything your history teachers tell you without question but how can you if you were not there to experience it yourself?


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Nov 16, 2012)

I have to side with Mindphuk on this one, just because we haven't figured something out yet, doesn't mean we can just simply write it off as "magic" 

Maybe there is a psychic out there that does exist, someone who can legitimately read minds... but throughout the history of mankind, every person who has laid claim to this ability was an outright liar and a hoaxer. It's scary because the human animal psyche has the ability to lie to itself so convincingly that it starts to believe the lie. 

I think, that unless we doubt ourselves in everything we think we know... and always leave room for doubt with what we think we know, we will never be able to be honest with ourselves, and we will never get to know ourselves entirely... 

...Our deepest fears, the ones we pretend aren't there... the ones that we hide from ourselves, and our most cherished desires, some that may surprise, confound, and disgust us that we even have them. 

To not doubt our beliefs is outright absurd, it is replacing fear with artificial certainty. The aspect of a cowardly thinker.


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 16, 2012)

I think that any idea which starts out with "I think" is okay to express. It's like saying 'in my mind' or 'the way I see it'. It is simply a description of thought. I am not sure you can get further from "this is fact" than saying "this is what I think". Although the idea may be inaccurate and contrary to evidence, stated in this way it's an idea who's reach has not exceeded it's grasp.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 16, 2012)

Zaehet Strife said:


> I like it when i have my phone in my hand and im getting ready to press send when the person i was just getting ready to call, calls me.... im like woah, that was AWESOME. *Coincidence?* Yea, most likely.


...yep, dual incidence of a related nature. A connection, if you will


----------



## Canna Sylvan (Nov 16, 2012)

Ganja man,
That's all I wanted to do. But everyone wants to call you wrong or crazy based upon, "why is it only you!"Einstein was the only one with his space and time theory, relativity.To this day there are those devoting their life to proving him wrong!


----------



## ganja man23 (Nov 16, 2012)

Canna Sylvan said:


> Ganja man,
> That's all I wanted to do. But everyone wants to call you wrong or crazy based upon, "why is it only you!"Einstein was the only one with his space and time theory, relativity.To this day there are those devoting their life to proving him wrong!


Exactly my point. Why dedicate life to going against the wave? We must project our energy to continue graduating upwards. Fear, doubt,negativity will all lead backwards and unfortunately when you experience that path you are oblivious to it. Doesn't matter how smart you may think you are, in fact the more physically intelligent, the more oblivious i have found in my experience. these guys think they deserve a big cookie for "disproving" others. i've said it many times but a absence of evidence is not evidence of an absence. if you choose to live life a certain way, then so be it. there's one thing i can't stand in this world and it's people who want to take things away from others when it doesn't affect them. Why don't they let us smoke up where we want? Why don't we let gay people marry who they want? if a gay guy gets married, is that going to make you gay? these are all things that would not affect you if you did not choose to engage in them so my question is why do others care?

btw i love your sig. wish we could all have insights like that. that's our problem, we think we're so great at the moment we've become delusional and don't see our next step in progression. don't get me wrong, we are great but not living up to the full potential.


----------



## Canna Sylvan (Nov 16, 2012)

Ganja man,
Yep. They talk about fairy tales, yet those like us make them. Imagine a life without those fairy tales to amuse us. It'd be boring, huh?


----------



## ganja man23 (Nov 16, 2012)

Canna Sylvan said:


> Ganja man,
> Yep. They talk about fairy tales, yet those like us make them. Imagine a life without those fairy tales to amuse us. It'd be boring, huh?


While most fairy tales are considered fake and made up, i think that's the very thing that makes them real. We'll all learn soon enough that fairy tales are no less fictional than what we perceive as our physical reality. This doesn't mean they exist within it, just that they simply exist in some form, even as non physical perception. True reality is even stranger then imagination.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Nov 16, 2012)

Canna Sylvan said:


> Ganja man,
> That's all I wanted to do. But everyone wants to call you wrong or crazy based upon, "why is it only you!"Einstein was the only one with his space and time theory, relativity.To this day there are those devoting their life to proving him wrong!


Big difference between something like what you're describing, which has no way of verifying it, and Einsteins theory of special relativity, which can be, and has been, verified. 

That's exactly the distinction skeptics highlight with their doubt. 

How is there value in anything that can't be verified besides the emotional aspect that it might make some people feel better?



ganja man23 said:


> Exactly my point. Why dedicate life to going against the wave? We must project our energy to continue graduating upwards. Fear, doubt,negativity will all lead backwards and unfortunately when you experience that path you are oblivious to it. Doesn't matter how smart you may think you are, in fact the more physically intelligent, the more oblivious i have found in my experience. these guys think they deserve a big cookie for "disproving" others. i've said it many times but a absence of evidence is not evidence of an absence. if you choose to live life a certain way, then so be it. there's one thing i can't stand in this world and it's people who want to take things away from others when it doesn't affect them. Why don't they let us smoke up where we want? Why don't we let gay people marry who they want? if a gay guy gets married, is that going to make you gay? these are all things that would not affect you if you did not choose to engage in them so my question is why do others care?
> 
> btw i love your sig. wish we could all have insights like that. that's our problem, we think we're so great at the moment we've become delusional and don't see our next step in progression. don't get me wrong, we are great but not living up to the full potential.


Absence of evidence is exactly that, the absence of any evidence. What you seem to be doing is making a giant leap in reasoning and claiming that just because we haven't found anything yet doesn't mean it doesn't exist, to that I ask, why don't you believe in Russel's teapot or my invisible dragon? It's unreasonable to automatically believe every unverifiable claim simply because we haven't verified it yet.

Believing in certain things can be dangerous, and disbelieving in reality to favor some pseudo-intellectual, new age type of spiritualism can, and in most cases does cause people indirect harm, whether you accept it or not. It's not simply about your belief, it's about what your belief does to you and how you act because of it. Do you think fundamentalist Christians, those that take the Bible literally word for word, are going to support legislation on equal civil rights for homosexuals or abortion rights for families who need them? No, they're not, because their faith tells them it's sinful. That hurts people.


----------



## ganja man23 (Nov 16, 2012)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Big difference between something like what you're describing, which has no way of verifying it, and Einsteins theory of special relativity, which can be, and has been, verified.
> 
> That's exactly the distinction skeptics highlight with their doubt.
> 
> ...


I can't give you insights until you overcome the fact that what you see is not all that is, in fact it's a fraction of limitation. I don't mean that dragons are real, I mean absolutely everything in front of your eyes does not exist in the way your perceive it. Its one of the limitations of the brain and until you can escape that limitation, you will not know what I mean. You are merely speculating what you think I THINK.

So tell me exactly why is your invisible dragon not real? Can you prove to me it doesn't exist with old concrete evidence other than your claim that you shouldn't have to prove it? Dont just say that i cant prove its existance, i dont need to because its not in my reality, you brought it up so prove to me that the invisible dragon does not exist. Youll find that when you limit yourself to soemthing, you block all other options from coming to you. I have a hard time seeing how your response even relates to what I said which leads me upon the conclusion that you don't understand it.

Think about what I said, it's important not to limit yourself. The only reason you do is because you fear that you will gain beliefs that are "incorrect". When you have the wrong beliefs that do not resonate with your true self, you will become unbalanced, much like you have shown. You think because I believe that reality is within consciousness that I have lost out on life? Far from true. I know that's a common fear amongst people and you need to let go of that. You're only here for a limited time after all


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 16, 2012)

ganja man23 said:


> did you ever think that perhaps everything is based on perception and many others consider you just as oblivious (if not more)? the fact that you share similar beliefs with others doesn't give you any more validity then anyone else. do you consider yourself much more intelligent than others for limiting yourself to what you see in "your reality"? or perhaps you're like a verbal crusader taking down all who don't agree with you?
> 
> people will read and come upon their own conclusions, similar to what they do to your post. personally i'm thankful for all insights. do you think we;re here tooting our own horns? can't be further from the truth. if i was a horn tooter i would be downtown right now handing out various pamphlets with various messages of bullshit on them.
> 
> the problem arises when someone is sharing information and rather then providing valuable counter information, you bring up fairy tales. how can you really prove anything you have been taught unless you witness it yourself? chances are you believe everything your history teachers tell you without question but how can you if you were not there to experience it yourself?


Dude, if you can't see the joke of taking someone's typo that has a different meaning than he intended and turning it back on him, I really can't help you. Not everything I or anyone else says is as serious as you seem to be taking it. 

That said, my reality is the same as yours. You have a subjective view of it as do I, but unless you have evidence to the contrary, the validity of my view is supported by more than 'sharing beliefs' but you can believe whatever sci-fi or fantasy story you can concoct but I will stick with empiricism and skepticism.

You seem to be under the incredibly credulous assumption that anything that can be thought of has any validity, let alone equal validity to how most people define reality. Do you honestly think that every sci-fi story that gives a fantastical explanation as to human origins are all equally as valid as the scientific pursuit of the same question? If you do, then I'm sorry, we are at an impasse and cannot communicate on any level that I can consider sanity.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Nov 16, 2012)

ganja man23 said:


> I can't give you insights until you overcome the fact that *what you see is not all that is, in fact it's a fraction of limitation.*


How do you know?



ganja man23 said:


> I don't mean that dragons are real, *I mean absolutely everything in front of your eyes does not exist in the way your perceive it*. Its one of the limitations of the brain and until you can escape that limitation, you will not know what I mean. You are merely speculating what you think I THINK.


You're telling me I am speculating on what I think you think, yet in the same breath _y__ou're_ speculating on the way I perceive reality. 



ganja man23 said:


> So tell me exactly why is your invisible dragon not real? Can you prove to me it doesn't exist with old concrete evidence other than your claim that you shouldn't have to prove it? Dont just say that i cant prove its existance, i dont need to because its not in my reality, you brought it up so prove to me that the invisible dragon does not exist. Youll find that when you limit yourself to soemthing, you block all other options from coming to you. I have a hard time seeing how your response even relates to what I said which leads me upon the conclusion that you don't understand it.


You don't prove negatives in science, that's the point, and that isn't how it works. If it was, we'd be here all day attempting to prove every single thing you can think of and failing because we don't have the time or resources to prove every single negative claim false. 

I can't prove an invisible dragon _doesn't_ exist any more than I could prove Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, gods, etc. _don't_ exist, and neither can you, which is why it's foolish to assume certainty, as you do.



ganja man23 said:


> Think about what I said, it's important not to limit yourself. The only reason you do is because you fear that you will gain beliefs that are "incorrect". When you have the wrong beliefs that do not resonate with your true self, you will become unbalanced, much like you have shown. You think because I believe that reality is within consciousness that I have lost out on life? Far from true. I know that's a common fear amongst people and you need to let go of that. You're only here for a limited time after all


The only limits are the same sets of standards when analyzing the evidence. The very reason I hold these limits are to ensure the things I believe _are_ correct. Why would I want to fool myself into believing something is correct when it isn't? Every belief I hold has a credible basis in reality. 

As I said before, it isn't about what you believe, it's about how those beliefs make you conduct yourself in the real world. Some people, a lot of people actually, hold beliefs that harm people. I am appalled people are selfish enough to believe some of the things they believe at such an incredible cost and exclaim "I have a right to my beliefs". Nothing could be more selfish, imo. 


Can you show me anything that lends value to the beliefs you've described you hold, or, can you give me any reason why I should suspend my standards for reality in favor of such beliefs?


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Nov 16, 2012)

Zaehet Strife said:


> I think, that unless we doubt ourselves in* EVERYTHING* we think we know... and always leave room for doubt with what we think we know, we will never be able to be honest with ourselves, and we will never get to know ourselves entirely...


This also applies to your *certainty *of your *belief *that no ones knows if 'gods' or 'souls' exist.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Nov 16, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> This also applies to your *certainty *of your *belief *that no ones knows if 'gods' or 'souls' exist.


Certainty, in any regard, is an illusion.


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Nov 16, 2012)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Certainty, in any regard, is an illusion.


Yes, apply that to your certainty that science is the best way to discover reality. I hope this doesnt start up the broken record again, or else Im just gunna put on headphones lol.


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 16, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> This also applies to your *certainty *of your *belief *that no ones knows if 'gods' or 'souls' exist.


If we filter the strawman from your statement, which is that no one knows if gods or souls exist, we are left with the actual statement of, I don't know that gods/souls exist and I have never met anyone else who knew either, which is an expression of doubt, utterly devoid of certainty.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 16, 2012)

...this is a link. (hehe)


----------



## ganja man23 (Nov 16, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> Dude, if you can't see the joke of taking someone's typo that has a different meaning than he intended and turning it back on him, I really can't help you. Not everything I or anyone else says is as serious as you seem to be taking it.
> 
> That said, my reality is the same as yours. You have a subjective view of it as do I, but unless you have evidence to the contrary, the validity of my view is supported by more than 'sharing beliefs' but you can believe whatever sci-fi or fantasy story you can concoct but I will stick with empiricism and skepticism.
> 
> You seem to be under the incredibly credulous assumption that anything that can be thought of has any validity, let alone equal validity to how most people define reality. Do you honestly think that every sci-fi story that gives a fantastical explanation as to human origins are all equally as valid as the scientific pursuit of the same question? If you do, then I'm sorry, we are at an impasse and cannot communicate on any level that I can consider sanity.


there's a major difference between science and spirituality. the sad truth is that they are not considered equal in society for some reason. spirituality has one universal meaning an it comes from within. science is providing credibility for the physical world. both are necessary for true balance. you all act as if i believe every thing i hear. if you want my belief (i have no memory of being there) than i believe we were solely created based upon extraterrestrial civilizations which did not evolve on earth like many believe we did. Why do i think this? I've noticed that we have not been able to exactly provide credibility for intelligent evolution. why we are the only ones to develop intelligence is not explained in modern evolution even based on genetics. and as further validation i choose to believe the universal messages of religion many of which say we were created by people who came from the skies. if you really care about the whole alien "conspiracy" there is enough information out there to make your mind up. we have many credible officials from the disclosure project. hours upon hours of people testifying about government coverups.


----------



## Canna Sylvan (Nov 16, 2012)

Padwan,
Once you proved it wrong, what did you get? Does it make you happy you were the one to tell a child Santa is fake? Perhaps people like you have a use, I'll hire you to tell my kids at 8 or 9 years old. I don't see the problem with imagining.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Nov 16, 2012)

ganja man23 said:


> there's a major difference between science and spirituality. the sad truth is that they are not considered equal in society *for some reason*. spirituality has one universal meaning an it comes from within. science is providing credibility for the physical world. both are necessary for true balance. you all act as if i believe every thing i hear. *if you want my belief (i have no memory of being there) than i believe we were solely created based upon extraterrestrial civilizations which did not evolve on earth like many believe we did.* Why do i think this? I've noticed that we have not been able to exactly provide credibility for intelligent evolution. *why we are the only ones to develop intelligence is not explained in modern evolution even based on genetics*. and as further validation i choose to believe the universal messages of religion many of which say we were created by people who came from the skies. if you really care about the whole alien "conspiracy" there is enough information out there to make your mind up. we have many credible officials from the disclosure project. hours upon hours of people testifying about government coverups.


The reason they're not considered equal in society is because spirituality isn't measurable. How do we know how accurate it is if there's no way to tell? How do I know what I perceive as spiritual is more or less valuable than what you perceive to be spiritual? 

If humanity went extinct, spirituality, religion, dogma, likely wouldn't exist in the same way for the next species who arose and developed intelligence. But science would. Exactly the same. Science is universal, subjective interpretations of spirituality, isn't. 

I'm curious, where does this idea of 'balance' originate? Why do you feel we need something to balance an accurate, measurable, verifiable determination of reality with something that is unverifiable, inaccurate, and inconsistent with reality, and how would that benefit the objective of discerning it? 

What would be the purpose of creating humans if that were true? 

What is "intelligent evolution"? 

Except it _is_ explained, fully. Why are we the only intelligent species to excel at life? Because we evolved superior intelligence, as well as the ability to implement it via hands and tools. I don't think you're appreciating the amount of time it took to accomplish such a feat. Not only that, but the requirements to attain absolute dominance. Once we reached it, it's easy to understand why. Try to beat a bonobo at chess. He'll lose 100% of the time. Try to beat a chimp at engineering an engine.. Same result. 

We've developed social skills far beyond them, much faster, and they've been long lasting. 

Which is exactly why anecdotal testimony is useless.


----------



## tyler.durden (Nov 17, 2012)

Canna Sylvan said:


> Padwan,
> Once you proved it wrong, what did you get? Does it make you happy you were the one to tell a child Santa is fake? Perhaps people like you have a use, I'll hire you to tell my kids at 8 or 9 years old. I don't see the problem with imagining.


Perhaps the problem isn't having to tell a duped child he's been deceived, but with deceiving him in the first place...


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 17, 2012)

ganja man23 said:


> there's a major difference between science and spirituality. the sad truth is that they are not considered equal in society for some reason. spirituality has one universal meaning an it comes from within. science is providing credibility for the physical world. both are necessary for true balance. you all act as if i believe every thing i hear. if you want my belief (i have no memory of being there) than i believe we were solely created based upon extraterrestrial civilizations which did not evolve on earth like many believe we did. Why do i think this? I've noticed that we have not been able to exactly provide credibility for intelligent evolution. why we are the only ones to develop intelligence is not explained in modern evolution even based on genetics. and as further validation i choose to believe the universal messages of religion many of which say we were created by people who came from the skies. if you really care about the whole alien "conspiracy" there is enough information out there to make your mind up. we have many credible officials from the disclosure project. hours upon hours of people testifying about government coverups.


More babbling nonsense. Spirituality does not have one universal meaning, it is subjective based on who you talk to. Science is nothing more than a method of investigation. You believe things that are fantasy and made from assumptions that are there because you they appeal to you not because of careful thought. If careful thought was involved, you would say, "I don't understand how something can be this way, so I will reserve judgement." Speculation is one thing, calling a pure made up idea as a 'belief' is something altogether more sinister. Speculation about our origins are fine but to discount the enormous amount of evidence that we evolved from simpler species is really hard to overcome, especially since you have absolutely zero evidence to support your belief. 

Intelligence is everywhere in the animal kingdom. Even prior to Darwin people understood and observed a hierarchy of intelligence with humans at the pinnacle but great apes not far below that, along with other mammals and interestingly many birds too. We see less intelligence in reptiles, amphibians and fish, even to the point where it's hard to even call it intelligence at all. You discount science, not because of lack of evidence but by your own lack of knowledge about the subject. If a careful study of evolution couldn't change your mind than you are being unreasonable and again, I cannot communicate sufficiently with someone as closed minded as you. 

You make the same mistake about religion. There are countless religions and probably barely any of them have anything to do with 'people' from the sky. Worshiping the sun or giving god status to the stars and planets IMO, don't qualify for this 'universality' that you seem to believe is present in religion. What about religions where man was spat up from the earth or volcanoes or other beings? You must watch the History channel too much as your ideas about religion and aliens is quite skewed .


----------



## Canna Sylvan (Nov 17, 2012)

Tyler,
I see you don't think an imagination is worth much. Shooting a whole in your cheek is worth it. Snaps you back to reality. What if I'm not real? I could be the most sophisticated bot you ever met. Would it matter? Or does that ruin the fantasy?


----------



## tyler.durden (Nov 17, 2012)

Canna Sylvan said:


> Tyler,
> I see you don't think an imagination is worth much. Shooting a whole in your cheek is worth it. Snaps you back to reality. What if I'm not real? I could be the most sophisticated bot you ever met. Would it matter? Or does that ruin the fantasy?


I think imagination is very important, even in science. It is important to distinguish between imaginings and reality, as not all things imagined can actualize in objective reality. I think you meant_ hole_ in my cheek, but I still don't get the reference. I have determined that you pass the Turing test so far, but just barely...


----------



## Canna Sylvan (Nov 17, 2012)

Wouldn't I make some mistakes if I wanted to fool you?The narrator(Edward Furlong)shot a (w)hole in his cheek in order to to get back his reality.But is part of your mouth gone worth it?Sometimes ignorance is bliss,especially awkening to fucking that thing


----------



## tyler.durden (Nov 17, 2012)

Canna Sylvan said:


> Wouldn't I make some mistakes if I wanted to fool you?The narrator(Edward Furlong)shot a (w)hole in his cheek in order to to get back his reality.But is part of your mouth gone worth it?Sometimes ignorance is bliss,especially awkening to fucking that thing


Oh, Ed Norton in Fight Club, I get it. It was more out of of his neck than cheek, I guess it was worth it to get rid of the mischievous sociopath that took over his life (you met me at a very strange time in my life). Ignorance can be blissful and comforting, but some of us value reality over comfort. The bitterest truth is better than the sweetest lie...


----------



## ganja man23 (Nov 17, 2012)

*More babbling nonsense. Spirituality does not have one universal meaning, it is subjective based on who you talk to. Science is nothing more than a method of investigation. You believe things that are fantasy and made from assumptions that are there because you they appeal to you not because of careful thought. If careful thought was involved, you would say, "I don't understand how something can be this way, so I will reserve judgement." Speculation is one thing, calling a pure made up idea as a 'belief' is something altogether more sinister. Speculation about our origins are fine but to discount the enormous amount of evidence that we evolved from simpler species is really hard to overcome, especially since you have absolutely zero evidence to support your belief.*

You clearly have no idea what spirituality is. You are looking to religion for your answers when the reality is that what you're searching for is within you. Confused already? Reserving judgement is one thing and i don't pick on people for that. When you come along and argue that people are telling fairy tales, you come off as arrogant and even rude. There is not an enormous amount of evidence that we "evolved" from a similar species. We are merely left with the fact that we share about 99.8% of our genome with monkeys. Don't become so thick that you fail to see that I do believe we came from monkeys. The fact that we evolved in a different intelligence based on genes not found anywhere but within us, shows to me that our genetics were tampered with. Naturally it couldn't have been us so was it.... aliens?... (oooooh). 
*
Intelligence is everywhere in the animal kingdom. Even prior to Darwin people understood and observed a hierarchy of intelligence with humans at the pinnacle but great apes not far below that, along with other mammals and interestingly many birds too. We see less intelligence in reptiles, amphibians and fish, even to the point where it's hard to even call it intelligence at all. You discount science, not because of lack of evidence but by your own lack of knowledge about the subject. If a careful study of evolution couldn't change your mind than you are being unreasonable and again, I cannot communicate sufficiently with someone as closed minded as you. *

You have no idea who i am in real life. I disregard science? Why science has been the building block for most of my life. To make such a claim that i am closed minded is rather funny. If you knew me in real life you'd see just how closed minded i'm not. If intelligence is present in the animal kingdom than why don't we have any lions making cars? Why run after heienas when you can drive? Yes we can make speculations like the fact that fire may have led to intelligence but the core fact is that we can't prove that with our beloved science. We need history for that and science doesn't prove history no matter how much evidence. The fact of the matter is that darwinism says that the species that does not evolve simply dies off. So why have monkeys not died off if we are their successors? 

The only way to prove history is for us to travel back in time. Science is merely the playing field we all watch in a stadium. Spirituality is more like the crowd and as you can already tell, many people become oblivious to the fact they're in the crowd because they become so caught up in the game. 
*
You make the same mistake about religion. There are countless religions and probably barely any of them have anything to do with 'people' from the sky. Worshiping the sun or giving god status to the stars and planets IMO, don't qualify for this 'universality' that you seem to believe is present in religion. What about religions where man was spat up from the earth or volcanoes or other beings? You must watch the History channel too much as your ideas about religion and aliens is quite skewed .
*
And you listen to science so much you dedicate your life to disproving anything science doesn't agree with. You do realize that the scientific approach has failed before right? Look at the theory of the modern atom. It started out being a solid, then the next guy claimed all the electrons,neutrons and protons flowed freely within, than we discovered the electron orbitals, etc. My point is not to let science be your religion and believe everything scientists tell you. They're not some type of gods who can't be wrong, you'll find they speculate at times too much like they have with trying to discover our origins. 

Now if you're curious for some more science, we have compared our genome with many other carbon based life forms from earth. dna is like a smooth transitional blueprint. we compare ours with our fellow monkeys and we found many genes that simply weren't found in any other life forms. It's position with respect to the surrounding amino acids were more or less abruptly placed and we still have no clue where these complex genes came from. 

When you gather enough information you will see this more as a jigsaw puzzle. You know what information will not fit because the main structure of the puzzle is complete. But you can't see the full picture until all the pieces are in place. Keep in mind i'm merely using analogies for a lesser developed mind but theres nothing wrong with that litte buddy.


----------



## ganja man23 (Nov 17, 2012)

tyler.durden said:


> I think imagination is very important, even in science. It is important to distinguish between imaginings and reality, as not all things imagined can actualize in objective reality. I think you meant_ hole_ in my cheek, but I still don't get the reference. I have determined that you pass the Turing test so far, but just barely...


But think of it this way; is there anything that is truly impossible in physicality? You will find that the only way to make something "impossible" is to limit the way in which it is conceived. No matter what level of imagination we can think of, can we not materialize it in some form in this "reality"? Let's pretend we want it to rain pink cats and purple dogs, strange i understand but stay with me. We can look at this approach in one of two ways; we want the clouds to instead of dropping water droplets to drop large cats and dogs instead which we know to be impossible in that sense. It's only impossible because we combine it with the natural limitation of cloud condensation. Now if we don't limit the result, than we could theoretically make anything we can think of possible except what has already happeed in the past. So i could get a large airplan, spray paint some cats and dogs and then throw them out. In that sense it would be raining. 

I'm going to go one step further and try and dwell into the future. Can we not create some type of clouds that instead of being water based, they are carbon based instead. They will act similar to a "sky womb". the genetic structure of the cats and dogs will be conceived within the clouds and once they are mature, they will be dropped hence they are "naturally" raining. Tell me please if that doesn't make sense.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Nov 17, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> This also applies to your *certainty *of your *belief *that no ones knows if 'gods' or 'souls' exist.


The only thing we can be certain of... is our uncertainty Cheif. I can be 100% certain without a doubt that i do not know how to build a jet air liner from scratch, i do not know if god exists, i do not know what a bat tastes like. 

Nice try though.

Ganja man, if you cannot accept the fact that your beliefs have the possibility of being wrong... there is not much more we can discuss, and i'm sure the Buddha would be disappointed.


----------



## ganja man23 (Nov 17, 2012)

Zaehet Strife said:


> The only thing we can be certain of... is our uncertainty Cheif. I can be 100% certain without a doubt that i do not know how to build a jet air liner from scratch, i do not know if god exists, i do not know what a bat tastes like.
> 
> Nice try though.
> 
> Ganja man, if you cannot accept the fact that your beliefs have the possibility of being wrong... there is not much more we can discuss, and i'm sure the Buddha would be disappointed.


I don't mean to claim my beliefs are right but I understand that you need to be imaginative to progress in any way. I definatley agree though, there is no certainty about anything. It seems as if you think you're much more qualified because you're more critical as what you choose to accept in your reality. You forget that I could be the exact same way and the truth is it doesn't make me any less qualified because I sense a certain level of spirituality that is unseen to our eyes. Don't forget that absolutely no human today was there at creation therefore every single idea presented is speculation no matter how much science there is behind it. Science is only to structure our physicality not our history.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Nov 17, 2012)

Science is the speculation of reality, it is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. 

Religion/spirituality/theology is the speculation of nothing more than imagination. 

One gives us knowledge, the other gives us ideas. Ideas that cannot stand up to the burden of proof will forever be put in the category of imagination until proven beyond reasonable doubt. 


I think it's neat that you feel a presence, or a force, or something magical in your life. A lot of people do, in many different ways. But wouldn't you feel pretty silly if you found out that it was all in your mind? That it wasn't really, real. Just because i love knowledge and science doesn't mean that i do not feel just as much as any other feeling human being. Doesn't mean i don't sometimes just sit and cry because existence becomes too much for me sometimes. 

I've got no problem with your beliefs bro, they seem very romantic and good natured. Just as long as you don't try to tell people they are true, we will all get along! I don't even care if YOU think they are true, just as long as you don't tell others that they are, because everyone with a basic understanding of reality will smirk and say bro... dude, you could be wrong you know that right? 

It's ok to say i don't know, or I'm not sure, or i am not certain. It's also ok to think it's a cool idea that god exists, that you like that idea, it gives you peace of mind, a sense of comfort thinking that there is a force beyond you that is helping you, or guiding you in your life. Like i said before, millions do it in millions of different ways all based on personal preference. 

But thinking and knowing are two very different things, and if we are to be completely honest with ourselves about what we know, we'll also have to admit to ourselves all of the things that we don't know... which can sometimes prove to be extremely difficult. 

Everyone is required to give their life meaning and purpose, there are no exceptions... sometimes people just can't do it, so they let someone else do it for them, or even refuse to think about it. I base the purpose of my existence on honesty with myself, it fills me with so much love that it hurts if i do it any other way. A lot of people aren't like that, in fact a lot of people are exactly the opposite of that... but it's no worries, we are all different, and we all cope with existence in our own way. Just don't try telling other people that your idea's are the truth, when all of us will be able to call you out on your bluff... yet it is ok if you want to tell yourself that it's the truth, no one can stop you or say anything to the contrary.

Everyone on the planet is either trying to figure out what the fuck is going on, pretending that they already know, or just not giving a damn either way.


----------



## ganja man23 (Nov 17, 2012)

Well I can't disagree with anything you have said but instead of taking everything we say literally why not just realize that we are not scientists working on proving a hypothesis. We're more like a group of friends sharing ideas so why interpret everything like I'm some type of book preacher? It's almost as if you feel like its your obligation to disprove any hypothesis one makes for whatever reason. Like you said I choose my beliefs based on what I consider the most likely outcome but they are still beliefs meaning its not a certainty. So I nor anyone else has a certainty with respect to any belief except one; the fact that we exist right now. now I claim that we can generate a 2 dimensional reality within a computer so whose to say there isn't one inscribed within physicality. I have a strong belief (based upon many of what I call sub beliefs) that dimensions go beyond 3rd density. we share the knowledge that for many of us it is irrelevant because we won't see such a dimensional physicality in our life. Why would that stop us from speculating though? Many scientific breakthroughs were at one point mere speculations and they can't be discredited because science doesn't support them. It's up to the person who has the thought to choose the most likely belief because that's what's structures our ego. My belief is that success comes from a balance of speculation and observation.

Lets talk about god for a second. I have chosen the belief that we are at our core, eternal co creators.mbased off of one creation energy, so My spirit will live forever even when I die here. I remember you tellling me that You believe that science shows the mind is based soley on electric impulses and it finishes when we finish. So how has my belief shaped my life? The truth is that I live more freely now because I realize our abundance. It doesn't make me careless but I choose to accept that I am only here to pursuit excitement and joy. Should we not come upon the same conclusions from our completely different beliefs. At the end of the day we should simply embrace our time here because either way it's everything we have right "now". You go against the wave for everything though. You know the size of the universe and you know deep down that life is abundant all over the universe. It's a joke for there to be one planet harbouring life across 14.5 billion light years that's completely a belief of mine since I have no memory of meeting aliens. 

Im going to try and give you a scenario: were going to build a tower ten times taller than the cn tower. First we must Engineer then execute. Many people will say such a thing is impossible because we don't have the technology, the abundance, the wealth, etc. would you rather work on creating the tower knowing that it may very well fail anywhere before you reach completion or would you rather be a spectator (an analogy for your interpretation of science science I don't thin you are a scientist as a profession) and wait till the engineers finish the tower to accept it. Yes there could be a lot of heartache if we fail but that's human ingenuity; if we fail at first we will find another way.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Nov 17, 2012)




----------



## Zaehet Strife (Nov 17, 2012)

Like i said, i think it's neat that you feel that way. But just because we feel some way towards something, doesn't necessarily make it true. I'm not trying to disprove anyone's supernatural beliefs, i can't, it's impossible to disprove something that can't be proven either way. I am trying to help you realize that the supernatural beliefs you hold have the same possibility of being false, as they do of being true.


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 17, 2012)

ganja man23 said:


> You clearly have no idea what spirituality is.


I know what most people consider spirituality. Spirituality however does not have a single definition. It encompasses a wide range of various metaphysical ideas, none of which can be demonstrated to be anything beyond a person's internal, subjective experience. So I would say I have a better grasp of spirituality than you do considering you believe it is a single, universally accepted 'thing.' 


> You are looking to religion for your answers when the reality is that what you're searching for is within you. Confused already?


I'm not confused but you seem to be. I made no reference to religion and you continue to assume your personal idea of spirituality is somehow the only one and correct. 


> Reserving judgement is one thing and i don't pick on people for that.When you come along and argue that people are telling fairy tales, you come off as arrogant and even rude.


What do you call it when someone makes up a story that has fantastical, magical, elements that are completely contrary to what we know about reality? Myths and legends, whether they are ancient or contemporary ARE fairy tales. You may not like that designation but it is accurate. The Scientologists think we came from another planet on DC-8s brought here by Xenu and that these thetans are attached to our bodies. This too is a fairy tale. 
It is annoying and sad that you think people that adhere to reality and consider wishful and magical thinking contradicting reality as we know it are somehow arrogant and rude. Yes, I am blunt but rarely rude until someone gives me reason, usually by ignoring the crux of an argument and attempting to silence the opposition by using personal attacks such as calling them rude and arrogant. 


> There is not an enormous amount of evidence that we "evolved" from a similar species.


I beg to differ. The evidence is virtually undeniable by people that take the time to understand it. 


> We are merely left with the fact that we share about 99.8% of our genome with monkeys.


Actually, we share less than that but the evidence is still overwhelming. It was quite convincing even before the advent of genetics but unlocking DNA actually gives us even more support. We come to the same conclusions when looking from the top down as we do from the bottom up. If the familial relationship wasn't real, we should have found some discrepancies by now that would make us question it, but the more we look, the stronger it becomes. So no, we are not merely left with this single fact. We have thousands of pieces of corroborating evidence from various scientific disciplines, with genetics being only one piece. 



> Don't become so thick that you fail to see that I do believe we came from monkeys. The fact that we evolved in a different intelligence based on genes not found anywhere but within us, shows to me that our genetics were tampered with. Naturally it couldn't have been us so was it.... aliens?... (oooooh).


Show your work. First you must define intelligence since you seem to be using in an atypical manner. Then you need to show that our intelligence could not have evolved similarly to other traits. That our intelligence is somehow magical and the intelligence of whales or dogs is ordinary and can be explained by evolution. 


> You have no idea who i am in real life. I disregard science?


I don't need to know who you are IRL. I only need to respond to what you write. 



> Why science has been the building block for most of my life. To make such a claim that i am closed minded is rather funny. If you knew me in real life you'd see just how closed minded i'm not.


I did not say you ARE close minded, I said, "* If a careful study of evolution couldn't change your mind..." *then you are close minded. Your posts on this topic suggest that you are being close minded. You have eliminated the possibility that our intelligence is simply a by-product of a bigger and more complex brain, something that seems to be supported by the facts. As I said, you really don't seem to know or understand a lot about biological evolution if you can dismiss it so easily. 


> If intelligence is present in the animal kingdom than why don't we have any lions making cars? Why run after heienas when you can drive?


Really? That's your argument? Science has been the building block of your life but you can't understand why lions don't drive? 


> Yes we can make speculations like the fact that fire may have led to intelligence but the core fact is that we can't prove that with our beloved science. We need history for that and science doesn't prove history no matter how much evidence. The fact of the matter is that darwinism says that the species that does not evolve simply dies off. So why have monkeys not died off if we are their successors?
> The only way to prove history is for us to travel back in time. Science is merely the playing field we all watch in a stadium. Spirituality is more like the crowd and as you can already tell, many people become oblivious to the fact they're in the crowd because they become so caught up in the game.


The more you post like this, the more I'm just going to assume you are scientifically illiterate, regardless of your claims to the contrary. If you seriously want answers to these things than I would be happy to provide you with them but to be honest, I think you are using these as rhetorical devises and you will readily discount any answer I provide. That you actually think that science tries to prove anything is your first mistake. Believing that we cannot make accurate conclusions about things in history unless we can actually observe them is an old creationist canard that is clearly untrue and if you knew and understood science as you claim, you should know that as well. It seems you believe that forensic investigation of a murder or arson is impossible since we cannot travel back in time to see it happen, right? I guess all of geology and our knowledge about the moving of continents d/t plate tectonics and anything we say about dinosaurs and other extinct species is all mere speculation too? 
So yes, when I come to the conclusion you don't know and understand science, it is not based on any guess work about who you are or what you do but is 100% based on shit you say.


> And you listen to science so much you dedicate your life to disproving anything science doesn't agree with.


I spend time trying to dispel incorrect assumptions and beliefs about what science is and isn't. I try to educate people about what science can and cannot do. 
Science is a methodology, not a collection of ideas. Science doesn't agree or disagree with anything. Science is a tool that can help me evaluate the relative worthiness of an idea and how much confidence I should have on any particular claim. If a claim is made that cannot be evaluated using science, then my confidence in the veracity of that idea is bound to be quite low. I don't however need to spend time disproving something that has no real support for it to begin with. This basic approach to epistemology is obviously lost on someone that can't understand the relevance of Russel's teapot. 


> You do realize that the scientific approach has failed before right? Look at the theory of the modern atom. It started out being a solid, then the next guy claimed all the electrons,neutrons and protons flowed freely within, than we discovered the electron orbitals, etc. My point is not to let science be your religion and believe everything scientists tell you. They're not some type of gods who can't be wrong, you'll find they speculate at times too much like they have with trying to discover our origins.


Sorry, but I am not about to take a lesson about science from someone like you. You seem to be confused about what a scientific theory is and what it means to refine a working model. There are differences between speculation, hypothesis and theory. It is also important to comprehend that science also helps us understand the limitations of a theory. The thing about science is that it helps us know what we don't know. 


> Now if you're curious for some more science, we have compared our genome with many other carbon based life forms from earth. dna is like a smooth transitional blueprint. we compare ours with our fellow monkeys and we found many genes that simply weren't found in any other life forms. It's position with respect to the surrounding amino acids were more or less abruptly placed and we still have no clue where these complex genes came from.


link? 


> When you gather enough information you will see this more as a jigsaw puzzle. You know what information will not fit because the main structure of the puzzle is complete. But you can't see the full picture until all the pieces are in place. Keep in mind i'm merely using analogies for a *lesser developed mind *but theres nothing wrong with that litte buddy.


Cute. However, it would be easier to take you seriously if you didn't previously demonstrate your inadequate understanding of the scientific method. It's not arrogance to point out that I am quite a bit more knowledgeable than you on science and specifically genetics and evolution.


----------



## ganja man23 (Nov 17, 2012)

That just makes me think pseudoscience is based on tricking people for money. If you're not making money in this thread then you're here tricking others for your own pleasures. If you work in such a way you'd only be tricking yourself. Im curious if you even read that? Something only becomes pseudotific if you are enforcing your beliefs upon others without question. I think we're all here to absorb and share ideas from others so why not get as much insight as possible. You don't have to believe it. Realize that most aren't here to change your ways on life. Why would anyone give a shit at all what your personal beliefs are unless you confront them? Even though we may argue with each other I can tell the difference between a pseudo scientist and someone who tries to help me.


----------



## ganja man23 (Nov 17, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> I know what most people consider spirituality. Spirituality however does not have a single definition. It encompasses a wide range of various metaphysical ideas, none of which can be demonstrated to be anything beyond a person's internal, subjective experience. So I would say I have a better grasp of spirituality than you do considering you believe it is a single, universally accepted 'thing.'
> I'm not confused but you seem to be. I made no reference to religion and you continue to assume your personal idea of spirituality is somehow the only one and correct.
> What do you call it when someone makes up a story that has fantastical, magical, elements that are completely contrary to what we know about reality? Myths and legends, whether they are ancient or contemporary ARE fairy tales. You may not like that designation but it is accurate. The Scientologists think we came from another planet on DC-8s brought here by Xenu and that these thetans are attached to our bodies. This too is a fairy tale.
> It is annoying and sad that you think people that adhere to reality and consider wishful and magical thinking contradicting reality as we know it are somehow arrogant and rude. Yes, I am blunt but rarely rude until someone gives me reason, usually by ignoring the crux of an argument and attempting to silence the opposition by using personal attacks such as calling them rude and arrogant.
> ...


Perhaps i can break down everything youve writen but i wont for one reason, being that you show no more evidence other than your knowingness that you are much superiour to me in genetic studies. You cant use things you say in an attempt to disprove what i say as evidence. I only have one point and you've failed to grasp it IMO. Do you really think you've shown more concrete evidence than I have here? It's different that you may know more but I have yet to see it therefore don't believe it. 

FYI I have chosen genetic engineering as my study in university and no I am not finished yet but to call me unqualified you would be wrong. Don't fail to realize that science has not proved everything about our origins. You seem to be under the impression that you have it all figured out which is what these guys are telling me about beliefs. Don't come upon the conclusion that we evolved 100% naturally until all the evidence is in place. If you're curious what I did, I merely took all my beliefs and tried to create my own theory and no offense it has less questions than your claim of natural evolution.

As for the lion thing: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/analogy

Whats the matter trying to disprove my beliefs based on an idea I wrote? Answer one question for me and provide me with all of your concrete scientific evidence and you'll be king. I want your proof to how we naturally developed intelligence to become as sophisticated as we are today. 

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/what-made-us-human-unique-evolution-gene-found-20121115-29d9p.html

Read the article, you will notice they come upon the conclusion that we have no idea how such a gene could arise so suddenly. That's where I would like to share my belief that we were tampered with. After that tampering we were left alone to develop. That's my idea. And I'd like to apologize if I offended you I really am learning but unfortunely I kind of learned more finding that link then I did from reading what you wrote. I'm just trying to be honest and in all honesty I don't think you should eliminate the possibility that our genetics were tampered with. Was I there watching this, no. Just keep the possibility running through your mind as nothing more than a thought for now.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Nov 17, 2012)

The thing is, no matter how much evidence is provided, you will always be able to say "we don't have all the evidence". "All the evidence" is a never ending search, with more answers to questions, it only provides more questions to answer. 

An example of this is the "no transitional fossil" fallacy. Pretend each letter represents an extinct animal. Fossil A, fossil B, fossil C, and fossil D...

A...B...C...D... 

4 gaps

We find a transitional species between B and C, we'll call it b, now the sample looks like this;

A...B...b...C...D...

Now there are 5 gaps

The discovery of another animal caused more questions to be raised. "What does the animal between B and b look like?" "Was it water dwelling or did it live on the land?"...

You will always be able to say "there's not enough evidence" or "we don't have all the facts", but you fail to realize, the collection of facts we do have all add up to a scientifically sound theory of the overall process, with more species we discover, the theory gets stronger. 

If you disagree with this, then the obvious question would be;

How much evidence would you require to believe it? Where would you draw the line between right now | and into believing it?


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Nov 17, 2012)

Zaehet Strife said:


> Like i said, i think it's neat that you feel that way. But just because we feel some way towards something, doesn't necessarily make it true. I'm not trying to disprove anyone's supernatural beliefs, i can't, it's impossible to disprove something that can't be proven either way. I am trying to help you realize that the supernatural beliefs you hold have the same possibility of being false, as they do of being true.


Just like your belief that no one knows of if gods or souls exist, because you do not know that. Us believers are not here to recruit atheists into believing, we simply want to discuss with like minded people and share our similar ideas about reality. It is you who is trying to do some recruitment with your certainty of your belief, which is that no one knows if gods or souls exist, and every time those things are mentioned you spring into action and try to make them accept your belief. Its because you are under the delusion that you think your belief is fact, rather than an idea. Socrates said its impossible to know anything, yet he was almost certain he was arguing with a demon (daemon?) for 24 hours straight, what would you have to say to the father of your belief that believed in the supernatural? Even that miserable guy in your DP thought he knew, Z, he was certain there was no god.


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Nov 17, 2012)

ganja man23 said:


> Perhaps i can break down everything youve writen but i wont for one reason, being that you show no more evidence other than your knowingness that you are much superiour to me in genetic studies. You cant use things you say in an attempt to disprove what i say as evidence. I only have one point and you've failed to grasp it IMO. Do you really think you've shown more concrete evidence than I have here? It's different that you may know more but I have yet to see it therefore don't believe it.
> 
> FYI I have chosen genetic engineering as my study in university and no I am not finished yet but to call me unqualified you would be wrong. Don't fail to realize that science has not proved everything about our origins. You seem to be under the impression that you have it all figured out which is what these guys are telling me about beliefs. Don't come upon the conclusion that we evolved 100% naturally until all the evidence is in place. If you're curious what I did, I merely took all my beliefs and tried to create my own theory and no offense it has less questions than your claim of natural evolution.
> 
> ...



When it comes to imagination and our consciousness, I think The Stoned Ape Theory played a bigger role in it than alien intervention. Also, 70000 years ago we all of the sudden developed a much greater imagination capable of art, songs, story telling, and the realization of god, the best explanation for that is powerful psychedelics. Its funny that we know next to nothing about 'hallucinations' but we dismiss them as saying nothing about reality and has more to do with insanity. I do think aliens have helped us with our genetics though, the most recent addition is our blue eyes 10000 years ago.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Nov 17, 2012)

I can claim with high probability that i know gravity exists. I have knowledge of it, because i can experience it within reality. This is because everyone in the world can physically pick up and object, let go, and watch it drop to the ground... we made a sound to describe this... we call it gravity, everyone can experience it first hand, so i now have knowledge that gravity exists within this reality. 

God is something intangible, you can't touch it, you cant show it to anyone, you can only imagine it. If the idea of god is only in our imaginations, rather than the idea of gravity (something everyone can easily experience), then imagination does not pertain to reality. What we can imagine may or may not be reality, but until we find a way for everyone to experience the idea first hand... it stays in the realm of imagination. 

Since the idea of god does not pertain to reality, and only in imagination, the certainty of it is impossible. 

Strut, fret, cry out as you will, nothing you say, or do, will provide anyone with enough credible, tangible evidence to promote your claim of god existing until you can present it within reality instead of imagination (The same goes for those who claim god doesn't exist). Regardless of what you think you know, it doesn't matter, because what we can claim to have knowledge of is specifically based on reality, not imagination. As far as we human animals can tell, god only exists in imagination, and is not known.

You can pretend that you know that god exists, which is EXACTLY what you are doing. People do it all the time. The more intelligent and wise stance would be to admit the truth. That you are not certain of gods existence, but you like the idea so much that you are going to hold onto it and believe it is true, regardless of the evidence, or lack there of. And that's ok, just as long as you don't try to tell others that your faith in your imagination is the truth, because it may not be.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Nov 17, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> When it comes to imagination and our consciousness, I think The Stoned Ape Theory played a bigger role in it than alien intervention. Also, 70000 years ago we all of the sudden developed a much greater imagination capable of art, songs, story telling, and the realization of god, the best explanation for that is powerful psychedelics. Its funny that we know next to nothing about 'hallucinations' but we dismiss them as saying nothing about reality and has more to do with insanity. I do think aliens have helped us with our genetics though, the most recent addition is our blue eyes 10000 years ago.


70,000 years ago seems like a bit of a stretch, I think the earliest known art is on caves in France dating back around 30,000 years. The development of spoken language is difficult to determine as it didn't leave any actual trace evidence behind to study. 

Eye color is a simple genetic mutation, blue and green are recessive genes.


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Nov 17, 2012)

Zaehet Strife said:


> I can claim with high probability that i know gravity exists. I have knowledge of it, because i can experience it within reality. This is because everyone in the world can physically pick up and object, let go, and watch it drop to the ground... we made a sound to describe this... we call it gravity, everyone can experience it first hand, so i now have knowledge that gravity exists within this reality.
> 
> God is something intangible, you can't touch it, you cant show it to anyone, you can only imagine it. If the idea of god is only in our imaginations, rather than the idea of gravity (something everyone can easily experience), then imagination does not pertain to reality. What we can imagine may or may not be reality, but until we find a way for everyone to experience the idea first hand... it stays in the realm of imagination.
> 
> ...


Im not trying to prove god to you man lol thats not my business, it is nearly impossible to do when discussing with an atheist. Im just saying that you dont know, but you shove your belief into everyones face like you do know, it is you who is doing the recruitment, we are just trying to compare our similar beliefs and ideas.

My friend can prove the existence of the soul to anyone he sees is ready, consistent results every time, its not his purpose to prove anything to anyone though. Oh, but there might be a evil fairy demon whispering magic deceitful words into my metaphysical ear thus changing my view of reality? lol I love your examples, I find it fun recreating them. 

You dont know, Z, quit telling people that you know, your just making shit up, and I will never get tired of explaining this lol.


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Nov 17, 2012)

Padawanbater2 said:


> 70,000 years ago seems like a bit of a stretch, I think the earliest known art is on caves in France dating back around 30,000 years. The development of spoken language is difficult to determine as it didn't leave any actual trace evidence behind to study.
> 
> Eye color is a simple genetic mutation, blue and green are recessive genes.


Im not too confident in carbon dating. It can make a mistake that a somewhat fresh dead body has been existing for 3000 years (could of been 30000, cant remember the study). I read that the oldest art works ranging from 30000 to 42000 may be 70000 years old because carbon dating cannot be fully trusted.


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 17, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Im not trying to prove god to you man lol thats not my business, it is nearly impossible to do when discussing with an atheist. Im just saying that you dont know, but you shove your belief into everyones face like you do know, it is you who is doing the recruitment, we are just trying to compare our similar beliefs and ideas.
> 
> My friend can prove the existence of the soul to anyone he sees is ready, consistent results every time, its not his purpose to prove anything to anyone though. Oh, but there might be a evil fairy demon whispering magic deceitful words into my metaphysical ear thus changing my view of reality? lol I love your examples, I find it fun recreating them.
> 
> You dont know, Z, quit telling people that you know, your just making shit up, and I will never get tired of explaining this lol.


When has the idea of recruitment been decided to be wrong? You are a flake, if you want to discuss fantasy with other flakes then nothing is stopping you, unless you see dissenting opinion as an obstacle, in which case you can use email or the PM system.


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Nov 17, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> When has the idea of recruitment been decided to be wrong? You are a flake, if you want to discuss fantasy with other flakes then nothing is stopping you, unless you see dissenting opinion as an obstacle, in which case you can use email or the PM system.


Its not an obstacle, more annoying and pointless because you guys get nothing accomplished. Though its good you acknowledge that what you present is merely opinion.


----------



## cannabineer (Nov 17, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Im not trying to prove god to you man lol thats not my business, *it is nearly impossible to do when discussing with an atheist*. Im just saying that you dont know, but you shove your belief into everyones face like you do know, it is you who is doing the recruitment, we are just trying to compare our similar beliefs and ideas.
> 
> My friend can prove the existence of the soul to anyone he sees is ready, consistent results every time, its not his purpose to prove anything to anyone though. Oh, but there might be a evil fairy demon whispering magic deceitful words into my metaphysical ear thus changing my view of reality? lol I love your examples, I find it fun recreating them.
> 
> You dont know, Z, quit telling people that you know, your just making shit up, and I will never get tired of explaining this lol.


It's no easier doing it with/for a theist. The affinities of the partner in conversation have no effect on ease of proof. What having a simpatico interlocutor does bring is the mutual agreement that a proof isn't needed. That isn't either here or there considering the issue, though. 

To the blue, I can only say that that does rather beg the question. Which at best only illustrates the disconnect between reason and spirit, imo. cn


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Nov 17, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Im not too confident in carbon dating. It can make a mistake that a somewhat fresh dead body has been existing for 3000 years (could of been 30000, cant remember the study). I read that the oldest art works ranging from 30000 to 42000 may be 70000 years old because carbon dating cannot be fully trusted.


Fortunately they don't use carbon dating to date non-organic substances, like cave art.

Carbon dating is highly accurate, within 1-3% accurate. Have you actually investigated the method in which it measures things or are you just reciting something you heard somewhere? Look into it, it's so accurate it's used in forensic cases.


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 17, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Its not an obstacle, more annoying and pointless because you guys get nothing accomplished. Though its good you acknowledge that what you present is merely opinion.


Never the less it will continue despite the annoyance it represents to you. If you are uncomfortable start your own forums, otherwise expect your ideas and words to be considered and responded to. If your only recourse is to attack anothers right to respond then you may need to mine your idea for more substance.


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Nov 17, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> Never the less it will continue despite the annoyance it represents to you. If you are uncomfortable start your own forums, otherwise expect your ideas and words to be considered and responded to. If your only recourse is to attack anothers right to respond then you may need to mine your idea for more substance.


I am used to it now. You guys speak to your audience and I speak to my audience and the audience stays the same no matter what the opposition has to say. Im also doing what you guys do, I found an obvious flaw in Z's philosophy and will continue to point it out every time he lies and says he knows.


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Nov 17, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...not from the same guy. I don't know about that one. I've known about that through other studies, ooooooooold stuff. I'd list sources but I have thousands of bookmarks to go through. I'm just speaking from the soup of info in (and of) my experiences.
> 
> ...yes, I think primitive sexual nature chases away much of what we could do. Think about it this way, if man and woman's seed can create life, what could it create if stored in the 'womb of the body', retained and not fired off (scattered) into infinity. Does the energy released from that spasm go anywhere? Back to the sun to come back to us to try again? Or, kept in the system to sustain it? Your _choice_.
> 
> ...crazy sht.


I was gunna reply to this much sooner, but I as watching Weeds.

That is some crazy shit, gave me something think about and it does make some sense. Do you believe sex can be very spiritual as well when doing it for love rather than lust? I think theres some spiritual boost when loving male and female energy get freaky with each other lol.


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 17, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> I am used to it now. You guys speak to your audience and I speak to my audience and the audience stays the same no matter what the opposition has to say. Im also doing what you guys do, I found an obvious flaw in Z's philosophy and will continue to point it out every time he lies and says he knows.


You have found a way to misrepresent Z's opinion in a strawman, meaning, the words coming out of his mouth are not easy to counter, and so you put some words in there that are. But i'll leave that for him to sort out.


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Nov 17, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> You have found a way to misrepresent Z's *opinion* in a strawman, meaning, the words coming out of his mouth are not easy to counter, and so you put some words in there that are. But i'll leave that for him to sort out.


How is it a strawman when I say Z's opinion is not fact but merely an opinion? Now even you called it an opinion. Thats all Im trying to say. Z's belief that its impossible to know if gods or souls exist is merely an opinion, not fact, an opinion that he likes to shove in peoples faces as if it were fact.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Nov 17, 2012)

How would it be possible to know if God exists?


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Nov 17, 2012)

Padawanbater2 said:


> How would it be possible to know if God exists?


Are we really going to start this broken record, unconvincing argument of subjectivity, the fallible mind and imagination again?


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 17, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Are we really going to start this broken record, unconvincing argument of subjectivity, the fallible mind and imagination again?


A non-answer to a simple question.


----------



## cannabineer (Nov 17, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> How is it a strawman when I say Z's opinion is not fact but merely an opinion? Now even you called it an opinion. Thats all Im trying to say. Z's belief that its impossible to know if gods or souls exist is merely an opinion, not fact, an opinion that he likes to shove in peoples faces as if it were fact.


One thing on which I imagine we can agree is that it is impossible to _demonstrate _that Gods or souls exist. How it might be possible to know that souls exist but not demonstrate it ... I cannot say. I would be so bold as to say it becomes a question of faith. cn

To be fair to Zaehet, I seem to remember him saying that we cannot be truly certain that anything exists. To pick out (and on) spirit in this context seems petty. Jmo.


----------



## ganja man23 (Nov 17, 2012)

Padawanbater2 said:


> The thing is, no matter how much evidence is provided, you will always be able to say "we don't have all the evidence". "All the evidence" is a never ending search, with more answers to questions, it only provides more questions to answer.
> 
> An example of this is the "no transitional fossil" fallacy. Pretend each letter represents an extinct animal. Fossil A, fossil B, fossil C, and fossil D...
> 
> ...


I don't think we differ much on what we consider actual evidence versus speculation. I just want to mention that I have yet to deal with a situation in which anything spiritual has been debunked by any scientific study. You are all merely suggesting that science is the only method to understanding and I can't disagree with that any more seeing as how i believe speculation is the very thing that fuels science. I mean by this that any experiment that is conducted was first imagined. Yes too much imagination in life is dangerous, but too little is anal. Balance is key for forward progression of course. Think of it this way; if you are only here for 70 years or so then why are you waiting for science as a validation. If you want to disprove a creator why not create a hypothesis and then form an experiment and see your conclusions. Unless you contribute to science directly by conducting experiments, you are just an observer waiting for the scientists to "show you the answers" so to speak. All i want to state is that there are a great deal of things within the universe that we don't understand. You need imagination and validation to accomplish something spectacular within a life span. If you're just waiting around for science to prove things for you then haven't you missed on an equal half of your consciousness; imagination. It's all about how you apply your imagination to your physicality (what you all call "reality") since we are all so convinced that this is the only way to perceive things. How are we to go anywhere without imagining a way first? If the path is wrong, we will know. How will we know? Watch the news. Mostly stories of people starving, getting shot, starting wars, etc. We are doing something wrong because the world is abundant for at least the 7 billion people on it so why are there so many suffering? There is only one direction for humanity to collectively progress towards and that is unity with each other and our surroundings.


----------



## ganja man23 (Nov 17, 2012)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Fortunately they don't use carbon dating to date non-organic substances, like cave art.
> 
> Carbon dating is highly accurate, within 1-3% accurate. Have you actually investigated the method in which it measures things or are you just reciting something you heard somewhere? Look into it, it's so accurate it's used in forensic cases.


I believe carbon 12 has a half life of approximately 6000 years. I remember learning about carbon dating in chemistry and I believe that this meant that after 12,000 years the carbon atoms have mostly decayed and therefore the accuracy of those results decrease dramatically after that amount of time. The 1-3% you speak of is only accurate within 12,000 years at the most. I've read that scientists conduct the experiments and if they get more than one possible scenario, they simply use the one that most supports their hypothesis which would be incorrect. 

Anything dating back further than that time frame is using based on another type of dating, which would be radioactive dating through certain isotopes. The problem with this is that you need an abundant enough source of radioactive materials to find something and when dealing with ancient civilizations, why the hell would they have such materials nearby? For example a certain phosphorus isotope has a half life of 32 days whereas a certain uranium isotope has a half life of up to 4.5 billion years. 

If you're curious, they take a sample of material, they measure it's mass and they measure the amount of radioactivity it emits. Uranium decays into other isotopes at a constant rate therefore you can accurately date the sample based on ratio between the mass and the radioactivity (each atom also emits a certain amount of radiation so it's not exactly a "rocket science" calculation). The same thing is done with carbon dating. 

In conclusion: carbon-12 dating (building block of life) will not show us anything over 12,000 years old. For that we must rely on other materials, many of which are rare to find in most archeological discoveries since we haven't used them in the past.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Nov 17, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Are we really going to start this broken record, unconvincing argument of subjectivity, the fallible mind and imagination again?


You said Z claiming it's impossible to know if God exists is an opinion, I don't see how you can make that claim unless you believe it _is _possible to know, so, how is it possible to know?

Pretty straightforward question..


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Nov 17, 2012)

ganja man23 said:


> I believe carbon 12 has a half life of approximately 6000 years. I remember learning about carbon dating in chemistry and I believe that this meant that after 12,000 years the carbon atoms have mostly decayed and therefore the accuracy of those results decrease dramatically after that amount of time. The 1-3% you speak of is only accurate within 12,000 years at the most. I've read that scientists conduct the experiments and if they get more than one possible scenario, they simply use the one that most supports their hypothesis which would be incorrect.
> 
> Anything dating back further than that time frame is using based on another type of dating, which would be radioactive dating through certain isotopes. The problem with this is that you need an abundant enough source of radioactive materials to find something and when dealing with ancient civilizations, why the hell would they have such materials nearby? For example a certain phosphorus isotope has a half life of 32 days whereas a certain uranium isotope has a half life of up to 4.5 billion years.
> 
> ...


Radiocarbon dating (usually referred to as simply carbon dating) is a radiometric dating method that uses the naturally occurring radioisotope carbon-14 (14C) to estimate the age of carbon-bearing materials up to about *58,000 to 62,000 years*. Raw, i.e., uncalibrated, radiocarbon ages are usually reported in radiocarbon years "Before Present" (BP), with "present" defined as CE 1950. Such raw ages can be calibrated to give calendar dates. One of the most frequent uses of radiocarbon dating is to estimate the age of organic remains from archaeological sites. When plants fix atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) into organic matter during photosynthesis they incorporate a quantity of 14C that approximately matches the level of this isotope in the atmosphere. After plants die or they are consumed by other organisms (for example, by humans or other animals), the accumulation of 14C fraction stops and the material declines at a fixed exponential rate due to the radioactive decay of 14C. Comparing the remaining 14C fraction of a sample to that expected from atmospheric 14C allows the age of the sample to be estimated.

The technique of radiocarbon dating was developed by Willard Libby and his colleagues at the University of Chicago in 1949. Emilio Segrè asserted in his autobiography that Enrico Fermi suggested the concept to Libby at a seminar in Chicago that year. Libby estimated that the steady state radioactivity concentration of exchangeable carbon-14 would be about 14 disintegrations per minute (dpm) per gram. *In 1960, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in chemistry for this work.* He demonstrated the accuracy of radiocarbon dating by accurately estimating the age of wood from a series of samples for which the age was known, including an ancient Egyptian royal barge of 1850 BCE.

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


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Nov 17, 2012)

ganja man23 said:


> I don't think we differ much on what we consider actual evidence versus speculation. I just want to mention that I have yet to deal with a situation in which anything spiritual has been debunked by any scientific study. You are all merely suggesting that science is the only method to understanding and I can't disagree with that any more seeing as how i believe speculation is the very thing that fuels science. I mean by this that any experiment that is conducted was first imagined. Yes too much imagination in life is dangerous, but too little is anal. Balance is key for forward progression of course. Think of it this way; if you are only here for 70 years or so then why are you waiting for science as a validation. If you want to disprove a creator why not create a hypothesis and then form an experiment and see your conclusions. Unless you contribute to science directly by conducting experiments, you are just an observer waiting for the scientists to "show you the answers" so to speak. All i want to state is that there are a great deal of things within the universe that we don't understand. You need imagination and validation to accomplish something spectacular within a life span. If you're just waiting around for science to prove things for you then haven't you missed on an equal half of your consciousness; imagination. It's all about how you apply your imagination to your physicality (what you all call "reality") since we are all so convinced that this is the only way to perceive things. How are we to go anywhere without imagining a way first? If the path is wrong, we will know. How will we know? Watch the news. Mostly stories of people starving, getting shot, starting wars, etc. We are doing something wrong because the world is abundant for at least the 7 billion people on it so why are there so many suffering? There is only one direction for humanity to collectively progress towards and that is unity with each other and our surroundings.


Pseudoscience, ie. God, is untestable. It will forever remain that way. There are no experiments we could conduct that would prove it one way or the other, rendering it, essentially, useless in any practical terms.

You seem to be using the term 'imagination' in some kind of placeholder kind of way. Imagination simply means the process of forming mental images or concepts of what is not actually present to the senses. We use imagination all the time in science. 

You haven't provided any other way of perceiving reality. Through "imagination" isn't actually saying anything. It doesn't mean anything.


What is testable is real, if it's not testable, it isn't real.

There is nothing in existence that is real that we can't test.


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 17, 2012)

Radiometric dating is most often used as a method of testing predictions which collaborate other evidence and reasoning, at which it has proved to be very successful. I think rather than defend a tried and true method, a better question is how do you support your estimations of a ruins age? Like usual, you seem to have made the assumption of a dichotomy-- if science is suspect then my pet nonscientific theory must be right. This dichotomy allows the easy move of manufacturing controversy to gain the appearance of validity.


----------



## ganja man23 (Nov 17, 2012)

Yes but carbon-14 dating is not nearly as accurate as you have mentioned. Carbon14 is so rare in nature that just a few atoms can dramatically increase the results. If carbon 14 dating is to be assumed as a fact, it must be verified by measuring other isotopes as well. The only way to truly provide validation 

*Will Carbon-14 dating work on all artifacts?**No. There are a few categories of artifacts that cannot be dated using carbon-14.*​​​*First, carbon-14 cannot be used to date biological artifacts of organisms that did not get thier carbon dioxide from the air. This rules out carbon dating for most aquatic organisms, because they often obtain at least some of their carbon from dissolved carbonate rock. The age of the carbon in the rock is different from that of the carbon in the air and makes carbon dating data for those organisms inaccurate under the assumptions normally used for carbon dating. This restriction extends to animals that consume seafood in their diets, as well.*​​​*Carbon dating also cannot be used on artifacts over about 50,000 years old. These artifacts have gone through many carbon-14 half-lives and the amount of carbon-14 remaining in them is miniscule and very difficult to detect.*​​​*Carbon dating cannot be used on most fossils, not only because they are almost always too old, but also because they rarely contain the original carbon of the organism. Also, many fossils are contaminated with carbon from the environment during collection or preservation proceedures.*​​​​​​*How do we know Carbon-14 dating is accurate?*​​​*Scientists check the accuracy of carbon dating by comparing carbon dating data to data from other dating methods. Other methods scientists use include counting rock layers and tree rings.*​​​*When scientists first began to compare carbon dating data to data from tree rings, they found carbon dating provided "too-young" estimates of artifact age. Scientists now realize that production of carbon-14 has not been constant over the last 10,000 years, but has changed as the radiation from the sun has changed. Carbon dates reported in the 1950s and 1960s should be questioned, because those studies were conducted before carbon dating was calibrated by comparision with other dating methods.*​​​*Nuclear tests, nuclear reactors and the use of nuclear weapons have also changed the composition of radioisotopes in the air over the last few decades. This human nuclear activity will make precise dating of fossils from our lifetime very difficult due to contamination of the normal radioisotope composition of the earth with addition artificially produced radioactive atoms.*"

http://www.acad.carleton.edu/curricular/BIOL/classes/bio302/pages/carbondatingback.html

BASICALLY CARBON 14 IS USED FOR (oh shit caps lock) dating biological materials and i wasn't aware of this type of dating, merely the carbon 12 half life type of dating. I'm not saying that it doesn't work or anything but it's not part of the beloved scientific method if it's subject to any inaccuracies, whether created by us or by nature. But anyway what about biology 60,000 years and older. What if we are missing something significant that appened 65,000 years ago.


----------



## ganja man23 (Nov 17, 2012)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Pseudoscience, ie. God, is untestable. It will forever remain that way. There are no experiments we could conduct that would prove it one way or the other, rendering it, essentially, useless in any practical terms.
> 
> You seem to be using the term 'imagination' in some kind of placeholder kind of way. Imagination simply means the process of forming mental images or concepts of what is not actually present to the senses. We use imagination all the time in science.
> 
> ...


That ignorance is just simple appalling. Where do you draw the line between what you can test and what you can't? Did you ever think that we don't have the technology or even the resources to test certain things? Are you (or we shall i say) so smart you think the scientific method will answer absolutely any questions we have about the universe? At one point a few hundred years ago we could not test radioactivity so why don't you go tell Madam Curie that radiation is not real because she couldn't "test" it. You're basically telling me we are as advanced as it gets and if we haven't thought of the way to prove it, we simply can't. Absolutely WRONG and LIMITED. Only time will tell you how wrong you are, wait a few decades and see the shit your scientists come up with. I can promise you they won't be the same scientists you're thinking of today.

Stop limiting yourself to science, you're merely becoming a "poser". You're no different than any religionist who has stories told to them, you are both limiting perception. If you were a true scientist you would have better shit to do than post on RIU so stop pretending you have some extra validation because you put yourself into that category. You are not a scientist you are merely told how to percieve reality by the scientists.


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 17, 2012)

ganja man23 said:


> That ignorance is just simple appalling. Where do you draw the line between what you can test and what you can't? Did you ever think that we don't have the technology or even the resources to test certain things? Are you (or we shall i say) so smart you think the scientific method will answer absolutely any questions we have about the universe? At one point a few hundred years ago we could not test radioactivity so why don't you go tell Madam Curie that radiation is not real because she couldn't "test" it. You're basically telling me we are as advanced as it gets and if we haven't thought of the way to prove it, we simply can't. Absolutely WRONG and LIMITED. Only time will tell you how wrong you are, wait a few decades and see the shit your scientists come up with. I can promise you they won't be the same scientists you're thinking of today.
> 
> Stop limiting yourself to science, you're merely becoming a "poser". You're no different than any religionist who has stories told to them, you are both limiting perception. If you were a true scientist you would have better shit to do than post on RIU so stop pretending you have some extra validation because you put yourself into that category. You are not a scientist you are merely told how to percieve reality by the scientists.


What experiment do you propose we use to test god?

Definition of UNFALSIFIABLE


: not capable of being proved false <untestable hypotheses>


----------



## cannabineer (Nov 17, 2012)

ganja man23 said:


> I don't think we differ much on what we consider actual evidence versus speculation. I just want to mention that I have yet to deal with a situation in which anything spiritual has been debunked by any scientific study.


 And you never will. What science can do is address the phenomenology assigned to spirit action. But if you really expect science to be able to debunk, as you say, anything spiritual, you'll be disappointed.


> You are all merely suggesting that science is the only method to understanding


 the material, sensory, phenomenological world


> and I can't disagree with that any more seeing as how i believe speculation is the very thing that fuels science. I mean by this that any experiment that is conducted was first imagined. Yes too much imagination in life is dangerous, but too little is anal. Balance is key for forward progression of course. Think of it this way; if you are only here for 70 years or so then why are you waiting for science as a validation. If you want to disprove a creator why not create a hypothesis and then form an experiment and see your conclusions.


 Perhaps you can suggest an experiment. But as the questions of spirit and God are not considered phenomenological, I don't see a way in.


> Unless you contribute to science directly by conducting experiments, you are just an observer waiting for the scientists to "show you the answers" so to speak. All i want to state is that there are a great deal of things within the universe that we don't understand. You need imagination and validation to accomplish something spectacular within a life span. If you're just waiting around for science to prove things for you then haven't you missed on an equal half of your consciousness; imagination. It's all about how you apply your imagination to your physicality (what you all call "reality") since we are all so convinced that this is the only way to perceive things. How are we to go anywhere without imagining a way first? If the path is wrong, we will know. How will we know? Watch the news. Mostly stories of people starving, getting shot, starting wars, etc. We are doing something wrong because the world is abundant for at least the 7 billion people on it so why are there so many suffering? There is only one direction for humanity to collectively progress towards and that is unity with each other and our surroundings.


What science embraces, and every spiritual protocol I've encountered abhors, is the primacy of _test_. cn


----------



## cannabineer (Nov 17, 2012)

ganja man23 said:


> That ignorance is just simple appalling. Where do you draw the line between what you can test and what you can't?


 The line is drawn not by us but for us. It is the boundary of _phenomena_. All phenomena submit to test.


> Did you ever think that we don't have the technology or even the resources to test certain things?


 Certainly, but if they are phenomenological, if they affect the material/sensory world, they are testable in principle.


> Are you (or we shall i say) so smart you think the scientific method will answer absolutely any questions we have about the universe? At one point a few hundred years ago we could not test radioactivity so why don't you go tell Madam Curie that radiation is not real because she couldn't "test" it.


 You've provided a good example of tech catching up with a phenomenon.


> You're basically telling me we are as advanced as it gets and if we haven't thought of the way to prove it, we simply can't.


This is where you take a bad step. Nobody here ever has said this is as far as we go with science.


> Absolutely WRONG and LIMITED. Only time will tell you how wrong you are, wait a few decades and see the shit your scientists come up with. I can promise you they won't be the same scientists you're thinking of today.
> 
> Stop limiting yourself to science, you're merely becoming a "poser". You're no different than any religionist who has stories told to them, you are both limiting perception. If you were a true scientist you would have better shit to do than post on RIU so stop pretending you have some extra validation because you put yourself into that category. You are not a scientist you are merely told how to percieve reality by the scientists.


Radically different, and the difference is _test_. cn

_ceterum censeo_ Carbon-12 is stable.


----------



## ganja man23 (Nov 17, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> What experiment do you propose we use to test god?
> 
> Definition of UNFALSIFIABLE
> 
> ...


LOL have you been reading the bible too much? Are god and Jesus the only answer or some shit? We don't need to prove god, that's more like the last piece to the puzzle and it won't be proved in that sense anyway.

If you want my opinion as to when we are on the right path; it will be when we start examining time's relation to space more closely. Evidence shows we can view it as a fabric similar to space in the sense that duration creates a linear "fabric". Much evidence exists to support string theory and its not yet complete. Basically string theory shows that a change in vibrational frequency will result in a different "reality". Even if we have all the evidence to complete string theory for example are you going to take science's word for all the infinite dimensions that exist in the same space you occupy right now without actually seeing them. Curiosity killed the cat but limitation left the monkeys in the trees. I'm so clever i just thought of that right then and there i swear...


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Nov 17, 2012)

ganja man23 said:


> That ignorance is just simple appalling. Where do you draw the line between what you can test and what you can't? Did you ever think that we don't have the technology or even the resources to test certain things? Are you (or we shall i say) so smart you think the scientific method will answer absolutely any questions we have about the universe? At one point a few hundred years ago we could not test radioactivity so why don't you go tell Madam Curie that radiation is not real because she couldn't "test" it. You're basically telling me we are as advanced as it gets and if we haven't thought of the way to prove it, we simply can't. Absolutely WRONG and LIMITED. Only time will tell you how wrong you are, wait a few decades and see the shit your scientists come up with. I can promise you they won't be the same scientists you're thinking of today.
> 
> Stop limiting yourself to science, you're merely becoming a "poser". You're no different than any religionist who has stories told to them, you are both limiting perception. If you were a true scientist you would have better shit to do than post on RIU so stop pretending you have some extra validation because you put yourself into that category. You are not a scientist you are merely told how to percieve reality by the scientists.


You misunderstood. 

What you seem to have read is "what is testable *now* is real, if it's not testable *now*, it isn't real", which isn't what was said at all.

Testable, now *or in the future*. 

If it isn't testable now, where is the value in believing it's real? 

The problem with religion is that it will never be testable, no matter how advanced our science or technology becomes. It says it right there in the scripture.

If you disagree, then how would you suggest we test God?


----------



## bob jameson (Nov 17, 2012)

Seriously, I do have very good instincts about people when I first meet them. I know if a person is sincere, deceptive or whatever. I get a very strong reaction to shady, untrustworthy people, much more than the people around me do. Bottom line, time always proves me right. My biggest challenge is not saying, "I told you so."


----------



## ganja man23 (Nov 17, 2012)

Padawanbater2 said:


> You misunderstood.
> 
> What you seem to have read is "what is testable *now* is real, if it's not testable *now*, it isn't real", which isn't what was said at all.
> 
> ...


I don't think it's necessary to test god, let alone attempt to prove him. You have no clue what god is and how can you when you don't believe in the very spark that fuels us? God is just one of those words that sparks controversy because people don't understand it. You have to realize that a lot of religions simply offer analogies for situations rather than literal interpretations such as an invisible bearded sky daddy watching us forever. This is your problem, you read something and take only one meaning from it which fits along the same lines of something you can't perceive, therefore not real.

You are under the assumption that not only is something that is not measurable not real, it can't possibly exist at all. What if we simply don't have the tools or even the mental cognitive ability to perceive it. WE're not the pinacle of knowledge, we are simply left with what's in front of us and you have to realize that in order to advance in science we need to study what's not in front of us which is kind of difficult if you don't know what it is. What about "evidence" for something similar to string theory? Most physicists today will support this hypothesis. So now, can you please provide speculation as to how we would test vibrational frequencies that are not visible to our colour spectrum? Even if we do prove it, it's going to be through a computer rather than actually seeing different dimensions unfold in the frequency you manipulate. At the moment we have no way of proving it while many of the most intelligent minds in the world agree to the theory.


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 17, 2012)

ganja man23 said:


> Perhaps i can break down everything youve writen but i wont for one reason, being that you show no more evidence other than your knowingness that you are much superiour to me in genetic studies. You cant use things you say in an attempt to disprove what i say as evidence. I only have one point and you've failed to grasp it IMO. Do you really think you've shown more concrete evidence than I have here? It's different that you may know more but I have yet to see it therefore don't believe it.
> 
> FYI I have chosen genetic engineering as my study in university and no I am not finished yet but to call me unqualified you would be wrong. Don't fail to realize that science has not proved everything about our origins. You seem to be under the impression that you have it all figured out which is what these guys are telling me about beliefs. Don't come upon the conclusion that we evolved 100% naturally until all the evidence is in place. If you're curious what I did, I merely took all my beliefs and tried to create my own theory and no offense it has less questions than your claim of natural evolution.
> 
> ...


I haven't shown evidence because I haven't tried. You ignorance is clear just by your own words. If you want me to demonstrate then I will, but the problem is that the explanations become tiresome and you will just ignore it. If you want you can search some of my responses to finshaggy to see some of my explanation of the scientific method and why science never proves anything, but you have google, you should be able to read up on science. If you are in genetic engineering, then your school has failed you. They need to teach you basic fundamentals that you seem to be missing. The fact that you can dismiss solid scientific theory because not everything has been proved tells me that. Germ theory is not proven, do you avoid antibiotics because of it? You may have forgotten some of what you learned in basic science classes in high school and intro classes at the university level, but I can assure you, if you were my student, you would have a hard time passing my class. As to evolution, the stupidity of the question about why there are still apes if we evolved from them is demonstrated by countless youtube videos and good resources like talkorigins.org. If you have trouble finding something, you can ask, but these are the same discussions that have been posted countless times in this subforum alone. Americans came from Europeans. Why are there still Europeans? 

The lion thing is not an analogy because for the very reason we evolved the way we did and they evolved their way. You can't make an analogy when the fail is the fundamental point. IOW, the theory about how walking upright gave us the ability to use tools, which then allowed things like our ability to use fire and cook our food, which gives us more energy and easier digestion, which leads to getting rid of the huge ape gut, which then leads to more energy for our brains which then allows for development of a larger brain, etc. etc. Therefore, your question has actual answers, it wasn't rhetorical and your lack of knowledge about current theory on how we actually did get smarter is the reason I am telling you that you knowledge in this particular area is severely lacking. It's not a criticism as much as an observation. 
A thread in the science section about aliens, I pointed out that whales could be just as intelligent as we are. Their language suggests very complex levels much beyond other animals. However, they are limited by their anatomy and environment hampering their ability to create technology. Technology allows humans to outpace biological evolution, an extremely slow process. You are being species-centric when you discount the intelligence of other animals. It's a form of bigotry to claim that our intelligence is the pinnacle of evolution or something and it's so special that it needs some sort of special intervention. The ability of other species to perform well in their environment is something we can envy. Intelligence is merely one pathway to adapt and our particular style of intelligence is merely another step in the chain that I described above. Even our brains display the stepwise fashion in which we developed. Science is making a lot of headway into understanding how the neocortex formed and functions. We are understanding emergent consciousness by studying other species. A hive intelligence, for example, displays some of the same properties as human intelligence. It shows how many subunits that are basically dumb (ants, neurons), can display all kinds of interesting intelligence when coordinated. 

My issue that I have with people like you and CWE and pretty much every creationist and IDer, is how you discount the incredible thing that is nature and invoke something that has no real explanation without creating an infinite regress. Because ultimately, if the question is, 'how did we become intelligent?' then the answer must be complete and satisfying. Invoking an intelligent agent that did this to us, makes us ask, 'how did that intelligent being become intelligent?' Because only by answering that, will the original answer be complete. All you do is create an additional step unless you cop out like the Xians and claim intelligence has always been there. 

BTW, it should be apparent to you my regard for the science of biological evolution if you bothered to pay attention to my avatar. This isn't merely a hobby for me.


----------



## ganja man23 (Nov 17, 2012)

bob jameson said:


> Seriously, I do have very good instincts about people when I first meet them. I know if a person is sincere, deceptive or whatever. I get a very strong reaction to shady, untrustworthy people, much more than the people around me do. Bottom line, time always proves me right. My biggest challenge is not saying, "I told you so."


By that do you mean


or

 lol


----------



## cannabineer (Nov 17, 2012)

ganja man23 said:


> I don't think it's necessary to test god, let alone attempt to prove him. You have no clue what god is and how can you when you don't believe in the very spark that fuels us? God is just one of those words that sparks controversy because people don't understand it. You have to realize that a lot of religions simply offer analogies for situations rather than literal interpretations such as an invisible bearded sky daddy watching us forever. This is your problem, you read something and take only one meaning from it which fits along the same lines of something you can't perceive, therefore not real.
> 
> You are under the assumption that not only is something that is not measurable not real, it can't possibly exist at all.


 Show me one post where someone has said that. One will do. Otherwise, you're moving the goalposts to make science, and its proponents here, look worse than is appropriate.


> What if we simply don't have the tools or even the mental cognitive ability to perceive it. WE're not the pinnacle of knowledge, we are simply left with what's in front of us and you have to realize that in order to advance in science we need to study what's not in front of us which is kind of difficult if you don't know what it is. What about "evidence" for something similar to string theory? Most physicists today will support this hypothesis. So now, can you please provide speculation as to how we would test vibrational frequencies that are not visible to our colour spectrum? Even if we do prove it, it's going to be through a computer rather than actually seeing different dimensions unfold in the frequency you manipulate. At the moment we have no way of proving it while many of the most intelligent minds in the world agree to the theory.


But string theory can be proven or disproven or modified scientifically, since it makes predictions about physical doings. Not immediately, but the framework is there. That's what's missing in your proposals about spirituality ... a test protocol can't begin to be proposed. cn


----------



## greenswag (Nov 17, 2012)

First off I would like to say that I enjoy science a lot. I follow things going on with astronomy, aviation, biology and things with the ocean. I'm not too interested in physics, not saying it isn't as important, just not as interesting to me, or with chemistry even though I seem to excel in it beyond everyone else I meet I just seem to learn and grasp it so well, but it tends to bore me. 

But from the post I've seen in this thread and in others, it seems a lot of people like to say that ganja man, and other spiritual people who post here are wrong. And I may be wrong in that and if I am please correct me. I often see atheist, or scientologist complain about bible thumpers, and how relentlessly they fight tooth and nail that they are right and everyone else is wrong, and how they will never, ever change their view no matter what evidence or lack of evidence is presented to them. These same people are just as bad in my mind. Because they also fight tooth and nail, that the bible thumpers or anyone else who is spiritual for that matter, are wrong in their ways. They refuse to accept that there just might be something there, that our current science can never possibly discover. That those people who they so vigorously fight to prove wrong, just MAY be right. Or maybe they aren't right, but maybe they have the right idea. In any case why is it so hard to accept another persons point of view, regardless of whether you agree with it or not. And why on earth do you feel the need to wander onto a thread, specifically aimed towards spiritual people, and bash those who come to it for being 'wrong'. There is no right or wrong on this topic, because no one has a fucking clue, and you will never have a clue, whether you are in a sexual relationship with your bible, or if you believe everything must be testable, until you are dead. Only then will you say, HA I was right! As you float through oblivion in a vast nothingness, not ever really existing. Actually then you wouldn't be able to say you were right, which is what all of you would love to do, now that sure would suck wouldn't it? Or you'll say 'ha I was right!' as your walking through paradise in the next life.

Learn to let go of your beliefs, stop being so thick headed and open up your mind a little to the possibilities, you ARE in the SS&P section by the way. And if you can't do that, make threads about what you believe in, and don't bother the people who make threads about what they believe in, unless of course they ask. I waited a long time to step in and say this because I really didn't feel it was necessary, I thought it would work itself out but obviously not, it never has before in history. We're on a weed forum, what happened to the peace, isn't that why you came here?

Btw, I like all of you, I read each post and say, oh good point. Then the next post, oh good point against his point. I'm not calling out anyone in particular, it's just so many threads get derailed when people flood in and try to call out others. I can almost guarantee, no matter what side you are fighting for, you won't convert anyone to your side.


----------



## Canna Sylvan (Nov 17, 2012)

Greens,
I've experienced the shadow people five times in my life, face to face. Free standers as they're known by others who've seen them. It's more than a shadowy figure. They make you feel dread, loathing, fear and all other bad emotions. I'm crazy? Wtf?


----------



## greenswag (Nov 17, 2012)

Canna Sylvan said:


> Greens,
> I've experienced the shadow people five times in my life, face to face. Free standers as they're known by others who've seen them. It's more than a shadowy figure. They make you feel dread, loathing, fear and all other bad emotions. I'm crazy? Wtf?


I think your talking to me? I read that carne might have faced what you talk about too. Are you bringing this up from my previous post? I didn't see anything this most recent time, only the tv flickering. What happened when you were faced with them? What did they look like, did they do or say anything? And wheres that last bit coming from friend? No one here is calling you crazy 

We had more activity today I think. On Thursday I told dad about the tv thing, and we talked and he was telling me he doesn't think anythings here, but then again he is the opposite of a sensitive lol. This morning he woke me up asking if I was coughing. I was dead asleep in the middle of a nightmare and he actually startled me awake. I told him no and asked why. He said he was downstairs watching TV when he heard a very low, deep coughing or laughing (and I cough and laugh kind of, middle-high, not deep or low at all), he really wasn't able to describe what he heard. I told him that beyond a doubt it was not me and asked if it was in the house, or just outside and he thought he heard inside. He said he looked around outside but there was no one around to make the noise, and no one else is in the house with us. Come the end of the conversation I could tell he was starting to get freaked out and I stopped pressing because he was getting uncomfortable, I think he's starting to realize what I've been saying when I feel there's something here. Maybe it did that to make a point to him because he was so quick and happy to say that there is nothing with us.


----------



## Canna Sylvan (Nov 17, 2012)

Padwan,
The oldest religious cave art is over 70,000 years old found in Botswana in 2006. The 30,000 years you reference is the previously found oldest cave drawings in France.


----------



## bob jameson (Nov 17, 2012)

Canna Sylvan said:


> Greens,
> I've experienced the shadow people five times in my life, face to face. Free standers as they're known by others who've seen them. It's more than a shadowy figure. They make you feel dread, loathing, fear and all other bad emotions. I'm crazy? Wtf?


That would be my second wife. Tell her I said hi and she still owes me $150.


----------



## Canna Sylvan (Nov 17, 2012)

Greens,
I seen the hoody three times, a small animal("pets" of the shadow people), gnome like shadow people. They put images into your head which they delight in. Some think of them as emotion vampires or maybe they're like online trolls.


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Nov 17, 2012)

Padawanbater2 said:


> You misunderstood.
> 
> What you seem to have read is "what is testable *now* is real, if it's not testable *now*, it isn't real", which isn't what was said at all.
> 
> ...


Pad, no matter how much you huff and puff and attempt to BLOW the house down, you have no more credibility than we do when talking about the existence of god or souls, you cant even say god probably doesnt exist without looking like a douchebag who is full of himself. From your philosophy, you should have absolutely no idea if god exists or not, yet you try to push the idea that god does not exist. From the fanatical standards, god cannot be detected by science, what does that tell you about science?


----------



## ganja man23 (Nov 17, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Pad, no matter how much you huff and puff and attempt to BLOW the house down, you have no more credibility than we do when talking about the existence of god or souls, you cant even say god probably doesnt exist without looking like a douchebag who is full of himself. From your philosophy, you should have absolutely no idea if god exists or not, yet you try to push the idea that god does not exist. From the fanatical standards, god cannot be detected by science, what does that tell you about science?


lol man this happens every time. this poor guy (OP) wanted a thread about any information to psychic abilities and here we are arguing about god lmfao. that's what every single debate will come down to every time they disagree with something.


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Nov 17, 2012)

greenswag said:


> First off I would like to say that I enjoy science a lot. I follow things going on with astronomy, aviation, biology and things with the ocean. I'm not too interested in physics, not saying it isn't as important, just not as interesting to me, or with chemistry even though I seem to excel in it beyond everyone else I meet I just seem to learn and grasp it so well, but it tends to bore me.
> 
> But from the post I've seen in this thread and in others, it seems a lot of people like to say that ganja man, and other spiritual people who post here are wrong. And I may be wrong in that and if I am please correct me. I often see atheist, or scientologist complain about bible thumpers, and how relentlessly they fight tooth and nail that they are right and everyone else is wrong, and how they will never, ever change their view no matter what evidence or lack of evidence is presented to them. These same people are just as bad in my mind. Because they also fight tooth and nail, that the bible thumpers or anyone else who is spiritual for that matter, are wrong in their ways. They refuse to accept that there just might be something there, that our current science can never possibly discover. That those people who they so vigorously fight to prove wrong, just MAY be right. Or maybe they aren't right, but maybe they have the right idea. In any case why is it so hard to accept another persons point of view, regardless of whether you agree with it or not. And why on earth do you feel the need to wander onto a thread, specifically aimed towards spiritual people, and bash those who come to it for being 'wrong'. There is no right or wrong on this topic, because no one has a fucking clue, and you will never have a clue, whether you are in a sexual relationship with your bible, or if you believe everything must be testable, until you are dead. Only then will you say, HA I was right! As you float through oblivion in a vast nothingness, not ever really existing. Actually then you wouldn't be able to say you were right, which is what all of you would love to do, now that sure would suck wouldn't it? Or you'll say 'ha I was right!' as your walking through paradise in the next life.
> 
> ...


Well fucking said Sir! +rep. Im looking forward to the responses to your comment. I may seem a bit fanatical about my beliefs but I dont see how I cannot considering the things I went through, but I dont go out looking to prove people wrong, I go out to speak with like minded people and it is the militant atheists that drag me into this wild goose chase in which the atheists think they have caught the goose.


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Nov 17, 2012)

Canna Sylvan said:


> Greens,
> I seen the hoody three times, a small animal("pets" of the shadow people), gnome like shadow people. They put images into your head which they delight in. Some think of them as emotion vampires or maybe they're like online trolls.


I believe in entities that feed of of your negative vibes. Sometimes I seen detailed sinister looking faces for a fraction of a second when my eyes are closed, that has only happened a couple of times though. I wasnt that scared when I seen those faces, I concentrated to see what else I can see. You can do the same thing in meditation to have a somewhat psychedelic feeling. One time I was meditating for a minute and the image of a golden body standing on a green grid appeared in my head, I dont see how that could just come out of my imagination, my beliefs dont really relate to what I seen. 

I dont know if you know but I am infamous on this site for psychic talk lol. Everyone has the tools to be psychic. Exercise that pineal gland by meditating, even take some psychedelics once a month, and you will start to notice your psychic powers are starting to get tuned.


----------



## ganja man23 (Nov 17, 2012)

Canna Sylvan said:


> Greens,
> I've experienced the shadow people five times in my life, face to face. Free standers as they're known by others who've seen them. It's more than a shadowy figure. They make you feel dread, loathing, fear and all other bad emotions. I'm crazy? Wtf?


I'm very curious to know why you are receptive to these negative entities. Many of us simply see what others cannot but do you ever see any entities that are positive or neutral based? I have the sense that all negative entities feed from our fear which is why they appear to us, in order to scare us and feed from the low frequency energy we emit when afraid. Perhaps youve seen auras around people or energy grids? In any case if they attempt to torment you, remember you may very well be trying to have a lesson taught to you, so perhaps the way to make them leave you alone is to not fear them.


----------



## Canna Sylvan (Nov 17, 2012)

I've seen a girl in a 1800s sun dress.Looked online for hourd until I found one.I never seen that kind of dress before.I was sitting on the toilet when her "ghost" sat on my dirty laundry basket and pointed at me.She went in my closet.It stunk ever since.


----------



## Canna Sylvan (Nov 17, 2012)

Chief,
When I get super high off a sativa, I'll stare into space and see abstract shapes. Then they turn into animals and demons/monsters. Each one gives me a feeling like horny, sad, happy, etc. Most of the time they're a violet color from a Vectrex.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 17, 2012)

...pad, the cross in your avatar fits well with your area of moderating. Happens to be a well known symbol of sex. Same as the Egyptian Ankh, and so on, and so on, and so on.


----------



## ElfoodStampo (Nov 17, 2012)

We all have the power. 
This research on water is nothing less than fucking amazing. Human interaction has direct effect on water, and waters memory. 
I'm starting to believe the whole music thing in grow rooms because of this. I think this is pretty key to figuring out what this place is all about.
Its a series but absolutely worth watching 
[video=youtube;taQUrkB0nPQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taQUrkB0nPQ&amp;list=PLC8D68DF184EB4D4A&amp;index= 1&amp;feature=plpp_video[/video]


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Nov 17, 2012)

greenswag said:


> But from the post I've seen in this thread and in others, it seems a lot of people like to say that ganja man, and other spiritual people who post here are wrong. And I may be wrong in that and if I am please correct me. I often see atheist, or scientologist complain about bible thumpers, and how relentlessly they fight tooth and nail that they are right and everyone else is wrong, and how they will never, ever change their view no matter what evidence or lack of evidence is presented to them. These same people are just as bad in my mind. Because they also fight tooth and nail, that the bible thumpers or anyone else who is spiritual for that matter, are wrong in their ways. They refuse to accept that there just might be something there, that our current science can never possibly discover. That those people who they so vigorously fight to prove wrong, just MAY be right. Or maybe they aren't right, but maybe they have the right idea. In any case why is it so hard to accept another persons point of view, regardless of whether you agree with it or not. And why on earth do you feel the need to wander onto a thread, specifically aimed towards spiritual people, and bash those who come to it for being 'wrong'. There is no right or wrong on this topic, because no one has a fucking clue, and you will never have a clue, whether you are in a sexual relationship with your bible, or if you believe everything must be testable, until you are dead. Only then will you say, HA I was right! As you float through oblivion in a vast nothingness, not ever really existing. Actually then you wouldn't be able to say you were right, which is what all of you would love to do, now that sure would suck wouldn't it? Or you'll say 'ha I was right!' as your walking through paradise in the next life.
> 
> Learn to let go of your beliefs, stop being so thick headed and open up your mind a little to the possibilities, you ARE in the SS&P section by the way. And if you can't do that, make threads about what you believe in, and don't bother the people who make threads about what they believe in, unless of course they ask. I waited a long time to step in and say this because I really didn't feel it was necessary, I thought it would work itself out but obviously not, it never has before in history. We're on a weed forum, what happened to the peace, isn't that why you came here?


This is something that seems like it needs to be explained weekly, when in reality, you guys should already understand this, and why, and the fact that you don't is a significant part of the problem.. Beliefs can be dangerous. Beliefs like the ones that have been expressed in this thread imo, are dangerous. If they had any basis in reality, or you could shed any light on their validity, your points might be arguable, but they don't, and many of us have shown you how they don't only to be dismissed as arrogant, close minded and militant. If your answer to 2+2=5, is it _arrogant _of me to correct you and tell you it's actually 4? If you tell me red + blue makes pink, am I _close minded_ when I tell you it actually makes purple? Am I _militant _if you refuse to accept the theory of gravity and I grab your wrist as you jump off the bridge? 

It's hard to accept these points of view because those of us who work in the field or study this stuff on a daily basis, who understand the process it took us to get to where we are today, which took thousands of years, know the probability of the things you claim, we have an understanding of history which means we know what these kinds of beliefs can lead to and what real harm they can cause. We know they've been argued over since the beginning of human history, and we know that asking the same questions for thousands of years and expecting a different answer is the definition of insanity. 

It is exponentially selfish to cause another person harm because you believe something that leads to political policy which indirectly or directly causes it. Especially when it isn't true. Consider the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, the Holocaust, the war on terror, the war on drugs, all of these are examples of problems that would not exist if people didn't rely on unsubstantiated claims. This is why it's supremely important to insist on facts and not intuiton, on figures and data, not superstition and tradition, on science and philosophy, not pseudoscience or religion. 

"Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned."

If you expect to express such beliefs, you must accept that there will be people who question them. If you feel any inquiry about what you believe threatens those beliefs, then instead of complain about legitimate criticisms, you should ask yourself why you believe such things in the first place, and remember those of us that rely on science for answers have an answer for why we believe the things we believe and we don't have any reason to become hostile if questioned about them. There is only one reason a person would behave this way, and it isn't because they're confident in their conviction.. 



Canna Sylvan said:


> Padwan,
> The oldest religious cave art is over 70,000 years old found in Botswana in 2006. The 30,000 years you reference is the previously found oldest cave drawings in France.


In 2006 the site known as Rhino Cave became prominent in the media when Sheila Coulson of the University of Oslo stated that 70,000-year-old artifacts and a rock resembling a python's head representing the first known human rituals had been discovered. She also backed her interpretation of the site as a place of ritual based on other animals portrayed: "In the cave, we find only the San people's three most important animals: the python, the elephant, and the giraffe. *Since then some of the archaeologists involved in the original investigations of the site in 1995 and 1996 have challenged these interpretations. They point out that the indentations (known by archaeologists as cupules) described by Coulson do not necessarily all date to the same period and that "many of the depressions are very fresh while others are covered by a heavy patina." Other sites nearby (over 20) also have depressions and do not represent animals. The Middle Stone Age radiocarbon and thermoluminescence dating for this site does not support the 70,000 year figure, suggesting much more recent dates.*

Discussing the painting, the archaeologists say that the painting described as an elephant is actually a rhino, that the red painting of a giraffe *is no older than 400 AD* and that the white painting of the rhino is more recent, and that experts in rock art believe the red and white paintings are by different groups. They refer to Coulson's interpretation as a projection of modern beliefs on to the past and call Coulson's interpretation a composite story that is "flatout misleading". They respond to Coulson's statement that these are the only paintings in the cave by saying that she has ignored red geometric paintings found on the cave wall.

They also discuss the burned Middle Stone Age points, saying that there is nothing unusual in using nonlocal materials. They dismiss the claim that no ordinary tools were found at the site, noting that the many scrapers that are found are ordinary tools and that there is evidence of tool making at the site. Discussing the 'secret chamber', they point to the lack of evidence for San shamans using chambers in caves or for this one to have been used in such a way.

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



Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Pad, no matter how much you huff and puff and attempt to BLOW the house down, you have no more credibility than we do when talking about the existence of god or souls, you cant even say god probably doesnt exist without looking like a douchebag who is full of himself. From your philosophy, you should have absolutely no idea if god exists or not, yet you try to push the idea that god does not exist. From the fanatical standards, god cannot be detected by science, what does that tell you about science?



I can absolutely say God probably doesn't exist with a high level of confidence. 

..it tells me science is doing a fine job at discerning fiction from nonfiction.


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Nov 17, 2012)

Cool ideas and opinions, bro. Just dont force others to try and accept your ideas and opinions. Nothing ever comes from it besides people clashing heads never agreeing to disagree.The certainty you have in your ideas and opinions is a delusion, you might even call it dangerous .


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Nov 17, 2012)

Canna Sylvan said:


> Chief,
> When I get super high off a sativa, I'll stare into space and see abstract shapes. Then they turn into animals and demons/monsters. Each one gives me a feeling like horny, sad, happy, etc. Most of the time they're a violet color from a Vectrex.


Wow, thats crazy. I thought you said salvia at first but thats amazing coming from a sativa. Do those beings you see act in a certain pattern? Perhaps they are trying to show you something about yourself. HighTimes recently did an article about ayauasca, the main ingredient in it is the most potent psychedelic known to man and the skeptic doing the article was completely moved after the experience and he is now questioning his beliefs. Monsters and beings shown him his destructive life style and what he needs to do to change.


----------



## ganja man23 (Nov 17, 2012)

Padawanbater2 said:


> I can *absolutely* say God *probably* doesn't exist with a high level of confidence.
> 
> ..it tells me science is doing a fine job at discerning fiction from nonfiction.


lol that was a great way to end such a time consuming post, very scientific. Science and your own method of approach is doing a great job of limiting your beliefs and nothing else. What's even greater is that you will hopefully see the irony one day and change your definition of what god is. Don't let religion steer you away from the word because that definition translates as some type of entity like me or you when the truth is more like it being a collective consciousness containing everything in existence within it. Why not just define your word god as everything conceivable in existence, that's as good a definition as any since "he" is supposedly all seeing and all knowing, what's more all knowing than everything in existence? 

I just googled "define god" and let me state that almost every definition is different from one another and none define it in such a way as I mentioned. Tell me what god is before you are probably absolutely sure it doesn't exist.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Nov 17, 2012)

ganja man23 said:


> lol that was a great way to end such a time consuming post, very scientific. Science and your own method of approach is doing a great job of limiting your beliefs and nothing else. What's even greater is that you will hopefully see the irony one day and change your definition of what god is. Don't let religion steer you away from the word because that definition translates as some type of entity like me or you when the truth is more like it being a collective consciousness containing everything in existence within it. Why not just define your word god as everything conceivable in existence, that's as good a definition as any since "he" is supposedly all seeing and all knowing, what's more all knowing than everything in existence?
> 
> I just googled "define god" and let me state that almost every definition is different from one another and none define it in such a way as I mentioned. Tell me what god is before you are probably absolutely sure it doesn't exist.


I can absolutely say with a high level of confidence that any god portrayed in any organized religion probably doesn't exist.


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Nov 17, 2012)

ganja man23 said:


> lol that was a great way to end such a time consuming post, very scientific. Science and your own method of approach is doing a great job of limiting your beliefs and nothing else. What's even greater is that you will hopefully see the irony one day and change your definition of what god is. Don't let religion steer you away from the word because that definition translates as some type of entity like me or you when the truth is more like it being a collective consciousness containing everything in existence within it. Why not just define your word god as everything conceivable in existence, that's as good a definition as any since "he" is supposedly all seeing and all knowing, what's more all knowing than everything in existence?
> 
> I just googled "define god" and let me state that almost every definition is different from one another and none define it in such a way as I mentioned. Tell me what god is before you are probably absolutely sure it doesn't exist.


I still call the creator 'god' just because its the easiest concept to understand. I put less importance on the creator though because we are no different than the creator, just inexperienced. Our beliefs about what god is are similar.


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Nov 17, 2012)

Padawanbater2 said:


> I can absolutely say with a high level of confidence that any god portrayed in any organized religion probably doesn't exist.


Yes, you can, because you are free to do so, but your opinion doesnt really say much about reality, no matter how much you bicker. You have no voice to the theists, and I have no voice to the atheists, it seems only one of us is aware and ok with that though...


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Nov 17, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Yes, you can, because you are free to do so, but your opinion doesnt really say much about reality, no matter how much you bicker. You have no voice to the theists, and I have no voice to the atheists, it seems only one of us is aware and ok with that though...


I've never tried to change anyones mind, only show people the flaws in traditional reasoning

This is an argument you seem to be having with yourself


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Nov 17, 2012)

i have vivid and lucid dreams that end up playing out . .. . i can on multiple occasions recall dreams where i dream it then it happened mundane events like the my procession in a conversation and an action like opening a cupboard and removing a specific plate having a specific conversation

idk if its just dreams that coincide with daily events that happen, but it sure feels like a glimpse of future when it happens . . . .i dont normally dream at all so they stand out . .. happened a lot more as a kid\


to be honest i always felt it was just placebo memory's of reoccurring situations and the dreams being similar or close and then my mind connecting the two

idk just my .03


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Nov 17, 2012)

Padawanbater2 said:


> I've never tried to change anyones mind, only show people the flaws in traditional reasoning
> 
> This is an argument you seem to be having with yourself


Reasoning is subjective for everyone no matter what your scientific idles and authorities say. If it was objective than everyone would accept what you have to say and there would be a lot less believers. You are trying to get people accept your ideas of what rationality is. Also, no one from the other side of the argument ever listens to what you have to say, you are not ok with that, you feel they must accept your ideology, which is dangerous because you are convinced your ideology is the best to follow.


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Nov 17, 2012)

Alright, Ima let the wild goose chasers run around aimlessly thinking that they are accomplishing something. Goodnight peeps!


----------



## Canna Sylvan (Nov 17, 2012)

Chief,
What I do: Smoke 0.15 g of Blue Dream, turn off my bedroom light, turn on the hall light, lie with my feet pointing towards the door. Stare at ceiling. I then concentrate on my spirit guide, a golden lion tamarin. I imagine floating down a river.


----------



## ganja man23 (Nov 17, 2012)

Padawanbater2 said:


> I can absolutely say with a high level of confidence that any god portrayed in any organized religion probably doesn't exist.


You have to look further than religion. Its more of a guide than a literal interpretation. The reality is that many different religions deal with different levels of spirituality and this god fellow in many religions is described as all knowing therefore can he not contain infinity within him, with us and everything we see being a part of that infinity? I define god as the highest conceivable dimensional vibration if you wish to think of it that way. Some might call something like that intelligent even, not like us though. string theory suggests there is something called the highest dimension (right now they claim the tenth) of all the multiverses, also called the omniverese. Think about this; the number infinity goes on forever therefore we can never really count to the end. All im trying to say is that we must realize that just because our supposed reality is all that we can see does that mean its all that is? To understand infinity we must look at it as a whole, not try and count the way to the top because after a certain point you will find its not possible to reach, you must embrace it as a whole. Don't close any doors for yourself, and sure as fuck don't let science be the only thing to open doors for you.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Nov 17, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Cool ideas and opinions, bro. Just dont force others to try and accept your ideas and opinions. Nothing ever comes from it besides people clashing heads never agreeing to disagree.The certainty you have in your ideas and opinions is a delusion, *you might even call it dangerous* .


What is dangerous about a systematic way of carefully and thoroughly observing nature while using consistent logic to evaluate the results?


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 17, 2012)

The irony of religion is that because of its power to divert man to destructive courses, the world actually could come to an end. The plain fact is religion must die for mankind to live. The hour is getting very late to be able to indulge in having key decisions made by religious people, by irrationalists, by those who would steer the ship of state not by a compass, but by the equivalent of reading the entrails of a chicken.

George Bush prayed a lot about Iraq, but he didn&#8217;t learn a lot about it. Faith means making a virtue out of not thinking. It&#8217;s nothing to brag about. And those who preach faith and enable and elevate it are our intellectual slaveholders, keeping mankind in a bondage to fantasy and nonsense that has spawned and justified so much lunacy and destruction. Religion is dangerous because it allows human beings who don&#8217;t have all the answers to think that they do. 

Most people would think it&#8217;s wonderful when someone says, &#8220;I&#8217;m willing, Lord. I&#8217;ll do whatever You want me to do.&#8221; Except that since there are no gods actually talking to us, that void is filled in by people, with their own corruptions and limitations and agendas. And anyone who tells you they know, they just know what happens when you die, I promise you, you don&#8217;t. How could I be so sure? Because I don&#8217;t know, and you do not possess mental powers that I do not. 

The only appropriate attitude for man to have about the big questions is not the arrogant certitude that is the hallmark of religion, but doubt. Doubt is humble, and that&#8217;s what man needs to be, considering that human history is a litany of getting shit dead wrong. This is why rational people, anti-religionists, must end their timidity and come out of the closet and assert themselves. And those who consider themselves only moderately religious really need to look in the mirror and realize that the solace and comfort that religion brings you actually comes at a terrible price. If you belonged to a political party or a social club that was tied to as much bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, violence, and sheer ignorance as religion is, you&#8217;d resign in protest. To do otherwise is to be an enabler, a mafia wife, with the true devils of extremism that draw their legitimacy from the billions of their follow travelers. If the world does come to an end here, or wherever, or if it limps into the future, decimated by the effects of a religion-inspired nuclear terrorism, let&#8217;s remember what the real problem was: That we learned how to precipitate mass death before we got past the neurological disorder of wishing for it. That&#8217;s it. Grow up, or die.

-BM


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Nov 18, 2012)

ganja man23 said:


> You have to look further than religion. Its more of a guide than a literal interpretation. The reality is that many different religions deal with different levels of spirituality and this god fellow in many religions is described as all knowing therefore can he not contain infinity within him, with us and everything we see being a part of that infinity? I define god as the highest conceivable dimensional vibration if you wish to think of it that way. Some might call something like that intelligent even, not like us though. string theory suggests there is something called the highest dimension (right now they claim the tenth) of all the multiverses, also called the omniverese. Think about this; the number infinity goes on forever therefore we can never really count to the end. All im trying to say is that we must realize that just because our supposed reality is all that we can see does that mean its all that is? To understand infinity we must look at it as a whole, not try and count the way to the top because after a certain point you will find its not possible to reach, you must embrace it as a whole. Don't close any doors for yourself, and sure as fuck don't let science be the only thing to open doors for you.


You certainly said a lot without actually saying very much..

Infinity is a concept, not a number. 

What does "the highest conceivable dimensional vibration" mean? 

"All I'm trying to say is that we must realize that just because our supposed reality is all that we can see does that mean its all that is?"

I don't depend on visual confirmation to determine what is real. There are many things I know are real without ever having seen them at all, oxygen, gravity, pressure, temperature, sound, etc. None of these things are visually identifiable through our own senses alone. 

What I've asked both you and CWE specifically is, what value does something have if we can't prove its existence? How can we be sure, even if we can identify any value at all, it isn't simply a trick our mind is playing on us? Finally, how can we expect anyone else to benefit from it if we can't reproduce it?


----------



## Canna Sylvan (Nov 18, 2012)

Scientists thought finding the god particle COULD in very small probability cause a strage matter hole which wipes out our solar system.It didn't.But what if it had?They didn't know for sure.They thought it was small chance.That makes scientists dangerous


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Nov 18, 2012)

Canna Sylvan said:


> Chief,
> What I do: Smoke 0.15 g of Blue Dream, turn off my bedroom light, turn on the hall light, lie with my feet pointing towards the door. Stare at ceiling. I then concentrate on my spirit guide, a golden lion tamarin. I imagine floating down a river.


Thats a pretty dope spirit guide. I wish I knew my spirit guide/animal. One time when I was trying to sleep, the shape of a cool looking spider appeared when my eyes were closed, I dont know if it is my spirit guide though.


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Nov 18, 2012)

Padawanbater2 said:


> You certainly said a lot without actually saying very much..
> 
> Infinity is a concept, not a number.
> 
> ...


We've had this discussion already, you did not agree with the answers.


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Nov 18, 2012)

Padawanbater2 said:


> What is dangerous about a systematic way of carefully and thoroughly observing nature while using consistent logic to evaluate the results?


mentally dangerous I guess. Your beliefs make people ignorant, arrogant and bigoted. You always seek conflict and create separation amongst people while doing so, and you agree that being a douchebag is necessary for the purpose of your beliefs because you are so convinced its the best belief.

How are my beliefs dangerous? Because they conflict with yours? They dont even entirely conflict with yours because I like the accomplishments of science. I dont believe in any radical medical procedures like homeopathy. I dont try to recruit people and get a cult following. You cant even say that Im spreading lies around because you have no idea if they are lies or not, because your cherished tool cannot measure what really matters. You call everyone else lazy thinkers yet you are too lazy venture outside of the box you find so comfortable.


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 18, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> mentally dangerous I guess. Your beliefs make people ignorant, arrogant and bigoted. You always seek conflict and create separation amongst people while doing so, and you agree that being a douchebag is necessary for the purpose of your beliefs because you are so convinced its the best belief.


The 'best belief' mentality is yours, not ours. I've never seen any skeptic here attack a belief because there's is 'better'. A belief either has truth value or it doesn't, to judge one as best is subjective. Pointing out that a belief has no demonstrable truth value is simply reporting observation. Having an open mind means you don&#8217;t dismiss claims to truth out of hand. You analyze first. When you analyze a claim, you consider all the relevant evidence and examine all the logic involved, in a fair and unbiased manner, then grant tentative acceptance or rejection. If new arguments or new evidence come up, then you revise your opinion. Being open means that you apply this standard fairly to all claims. Being open-minded does not mean believing every claim, that&#8217;s being gullible, not open.

This process of fair analysis, based upon logic and evidence, leading to tentative conclusions, which are open to revision, is part of science. It is also the very soul of true open-mindedness.




&#8220;A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.&#8221;
&#8213; David Hume


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 18, 2012)

I can fly, just like Superman (although not as fast &#8211; let&#8217;s be realistic). I can take off from a standing start and simply defy gravity by lifting off into the air. I can then soar through the air with perfect control and land gently on the ground at will.

You might ask how I can perform this amazing feat. Well, I don&#8217;t know how it works. I just know that I can do it. To those skeptics out there who say that this is impossible, I ask them to have an open mind. After all, science does not know everything. Look at Galileo, or that guy who claimed that ulcers were caused by bacteria. You cannot prove that human flight is impossible. What about quantum mechanics?

The inability to explain how something works does not mean that it does not work. I think personal flying comes from the ability to harmonize the intentionality wave function with the quantum gravity field.

In any case, I suppose you want some actual evidence. Well &#8211; here&#8217;s the thing. When other people are looking I get nervous and that short-circuits my flying ability. So I can only fly when not being observed, or filmed in any way. But I have the experience of flying, and you can&#8217;t argue with that. I think I would know if I were flying through the air or not.

Skeptics who refuse to accept this evidence are just negative people who kill the human spirit. They would have been there with those priests throwing Galileo in prison for looking through a telescope and challenging their dogma. Some of them are clearly on the take, also. That&#8217;s the only explanation for their opinions. I think most of them work for &#8220;Big Airline&#8221; and want to keep the truth of personal flying from the public to protect the profits of the airline industry.

Here&#8217;s the best part; anyone can fly. Personal flying is an innate ability we all have, it just needs to be set free. You have to first unburden yourself of any doubt or critical thinking.



Remember &#8211; if you keep an open mind, there is no telling what might find its way in there. Happy flying.

-- Steven Novella


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 18, 2012)

Padawanbater2 said:


> I can absolutely say with a high level of confidence that any god portrayed in any organized religion probably doesn't exist.


...as a person, or as a force? Think 2, 3, 4 thousand years ago, how would you attempt to convey abstract ideas to people?


----------



## ganja man23 (Nov 18, 2012)

*You certainly said a lot without actually saying very much..*
You certainly criticize a lot without actually adding you own ideas, just trying to disprove mine because you claim i'm on some witch hunt along with the majority of other physicists looking for proof of higher dimensions. the only thing you guys have is the fact that you wait around for scientists to publish results for you without realizing how limited you are making your perception. 

any real scientist will tell you that creativity and optimism are vital to actually accomplish something in a life time. don't confuse yourself with a real scientist, you are merely a sheep and so is everyone else who doesn't directly contribute to it so stop limiting yourself to science. take what it has taught you so far and why not help contribute to it. you have no idea in which direction science is progressing right now and it's much beyond physicality. 

*Infinity is a concept, not a number*. 
So are you saying infinity does not exist than? Why's that, because you gave the word too much meaning? I just told you to look at it more as a concept and again i was just trying to make a point by viewing it with respect to mathematics. that's all you do is just claim everything non scientific is non existent and criticize little things and not the whole idea (Deja vu). 
*
What does "the highest conceivable dimensional vibration" mean? *
Based on current string theory it is the tenth dimension of space time which is basically the omniverse, containing all other dimensions of space time within it. We are in the third "density" because of our 3 dimensions of space but we are in the 4th dimension because we occupy one dimension of time. We are working to prove that there are other dimensions unseen to the eye because they vibrate much higher than anything in the universe so how are you ever to see them unless you vibrate proportionally high to do so. 
<font color="#006400">[video=youtube;JkxieS-6WuA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkxieS-6WuA[/video]

"All I'm trying to say is that we must realize that just because our supposed reality is all t th hat we can see does that mean its all that is?"
*
I don't depend on visual confirmation to determine what is real. There are many things I know are real without ever having seen them at all, oxygen, gravity, pressure, temperature, sound, etc. None of these things are visually identifiable through our own senses alone. *

Again you have misunderstood me because of your closed minded approach. I was referring to things outside of the physical universe or you can even think of them as phenomenon within the universe we have never be able to explain. Supernatural animal powers, psychic connections between humans,etc. Your approach: i'll wait for science and until then it's not real. it's really irritating because you put yourself in that group without realizing that science should be no more of a resource than something like sociology. you have been worshipping science much like a religion, going by it's literal interpretation which is not even complete yet! Did you ever think that by waiting for the answers you are just as much part of the problem than any religionist. Any scientist will tell you not to criticize ideas unless you have the evidence to actually disprove them rather than criticize them. 


*What I've asked both you and CWE specifically is, what value does something have if we can't prove its existence? How can we be sure, even if we can identify any value at all, it isn't simply a trick our mind is playing on us? Finally, how can we expect anyone else to benefit from it if we can't reproduce it? *

Because we can't prove it's existence it has no value? We are working towards proving higher dimensional space-time which is science far beyond anything your mind has ever perceived. What if scientists used your method of approach than we wouldn't have discovered all those things you speak of which you can't see. You're taking for granted the fact that you were born in a period where we know all that. Understand this: there is a lot more you don't know and even more that you can't see. You can't prove something by ignoring it like you all do. If anything we will ultimately disprove it so why ignore it?

The good that will come from this is a step forward for our civilization. after this most religions will fall and science will take on the role of religion in that sense. it's not going to be any type of worship of a god, i can promise you god doesn't give two shits about being worshipped. i've told you we are striving for unity are we not? oh are you scared of that word because the new age people said it? don't limit yourself to sitting around for science to give you what you want, the theory of everything is not complete yet and won't be for another few decades. so until then you're going to sit around and masterbate to science magazine instead of writing articles for it? i don't think scientists like that very much themselves.


----------



## greenswag (Nov 18, 2012)




----------



## mindphuk (Nov 18, 2012)

So ganja man, I guess you decided to ignore the post demonstrating your woefully inadequate understanding of evolution and science? Good luck with that genetic engineering degree.


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 18, 2012)

Oh yeah, how about that link demonstrating how our genome has been tampered with?


----------



## Doer (Nov 18, 2012)

Canna Sylvan said:


> A Sensative is a person with latent "psychic power." I have no idea if it's a force we don't know about or a part of you from another life passed on through heredity. You can experience things others can't.Like feel a place is hot or cold when others don't


What about, it's just bunk? Something you heard and they want you to believe?


----------



## Doer (Nov 18, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> I can fly, just like Superman (although not as fast  lets be realistic). I can take off from a standing start and simply defy gravity by lifting off into the air. I can then soar through the air with perfect control and land gently on the ground at will.
> 
> You might ask how I can perform this amazing feat. Well, I dont know how it works. I just know that I can do it. To those skeptics out there who say that this is impossible, I ask them to have an open mind. After all, science does not know everything. Look at Galileo, or that guy who claimed that ulcers were caused by bacteria. You cannot prove that human flight is impossible. What about quantum mechanics?
> 
> ...


I told the guys in jail, I was going to meditate my way out of here. That was so they would leave me along and let me practice. Then they could say, "You are still here!!!" And I would say, "Damn, it didn't work yet, did it?" "Oh well, need more practice." It sort of morphed to, "Leave him be. He's trying to get out, yuck, yuck!!""

The last morning, release day, I say, "See dudes, it finally worked. I'm outta here!"

Not many caught on, even with that. It was, "Sure you did." And "You'll be back!"

I actually can fly as well. What? Didn't see it? I guess I'm just too fast.


----------



## ganja man23 (Nov 18, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> So ganja man, I guess you decided to ignore the post demonstrating your woefully inadequate understanding of evolution and science? Good luck with that genetic engineering degree.


I ignored it because you show no more evidence than I do therefore it's a mutual debate therefore not worth my time. What's even more astounding is that you claim to be an educator and are telling me I would have a hard time passing your class without giving me any test materials relative to the course? You're a joke as an educator if you are one. You fail my test of thickness and you can take my 78.6 Average and shove it! You fail to realize that i well establish evolution as a whole thoery but it still has not shown evidence for the outcome of development of many complex genes exclusive to humans. It fails to explain why we evolved to what we are today, it merely suggests its possible to happen naturally. Only at the point that we can read our entire genome like a book along with the junk DNA can we truly come upon the conclusion that we have evolved 100% naturally.

Not evidence for what I've said but you'll find this interesting.
http://paranormalutopia.com/2012/03/starchild-skull-foxp2-genome-evidence-that-its-not-human312/


----------



## ganja man23 (Nov 18, 2012)

Doer said:


> I told the guys in jail, I was going to meditate my way out of here. That was so they would leave me along and let me practice. Then they could say, "You are still here!!!" And I would say, "Damn, it didn't work yet, did it?" "Oh well, need more practice." It sort of morphed to, "Leave him be. He's trying to get out, yuck, yuck!!""
> 
> The last morning, release day, I say, "See dudes, it finally worked. I'm outta here!"
> 
> ...


in all seriousness sorry to go so off topic but is it true what they say about jail and rape? how is one to know without the experience


----------



## ganja man23 (Nov 18, 2012)

Doer said:


> What about, it's just bunk? Something you heard and they want you to believe?


Use your better judgement and find out what has the possibility of being relative to physicality and what does not. You'll find that many people don't have reasons to lie to everyone and in fact they gain more negativity than positivity for sharing but that doesn't mean we can automatically dismiss the idea as a whole. The truth is we need to hold absolutely everything conceivable in our minds as a thought and when it becomes real than we have to believe it. It may very well turn out as a lie though. 

Watch this video: 
[video=youtube;7vyVe-6YdUk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vyVe-6YdUk[/video]

How should we approach this situation? Should we call all of these high ranking officials liars or shall we establish the fact that many people have similar "supernatural" experiences that the public has not been willing to accept. We must realize that society is not based on free will, most beliefs are enforced through media, government, religion, etc.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Nov 18, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> mentally dangerous I guess. Your beliefs make people ignorant, arrogant and bigoted. You always seek conflict and create separation amongst people while doing so, and you agree that being a douchebag is necessary for the purpose of your beliefs because you are so convinced its the best belief.
> 
> How are my beliefs dangerous? Because they conflict with yours? They dont even entirely conflict with yours because I like the accomplishments of science. I dont believe in any radical medical procedures like homeopathy. I dont try to recruit people and get a cult following. You cant even say that Im spreading lies around because you have no idea if they are lies or not, because your cherished tool cannot measure what really matters. You call everyone else lazy thinkers yet you are too lazy venture outside of the box you find so comfortable.



Science = Reality, so what you're saying is "reality makes people ignorant, arrogant and bigoted". Do you see how much sense that makes? 

The opposition is the one who seeks conflict and can't accept an ounce of legitimate criticism. 

Your beliefs are dangerous because they disable you from the correct way of thinking. If people like Newton or Galileo utilized the reasoning skills you do, we'd still believe in a geocentric model of the solar system and the Catholic Church would rule the world. You favor ignorance over application, if it's tough to figure out or you don't understand it, you replace it with something that requires no thought and makes you feel good, even after shown dozens of times how and why you could be mistaken. It's honestly sad at this point. You're going to go through life believing these things with nothing to back them up and convince yourself they're right because of the way they make you feel. 



eye exaggerate said:


> ...as a person, or as a force? Think 2, 3, 4 thousand years ago, how would you attempt to convey abstract ideas to people?


As a person deeply concerned with human affairs. To me, belief in that is simply crazy, there's no other way to put it, and I know that will offend a lot of people, but we've gone on long enough with this idea. It's time for us to grow up and accept reality for what it is. 

I would simply tell people the truth, I don't know. Anyone claiming absolute knowledge about such things is lying. Anyone attempting to dictate society based on such things is an enemy of freedom and liberty, and anyone attempting moral coercion based on such lies is evil. 

The best we can say is "I don't know", and "I don't know" isn't a good enough reason to justify the hate organized religion requires.



ganja man23 said:


> You certainly criticize a lot without actually adding you own ideas, just trying to disprove mine because you claim i'm on some witch hunt along with the majority of other physicists looking for proof of higher dimensions. the only thing you guys have is the fact that you wait around for scientists to publish results for you without realizing how limited you are making your perception.



This thread isn't about my ideas or what I believe, had you asked, I'd have been more than happy to tell you.



ganja man23 said:


> any real scientist will tell you that creativity and optimism are vital to actually accomplish something in a life time. don't confuse yourself with a real scientist, you are merely a sheep and so is everyone else who doesn't directly contribute to it so stop limiting yourself to science. take what it has taught you so far and why not help contribute to it. you have no idea in which direction science is progressing right now and it's much beyond physicality.


I don't follow your logic, because I don't believe in outlandish new-age, unsubstantiated mumbo-jumbo, I'm not creative or optimistic? 

What have you contributed to scientific advancement? 



ganja man23 said:


> So are you saying infinity does not exist than? Why's that, because you gave the word too much meaning? I just told you to look at it more as a concept and again i was just trying to make a point by viewing it with respect to mathematics. that's all you do is just claim everything non scientific is non existent and criticize little things and not the whole idea (Deja vu).


Infinity is a concept, just like I said before. How do you interpret that as "infinity does not exist"? 

Everything that exists has a scientific explanation. There is nothing within the realm of existence that doesn't. 



ganja man23 said:


> Based on current string theory it is the tenth dimension of space time which is basically the omniverse, containing all other dimensions of space time within it. We are in the third "density" because of our 3 dimensions of space but we are in the 4th dimension because we occupy one dimension of time. We are working to prove that there are other dimensions unseen to the eye because they vibrate much higher than anything in the universe so how are you ever to see them unless you vibrate proportionally high to do so.


What is "the omniverse"? 

Signs of pseudoscience: meaningless "psychobabble" that uses fancy, scientific-sounding terms that don't actually make sense



ganja man23 said:


> Again you have misunderstood me because of your closed minded approach. I was referring to things outside of the physical universe or you can even think of them as phenomenon within the universe we have never be able to explain. Supernatural animal powers, psychic connections between humans,etc. Your approach: i'll wait for science and until then it's not real. it's really irritating because you put yourself in that group without realizing that science should be no more of a resource than something like sociology. you have been worshipping science much like a religion, going by it's literal interpretation which is not even complete yet! Did you ever think that by waiting for the answers you are just as much part of the problem than any religionist. Any scientist will tell you not to criticize ideas unless you have the evidence to actually disprove them rather than criticize them.



Science has a much better track record than intuition, which is all you have. Supernatural animal powers, psychic connections between humans, all bullshit. None of it has any shred of evidence anywhere. This is simply stuff you _want _to believe in. 

As I've said before to you, if it isn't real, it's useless to me. I'm not concerned with fooling myself, not even if it makes me feel good. I'm interested in the truth of reality, what we can demonstrate to be true and what we can reproduce to know it's true. Again, all you have is your own feelings and best guesses based on nothing except what you wish to be true and get upset when someone tells you it's bullshit. That's exactly what religion does to people.

Accurate science was built on criticisms, junior. You don't have to be right about something to know when something is wrong, understand the distinction.



ganja man23 said:


> Because we can't prove it's existence it has no value? We are working towards proving higher dimensional space-time which is science far beyond anything your mind has ever perceived. What if scientists used your method of approach than we wouldn't have discovered all those things you speak of which you can't see. You're taking for granted the fact that you were born in a period where we know all that. Understand this: there is a lot more you don't know and even more that you can't see. You can't prove something by ignoring it like you all do. If anything we will ultimately disprove it so why ignore it?


Oh, you're working on it.. What was with your earlier accusations of me waiting for science to figure things out instead of jumping the gun and going with my gut? Pretty hypocritical if you ask me.. 

There is no value in something that isn't true. The value you would get, just like with religion, is delusional. It's value you yourself assigned to it, it's not real.

I understand there is a lot left to figure out, but I can promise you we won't figure it out using pseudo-scientific intuitive mumbo-jumbo, we'll figure it out using real, time tested, accurate science.


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 18, 2012)

ganja man23 said:


> I ignored it because you show no more evidence than I do therefore it's a mutual debate therefore not worth my time. What's even more astounding is that you claim to be an educator and are telling me I would have a hard time passing your class without giving me any test materials relative to the course? You're a joke as an educator if you are one. You fail my test of thickness and you can take my 78.6 Average and shove it! You fail to realize that i well establish evolution as a whole thoery but it still has not shown evidence for the outcome of development of many complex genes exclusive to humans. It fails to explain why we evolved to what we are today, it merely suggests its possible to happen naturally. Only at the point that we can read our entire genome like a book along with the junk DNA can we truly come upon the conclusion that we have evolved 100% naturally.
> 
> Not evidence for what I've said but you'll find this interesting, professor asshole.
> http://paranormalutopia.com/2012/03/starchild-skull-foxp2-genome-evidence-that-its-not-human312/


I predicted you would ignore it. 
I showed evidence that you are lacking in knowledge of the areas you claim science is ignorant about. I showed evidence your understanding of evolutionary theory is weak at best. I mean, why are there still monkeys? The fact that you can say such a thing and pretend you understand evolution is sad. The test material is modern evolutionary theory and you failed. Your canard of 'science hasn't proven everything about X is natural, therefore aliens' has been demonstrated to be a comment only people ignorant of science and it's process. I have refrained from personal attacks against you in spite of your name calling but I'm done with you. You've demonstrated that you are an idiot without any help from me and the only recourse you have is to lash out at my experience as an educator. As I offered before, I would be happy to teach you some things that you seem to have questions about, but you aren't interested in learning, but only in propagating your bullshit ideas.

That you use a paranormal website devoted to the debunked starchild to propose that our DNA has been tampered with rather than cite actual genetic research says everything I need to know. Why don't you show this material to your genetic engineering prof? Scared you would be laughed out of the classroom?


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 18, 2012)

Padawanbater2 said:


> As a person deeply concerned with human affairs. To me, belief in that is simply crazy, there's no other way to put it, and I know that will offend a lot of people, but we've gone on long enough with this idea. It's time for us to grow up and accept reality for what it is.
> 
> I would simply tell people the truth, I don't know. Anyone claiming absolute knowledge about such things is lying. Anyone attempting to dictate society based on such things is an enemy of freedom and liberty, and anyone attempting moral coercion based on such lies is evil.
> 
> The best we can say is "I don't know", and "I don't know" isn't a good enough reason to justify the hate organized religion requires.


...science was born of spirituality. There was a separation. We all choose to divide, or we choose to assemble. The outcome of personality clashes people have within themselves only get 'dressed' in the person's cultural standing (most specifically religious). That's classifying people. No good, right? Seems too 'efficient'.

...the truth? Where?


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Nov 18, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...science was born of spirituality. There was a separation. We all choose to divide, or we choose to assemble. The outcome of personality clashes people have within themselves only get 'dressed' in the person's cultural standing (most specifically religious). That's classifying people. No good, right? Seems too 'efficient'.
> 
> ...the truth? Where?


I don't understand what you mean, could you try to explain this another way?


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Nov 18, 2012)

oh eye means when Galileo was killed for saying the earth wasnt the center of the universe that there was a separation . . . .


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 18, 2012)

Here you go ganja man, maybe you can learn something that seems to be missing from your curriculum on advanced genetics

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=why+are+there+still+monkeys


----------



## cannabineer (Nov 18, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...science was born of spirituality. There was a separation. We all choose to divide, or we choose to assemble. The outcome of personality clashes people have within themselves only get 'dressed' in the person's cultural standing (most specifically religious). That's classifying people. No good, right? Seems too 'efficient'.
> 
> ...the truth? Where?


I would suggest that science came from a wish to have perspective on spirituality. Science's insistence on premise and procedure is the wellspring of its success. But the main engine of its success was not premise or procedure but the primacy of test. There is no parallel in the study of spirit. To try to frame spirit with science will fail. What certain posters here will not accept is that the converse is also true ... you cannot frame science with the traditions or doings of spirituality. My opinion. cn


----------



## ganja man23 (Nov 18, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> I predicted you would ignore it.
> I showed evidence that you are lacking in knowledge of the areas you claim science is ignorant about. I showed evidence your understanding of evolutionary theory is weak at best. I mean, why are there still monkeys? The fact that you can say such a thing and pretend you understand evolution is sad. The test material is modern evolutionary theory and you failed. Your canard of 'science hasn't proven everything about X is natural, therefore aliens' has been demonstrated to be a comment only people ignorant of science and it's process. I have refrained from personal attacks against you in spite of your name calling but I'm done with you. You've demonstrated that you are an idiot without any help from me and the only recourse you have is to lash out at my experience as an educator. As I offered before, I would be happy to teach you some things that you seem to have questions about, but you aren't interested in learning, but only in propagating your bullshit ideas.
> 
> That you use a paranormal website devoted to the debunked starchild to propose that our DNA has been tampered with rather than cite actual genetic research says everything I need to know. Why don't you show this material to your genetic engineering prof? Scared you would be laughed out of the classroom?


LOL I pissed off the professor, what are you going to do ask me to leave the auditorium? I know people like that and they are pathetic. do you know how many of you teacher/professor douchebags I have been in the class with in which you simply CANNOT have an opinion? More than half of my life is the answer so I'm seeing a trend here already. I have yet to see any real proof from you either and i predicted that as well. I have told one of my professors (the "few" that isn't a douchebag and listens to us) and he told me "it can't be real, it isn't on the news". WTF? I choose to believe he's not deviating a scheme to find an ancient alien. They provided me with an appropriate amount of information even comparable to the evidence i revived when i learned about subatomic particles. Where exactly do you draw this line of credibility? Does it have to be published in one of your beloved tenth edition overpriced bio textbooks for it to be official or would you prefer to see it on Nat Geo? In the end it all comes down to the source of the information. I choose to believe mine before they make it to the public since a lot of media is limited in what they can share with the public. 


You got me on the monkey explanation, not my best argument since I was under the impression that I was dealing with a "fuckin' lingerer" rather than with a beloved genetics teacher. I ment to shine the light on our differences however. Let's examine us and primates. Of course, they have what we consider intelligence, but do you think it's in any way as complex or spiritual as ours is? The main difference between us, we live our life with the awareness of duration (time) and we are even unveiling that time is as malleable as matter or even space is. It's a very probable scenario that we went from that just by mere conicidence but I refuse to accept (but still hold the thought) that it's a coincidence since it is not coinciding within anyone but us for whatever reason. I Know the question of WHY DID THIS HAPPEN TO US is not enough of a reason but I WANT AN ANSWER beyond the one modern physical science or biology provides seeing as how they are both incomplete studies that fail to incorporate the undeniable phenomenon many experience.

I want you to share your insight on the evolutionary timeline with me. I am asking you for this much to see if we are on the same page with our timeline. I want to know when you are claiming the 

p.s. you offended me first. i never have a hard time passing anything so quit insinuating someone who doesn't agree with you is a failure. 

PAD (or whoever the guy with the arab and ak-47 was)-

Are you familiar with the fact that quantum mechanics suggests consciousness is based outside of what we call the five senses but the experience of it seems like it is within? We're not talking some bullshit pseudoscience here; Michio Kaku, Albert Einstein, Steven Hawking and many physicists have all agreed with this. Genetics will never explain the link between patterns of similarity (Ask me if you don't know what i'm talking baout) amongst every spiritual being because the human genome (AND ALL "PHYSICAL SCIENCE") is based only in the physical world (5 Senses). "Science" is the study of everything. 

BTW, Don't be thick. "Omniverse" is a no more of a pseudoscientific term than universe is. I can tell you are not familiar with the concept of sting theory and I suggest you watch that tenth dimension video I showed you. 

DO ME A FAVOUR AND MAKE SURE WE ARE ON THE SAME PAGE BY WATCHING PLEASE.
[video=youtube;zqeqW3g8N2Q]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqeqW3g8N2Q[/video]

Yes I realize it's hard for someone who is under the impression that they have never left the physical world to imagine such a concept is real, but I can assure you there's more to reality than meets the eyes,ears,mouth,nose,and skin. Me and many others share similar paths in our spiritual journeys. And with all due respect I never had these experiences when my perspective was like yours. I only had this dream like experience after I changed my views (by removing them all). Are you saying I can't prove that with physical science? Correct but you can't either. If you choose to live by the physical world then best of luck to you. I hope you get rich and find happiness and enjoy the freedom of never having to exist again. You will most likely realize this before you actually die here but I'm merely trying to help you realize that the science you speak of is called "physical science" and it is based on senses we as humans have in the physical world.


----------



## ganja man23 (Nov 18, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> Here you go ganja man, maybe you can learn something that seems to be missing from your curriculum on advanced genetics
> 
> http://lmgtfy.com/?q=why+are+there+still+monkeys


quite clever. i'm glad i struck your mind enough to receive three different posts. i can tell you were just itching for a reply. your wish is my command!


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Nov 18, 2012)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Science = Reality, so what you're saying is "reality makes people ignorant, arrogant and bigoted". Do you see how much sense that makes?
> 
> The opposition is the one who seeks conflict and can't accept an ounce of legitimate criticism.
> 
> Your beliefs are dangerous because they disable you from the correct way of thinking. If people like Newton or Galileo utilized the reasoning skills you do, we'd still believe in a geocentric model of the solar system and the Catholic Church would rule the world. You favor ignorance over application, if it's tough to figure out or you don't understand it, you replace it with something that requires no thought and makes you feel good, even after shown dozens of times how and why you could be mistaken. It's honestly sad at this point. You're going to go through life believing these things with nothing to back them up and convince yourself they're right because of the way they make you feel.


LOL wow, that first line shows how deluded you are. Science is a primitive and shallow tool that dips its toe into the ocean of reality and says its completely ridiculous if someone ever wanted to jump in. 

We dont seek conflict, that is not our intention. We want to have a good time and speak to like minded people. The conflict comes from you because you have a personal problem with peoples way of thinking. Theres no legitimate criticism science can offer for gods and souls, no matter how much stomp your feet and preach, you have nothing. 

No, that is desperate and false example you came up with. I accept the accomplishments of science. Nice try though. The fact that you think you have the correct way of thinking is arrogant, ignorant and bigoted. Its the same mentality that causes wars, so your mindset is direct proof that even if there wasnt any religion, the hate and chaos would remain the same throughout history. Also, did you forget about my experiences that you love hearing about so much? There is plenty to back up the claims of us spiritualists, some even done by science, but you try desperately to pull our explanations back to the physical world and force a materialistic cause to something you know absolutely nothing about. Its no longer a quest for truth with you but a grudge with people that do not agree with you. You have no voice when trying to convince other people of their supposedly illogical beliefs yet you will continue your futile crusade. Reality is going to suck in the future.

(edit) I never talked to my friends yet. One invited me to his birthday last week then the bastard logged off without giving me the details, never talked to him since.


----------



## TogTokes (Nov 18, 2012)

I swear to god i seen Santa and Flying raindeer last night1


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 18, 2012)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> oh eye means when Galileo was killed for saying the earth wasnt the center of the universe that there was a separation . . . .


...sammy  I've read your posts here with interest. I highly doubt that with your breadth of knowledge you stop at the surface and glance in this way ^


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 18, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> LOL wow, that first line shows how deluded you are. Science is a primitive and shallow tool that dips its toe into the ocean of reality and says its completely ridiculous if someone ever wanted to jump in.


No, it isn't. 

"Science is the best thing that humanity has ever come up with. And if it isn't, then science will fix it." - Bill Nye

See?




> We dont seek conflict, that is not our intention. We want to have a good time and speak to like minded people. The conflict comes from you because you have a personal problem with peoples way of thinking. Theres no legitimate criticism science can offer for gods and souls, no matter how much stomp your feet and preach, you have nothing.


The only one stomping feet is you. You want to be able to spew your arm-chair spirituality, which includes attacking science and reason, without being presented with opposition. You have never given one good reason to believe in God or anything supernatural, your only recourse has been to say that science is flawed, as if that is all that is needed to support your view. 

"Science is suspect therefore my pet theory must be correct." 

You have shown a double standard cynicism and a quirk for accusing others of all the same idiotic tactics you yourself are using. You have resorted to the mentality of a child by saying "I know you are but what am I". 



> No, that is desperate and false example you came up with. I accept the accomplishments of science. Nice try though. The fact that you think you have the correct way of thinking is arrogant, ignorant and bigoted. Its the same mentality that causes wars, so your mindset is direct proof that even if there wasnt any religion, the hate and chaos would remain the same throughout history. Also, did you forget about my experiences that you love hearing about so much? There is plenty to back up the claims of us spiritualists, some even done by science, but you try desperately to pull our explanations back to the physical world and force a materialistic cause to something you know absolutely nothing about. Its no longer a quest for truth with you but a grudge with people that do not agree with you. You have no voice when trying to convince other people of their supposedly illogical beliefs yet you will continue your futile crusade. Reality is going to suck in the future.


Again, nothing but ad hominem attacks. Nothing to support your view except saying there is support. In 6 months you have never once been able to defend your claims, you simply fall back on the same tired criticisms that all pseudoscience uses whether it be esp, creationism, ancient aliens, bigfoot hunters, ghost hunters, homeopathy, or any other pseudoscientific crap that can not muster defense of itself.

Lets look at the common signs that we expect to see in a debate of science vs pseudoscience:

"They will attack us personally, impugn our motives, accuse us of fictitious conflicts of interest, question the appropriateness of spending time writing to the public, and try very hard to characterize us as closed-minded."

Seems to be a playbook of the tactics used here. When you can not demonstrate, defend, or even explain your claims, your only recourse is name calling, saying we are scared of truth, saying we are wasting time, and that we think inside the box. These are all just different ways of saying 'shut up'. Your only option is to dismiss because you are unequipped to engage.


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Nov 18, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...sammy  I've read your posts here with interest. I highly doubt that with your breadth of knowledge you stop at the surface and glance in this way ^


i can go both ways . . .im a skeptic at heart but i also do not ignore the unexplainable and odd . . . . saying this i can be a walking contradiction i believe in many supernatural things but i also shout SCIENCE from the roof tops . . . . i think there is much yet to be explained by science . . . . and most that is explained is just the tip of teh iceberg , so to speak

i am also very spiritual in a very basic way, the life spark is god to me

it goes deeper than that but i do have a lot of resentment toward organized religion , i am totally down with beliefs just not ones with inherent control over actions or ones that do not allow or except the ever changing nuances of life and the world/universe as we know it


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 18, 2012)

Padawanbater2 said:


> I don't understand what you mean, could you try to explain this another way?



...I can try. Man looked up at the sky, outside of himself, that had to have been the most interesting background for man at the time. Man noticed patterns. We call it apophenia, in most cases. But, I don't know that these folks could help but notice that man, as a group, acted in certain ways in certain times of the year. Bigger patterns emerged from those, etc. (This coming Dec 21, f.e.). We pulled science (systems) down from the sky. If it were to be anthropomorphized, you could say that science wouldn't stop at the surface of the earth, right? It would keep digging like scientists do.

Science is great for getting to know how material ticks. Spiritual endeavor is great for getting to know how the other 3 parts of man tick (bringing it all together - which is what church symbolized). At some point, it has to come to a point. You realize that math is like dark matter - there's a lot of it, and it seems to keep going forever. The sparks out there, says spiritual endeavor, are more important to see 'within'. Nothing super special about that. Just different views for people at different points / coordinates


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Nov 18, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> No, it isn't.
> 
> "Science is the best thing that humanity has ever come up with. And if it isn't, then science will fix it." - Bill Nye
> 
> ...


I gave reasons, but you guys did not agree with those reasons and tried desperately to pull my explanations back down to physical reality and force some materialistic purpose to them. Dreams, lucid dreams, NDE's and OBE's, psychedelics, etc, all things you desperately try to bring back to your world. Plus, its not my purpose to prove god to you guys, that is impossible, I just want to discuss with like minded people. It is you who does the preaching and attacking because you dont like that the majority of the world thinks you guys are full of shit, it is a grudge. Even a non biased educated agnostic (greenswag) agrees with me, why hasnt he sided with you if your judgments are so right? He looks are one side of the argument and thinks "good point" looks at the other side of the argument and thinks "Oh, another good point". Is his thinking flawed as well because it conflicts with yours? Im sure there must be something flawed there, because you always have to be right, no room for improvement in your mentality. It seems this sheltered bigot has life figured out! 

No Heis, it is still you guys doing the stomping and preaching, it is always the opposition doing the stomping and preaching. It is so sad that you are convinced you have everything figured out here.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Nov 18, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> LOL wow, that first line shows how deluded you are. Science is a primitive and shallow tool that dips its toe into the ocean of reality and says its completely ridiculous if someone ever wanted to jump in.
> 
> We dont seek conflict, that is not our intention. We want to have a good time and speak to like minded people. The conflict comes from you because you have a personal problem with peoples way of thinking. Theres no legitimate criticism science can offer for gods and souls, no matter how much stomp your feet and preach, you have nothing.
> 
> ...


Yet you consistently fail to present a better system of understanding reality when pressed for one. 

Science is all encompassing, it is in every aspect of your life. Science is what took 12 men to the moon and allowed Walsh and Piccard to descend to the deepest part of the ocean. Primitive? Please. What's primitive is your capacity to think and understand scientific concepts which you take completely for granted. You don't understand how something could be explained by natural means so you apply an unnatural explanation to it and hold it to a different set of standards than what reality permits, and to you, that makes it unnatural. You fail to realize it's not the technology or concept that's unnatural, it's your unscientific rationalization of it. You would be laughed out of any field in academia if you brought this shit to a university. 

You argue and refuse to acknowledge any reasonable explanations, even from those in the midst of the field in question, if it doesn't coincide with your beliefs. Those who value science accept that we don't have all the answers and we accept that information is subject to change with new data that might come along. Nothing is set in stone in science, yet you're completely unmoving in your beliefs no matter what the evidence tells you. Unreasonable people can't be reasoned with. You don't value logic or reason, so what logical or reasonable explanation will make any difference to a person like you? 

Science has all but eliminated the God hypothesis. Check the statistics for yourself, more and more people are turning away from organized religion toward a more rational, secular explanation of reality. Organized religion only creates more questions that never have answers. I know it's hard to free yourself from the shackles, it's scary, and that's why you and billions of other people haven't. You can kick and scream all you want as we move into the future and your vision will only become more bleak and irrational, as technology advances, it drives our own evolution and understanding.

You don't accept science, you cherry pick what you want and discard what makes you uncomfortable or you don't understand. 

There is nothing tangible to back up any spiritual claim anyone has ever made in all of human history. Everything presented quickly gets exposed as a hoax or fraud, like the Shroud of Turin. What evidence do you have anything, ever, spiritual exists? Nobody can speak to the dead although millions of people claim they can, nobody can read minds, although millions of people claim they can, witches don't exist, vampires don't exist, you won't get a pot of gold if you catch a leprechaun or 3 wishes if you rub a 'magic' lamp and Santa Claus won't be coming down your chimney this year with a sack of presents for you, bud. The bullshit you espouse here is right there with em, and you have nothing to show for yourself that says otherwise except anecdotal evidence, hearsay, and _friends_ that for some reason refuse to corroborate your story, even though it would be the biggest discovery in human history. You showed up to the gunfight with empty pockets while I brought the Space Shuttle.


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Nov 18, 2012)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Yet you consistently fail to present a better system of understanding reality when pressed for one.
> 
> Science is all encompassing, it is in every aspect of your life. Science is what took 12 men to the moon and allowed Walsh and Piccard to descend to the deepest part of the ocean. Primitive? Please. What's primitive is your capacity to think and understand scientific concepts which you take completely for granted. You don't understand how something could be explained by natural means so you apply an unnatural explanation to it and hold it to a different set of standards than what reality permits, and to you, that makes it unnatural. You fail to realize it's not the technology or concept that's unnatural, it's your unscientific rationalization of it. You would be laughed out of any field in academia if you brought this shit to a university.
> 
> ...


Lol you got nothing Pad! All you have is a personal grudge and an attitude. Theres plenty of things out there that suggest theres most likely a spirit world with souls and gods, and you desperately try to bring those things back to your perspective and claim it is the only way to view them when in reality its just you being stubborn and clinging on to a belief. 

Extremists are going to be extremists I guess. If any of these guys were Muslim they would be a terrorist, if they were Christian then they would be like the Westboro Baptist Church. No matter what belief, even yours Pad, extremists create war and destruction, and you are an extremist.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Nov 18, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Lol you got nothing Pad! All you have is a personal grudge and an attitude. Theres plenty of things out there that suggest theres most likely a spirit world with souls and gods, and you desperately try to bring those things back to your perspective and claim it is the only way to view them when in reality its just you being stubborn and clinging on to a belief.
> 
> Extremists are going to be extremists I guess. If any of these guys were Muslim they would be a terrorist, if they were Christian then they would be like the Westboro Baptist Church. No matter what belief, even yours Pad, extremists create war and destruction, and you are an extremist.


"There's plenty of things, let me just not list any of them, ever, you should just trust me and take my word for it!"

Science isn't a belief, nice try though. Golf clap.

As if we needed any more proof you don't understand what you're saying.


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 18, 2012)

ganja man23 said:


> LOL I pissed off the professor, what are you going to do ask me to leave the auditorium? I know people like that and they are pathetic. do you know how many of you teacher/professor douchebags I have been in the class with in which you simply CANNOT have an opinion?


Who says you can't have an opinion? Completely misrepresenting what modern science has been able to put together is not an opinion, it is a diversion. BTW, I never said I'm a professor but if you ever go to grad school, which you will if you are studying to be a genetic engineer (yeah, right..), you will have students. Way to jump to conclusions...



> I have yet to see any real proof from you either and i predicted that as well.


How many times do we need to ask? What fucking proof do you want? Do you understand that nothing is ever proven to the satisfaction you seem to want? You said, " * Only at the point that we can read our entire genome like a book along with the junk DNA can we truly come upon the conclusion that we have evolved 100% naturally."*
Completely untrue. It is the person making the claim that we have not evolved naturally that must provide the evidence. Your ability to understand the burden of proof (among other things) is quite sad for someone claiming to be studying advanced science. 



> You got me on the monkey explanation, not my best argument since I was under the impression that I was dealing with a "fuckin' lingerer" rather than with a beloved genetics teacher. I ment to shine the light on our differences however.


The problem is that you claimed to be well versed in evolutionary theory. The only people that make idiotic comments like that are those that are trying to dismiss evolution as an answer for our origins. That leaves me believing you are one of those people. You give lip service to accepting evolution then you say shit like that along with your meddling DNA bullshit from a crackpot that has a deformed human skull. If these are the people you listen to then your career in science is going to be short lived. 


> Let's examine us and primates. Of course, they have what we consider intelligence, but do you think it's in any way as complex or spiritual as ours is? The main difference between us, we live our life with the awareness of duration (time) and we are even unveiling that time is as malleable as matter or even space is. It's a very probable scenario that we went from that just by mere conicidence but I refuse to accept (but still hold the thought) that it's a coincidence since it is not coinciding within anyone but us for whatever reason. I Know the question of WHY DID THIS HAPPEN TO US is not enough of a reason but I WANT AN ANSWER beyond the one modern physical science or biology provides seeing as how they are both incomplete studies that fail to incorporate the undeniable phenomenon many experience.


Right, you don't like the answers science gives us because you think they are incomplete (as is every subject that is the the subject of current research), yet instead of recognizing that it is a puzzle that needs to be put together a small piece at a time, you get impatient and make fantastical claims that are not supported by the data but make you feel good and think you know something the stoopid scientists don't.


> I want you to share your insight on the evolutionary timeline with me. I am asking you for this much to see if we are on the same page with our timeline. I want to know when you are claiming the


...?


> p.s. you offended me first. i never have a hard time passing anything so quit insinuating someone who doesn't agree with you is a failure.


I criticized your approach to science and pointed out how your 'hypotheses' fail basic inquiry. I never said you were a failure, I never called you names. Calling someone an asshole is not even on the same level as pointing out someone's logical fail. 


> Are you familiar with the fact that quantum mechanics suggests consciousness is based outside of what we call the five senses but the experience of it seems like it is within? We're not talking some bullshit pseudoscience here; Michio Kaku, Albert Einstein, Steven Hawking and many physicists have all agreed with this. Genetics will never explain the link between patterns of similarity (Ask me if you don't know what i'm talking baout) amongst every spiritual being because the human genome (AND ALL "PHYSICAL SCIENCE") is based only in the physical world (5 Senses). "Science" is the study of everything.


Yea, I don't think you know what the hell you are trying to say here. Reality is more than our 5 senses. No one has claimed otherwise. We don't understand consciousness yet. QM doesn't suggest anything about consciousness, it is only interested in how particles behave, however the study of neurobiology does suggest that QM plays a role in how our brains work. Maybe that's what you meant. But so what? It says nothing about spirituality, which you seem to continue to neglect to define, because as has been pointed out, there is no universal definition so in order to understand each other, you must give a definition of ambiguous terms.


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Nov 18, 2012)

Padawanbater2 said:


> "There's plenty of things, let me just not list any of them, ever, you should just trust me and take my word for it!"
> 
> Science isn't a belief, nice try though. Golf clap.
> 
> As if we needed any more proof you don't understand what you're saying.


We had this discussion before, probably multiple times. Dreams, lucid dreams, astral projection, NDE's and OBE's, psychedelics, alien and ghost sightings, the billions of profound experiences reported throughout history, ALL of them are things you desperately try to bring back down to your reality and force a materialistic explanation to, and it is sad that you side with your materialistic explanation for all of them. You are just clinging to a belief Pad. So much so that no matter what the explanation, even if something happened in front of your own eyes, you would not budge because you have such a personal attachment to your delusions. Its funny when you said if some astonishing thing happened to you like a godly being taking you to visit dead relatives, you still wouldnt believe in 'god'. Yet you dont hold the same standards when looking at a dead body and believing in atheism. No ones buying your agnostic-atheist act btw.


----------



## ganja man23 (Nov 18, 2012)

Padawanbater2 said:


> "There's plenty of things, let me just not list any of them, ever, you should just trust me and take my word for it!"
> 
> Science isn't a belief, nice try though. Golf clap.
> 
> As if we needed any more proof you don't understand what you're saying.


Hey pad did you watch my video? That can help you relate to the concept of string theory which is what chief is talking about. We strive to teach the concept of infinity (directly related to string theory) because it is vital to the process of choice in the universe. Let the idea ponder in your head, proof is on the way but not here just yet. They told neuton he was crazy when he thought of an invisible force called gravity too. Just be patient and when it comes it will be a lot of a smoother transition for your ego. I'm not asking you to change your beliefs, just that the key is to take in as much as possible no matter how bizarre. You don't have to believe it by changing your life, you are just expanding NOT CHANGING your perspective.

P.s. read my post to that biology feller, the second half was for you.


----------



## greenswag (Nov 18, 2012)

I originally posted this, but decided against it and deleted it before anyone saw and was able to respond. If you want you can disregard it, just think of me as playing devils advocate in this. I personally believe everyone is correct in this, and I'm really just a spectator watching all of this going down but I'll throw in my own thoughts. Thank you CWE for the encouragement to post it.

Belief that god exist is a dangerous belief, as proven by the crusades and other things. This same danger follows every belief, which we can all agree on. We can also agree, that almost every time these beliefs end up dangerous, it is by an extremist individual or group. This leaves the belief itself, not guilty, but undisciplined, or over-disciplined believers of the belief. We can also agree that things to do with religions have had positive impact. Meditation for example, has been proven time and again by science, to have positive effects on the body and mind. I look at meditation as a spiritual thing, but respect what science has to say about too. You can look at meditation as a therapeutic thing backed by science..but can you respect it's spiritual aspect? I am on neither side of this argument. I have my own blend of spirituality and science that I find works best for me. Which would be completely agreeing with everything science says, and then peppering in my own little spiritual twist on top here and there.

Without respect for the other side, there is no possible way to find an agreement or make progress. Let's also not forget, that the lack of belief, is a belief itself. You all know I'm not christian, but I just use it because it's the easiest example. Say someone doesn't believe in god. Well, they don't simply, not believe in god, they believe that god does not exist. Therefore, they too have a belief, which like all beliefs, can be dangerous. Can you imagine an atheist, or scientologist or whatever else is out there. Out of frustration that people do not believe what they believe (the lack of any kind of god or spiritual things) and shooting up a church or temple or whatever. I can. Because it is the same danger in holding the belief that there is no god, as the danger of believing there is one, and attacking those who don't believe in the god. Using the danger of a belief is a viable point in saying that we should drop religions. But it is a double edged sword, and there are extremist in every group, like it or not. Just like a pro-lifer killing the doctor who performs abortions. Slightly Hypocritical.

I am NOT someone claiming 2+2=5. I very readily accept everyone's views with respect. I am a very rational person, and like I said before if someday they were to prove the benefits of what I believe to be non existent or wrong, I would happily drop what I believe, but it is yet to happen. Please do not try to throw me into the flames for holding a different view than both sides, this is not a 'your with me or against me' scenario, there is some kind of middle ground and I'm in that middle ground, dodging bullets from both sides. Not being christian I've still gone to church once in a blue moon with a friend, and still enjoy the morals of not stealing, killing etc. I still smile and thank them with respect when they bless me or say they will include me in their prayers. I don't think that there is anyone up there they are praying to, even though they believe it, but I still thank them for it. This is not a hard concept. I completely understand that if I hold a belief I should be ready for someone to question it, and I am. What I struggle to grasp is why someone would have such a hard time with me having my belief, when I'm not harming myself or anyone else, quite the opposite actually. When I volunteer, would it really matter if I do it because I enjoy it, and think it would bring good karma (if you do something good only for the sake of good karma, I believe it gives no karma at all) or because I think the people generally need help? Whether it has any attachment to a religious belief or not, you're still doing good. Hate the harmful extremist, not those who are rational, and choose to follow for other reasons that can bring good to them and those around them. Every religion has people who are helpful to society, and appreciate science too.

I think that if we were all together in person talking this out, we are all I think rational people, and we would be able to quickly find things from both sides that we can agree on, and the discussion would be over in like an hour. From there we would go out and grab a bite to eat all smiles and friendly. So why is it so hard to do that on here? Alright my horse is three stories and I'm leaving scuff marks on this soap box. I'm just hoping everyone can understand what I'm saying. 

Like I said I was struggling, and still am, with whether or not I should post this. So many of you are so great at arguing your points like pad, that I guess I just have a fear of being shut down. But this is the internet, and I said above that I am willing to hear others views on the subject and that is true. Agree or disagree with my views, but don't let it change your overall view of me as a person.


----------



## ganja man23 (Nov 18, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> Who says you can't have an opinion? Completely misrepresenting what modern science has been able to put together is not an opinion, it is a diversion. BTW, I never said I'm a professor but if you ever go to grad school, which you will if you are studying to be a genetic engineer (yeah, right..), you will have students. Way to jump to conclusions...
> 
> How many times do we need to ask? What fucking proof do you want? Do you understand that nothing is ever proven to the satisfaction you seem to want? You said, " * Only at the point that we can read our entire genome like a book along with the junk DNA can we truly come upon the conclusion that we have evolved 100% naturally."*
> Completely untrue. It is the person making the claim that we have not evolved naturally that must provide the evidence. Your ability to understand the burden of proof (among other things) is quite sad for someone claiming to be studying advanced science.
> ...


So much bullshit, bye bye professor!


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Nov 18, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> We had this discussion before, probably multiple times. Dreams, lucid dreams, astral projection, NDE's and OBE's, psychedelics, alien and ghost sightings, the billions of profound experiences reported throughout history, ALL of them are things you desperately try to bring back down to your reality and force a materialistic explanation to, and it is sad that you side with your materialistic explanation for all of them. You are just clinging to a belief Pad. So much so that no matter what the explanation, even if something happened in front of your own eyes, you would not budge because you have such a personal attachment to your delusions. Its funny when you said if some astonishing thing happened to you like a godly being taking you to visit dead relatives, you still wouldnt believe in 'god'. Yet you dont hold the same standards when looking at a dead body and believing in atheism. No ones buying you agnostic-atheist act btw.


So now you're telling ME what I believe? Brilliant.

Dreams, lucid dreams, astral projection, psychedelics - all chemical reactions inside the brain. You don't understand it, so it must be pseudoscience. 

NDE's - same thing. You take these peoples word for it, we've all told you a dozen times how that isn't science. Why it's wrong. How it's wrong... You refuse to accept it and apply an unscientific explanation to it, even without any proof or evidence. Again, brilliant.

OBE's?

Alien and ghost sightings - We've demonstrated how and why these happen, still, you present no proof or evidence, all you say is "science can't explain it!". Yet you fail to realize YOU can't explain it either. Must be real!


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 18, 2012)

ganja man23 said:


> So much bullshit, bye bye professor!


Aww, can't stand it that someone saw through your lies?


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Nov 18, 2012)

Padawanbater2 said:


> So now you're telling ME what I believe? Brilliant.
> 
> Dreams, lucid dreams, astral projection, psychedelics - all chemical reactions inside the brain. You don't understand it, so it must be pseudoscience.
> 
> ...


Oh really? These things are no longer mysteries? Here I was thinking that we know more about the moon and the ocean than we do about our own brains, damn those scientists that lead me to that belief. 

Chemicals play a part, yes, but chemical reactions dont come close to explaining all the happenings in our brains. Our brain is still one of the biggest mysteries in the universe, and the chemical explanation is just science dipping its toe into the subject. 

I didnt claim NDE's have to do with science, its above science. All you can do is stomp your feet and say "Nuh uhh! you dont know that!" and then I laugh lol. 

OBE's - outer body experiences like astral projection. Theres one OBE experience that was under scientific observation by Dr. Strassman. Two individuals were under the influence of DMT and they were experiencing the same trip and talking to the same godly being (now is where you list another desperate explanation) and that kind of experience happened many more times without the observation of science, have you not heard such stories? 

You demonstrated how and why they might be apart of the fallible mind, which is an unconvincing argument. You want everyone to be explained by a fallible mind. 

This is exactly what I was talking about Pad. Desperately taking these real experiences and trying to force a materialistic explanation to them. You got nothing man, no matter how much you explain these 'certainties' that delude you. 

Haters gunna hate. Extremists gunna extreme lol.


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 18, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> I gave reasons, but you guys did not agree with those reasons and tried desperately to pull my explanations back down to physical reality and force some materialistic purpose to them. Dreams, lucid dreams, NDE's and OBE's, psychedelics, etc, all things you desperately try to bring back to your world. Plus, its not my purpose to prove god to you guys, that is impossible, I just want to discuss with like minded people. It is you who does the preaching and attacking because you dont like that the majority of the world thinks you guys are full of shit, it is a grudge. Even a non biased educated agnostic (greenswag) agrees with me, why hasnt he sided with you if your judgments are so right? He looks are one side of the argument and thinks "good point" looks at the other side of the argument and thinks "Oh, another good point". Is his thinking flawed as well because it conflicts with yours? Im sure there must be something flawed there, because you always have to be right, no room for improvement in your mentality. It seems this sheltered bigot has life figured out!
> 
> No Heis, it is still you guys doing the stomping and preaching, it is always the opposition doing the stomping and preaching. It is so sad that you are convinced you have everything figured out here.


Having you figured out and being able to deconstruct pseudoscience is in no way indication that I have everything figured out. This is another strawman, which is what you spend the majority of your time debating. You like to assign positions to me and others that are easy to call out because you can not converse on a level that is necessary in true discourse. You often attempt to bring others in the debate attempting to deflect from your shortcomings, but I think greenswag can speak for himself if he finds error in my thinking. You have yet to show anything that suggests that NDE, OBE, or psychedelics is not of the material world, and the fact that you refer to it as my world shows your 'me vs them' mentality. You consider critics to be the enemy and seek to have them take the same view. To you this is a battle of will and you constantly try to characterize everyone else's response to be in the same framework. 

You pretend to talk about spirituality, but what you talk about is pseudoscience, which is demonstrably wrong. When other's demonstrate it, you fall back to the only tactics your limited view of the world can muster. You are entitled to get things wrong, as am I, what you are not entitled to is arrogance.


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 18, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Lol you got nothing Pad! All you have is a personal grudge and an attitude. Theres plenty of things out there that suggest theres most likely a spirit world with souls and gods, and you desperately try to bring those things back to your perspective and claim it is the only way to view them when in reality its just you being stubborn and clinging on to a belief.
> 
> Extremists are going to be extremists I guess. If any of these guys were Muslim they would be a terrorist, if they were Christian then they would be like the Westboro Baptist Church. No matter what belief, even yours Pad, extremists create war and destruction, and you are an extremist.


&#8220;We have a choice. We have two options as human beings. We have a choice between conversation and war. That's it. Conversation and violence. And faith is a conversation stopper.&#8221;&#8213; Sam Harris 

I see a lot of conversation here, no extreme behavior Defending science and reason through words is a peaceful approach, and the only one I have ever seen anyone one here attempt or support. Who has endorsed terrorism? Who has rallied behind Westboro? More strawman positions.


----------



## ganja man23 (Nov 18, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> Aww, can't stand it that someone saw through your lies?


Nope, can't stand it when people lie to me. You claim biology is more than a hobby yet you haven't even demonstrated you know anything at all about biology. You claim to be advanced in genetics and have shown less (none whatsoever) evidence for your arguments than I have. I'm glad I was able to irritate you enough that you start offending me, that is usually a sign of insecurity for the unknown. For such a long reply filled with so much failed promises, it was quite easy for me to realize you are a waste of my time and anyone who probably is within talking distance of you can smell bullshit too. Not a single link to back up your horseshit, only closed, narrow minded and linear perception. If you feel the same about what i say than please shut the fuck up and stop replying to me. Namaste professor.


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Nov 18, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> Having you figured out and being able to deconstruct pseudoscience is in no way indication that I have everything figured out. This is another strawman, which is what you spend the majority of your time debating. You like to assign positions to me and others that are easy to call out because you can not converse on a level that is necessary in true discourse. You often attempt to bring others in the debate attempting to deflect from your shortcomings, but I think greenswag can speak for himself if he finds error in my thinking. You have yet to show anything that suggests that NDE, OBE, or psychedelics is not of the material world, and the fact that you refer to it as my world shows your 'me vs them' mentality. You consider critics to be the enemy and seek to have them take the same view. To you this is a battle of will and you constantly try to characterize everyone else's response to be in the same framework.
> 
> You pretend to talk about spirituality, but what you talk about is pseudoscience, which is demonstrably wrong. When other's demonstrate it, you fall back to the only tactics your limited view of the world can muster. You are entitled to get things wrong, as am I, what you are not entitled to is arrogance.


Heis, no matter how much you repeat these things, it doesnt make them correct. I did let greenswag speak for himself, those were quotes from him that I used. He also just posted a good opinion about what is going on, one that you will surely disagree with. 

I have done more than enough to demonstrate my points, its just that you dont agree with them, but instead of agreeing to disagree, you assign certainty to your side of the argument and continue to shove it into peoples faces like it is the truth. You hardly ever speak like you are expressing opinions, you speak like you are preaching the word of knowledge and only your word and those that relate to it should be taken seriously. There is no discussing with you because you stay away from the middle ground and must desperately twist everything so it appears that you are right. You are a fanatical extremist. Though I might be a bit fanatical, I do not care if you agree or disagree with me, I dont try to force anything on to people like you are doing. It is you who drags people into this pointless game of "prove it!". Engage me all you want, but you will keep getting the same responses no matter how much you bicker.


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 18, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Oh really? These things are no longer mysteries? Here I was thinking that we know more about the moon and the ocean than we do about our own brains, damn those scientists that lead me to that belief.
> 
> Chemicals play a part, yes, but chemical reactions dont come close to explaining all the happenings in our brains. Our brain is still one of the biggest mysteries in the universe, and the chemical explanation is just science dipping its toe into the subject.
> 
> ...


I only see one side using language like this. What sort of mindset must you be in to point at someone and say "You got nothing man"? That sounds pretty desperate to me. Meanwhile I see no hint of desperation in Pad's view, just someone exasperated by arguing with someone who responds as a child. Offering wordily explanations which are backed by evidence and reasoning is the proper thing to do in any field of research or academics. Show me one bit of knowledge that was obtained by ignoring worldly explanations in favor of wild speculation. Explaining how science, reason and logic work, and where hypothesis fail has nothing to do with belief. These things are as clear cut as math, yet no one would say that insisting 2+2=4 is holding onto a belief. It can be demonstrated; the work can be shown. This is how we chose to think, and we chose to express our opinions based on how we think. You are the one who seems to have a problem with the way others think. You want to have a conversation without having to be exposed to our thinking, yet you chose to converse in a public place. Each time you are presented with scientific skepticism you go on a tirade and rehash all your tired, well refuted jabs. The truth has no need to stomp it's feet, it has no need to point to others and exclaim they have nothing! The truth can be demonstrated, and will continue to be despite your contrived caterwaul.


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Nov 18, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> <br>
> <br><div>&#8220;We have a choice. We have two options as human beings. We have a choice between conversation and war. That's it. Conversation and violence. And faith is a conversation stopper.&#8221;</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>&#8213; Sam Harris<br><br>I see a lot of conversation here, no extreme&nbsp;behavior&nbsp; &nbsp;Defending science and reason through words is a peaceful approach, and the only one I have ever seen anyone one here attempt or support. &nbsp;Who has endorsed terrorism? &nbsp;Who has rallied behind Westboro? &nbsp;More strawman positions.</div>


drbrr> you fall back on the word @sdfk "strawman" <div/durrkadurr> because you have no argument against what I have to &dbs say... <br>....lol


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Nov 18, 2012)

greenswag said:


> I originally posted this, but decided against it and deleted it before anyone saw and was able to respond. If you want you can disregard it, just think of me as playing devils advocate in this. I personally believe everyone is correct in this, and I'm really just a spectator watching all of this going down but I'll throw in my own thoughts. Thank you CWE for the encouragement to post it.
> 
> Belief that god exist is a dangerous belief, as proven by the crusades and other things. This same danger follows every belief, which we can all agree on. We can also agree, that almost every time these beliefs end up dangerous, it is by an extremist individual or group. This leaves the belief itself, not guilty, but undisciplined, or over-disciplined believers of the belief. We can also agree that things to do with religions have had positive impact. Meditation for example, has been proven time and again by science, to have positive effects on the body and mind. I look at meditation as a spiritual thing, but respect what science has to say about too. You can look at meditation as a therapeutic thing backed by science..but can you respect it's spiritual aspect? I am on neither side of this argument. I have my own blend of spirituality and science that I find works best for me. Which would be completely agreeing with everything science says, and then peppering in my own little spiritual twist on top here and there.
> 
> ...


Just so this doesnt get overlooked...


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 18, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> drbrr> you fall back on the word @sdfk "strawman" <div/durrkadurr> because you have no argument against what I have to &dbs say... <br>....lol


I dunno what the formatting code was there for, I cleaned it up.

My argument against what you said preceded my use of the word strawman.


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 18, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Just so this doesnt get overlooked...



I'm curious, which part of his post do you suppose I disagree with?


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Nov 18, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> I dunno what the formatting code was there for, I cleaned it up.
> 
> My argument against what you said preceded my use of the word strawman.


You are extremely devoted to your world view and want others to understand and accept it by seeking those that disagree.You are an extremist, like it or not. That is not a strawman statement. Read greenswags take on it, he put it in much better words.


----------



## dbkick (Nov 18, 2012)

[video=youtube;3AfHSv-8XIM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AfHSv-8XIM[/video]


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 18, 2012)

ganja man23 said:


> Nope, can't stand it when people lie to me. You claim biology is more than a hobby yet you haven't even demonstrated you know anything at all about biology. You claim to be advanced in genetics and have shown less (none whatsoever) evidence for your arguments than I have. I'm glad I was able to irritate you enough that you start offending me, that is usually a sign of insecurity for the unknown. For such a long reply filled with so much failed promises, it was quite easy for me to realize you are a waste of my time and anyone who probably is within talking distance of you can smell bullshit too. Not a single link to back up your horseshit, only closed, narrow minded and linear perception. If you feel the same about what i say than please shut the fuck up and stop replying to me. Namaste professor.


I can reply to whoever I want. You seem to be worried that I have your number. You pretend to have knowledge about science and evolution yet continue to demonstrate your lack of understanding of basic principles. 
You have never asked me to demonstrated anything in particular except for ridiculous strawman questions like, 'why are there still monkeys?' 
If you want evidence for something, how about asking. This is like the fifth time I offered, and each time you complain I haven't demonstrated anything. 
Funny that you accuse me of offending you when it continues to be you that starts with personal attacks. If I'm a waste of your time, then you are a waste of everyone's time here. You keep talking shit about science and I'm here defending it. Your position is old and tired. It attacks science for lack of understanding every single last minutiae, then give lip service pretending to enjoy and accept science for what it is. Talk about the smell of bullshit. You repeatedly demonstrate your disdain for skepticism and the scientific process. You attack others for using solid, critical thinking as being "closed, narrow minded and linear." Sorry, but you're just another dumbass that thinks he has special knowledge about otherworldly things that cannot offer actual evidence to support them. As mentioned before, speculating is fine, but attacking the only process that has actually ever given us any real answers, anytime throughout history, is arrogant self-delusion. 
If you don't want to read what I write, that's your prerogative but since you haven't been able to shout me down, you presume to be able to tell me to shut up. Well fuck you arrogant prick. I will continue to expose your incorrect claims and assumptions about areas that I feel strongly about.


----------



## cannabineer (Nov 18, 2012)

ganja man23 said:


> So much bullshit, bye bye professor!


Translation: "I have nothing to counter that, either from the head or the heart, so here's from my gallbladder, just for you."


You then asked Mindphuk to present his "credentials" when discussing biology and genetics. What trap is this? You do not offer to counter with yours. cn


----------



## ganja man23 (Nov 18, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> Translation: "I have nothing to counter that, either from the head or the heart, so here's from my gallbladder, just for you."
> 
> 
> You then asked Mindphuk to present his "credentials" when discussing biology and genetics. What trap is this? You do not offer to counter with yours. cn


you realize he has barely mentioned a single fact about biology or even genetics? 

He claims advanced knowledge yet in the many sentences he wrote has not demonstrated any therefore I said bye bye to the professor. That simple. and I'm not going to be offended because some dickweed claims he's an advanced biologist and is trying to take my credentials from me. He claims I'm behind in my introductory courses when the fact of the matter is that introductory engineering (the entire first year) courses are 90% identical for all engineering meaning the only "genetics" I have learned is my introduction to genetic engineering course which was rather a joke than actual materials based course. I see a flaw in his credentials therefore I'm done with this. If it helps you feel like you've accomplished something than sure, I have nothing to counter all the huge amount of evidence he showed me.


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 18, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> You are extremely devoted to your world view and want others to understand and accept it by seeking those that disagree.You are an extremist, like it or not. That is not a strawman statement. Read greenswags take on it, he put it in much better words.


I did read his post, didn't notice my name anywhere. The word you are looking for is fundamentalist. If you say I am biased and unreasonably devoted to proving anything spiritual wrong, you would say I am a materialistic fundamentalist. If I went out and burned down my local church and ghost hunting club, I would be an extremest. My opinions are not outside of the norm, they are based on centuries of carefully collecting knowledge. If you find them unreasonable, you are free to point out the errors, but simply pointing to conviction as if it is a flaw is a cop out.


----------



## ganja man23 (Nov 18, 2012)

*My opinions are not outside of the norm, they are based on centuries of carefully collecting knowledge. If you find them unreasonable, you are free to point out the errors.*

We are merely reminding you that what seems "the norm" at the moment may very well be hilarious the future so in theory you want to keep every single possibility an option rather than limit your findings to things published by science. Isnt narrow minded perspective what has shaped our limitations in the past? Don't forget the lessons history has taught us. For millenia, we as humans have been living with a mentality that we are as smart as it gets. It seems like no matter how much we progress we always laugh at how naive we were in the past. I'm sure the same will happen in the future with respect to our belief of our limitation to the physical world. Nothing is impossible, if it seems like it it's only because we apply limits to the possibility.


----------



## Canna Sylvan (Nov 18, 2012)

Doer,
I see what I said was so true about you. Later snitch. Enjoy your circle jerk guys!


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 18, 2012)

ganja man23 said:


> *My opinions are not outside of the norm, they are based on centuries of carefully collecting knowledge. If you find them unreasonable, you are free to point out the errors.*
> 
> We are merely reminding you that what seems "the norm" at the moment may very well be hilarious the future so in theory you want to keep every single possibility an option rather than limit your findings to things published by science. Isnt narrow minded perspective what has shaped our limitations in the past? Don't forget the lessons history has taught us. For millenia, we as humans have been living with a mentality that we are as smart as it gets. It seems like no matter how much we progress we always laugh at how naive we were in the past. I'm sure the same will happen in the future with respect to our belief of our limitation to the physical world. Nothing is impossible, if it seems like it it's only because we apply limits to the possibility.


Accusing someone of extremism is far from a mere reminder. Science is open to anything observable, anything that has any effect on reality what so ever. You can not get more open minded than that. As other's keep pointing out, you do not argue against science, you argue against some closed minded authority system you have made up and labeled science. If we really thought we were as smart as it gets, then we wouldn't need science anymore. There is no working scientist alive who sits back and doesn't seek answers. Science is the first to admit it can be wrong, which is why all scientific answers come with error bars at the end. 

If your argument is that magic could be possible in the future, then that is an argument that works both ways.


----------



## cannabineer (Nov 18, 2012)

ganja man23 said:


> you realize he has barely mentioned a single fact about biology or even genetics?
> 
> He claims advanced knowledge yet in the many sentences he wrote has not demonstrated any therefore I said bye bye to the professor. That simple. and I'm not going to be offended because some dickweed claims he's an advanced biologist and is trying to take my credentials from me. He claims I'm behind in my introductory courses when the fact of the matter is that introductory engineering (the entire first year) courses are 90% identical for all engineering meaning the only "genetics" I have learned is my introduction to genetic engineering course which was rather a joke than actual materials based course. I see a flaw in his credentials therefore I'm done with this. If it helps you feel like you've accomplished something than sure, I have nothing to counter all the huge amount of evidence he showed me.


Doesn't a genetic engineering student start out as a mol. bio. major though? So I would imagine you're taking heavy courseloads in molecular and cell biology. What would engineering courses gain you? My understanding, and it might be obsolete, was that engineering at the college level referred specifically to mechanical and electrical engineering.
Even so, that would involve taking some physics, and that suggests to me that some of the contrarian beliefs you've written up for us here run counter to the material you're now charged with mastering. How do you reconcile this, if my guess is good? cn


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 18, 2012)

ganja man23 said:


> you realize he has barely mentioned a single fact about biology or even genetics?


For the umpteenth time, you haven't asked me anything. You also have a problem understanding the burden of proof. I haven't made any claims except to your ignorance. I have demonstrated your ignorance by pointing out that you lack knowledge in evolutionary theory. Not a single person that is educated in that area would make the claims you have. Your question about why there are monkeys or why lions don't drive cars is my evidence. What more do you want? Both of those questions, although you thought they are somehow stumpers, are answered quite easily by our current model of evolution. The fact that you still do not understand this basic point and keep claiming I haven't shown you anything is just more blustering, whining by you. 

Unless you can list some things about biology that you have asked, stop claiming I haven't demonstrated anything. I have been on this forum for years. Most people here can testify to my ability to answer questions related to biology and evolution, BUT YOU HAVEN'T ASKED ANY! The point is, you don't care if your views about evolution are mistaken, you are merely here trying to propagate a virus of thought, attack science for not knowing everything about everything, and then lie about being knowledgeable about genetics and evolution. You used your 'genetic engineering' claim as a defense against not having knowledge about genetics and evolution and now you admit that you have none. 

Unlike you, I never mentioned credentials, you did. You keep harping about my credentials, yet never once did I tell you that my education is the reason you are wrong about what you say. Your wrongness was able to stand on its own. I have pointed out where you were wrong and misrepresented evolution in at least two separate occasions and you admitted as much when you realized your stupid monkey canard wasn't going to fly here. You admitted to being wrong yet you claim I haven't proved anything, so you continue to demonstrate you are a liar.


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 18, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> Doesn't a genetic engineering student start out as a mol. bio. major though? So I would imagine you're taking heavy courseloads in molecular and cell biology. What would engineering courses gain you? My understanding, and it might be obsolete, was that engineering at the college level referred specifically to mechanical and electrical engineering.
> Even so, that would involve taking some physics, and that suggests to me that some of the contrarian beliefs you've written up for us here run counter to the material you're now charged with mastering. How do you reconcile this, if my guess is good? cn


That was my question to him in the post he decided to stop responding. I am merely asking him how can he not understand that his arguments from ignorance are incompatible with basic science. His claim that the only way we will know for sure that we evolved natural is if we can read our genomes like a book and have every last question answered. This type of thinking to me is completely contrary to how someone taking courses in and learning how to use the scientific method should be thinking. My guess is that he has a passing interest in science and sees pseudoscience as actual science because he is lacking the knowledge and training that helps people make the distinction.


----------



## cannabineer (Nov 18, 2012)

greenswag said:


> I originally posted this, but decided against it and deleted it before anyone saw and was able to respond. If you want you can disregard it, just think of me as playing devils advocate in this. I personally believe everyone is correct in this, and I'm really just a spectator watching all of this going down but I'll throw in my own thoughts. Thank you CWE for the encouragement to post it.
> 
> Belief that god exist is a dangerous belief, as proven by the crusades and other things. This same danger follows every belief, which we can all agree on. We can also agree, that almost every time these beliefs end up dangerous, it is by an extremist individual or group. This leaves the belief itself, not guilty, but undisciplined, or over-disciplined believers of the belief. We can also agree that things to do with religions have had positive impact. Meditation for example, has been proven time and again by science, to have positive effects on the body and mind. I look at meditation as a spiritual thing, but respect what science has to say about too. You can look at meditation as a therapeutic thing backed by science..but can you respect it's spiritual aspect?


 I can. However I also have to allow for the possibility that meditation is explicable in purely mundane (neurochemical) terms.


> I am on neither side of this argument. I have my own blend of spirituality and science that I find works best for me. Which would be completely agreeing with everything science says, and then peppering in my own little spiritual twist on top here and there.
> 
> Without respect for the other side, there is no possible way to find an agreement or make progress. Let's also not forget, that the lack of belief, is a belief itself. You all know I'm not christian, but I just use it because it's the easiest example. Say someone doesn't believe in god. Well, they don't simply, not believe in god, they believe that god does not exist.


 There is a third possibility: a god who exists but is disengaged, nullipotent, irrelevant to our daily being and doing. I suggest that "exist" and "matter" (verb intransitive) are distinct.


> Therefore, they too have a belief, which like all beliefs, can be dangerous. Can you imagine an atheist, or scientologist or whatever else is out there. Out of frustration that people do not believe what they believe (the lack of any kind of god or spiritual things) and shooting up a church or temple or whatever. I can. Because it is the same danger in holding the belief that there is no god, as the danger of believing there is one, and attacking those who don't believe in the god. Using the danger of a belief is a viable point in saying that we should drop religions. But it is a double edged sword, and there are extremist in every group, like it or not. Just like a pro-lifer killing the doctor who performs abortions. Slightly Hypocritical.
> 
> I am NOT someone claiming 2+2=5. I very readily accept everyone's views with respect. I am a very rational person, and like I said before if someday they were to prove the benefits of what I believe to be non existent or wrong, I would happily drop what I believe, but it is yet to happen.


 i don't believe it can happen. Proof is restricted to the domain of the purely abstract, such as mathematics. Proof in science is a relative, subjective thing, since we cannot even prove to our own or anybody's satisfaction that what we think of reality is ... real.


> Please do not try to throw me into the flames for holding a different view than both sides, this is not a 'your with me or against me' scenario, there is some kind of middle ground and I'm in that middle ground, dodging bullets from both sides. Not being christian I've still gone to church once in a blue moon with a friend, and still enjoy the morals of not stealing, killing etc. I still smile and thank them with respect when they bless me or say they will include me in their prayers. I don't think that there is anyone up there they are praying to, even though they believe it, but I still thank them for it. This is not a hard concept. I completely understand that if I hold a belief I should be ready for someone to question it, and I am. What I struggle to grasp is why someone would have such a hard time with me having my belief, when I'm not harming myself or anyone else, quite the opposite actually.


 I cannot speak for anyone but myself in this matter. i am quite irreligious but i am not antireligious, and I am certainly not antispiritual. I do however have standards of ... not proof, but conviction. That's the human equivalent of proof "convince/unconvince me". Jmo.


> When I volunteer, would it really matter if I do it because I enjoy it, and think it would bring good karma (if you do something good only for the sake of good karma, I believe it gives no karma at all) or because I think the people generally need help? Whether it has any attachment to a religious belief or not, you're still doing good. Hate the harmful extremist, not those who are rational, and choose to follow for other reasons that can bring good to them and those around them. Every religion has people who are helpful to society, and appreciate science too.
> 
> I think that if we were all together in person talking this out, we are all I think rational people, and we would be able to quickly find things from both sides that we can agree on, and the discussion would be over in like an hour. From there we would go out and grab a bite to eat all smiles and friendly. So why is it so hard to do that on here? Alright my horse is three stories and I'm leaving scuff marks on this soap box. I'm just hoping everyone can understand what I'm saying.
> 
> Like I said I was struggling, and still am, with whether or not I should post this. So many of you are so great at arguing your points like pad, that I guess I just have a fear of being shut down. But this is the internet, and I said above that I am willing to hear others views on the subject and that is true. Agree or disagree with my views, but don't let it change your overall view of me as a person.


Thank you for posting this, Greenswag; that took courage. I am also a rather rational person, and am always a bit baffled when i am accused of rationalism. It's my observation/conviction that reason is an excellent tool but it isn't the entire edifice. Reason operates upon but doesn't necessarily select the premises on which it operates. It is not a complete approach.
That said, I consider it a necessary tool for clear thought and communication. Some of the things I've experienced (psychedelic experiences spring to mind) cannot be communicated or reasoned. I imagine a similar limitation applies to spirit-perception. (Although I'd wager a draft beer at the place of your choice that CWE and GM would invert that, saying reason is the small bubble in the enormous matrix of the greater reality. I can't and won't controvert that.) The tools of science, and the greater tools of precise language, seem to utterly fail at grasping the essence of the topic.
So I restrict myself to the extension of spirit-perception into the mundane sensory material world that science can properly address, and get accused of bullying for pointing out when the submitted _phenomenology _of spirit-action or spirit-perception flatly contradicts what we know so far about nature. This is lamentable imo, because phenomena are the bailiwick of natural philosophy and the scientific method. My opinion.

I hope to see more of you here in this subforum. Welcome. cn.


----------



## ganja man23 (Nov 19, 2012)

*Accusing someone of extremism is far from a mere reminder. *
Extremism is related to views based on society, therefore being limited by what society collectively agrees upon. We are not knowledgable enough to make collective agreements about things we can't understand yet. Are you merely "going with the flow" so to speak or are you just not willing to accept anything unless proven by others? I personally go wherever my flow takes me because I realize following others' beliefs is like stealing. If you wish to live this life like that, then it is within your choice of infinity and you have every right to do that. You won't find what I consider true excitement or happiness experiencing this life with that mentality but that's part of life's learning experience nonetheless. 

You seem to be missing the suggestions that anything is possible in some perceivable physical form. We are limited in our four dimensional structure so how are we to prove anything outside of it with our lacking scientific knowledge and will to execute such knowledge? We create infinite possibilities for two dimensional realities (TV Shows, Video Games, Operating Systems) all the time artificially so why not embrace the fact that our own science is telling us the universe is structured the same way we are; without limits. Our perspective within the universe is designed in such a way as to limit us to the illusion that we are making choices over a period of time when the fact is that there is only one truly existing period of time; right now. You live your entire life experiencing "right now" don't you? On the highest dimension, we understand that right now is an ever lasting moment within infinity. This is where consciousness draws the line between reality and illusion. Imagine that in the fifth dimension, you will exist as one collective spirit (what can be seen as a physical entity when viewed from that dimension and any higher than it) from the date you are born to the date you die, but does the possibility of you living forever even in this life not exist within infinity if you haven't died yet? Just a thought to ponder.

*Science is open to anything observable, anything that has any effect on reality what so ever. You can not get more open minded than that. 
Correct but As other's keep pointing out, you do not argue against science, you argue against some closed minded authority system you have made up and labeled science.* 

"Open minded" insinuates being open to any concept conceivable by the mind, hence the term "open", meaning not limited. Open to "anything observable" is not how being open minded works. The mind can work on imagining beyond the observable, you are referring to the "open ego" not open mind. Perhaps it would be more appropriate if you should state being "open egotistical" in such concepts from now on. 

Since you asked me, my "belief system" is based on the physical science concept of infinite dimensional realities, all of which are based on space and time. Most physicists agree that string theory will support the concept of infinite parallel dimensions and they work towards proving it in order to conclude the TOE. Some of the brightest minds have also suggested that in order for true confirmation that we truly are free to make choice we must consider every single infinite possibility. String theory is almost complete and the brightest minds agree to it and I personally am beginning to perceive how it functions with spirituality, I would say I'm well on the right track regardless of what you think.

It's not an authority system I made up and labelled, it's a realization that sciences such as physics, quantum mechanics and spirituality all incorporate and it's existed well before I was aware of it. Open your mind to the concept of infinite possible dimensions and the concept that because we have any choice in life that there are an infinite amount of possibilities we can make. Existance basically becomes the same definition as infinity in that sense. You cannot limit infinity in any way. You will argue that there is only one perceivable reality but newly proposed physical science concepts disagree with that. When combined with the new approach of what quantum mechanics suggests consciousness is, we are introduced to the concept that anything can happen and it is happening right now, right in front of every one of us an infinite amount of times for all of eternity. Despite the fact that we are in the fourth dimension (3rd Density, X,Y,Z and time, or duration is W), and from our perspective duration seems "linear", string theory supports the concept that higher dimensional realities can incorporate structures in which time is malleable, meaning we could see towards directions in time just like we can see forwards and backwards in physicality. 


[video=youtube;QzMUIzsIRTQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzMUIzsIRTQ[/video]
*
If we really thought we were as smart as it gets, then we wouldn't need science anymore. There is no working scientist alive who sits back and doesn't seek answers. Science is the first to admit it can be wrong, which is why all scientific answers come with error bars at the end. 

If your argument is that magic could be possible in the future, then that is an argument that works both ways.*

I just had a brain freeze because I cannot process where this thought of magic came from? Since you want to speak about magic...Magic is created through the mind therefore it is "real". Does it exist in what you call "reality"?... Not really. It exists as more of an idea therefore making it a real in that sense. A fundamental law any true scientist holds is that if we can imagine something we can eventually work to make it happen if we eliminate the limitations we set. Am I Wrong? Can't magic just be another word for something like technology? Is there any magic we can't accomplish without that? If you mean "magic" as in changing physicallity by using your mind, that's rather silly to say that I said something like that. Just that we can work towards making it by any means. If we put a limit as to how we get there, of course it's going to be impossible when those barriers are set in place. The concept of magic is a limit in itself. We are limiting the results of magic to something only created by the mind, something we cannot do due to our position within the fourth dimension. In a higher dimension, such a concept is plausible therefore real within existance.

Sounds too crazy right? Anyway it truly offends me if you don't accept my claims. It's really unfortunate I can't get appraisal from an entity who shares the mimicked beliefs put forth by his civilization at a time period where said entity hasn't even left his planet yet. 


You know, sometimes i get caught up in this jungle to the point where I am convinced this is reality. I have never felt so free as I do now. I spend a lot of time writing all of this and I can't begin to tell you how much it has helped me. I know you won't understand this yet it's going to mean something to you on some level wether you realize it or not: you've been stuck on earth too long, friend. One love. <3


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Nov 19, 2012)

greenswag said:


> But from the post I've seen in this thread and in others, it seems a lot of people like to say that ganja man, and other spiritual people who post here are wrong. And I may be wrong in that and if I am please correct me.



You are wrong with this statement, at least in regards to myself. I am not EVER trying to say that peoples supernatural beliefs are wrong. I am plainly trying to state the simple fact that they *COULD*, be wrong. That the same possibility exists that our supernatural beliefs could be wrong, as there is of them being right. 

That any reasonable, logical, honest, truthful, person... can understand that there is always a chance that the beliefs they hold about supernatural ideas are just that... ideas. That no matter how badly we want them to be true, we do not know if they are certainly true, nor certainly false either. 

That when anyone goes around parading the fact that they know with certainty of an afterlife (or any other supernatural idea) not only are they lying to me and to everyone else, but to themselves as well.

Even though there are so many people who do not have the courage to accept that they cannot be absolutely sure if their supernatural beliefs are true or false, there _are_ a few who can still accept that fact, but yet continue to hold onto the belief all the while. Faith, yet with the knowledge and acceptance that their supernatural beliefs really have no place in reality, and aren't certainty true just as much as they aren't certainly false. 

Just like Heis was explaining earlier, in which i still need to spread my rep around before i give him more. I don't know how anyone could be more authentic, candid or genuine... if before they talk about their supernatural beliefs, they state at first "I think" before they state their supernatural belief. Not only will that keep people from misinterpreting or misunderstanding, but it will save wasteful hours in pointless debates and it may also help people accept the fact that our supernatural beliefs are just ideas, and we are not certain if they are true. 

You, me, everyone who has a supernatural belief (and yes i have one) COULD be wrong. So none of us can be certain. 

It can be scary sometimes, but that's why sharing ideas is so valuable, we can help each other get past some of our deepest worries and fears. One of those is the fear that our supernatural beliefs might be wrong, something we must all get through in order to grow.

*Edit:*



ganja man23 said:


> Sounds too crazy right? Anyway it truly offends me if you don't accept my claims. It's really unfortunate I can't get appraisal from an entity who shares the mimicked beliefs put forth by his civilization at a time period where said entity hasn't even left his planet yet.


You have really cool ideas and beliefs, I've heard most of them before though... but that doesn't take away from their sweetness. -there's your appraisal.

Regardless, if you continue to tell yourself you are certain that these ideas and supernatural beliefs are absolutely true, then you will continue to lie to yourself... which leads down paths that are extremely hard to find your way out of. -Constructive criticism.


----------



## ganja man23 (Nov 19, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> Doesn't a genetic engineering student start out as a mol. bio. major though? So I would imagine you're taking heavy courseloads in molecular and cell biology. What would engineering courses gain you? My understanding, and it might be obsolete, was that engineering at the college level referred specifically to mechanical and electrical engineering.
> Even so, that would involve taking some physics, and that suggests to me that some of the contrarian beliefs you've written up for us here run counter to the material you're now charged with mastering. How do you reconcile this, if my guess is good? cn


I didn't claim to be mastering any material, just saying that I have enough understanding to be qualified to talk about it. He claimed he had a mastery of materials. I am an undergrad at the university level and i shared that so he could understand my level. College level is a joke with respect to the difficulty and the amount of materials required for students to be tested upon. 

My courses First Semester: Introduction To Engineering, Physics, Chemistry, Calculus, Linear Algebra
Second Semester: Biology, Calculus 2, Physics 2: Waves and Fields, Introduction to genetic engineering, Economics 

The way it works is that to get my degree I am going to be trained to be able to work with any device that is engineered to analyze and even change genetic structure. Without engineered tools, we have no access to genetics. I anticipate future courses such as anatomy, biotechnology, genetics and evolution would further expand my level of evolutionary knowledge but I chose biology for one reason and that it's an expanding market since it's a relatively new scientific technology. I by no means excel in it like I do in physics (not bragging but my grades are much stronger in physical science than biological science since this lacklustre method of education has so far involved simply memorizing various texts and diagrams and regurgitating the information when the beloved professor asks me and everyone else to). 

I claim: I have knowledge in at least basic evolutionary concepts based on even my high school biology class and have yet to see science remove the possibility of extraterrestrial influence. This is my thought and based on what i have found as tangible evidence, i have deemed it a very possible belief. no sense in telling me i'm wrong, i already know that of course.

The other guy claims: He is much more advanced than me so I am clearly not worth him digging up a shred of evidence to take my claims away from me. Merely calling them bullshit which was pretty funny because I don't care about that belief enough to spend any more time worrying about it. It's irrelevant to me whether we were modified by aliens, but I'm not going to surrender to the belief that our complex consciousness is a coincidence which is what evolution insinuates. There is a certain definition to "alien" you fail to understand. It goes beyond those little grey fellas portrayed in our media.


----------



## ganja man23 (Nov 19, 2012)

Zaehet Strife said:


> You have really cool ideas and beliefs, I've heard most of them before though... but that doesn't take away from their sweetness. -there's your appraisal.
> 
> Regardless, if you continue to tell yourself you are certain that these ideas and supernatural beliefs are absolutely true, then you will continue to lie to yourself... which leads down paths that are extremely hard to find your way out of. -Constructive criticism.


So Michio Kaku and all the other physicists (AKA the very scientists you all praise) are all wandering down paths they can't find their way out of? I don't understand what you could mean by hard to find your way out of? Your criticism of thought has led me to believe that you have simply taken the easy way out by choosing to not believe anything beyond a certain level you have defined yourself. There's nothing wrong with that because you're merely staying within your limits until someone can prove to you that reality is beyond it. Obviously you already understand that you are not any more intelligent than anyone else because of the beliefs you choose. You seem like you are trying to prove an intelligence by accusing others in their beliefs while becoming limited to your own. A belief is just an accepted thought or suggestion isn't it?

p.s. they're not really my ideas. i've borrowed them from what i call a valid source (if not the most credible source today) and am very comfortable accepting them as part of "reality". there's a reason you've heard them of course. they've been suggested by many people.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Nov 19, 2012)

ganja man23 said:


> So Michio Kaku and all the other physicists (AKA the very scientists you all praise) are all wandering down paths they can't find their way out of? I don't understand what you could mean by hard to find your way out of?
> 
> There's nothing wrong with that because you're merely staying within your limits until someone can prove to you that reality is beyond it.
> 
> A belief is just an accepted thought or suggestion isn't it?


Their beliefs are not supernatural beliefs, but beliefs based upon tangible evidence and proof. (The belief in gravity, atoms, strings)

I have no limits, yet you have already set yours. You limit yourself within the the constraints of your already set supernatural beliefs that you tell yourself you know with one-hundred percent certainty. I do not have any set supernatural beliefs, i understand that i cannot be certain, and all possibilities are open giving birth to an infinite capacity of thought... where your thought end where your supernatural beliefs start. 

A belief is an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists. Supernatural means not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws; not physical or material, attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

This is the reason why i put the word "supernatural" behind the word "belief" so there would be no mistake in terminology. 

"Any reasonable, logical, honest, truthful, person... can understand that there is always a chance that the beliefs they hold about supernatural ideas are just that... ideas. That no matter how badly we want them to be true, we do not know if they are certainly true, nor certainly false either. 

It can be scary sometimes, but that's why sharing ideas is so valuable, we can help each other get past some of our deepest worries and fears. One of those is the fear that our supernatural beliefs might be wrong, something we must all get through in order to grow. That includes you Ganja man. 

When you go around parading as fact that you know with certainty of an afterlife (or any other supernatural idea) not only are you lying to me and to everyone else, but to yourself as well."


----------



## ganja man23 (Nov 19, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> That was my question to him in the post he decided to stop responding. I am merely asking him how can he not understand that his arguments from ignorance are incompatible with basic science. His claim that the only way we will know for sure that we evolved natural is if we can read our genomes like a book and have every last question answered. This type of thinking to me is completely contrary to how someone taking courses in and learning how to use the scientific method should be thinking. My guess is that he has a passing interest in science and sees pseudoscience as actual science because he is lacking the knowledge and training that helps people make the distinction.


You seem to be under the impression that studying the genome has answered all questions we have about our evolution as a species. I just want to remind you that we have yet to come upon agreement with the function of what we call 'junk' dna, which accounts for the far majority of our biological structure. We are so inadequate we have called the majority of our biological structure 'junk' because we don't understand it's purpose. My prediction is that the future will unfold in a way that suggests that the so called junk dna and genetic dna that is present in all organisms is a direct relationship with how an organism perceives the physical world. How advanced do you exactly think we are in biology? Do you think studying the genome for a few decades has given us all the evolutionary knowledge we have been seeking? Keep in mind we have been studying physics for thousands of years and have still barely touched the tip of the ice berg. Discovering and analyzing that we have a genome is merely like the apple falling on Newton's head. It fails to incorporate the metaphysical knowledge of how our experience of reality differs with respect to any other organism. If genetics can explain everything there is to know about us and our physical and metaphysical origins, why has it not yet shown how our genetics shape our reality with evidence combined with physical science, quantum mechanics most specifically.


----------



## ganja man23 (Nov 19, 2012)

Zaehet Strife said:


> Their beliefs are not supernatural beliefs, but beliefs based upon tangible evidence and proof. (The belief in gravity, atoms, strings)


So why exactly are their beliefs tangible when compared against mine? The structure of my life has unfolded in such a way that I have incorporated their tangible evidence with my spiritual evidence and theorize that eventually they are going to become a universal concept. The very fact that the brightest minds are working on supporting the insights I have received through using nothing but meditation is enough tangibility for me to continue to believe such a claim. Yes, perhaps you can think of me delusional in that sense but I know that life is to short to sit around and wait for conclusions. The reason I show certainty in my beliefs is that it's necessary for my spiritual development, despite how delusional someone who doesn't understand might think it is. 

The only certainty I have is that of my spiritual experiences and how real they are to me and anyone else who has them. Science is pointing me towards the direction that these experiences are all a part of my consciousness, not that my consciousness is subject to these ecperiences. You are choosing to base your perspective the opposite way from me and that's a belief too isn't it? Are you going to tell me that just because me and you and everyone else seem to be based only on existence within this 4D structure that this is the "most real" of all realities? Yes I realize that so far we limit all findings on concepts within these four dimensions but that doesn't make it "a reality' when our own evidence in science is suggesting our life is an illusion perceived by consciousness. What's even more soothing to me is the fact that many spiritual people who have the pleasure of escaping the barriers of physicality by reaching metaphysical levels and too many similarities to come back to share the messages with too many similarities to be accounted for as simple coincidence. 

Can we agree that I argue that consciousness is based outside of physicality and the experience is through it whereas you guys claim the opposite; that we are limited to this perspective (or reality) because we cannot physically perceive anything outside of it? If we can agree to those definitions than we can agree that the claim that we are limited to this reality is just as flawed as any assumptions I make? At times I forget we are all here to learn but the truth is that your method gives me the false impression that you are here to criticize what ideas that I share (one of which we are at the stage where everything is based on perspective) rather than constantly remind me that I'm just sharing ideas with you all, but I remind you that you are all doing the same so every argument that arises will come down to the question of is the cup half full or half empty. does my ideology not tell us that we can view the cup in more than one way and the reality is that quantum mechanics incorporates the fact that they are all equally real. What you are telling me is that we need to find what is real in our "reality" which is true if we want to progress forward. We cannot simply ignore the rest because we can't incorporate it within w x y and z.


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 19, 2012)

"Science is best defined as a careful, disciplined, logical search for knowledge about any and all aspects of the universe, obtained by examination of the best available evidence and always subject to correction and improvement upon discovery of better evidence. What's left is magic. And it doesn't work." -James Randi

"At the heart of science is an essential balance between two seemingly contradictory attitudes--an openness to new ideas, no matter how bizarre or counterintuitive they may be, and the most ruthless skeptical scrutiny of all ideas, old and new. This is how deep truths are winnowed from deep nonsense." - Carl Sagan


----------



## greenswag (Nov 19, 2012)

Thank you cn and zs for responding so kindly and I agree. I like when I hear something different that I didn't think of, I only learn more and love when that kind of thing happens. Also thank you for welcoming me, I think I'll really enjoy this sub forum.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 19, 2012)

ganja man23 said:


> So why exactly are their beliefs tangible when compared against mine? The structure of my life has unfolded in such a way that I have incorporated their tangible evidence with my spiritual evidence and theorize that eventually they are going to become a universal concept.


...when I read this I think about how one thing always follows the other. Day and night would be the most universal example of this. Science was at one time close to spirituality. I think 'it follows' that it will be that way again. I think that it is impossible to fight it. It is mechanical like nature, magnetic even  When I wrote before about dividing or assembling I can see how it fits. We stand on the surface of earth - from there we choose to let the intelligence of the sun into the heart of the earth. Or, we stop it at the surface and 'disallow' its rightful place. (no judgemento)...I don't think we can learn about something by telling it what it is. We can't just 'imagine' what it is either. How about something like "reach (belief), maintain (science)" (and vice versa)....no soapbox here, it's the herb that's propped me up  *what's up with the formatting on the board?


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Nov 19, 2012)

Ganja man and Eye, can you admit to us and to yourself that your supernatural beliefs could be wrong?


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 19, 2012)

^ strife, in the material sense I know what can and cannot be 'proven'. In the spiritual sense, I know what can and cannot be 'proven'. Why should I have to lean from this centered perspective? It was / is / will be my goal. Why does this have to be about right and wrong? It's 'my' reality, and it is just as real as yours is, even if it isn't  There is a science to spirituality. There are inner observations that you can bench test. Get cozy with paradox, mon ami


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Nov 19, 2012)

So you refuse to acknowledge the fact that your supernatural beliefs could be wrong? That you might be mistaken? I'm not saying you are wrong! You very well could be right, but that you could also be wrong too... there is no way to tell for sure. Do you deny this? And if so, i predict that it is because you are scared that they might be wrong, so you refuse to accept that as a possibility.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 19, 2012)

Neither of us is wrong in our own right  Nature is receptive of projected light to make things grow. There, we already have the model. Both 'are', but 'are better' together - otherwise we would not be here in the first place.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 19, 2012)

...Strife, back to the origin of the thread. Do you remember the 12 labors of Hercules? Refresh if you have to, and look at it from the perspective of the senses. He overcomes 12 tests, each related to the 'supernatural'. I cannot discard what I think is valuable. Each of the myths tell a truth about people. They 'arm' people with knowledge to protect themselves from things like fear.


----------



## ganja man23 (Nov 19, 2012)

Zaehet Strife said:


> Ganja man and Eye, can you admit to us and to yourself that your supernatural beliefs could be wrong?


Of course they could be wrong but science is suggesting an infinite amount of possibilities for how the illusion of reality is framed by consciousness. It can exist in any form (natural or artificial) and in order to understand the structure we are based from, we must observe the not yet proven laws we are convinced we are subject to which is why I love scientific evidence acquired SO FAR but don't limit my beliefs to it. We must show evidence for the way in which reality seems real because we are only subject to one dimension of time when evidence suggests there are more. Based on our current methodology we would assume is naturally occurring process based on how our claim that life on earth (within the dimension) began naturally, should we not assume the possibility of everything else began naturally too and only limit beliefs to what science disproves? In theory there is a parallel dimension on earth in which you will live forever physically and it needs to exist for the natural process of "choice" to be up to us as the ones experiencing life. Research is showing the fact that we have many choices means any of them are subject to happen, even the illogical but the way in which our perspective is limited we cannot currently perceive it. The fact of the matter is that when proved,it will provide the link to how our experience of reality is linked to consciousness.

The truth is we can just pretend that our universe is created artificially by a computer created by a "supernatural" phenomenon in which the creators of our universe have taken consciousness from their reality and created it artificially here. What evidence do we have to say that is was "someone"? In order for true choice in existence we must call that someone "nature" which contains all that is possible within and merely limits us to the perception of what we see. Our idea mere suggests this process in our physicality exists both artificially and naturally so of course it is subject to being "wrong" from our linear perspective.


----------



## cannabineer (Nov 19, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...Strife, back to the origin of the thread. Do you remember the 12 labors of Hercules? Refresh if you have to, and look at it from the perspective of the senses. He overcomes 12 tests, each related to the 'supernatural'. I cannot discard what I think is valuable. Each of the myths tell a truth about people. They 'arm' people with knowledge to protect themselves from things like fear.


Eye, iirc the supernatural bits were unimportant to the stories of the twelve labors. They were a peripheral narrative device, a streamlined and effective way to set up extraordinary situations, but if you discount great strength, Hercules' tasks, and his solutions, were natural. cn


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 19, 2012)

ganja man23 said:


> You seem to be under the impression that studying the genome has answered all questions we have about our evolution as a species. I just want to remind you that we have yet to come upon agreement with the function of what we call 'junk' dna, which accounts for the far majority of our biological structure. We are so inadequate we have called the majority of our biological structure 'junk' because we don't understand it's purpose. My prediction is that the future will unfold in a way that suggests that the so called junk dna and genetic dna that is present in all organisms is a direct relationship with how an organism perceives the physical world. How advanced do you exactly think we are in biology? Do you think studying the genome for a few decades has given us all the evolutionary knowledge we have been seeking? Keep in mind we have been studying physics for thousands of years and have still barely touched the tip of the ice berg. Discovering and analyzing that we have a genome is merely like the apple falling on Newton's head. It fails to incorporate the metaphysical knowledge of how our experience of reality differs with respect to any other organism. If genetics can explain everything there is to know about us and our physical and metaphysical origins, why has it not yet shown how our genetics shape our reality with evidence combined with physical science, quantum mechanics most specifically.


Mashing together a strawman with argument from ignorance. I never claimed we had all of the answers nor should you have gotten that impression from anything I wrote, that's your strawman that you hold onto to discount what I say. Not knowing something doesn't make every idea possible. Our lack of knowledge about every last base pair does not support aliens. That's something that has to be demonstrated on its own yet you offer nothing except a discredited lunatic that insists a deformed human skull is an alien-human hybrid. 

Now you want science to demonstrate metaphysical knowledge? Do you understand what metaphysical means?


----------



## ganja man23 (Nov 19, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> Mashing together a strawman with argument from ignorance. I never claimed we had all of the answers nor should you have gotten that impression from anything I wrote, that's your strawman that you hold onto to discount what I say.
> 
> Not knowing something doesn't make every idea possible.*
> This is a called limitation based on 'logic'. The past shows that what we consider logical at the moment could very well seem ridiculous in the future. Understand that current evidence is suggesting every idea is possible but it will not be experienced by us because of the way our 'reality' is structured.*
> ...


I think i understand the definition, I want 'the fundamental nature of being within reality' to not fall under the category of science, but merge with it for a new theory as evidence I have gathered suggests they are both equally important if we want to understand everything there is about limitations we face and if we truly are bound by them. I don't care of you acuse my belief of alien intervention as being far fetched because in real life I would agree with you but I try not to limit my mind to 'real life". It ties into my spirituality which is relative to my experience of reality. Understand that you were not there when it was created and neither was I therefore anything you have accepted for a certainty is no more of a belief than mine.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 19, 2012)

ganja man23 said:


> Understand that you were not there when it was created and neither was I therefore anything you have accepted for a certainty is no more of a belief than mine.



I wasn't at Auschwitz, neither were you - neither were most of the people that wrote books on it, does that make their evidence less compelling? Do you believe the idea that the holocaust didn't happen is as viable as belief that it did happen? Neither of us was there, so what system can we use for determining what really happened? Aren't both of our ideas equally valid because neither of us was there? 

No, there is a ton of evidence and eye witness reports that support that the holocaust really happened, regardless of either belief that you or I hold. 

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn&#8217;t go away." - Philip K. Dick


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Nov 19, 2012)

man exercising the demons today


----------



## ganja man23 (Nov 19, 2012)

I wasn't at Auschwitz, neither were you - neither were most of the people that wrote books on it, does that make their evidence less compelling? Do you believe the idea that the holocaust didn't happen is as viable as belief that it did happen? Neither of us was there, so what system can we use for determining what really happened? Aren't both of our ideas equally valid because neither of us was there? 
*
That's exactly correct and I applaud you for my methodology, both ideas are equally valid therefore we only present the reasons for our consideration of the concept within our dimensional structure. I understand that ever single idea is valid even if it happened already it can be changed but I still continue to pursue my beliefs in this life with the understanding that time will be linear for most if not all of my earth life. *

No, there is a ton of evidence and eye witness reports that support that the holocaust really happened, regardless of either belief that you or I hold. 

*The holocaust is basically an event in which we as a civilization were "there and aware". I was talking about a time in which we were primitive enough to not question whether or not we were conscious in the way we are today (like the difference between us and every other species). Your argument is a very funny interpretation but is both right and wrong. All I'm saying is that consciousness works so that anyone can be convinced of anything and the reality for everything you believe is contained within the possibility that things can occur another way despite the fact that your reality presents it as occurring a certain way. Does that make sense to you? So does the fact that you know about the holocaust make it part of your reality as anything more than a concept of our choices through linear time? The bible has tonnes of people also supporting illogical ideas like saying angels and gods exist and it's not the only source. that states that so should we automatically believe them? why not listen to all the indgiesnous tribes who tell tales of their ancestors and how they were aliens from the star? Is that too crazy for our "reality"? 
*
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn&#8217;t go away." - Philip K. Dick
*For us 'reality' will be determined by embracing the possibility that what is in front of us may not be real in the way we think it is. When this is found true or false, we will determine what reality is. *


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 19, 2012)

ganja man23 said:


> I think i understand the definition, I want 'the fundamental nature of being within reality' to not fall under the category of science, but merge with it for a new theory as evidence I have gathered suggests they are both equally important if we want to understand everything there is about limitations we face and if we truly are bound by them. I don't care of you acuse my belief of alien intervention as being far fetched because in real life I would agree with you but I try not to limit my mind to 'real life". It ties into my spirituality which is relative to my experience of reality. Understand that you were not there when it was created and neither was I therefore anything you have accepted for a certainty is no more of a belief than mine.


Quit responding to points that people haven't made. Your 'limitations due to logic' is a fail. No one is claiming what you think is impossible, it has to do with convincing others that there is any merit. Sure, the Statue of Liberty could wave her hand, that actually is a possibility according to physics. However for the chance that all of the atoms to behave in sync, we would likely be waiting for a trillion times longer than the 14.5 billion years the universe has been in existence. It's merely a practical matter that we consider things impossible, something, BTW, I never said about anything you claimed. I merely expressed doubt, yet you continue to create the strawman that I'm limiting you. You seem to hold much disdain for logic considering the profession you wish to pursue. It is only through logic and reason that we have the technology to even speak to one another. Logic and rational thought has progressed mankind further than spirituality and wishful thinking. 

As to the starchild. You asked if I read the article. Did you? Did you see raw data, citations, or any verification of his claims? Can you demonstrate to me that he isn't making shit up? No, because he doesn't release the work. I too can claim fantastical things about genetic studies but until it can be verified independently, it's mere blustering talk. If you seriously think Lloyd Pye has some merit, you should do some background research before you accept what he claims. Basically he has been begging science to confirm the identity of the skull for 12 plus years. Most scientists said NO, we don't want anything to do with that nonsense. Finally after enough begging, some scientist said they would take a look at it. They all told him it was genetic mutation and or deformation. That answer wasn't good enough for him, (wasn't a alien) so he decided to ask some others to do a DNA test, but not after burning those bridges with the scientist who lent their time to him to analyze the skull. Then he finds a lab to do DNA testing in Canada. They do the test multiple times, they botch a few runs but ultimately come up with data that says the skull is human... This answer wasn't good enough, (no alien), he then gets angry at them and calls them lousy scientists and students, and that the data was to weak to be relevant... So he burns another bridge, and finds a lab who does historical forensic testing. He gets the test done, test confirms the skull had a human mother and most likely a human father, but the machine they had could not for some reason, match up the fathers DNA (shit happens). This goes on and on, and then this idiot comes to the conclusion that it must be a ALIEN FATHER.. He doesn't even rule out all earthly possibilities, he just jumps right to space aliens. NOT SCIENCE!!

I'm don't dismiss things without reason. Pye has given me plenty of reasons to doubt his credibility. And here again you make the mistake of thinking we need time machines in order to falsify something. This is clearly a ridiculous standard to hold to anyone and is the my main beef with you. It explains how you do not understand burden of proof and levels of confidence in scientific pursuits. If you continue to keep this standard, then there is no fantastical claim that can ever be refuted. The dinosaurs were intelligent scientists and had incredible technology that unfortunately has not been discovered yet. Prove me wrong. You can't debunk my claim unless you have a time machine and watch the dinosaurs first hand. Until you stop accepting extraordinary claims as true until they can be disproven entirely, your worldview will continue to suffer and I doubt you will be successful in your scientific pursuits in school. You are due for an abrupt awakening.


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Nov 19, 2012)

i know someone who was at Auschwitz, her entire family was killed there

their is a fine line between, philosophical debates about what tree may have or not made a sound if someone was there to hear . . . . . the holocaust is not one of them

it was and for some still is very real

ass clown argument if you ask me, very disrespectful to all who suffered


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Nov 19, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> Neither of us is wrong in our own right  Nature is receptive of projected light to make things grow. There, we already have the model. Both 'are', but 'are better' together - otherwise we would not be here in the first place.


 So you refuse to doubt your supernatural beliefs. I think this is very cowardly of you. Accepting within yourself, being honest with your inner being about the fact that our supernatural beliefs could be wrong, while still keeping faith in them because it is what we desire... is much more honest and virtuous than persisting in the delusion that our supernatural beliefs are certainly true. It takes a lot of courage to admit that our beliefs could be wrong, there are few courageous enough to admit it, and even fewer who can still keep faith while acknowledging our ignorance.


----------



## ganja man23 (Nov 19, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> *Quit responding to points that people haven't made. *
> You are making as many insinuations as I am.
> 
> *Your 'limitations due to logic' is a fail. No one is claiming what you think is impossible, it has to do with convincing others that there is any merit. *
> ...


----------



## ganja man23 (Nov 19, 2012)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> i know someone who was at Auschwitz, her entire family was killed there
> 
> there is a fine line between, philosophical debates about what tree may have or not made a sound if someone was there to here . . . . . the holocaust is not one of them
> 
> ...


Presenting a word such as assclown insinuates a limited understanding of my perspective therefore you choose to have no real word for how to describe my thought. except combining clowns with glutes. The fact if the holocaust is real within a reality which is fake, does that make it real to anyone outside of that reality? NO! Only real to those within it. It's hard for you to understand that as a concept but it's my belief (BELIEF- AN ACCEPTANCE BASED ON TRUTHS THAT ARE ACCEPTED WITHIN THIS "REALITY") we are not limited within this physical structure that life presents itself as. I can even claim I have left physicality with "my mind" through natural procedures such as mediation. It's hard for someone to understand or even take me seriously unless they have the same experience. So for that reason I don't try to enforce that belief. Just trying to tell you why I "believe" that.


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Nov 19, 2012)

you try to play devils advocate with perception and reality and causality and use the holocaust as an example 

yes 

you are a ass clown


----------



## ganja man23 (Nov 19, 2012)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> you try to play devils advocate with perception and reality and causality and use the holocaust as an example
> 
> yes
> 
> you are a ass clown


I've never seen so many ands in one sentence. Well in that case; you are 'a' illiterate.
You mean to say: "You are an ass clown". And yes I do clown and I have an ass or can even be referred to as an "ass" because my methodology goes against most people's beliefs. So sue me for embracing things for the way they are and not the way we think they are. 

I'm playing devils advocate? Are you not doing the same by replying? I'm merely reminding you and everyone else that qunatam mechanics (a not yet complete but well respected study) suggests in order for our universe to be structured the way we think it is; we cannot consider reality from within it when we are subject to it's illusion. Spirituality supports this claim as well so i'm 2 for 2 in reasoning. You're just going with "well it's all we have" and that's an approach that will eventually cease to exist within humanity because it is limited to our understanding of things which is always expanding.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Nov 19, 2012)

Your supernatural beliefs could be wrong... why you mad bro?


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 19, 2012)

ganja man23 said:


> That's exactly correct and I applaud you for my methodology, both ideas are equally valid therefore we only present the reasons for our consideration of the concept within our dimensional structure. I understand that ever single idea is valid even if it happened already it can be changed but I still continue to pursue my beliefs in this life with the understanding that time will be linear for most if not all of my earth life.


Both ideas might be possible, but one idea has supporting evidence, and one does not. I'm talking about _this _universe, _this _dimension, _this _existence, not some abstract alternate timeline that may, or may not exist. In _this _world during the 1930's and 1940's, Hitler had Jewish people exterminated. Fact.

You not accepting it as truth, or accepting that it's one of many possible truths is irrelevant to the fact that the events actually happened. If you close your eyes your perception of reality might change, but reality itself stays the same. 


*



The holocaust is basically an event in which we as a civilization were "there and aware". I was talking about a time in which we were primitive enough to not question whether or not we were conscious in the way we are today (like the difference between us and every other species). Your argument is a very funny interpretation but is both right and wrong. All I'm saying is that consciousness works so that anyone can be convinced of anything and the reality for everything you believe is contained within the possibility that things can occur another way despite the fact that your reality presents it as occurring a certain way. Does that make sense to you?

Click to expand...

*
No, not really. Not everyone can be convinced of everything, at least not without good reason. How can a reality be contained within a possibility? No one is disputing that events could have happened another way, we're discussing how we interpret the events that actually *did* happen and the process with which we verify those claims.*




So does the fact that you know about the holocaust make it part of your reality as anything more than a concept of our choices through linear time? The bible has tonnes of people also supporting illogical ideas like saying angels and gods exist and it's not the only source. that states that so should we automatically believe them? why not listen to all the indgiesnous tribes who tell tales of their ancestors and how they were aliens from the star? Is that too crazy for our "reality"?

Click to expand...

*It's not too crazy for our reality, there's just nothing to support that claim. There are all kinds of ideas that are equally 'crazy', but they have evidence that support those claims, therefore at the present time it makes more sense to believe them, than not believe them. 


*



For us 'reality' will be determined by embracing the possibility that what is in front of us may not be real in the way we think it is. When this is found true or false, we will determine what reality is.

Click to expand...

*No one (to my knowledge) is claiming that we know all the answers. Science goes through paradigm shifts, and lots of concepts and ideas come into new light. This in no way means that we should ignore the evidence we do have, or that we should stop calling what is familiar to us 'reality'. I see your point, that what we interpret as reality could be vastly different from what we interpret as reality in the future, but at the present time we have no better model to base our concept of reality from.


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 19, 2012)

Wow. Ganja man, you certainly fit the definition of delusional. You accept things people like Lloyd Pye's hearsay as evidence and dismiss real verifiable, testable evidence when provided by science. You have absolutely no filter to be able to distinguish what is reasonable and what is not as evidence by the fact that you think the dinosaur technology claim that I merely made up is not only possible, but probable. Good luck in your endeavors. Obviously, neither I or anyone else can help you understand the value of critical thinking skills as you have been taken over by either delusion or are a fool. 
Good bye.


----------



## ganja man23 (Nov 19, 2012)

Wow. Ganja man, you certainly fit the definition of delusional. Truly offended. Many great minds have received the same criticism from lesser minds in the past. The only argument is that logically you are the higher mind right? Because you are clearly superior to me as a good hard working human who serves his role in society.You accept things people like Lloyd Pye's hearsay as evidence and dismiss real verifiable, testable evidence when provided by science. I accept it as the most credible not as a certainty. My only certainty is the consideration of this experience as an illusion within a higher experience. We have no way of perceiving yet. I don't dismiss any evidence science proves contrary to what you think., I merely do not limit my thoughts to corespond with evidence within this reality.You have absolutely no filter to be able to distinguish what is reasonable and what is not as evidence by the fact that you think the dinosaur technology claim that I merely made up is not only possible, but probable. I have enough of a filter to realize You're just a prick who thinks he has critical skills because he follows societal beliefs and is afraid to go outside of his comfort zone due to fear of being labeled as delusional or crazy. Good luck in your endeavors. Obviously, neither I or anyone else can help you understand the value of critical thinking skills as you have been taken over by either delusion or are a fool. Good byeNa na na naaaa. Na na na naaa. Hey hey hey, goodbye.. Haha joking. to quote Sheldon cooper just for comedy's sake. (since you are such a funny person to me and make me laugh a lot); "I'm not crazy, my mother had me tested" I can assure you everything science can test me for is well healthy and in proportion but it's never had to come to testing after many decades. The only thing unhealthy is that I could care less about your opinions about me which gives you the illusion that I'm delusional. A good bye is as good as a white flag From my perspective so... great success for me. I proved to at least myself what I consider free thinking has won the challenge against your critical thinking.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Nov 19, 2012)

So I guess you also take it as a victory when a girl breaks up with you, too, then?


----------



## Adonis (Nov 19, 2012)

I have the ability to "feel" through people. I know exactly what kind of person they are and exactly how they will react to whatever I do. It's close to manipulation as I have always been able to manifest what goes on around me by manipulating the "energy" flow in the room. I have to be careful though, if I have an agenda my aura tends to give myself away.


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 19, 2012)

ganja man23 said:


> Wow. Ganja man, you certainly fit the definition of delusional. Truly offended. Many great minds have received the same criticism from lesser minds in the past. The only argument is that logically you are the higher mind right? Because you are clearly superior to me as a good hard working human who serves his role in society.You accept things people like Lloyd Pye's hearsay as evidence and dismiss real verifiable, testable evidence when provided by science. I accept it as the most credible not as a certainty. My only certainty is the consideration of this experience as an illusion within a higher experience. We have no way of perceiving yet. I don't dismiss any evidence science proves contrary to what you think., I merely do not limit my thoughts to corespond with evidence within this reality.You have absolutely no filter to be able to distinguish what is reasonable and what is not as evidence by the fact that you think the dinosaur technology claim that I merely made up is not only possible, but probable. I have enough of a filter to realize You're just a prick who thinks he has critical skills because he follows societal beliefs and is afraid to go outside of his comfort zone due to fear of being labeled as delusional or crazy. Good luck in your endeavors. Obviously, neither I or anyone else can help you understand the value of critical thinking skills as you have been taken over by either delusion or are a fool. Good byeNa na na naaaa. Na na na naaa. Hey hey hey, goodbye.. Haha joking. to quote Sheldon cooper just for comedy's sake. (since you are such a funny person to me and make me laugh a lot); "I'm not crazy, my mother had me tested" I can assure you everything science can test me for is well healthy and in proportion but it's never had to come to testing after many decades. The only thing unhealthy is that I could care less about your opinions about me which gives you the illusion that I'm delusional. A good bye is as good as a white flag From my perspective so... great success for me. I proved to at least myself what I consider *free thinking has won the challenge against your critical thinking.*



Why do you suppose it is a contest? This is what happens when anyone examines your words for mistakes, you turn it into an us-vs-them fight which includes gloating and bad sportsmanship. For all your spiritual mussing, you present yourself as a shallow petty person. What happen to the idea of us all finding common ground?

Your approach to the world has taught you that everything is true until proven false. Gremlins, fairies, unicorns, free lunch, easy weight loss, bigger penis pills, there is no limit as you say. This is the very definition of gullible, which is evident by your lack of growth or enlightenment. The only thing your world view has brought you is bias towards reason and an alliance with nonsense. It has taught you that lions should drive cars and that apes should be extinct. It lets you favor the idea of the Holocaust being fake and of dinosaurs using computers. The less sense you perceive something making, the more you perceive as being against the mainstream, which, as you point out in the above post, is really all you are interested in. How far can you go against the establishment. How much can you discredit critical thinking. There is nothing we have done to pit you against reason, this is a choice you make yourself. You are presented with scrutiny and criticism and your inclination is to fight, to stubbornly hold your ground while insulting and belittling those who do not lend credit to your ideas. You are a bully. You are interested in fantasy vs reality, in adults vs children, in crazy vs sane. You have a grudge that goes beyond conversations here. It's amazing what spiritualism has not taught you; humility, patience, respect, strength... Which are things I do see coming from true spiritual posters like Eye, Bracko, Karri0n, and others who I have had the pleasure of learning from here. What you promote is not spiritualism, it is mental masturbation.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Nov 19, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> Why do you suppose it is a contest? This is what happens when anyone examines your words for mistakes, you turn it into an us-vs-them fight which includes gloating and bad sportsmanship. For all your spiritual mussing, you present yourself as a shallow petty person. What happen to the idea of us all finding common ground?
> 
> Your approach to the world has taught you that everything is true until proven false. Gremlins, fairies, unicorns, free lunch, easy weight loss, bigger penis pills, there is no limit as you say. This is the very definition of gullible, which is evident by your lack of growth or enlightenment. The only thing your world view has brought you is bias towards reason and an alliance with nonsense. It has taught you that lions should drive cars and that apes should be extinct. It lets you favor the idea of the Holocaust being fake and of dinosaurs using computers. The less sense you perceive something making, the more you perceive as being against the mainstream, which, as you point out in the above post, is really all you are interested in. How far can you go against the establishment. How much can you discredit critical thinking. There is nothing we have done to pit you against reason, this is a choice you make yourself. You are presented with scrutiny and criticism and your inclination is to fight, to stubbornly hold your ground while insulting and belittling those who do not lend credit to your ideas. You are a bully. You are interested in fantasy vs reality, in adults vs children, in crazy vs sane. You have a grudge that goes beyond conversations here. It's amazing what spiritualism has not taught you; humility, patience, respect, strength... Which are things I do see coming from true spiritual posters like Eye, Bracko, Karri0n, and others who I have had the pleasure of learning from here. What you promote is not spiritualism, it is mental masturbation.


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 19, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> Why do you suppose it is a contest? This is what happens when anyone examines your words for mistakes, you turn it into an us-vs-them fight which includes gloating and bad sportsmanship. For all your spiritual mussing, you present yourself as a shallow petty person. What happen to the idea of us all finding common ground?


I find it ironic that when he decided he didn't want to continue responding to my posts (even though he never stopped) he saw that as a win for himself, and now when I tell him good bye, implying I will probably not respond anymore to his nonsense, he also sees that as a win for himself. Must be nice and comforting to be so delusional you think you have all of the answers. 
Too bad he has such trouble with using the quote function. I can barely see where my words stop and his start. It's quite unnerving but probably outside his intellectual capabilities.

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Heisenberg again."


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Nov 19, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ^ strife, in the material sense I know what can and cannot be 'proven'. In the spiritual sense, I know what can and cannot be 'proven'. Why should I have to lean from this centered perspective? It was / is / will be my goal. Why does this have to be about right and wrong? It's 'my' reality, and it is just as real as yours is, even if it isn't  There is a science to spirituality. There are inner observations that you can bench test. Get cozy with paradox, mon ami


I must spread some rep around before giving it to you again. First time I got that message lol.


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Nov 19, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> Why do you suppose it is a contest? This is what happens when anyone examines your words for mistakes, you turn it into an us-vs-them fight which includes gloating and bad sportsmanship. For all your spiritual mussing, you present yourself as a shallow petty person. What happen to the idea of us all finding common ground?


Lol give me a break Heis. There is no common ground with you. There is no discussing with you. You can never just disagree and call it a day. You must relentlessly drag everything on and on forever with the goal of winning the debate. Not once have I seen you present information like it is an opinion. Every time you try to discuss you present everything as fact and you get frustrated that no one is accepting your so called facts and you continue to shove it in our faces. Then you wait for us to get frustrated so you can play the mature intellectual card and say we are being childish and unreasonable. Even that doesnt work sometimes. After so much of your relentless blabbering you eventually get mad as well and throw around names and judgments and personal attacks as if you were still the mature intellectual. Oh, then after making your point of view clear that Im an complete idiot you go back to taking me seriously and trying to reason with me as if you respect me. I wish I knew you in real life Heis, though I already know the reality of the situation, I would laugh at the real you and how drastically different you are compared to how you appear online. You must be quite a mess inside and out.


----------



## cannabineer (Nov 19, 2012)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> man exercising the demons today


Muffin tops are especially unattractive on evil spirits. cn


----------



## cannabineer (Nov 19, 2012)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> i know someone who was at Auschwitz, her entire family was killed there
> 
> their is a fine line between, philosophical debates about what tree may have or not made a sound if someone was there to hear . . . . . the holocaust is not one of them
> 
> ...


It could as cogently be argued that keeping Auschwitz in our awareness is a good thing, an act of service and remembrance. Had I died at Auschwitz or equivalent, and had I a remanent spirit that cared, it would much prefer debate to imposed polite silence. My opinion. cn


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Nov 19, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Lol give me a break Heis. There is no common ground with you. There is no discussing with you. You can never just disagree and call it a day. You must relentlessly drag everything on and on forever with the goal of winning the debate. Not once have I seen you present information like *it is an opinion*. Every time you try to discuss you present everything as fact and you get frustrated that no one is accepting your so called facts and you continue to shove it in our faces. Then you wait for us to get frustrated so you can play the mature intellectual card and say we are being childish and unreasonable. Even that doesnt work sometimes. After so much of your relentless blabbering you eventually get mad as well and throw around names and judgments and personal attacks as if you were still the mature intellectual. Oh, then after making your point of view clear that Im an complete idiot you go back to taking me seriously and trying to reason with me as if you respect me. I wish I knew you in real life Heis, though I already know the reality of the situation, I would laugh at the real you and how drastically different you are compared to how you appear online. You must be quite a mess inside and out.


That's the thing... science *isn't *an opinion.


----------



## ElfoodStampo (Nov 19, 2012)

Be careful with carbon dating, we have no way of knowing the amount of radiation that hit the earth from external sources which effects the decay rate of the carbon at that time. We use current decay rates to measure samples taking at periods of time when we have no idea what radiation levels were at. The whole system is conveniently flawed, I find.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Nov 19, 2012)

ElfoodStampo said:


> Be careful with carbon dating, we have no way of knowing the amount of radiation that hit the earth from external sources which effects the decay rate of the carbon at that time. We use current decay rates to measure samples taking at periods of time when we have no idea what radiation levels were at. The whole system is conveniently flawed, I find.


Completely incorrect.

The dude who came up with it won a Nobel Prize in 1960 by correctly determining the age of samples of wood.

I find people who use such arguments against it, one, don't understand how it works, or, two, don't agree with the results it comes up with. I've never seen any scientific evidence that says carbon dating is flawed.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 19, 2012)

Zaehet Strife said:


> So you refuse to doubt your supernatural beliefs. I think this is very cowardly of you.


The most courageous I can be is in accepting what is. Science is. Religion is. Life is. Etc always is, heh.


Zaehet Strife said:


> Accepting within yourself, being honest with your inner being about the fact that our supernatural beliefs could be wrong, while still keeping faith in them because it is what we desire... is much more honest and virtuous than persisting in the delusion that our supernatural beliefs are certainly true. It takes a lot of courage to admit that our beliefs could be wrong, there are few courageous enough to admit it, and even fewer who can still keep faith while acknowledging our ignorance.


...I kinda have a bit of trouble with that whole "persisting in delusion" idea. Are you a robot?


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 19, 2012)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Completely incorrect.
> 
> The dude who came up with it won a Nobel Prize in 1960 by correctly determining the age of samples of wood.
> 
> I find people who use such arguments against it, one, don't understand how it works, or, two, don't agree with the results it comes up with. I've never seen any scientific evidence that says carbon dating is flawed.


It is important to know what you are testing and take appropriate samples. The nice thing about radiometric dating methods is the multitudes of confirmation we get from testing various ways. If one method is flawed, it would be very hard to get another result that corroborates it but that's what we find. Some people don't even realize there are many more radiometric dating methods than using carbon-14. Carbon-14 is only reliable for certain kinds of carboniferous life. Other methods can test igneous rock. 



ElfoodStampo said:


> Be careful with carbon dating, we have no way of knowing the amount of radiation that hit the earth from external sources which effects the decay rate of the carbon at that time. We use current decay rates to measure samples taking at periods of time when we have no idea what radiation levels were at. The whole system is conveniently flawed, I find.


Where did you hear this gem? A creationist website no doubt. Please explain how external radiation affects carbon-14 decay rates.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 19, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> Eye, iirc the supernatural bits were unimportant to the stories of the twelve labors. They were a peripheral narrative device, a streamlined and effective way to set up extraordinary situations, but if you discount great strength, Hercules' tasks, and his solutions, were natural. cn


...thank you, number 1  I totally see what you're saying neer. Did you notice the 'layers' of his tasks? He eventually has to fight his ego (ierc...hehe). For me, the magic is in the depths he must descend to achieve the 'heights', being 'heightened in awareness', or, consciousness. I'm thinking along the lines of 7 heavens, and all that jazz. 7 heavens are 7 senses. Empathy is a sense in itself. It's made up of other common senses, so far as I understand. I sense some balance there


----------



## tyler.durden (Nov 19, 2012)

Wow! I only had time to peek in for a minute here and there for the last couple of days, such an entertaining thread. There is enough sig-worthy material here for a lifetime, but the prize goes to GM. Thanks for the new siggy, you are delightfully out of your fucking mind...


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Nov 19, 2012)

lol!........


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 20, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Lol give me a break Heis. There is no common ground with you. There is no discussing with you. You can never just disagree and call it a day. You must relentlessly drag everything on and on forever with the goal of winning the debate.


Are you suggesting my goal in debate should be to lose?



> Not once have I seen you present information like it is an opinion. Every time you try to discuss you present everything as fact and you get frustrated that no one is accepting your so called facts and you continue to shove it in our faces.


Who are these 'no ones' not accepting facts? I only see two people arguing with me. When it comes to the process of science, there is no disagreement. You either follow the method or you don't. Anything which attempts to give scientific answers without following the process is pseudoscience. It is not until you mock the process that I get involved, which is evident by this thread and many others.



> Then you wait for us to get frustrated so you can play the mature intellectual card and say we are being childish and unreasonable. Even that doesnt work sometimes.


Why should being challenged frustrate you? If your hypotheses could stand on there own merit you could simply demonstrate it. The frustration comes when your attempts to deflect and dismiss fail. When you keep telling me to shut up and I don't, you get mad.



> After so much of your relentless blabbering you eventually get mad as well and throw around names and judgments and personal attacks as if you were still the mature intellectual. Oh, then after making your point of view clear that Im an complete idiot you go back to taking me seriously and trying to reason with me as if you respect me.


You wont find any post where I call you a complete idiot. You are a flake, meaning you have absurd ideas and an inane way of conducting yourself. You are pretentious and hypocritical, naive and arrogant, callow and artless, which becomes transparent during your variety of attacks against me. Pointing out these traits while defending myself is fair game; they are the very traits which cause you to attack. Lets not forget I would have no need to defend myself if you did not sling ad hominem attacks when discussing topics. It is you who chooses to take the discussion there, every time.



> I wish I knew you in real life Heis, though I already know the reality of the situation, I would laugh at the real you and how drastically different you are compared to how you appear online. You must be quite a mess inside and out.


If you think I would be bothered by your laughter, or insecure about how people see me, then you obviously don't know me. My life has been quite a mess at times, as yours will be, but I can honestly say right now that I am as happy as I have been in my adult life. I have a better idea of who I am and where I am going, and am more content with where I am, and that is in no small part due to critical thinking and scientific skepticism.

I find it odd that you claim I am a loser, while ganjaman claims I am comfortable in the mainstream. Not too long ago you were sure my only reason for posting was to give Pad a hard on and get jerked off by tyler. Then for a while the diatribe was that I am too scared to think outside the box and too dedicated to being atheist. That morphed into I am a loser just wasting time which you abandoned briefly when you decided I am an extremist. Now I am a mess just pretending to have it together online.

You guys can't seem to decide which discredit you want to go with, or is it all of them? Am I a comfortable mainstream loser extremist who is afraid to consider magic that gets orgasms from +likes and wastes his time posting about science because he wants to pretend his life isn't a mess? Whew, I didn't realize I was that complicated.

Meanwhile, ancient alien theory has not become more true, NDE's have not become evidence of afterlife, and OBE still have not proven a soul. Evolution is still true and the human mind is still flawed. Which one of us is wasting time?


----------



## ganja man23 (Nov 20, 2012)

tyler.durden said:


> Thanks for the new siggy, you are delightfully out of your fucking mind...


You are very welcome. Thank you for the comment, its much of a compliment to me. I'm sure they have said the same thing to many brilliant minds before mine. Im the fuckin man you didn't get that yet did you? I am proud to be out of my fucking mind. Thanks for new siggy. I might just LOL every time I post now. Hopefully my new one will allow others and see what an you have been from the very start. Eliminating people like you will be the next step in society. Good luck.


----------



## ganja man23 (Nov 20, 2012)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Completely incorrect.The dude who came up with it won a Nobel Prize in 1960 by correctly determining the age of samples of wood.I find people who use such arguments against it, one, don't understand how it works, or, two, don't agree with the results it comes up with. I've never seen any scientific evidence that says carbon dating is flawed.


I think you don't know how it could work. There's many external factors that can change the atmospheric c14 levels such as nuclear bombs. Evidence suggests there has been a few that go off in the ancient past in which we have taken absolutely no account for.http://controversialhistory.blogspot.ca/2007/10/myth-of-ancient-nuclear-war.html#.UKu2m_F5mSMP.s. i just LOLed at my sig.... I'm going to go laugh a little more.


----------



## cannabineer (Nov 20, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...thank you, number 1  I totally see what you're saying neer. Did you notice the 'layers' of his tasks? He eventually has to fight his ego (ierc...hehe). For me, the magic is in the depths he must descend to achieve the 'heights', being 'heightened in awareness', or, consciousness. I'm thinking along the lines of 7 heavens, and all that jazz. 7 heavens are 7 senses. Empathy is a sense in itself. It's made up of other common senses, so far as I understand. I sense some balance there


Well, I fear i possess only uncommon sense. The former women in my life would emphatically agree. ~big grin that slowly fades~

I also admit that i use a coarser, perhaps more practical concept of magic: the use of human will to catalyze an effect on the material world from the immaterial. (in this instance the physicist's concept of energy is material.) 

It seems to me (I cannot be sure; you come the closest to doing "ethereal" of anyone I've seen on the site) that you're using a more "naturalized" sort of magic, one more metapsychological, if I may force an analogy with metaphysics. cn


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Nov 20, 2012)

ganja man23 said:


> I think you don't know how it could work. There's many external factors that can change the atmospheric c14 levels such as nuclear bombs. Evidence suggests there has been a few that go off in the ancient past in which we have taken absolutely no account for.http://controversialhistory.blogspot.ca/2007/10/myth-of-ancient-nuclear-war.html#.UKu2m_F5mSMP.s. i just LOLed at my sig.... I'm going to go laugh a little more.


How would an ancient civilization create a nuclear bomb?


----------



## cannabineer (Nov 20, 2012)

tyler.durden said:


> Wow! I only had time to peek in for a minute here and there for the last couple of days, such an entertaining thread. There is enough sig-worthy material here for a lifetime, but the prize goes to GM. Thanks for the new siggy, you are delightfully out of your fucking mind...


I have a new one too. I prefer to ensig something i like however. cn


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Nov 20, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> It could as cogently be argued that keeping Auschwitz in our awareness is a good thing, an act of service and remembrance. Had I died at Auschwitz or equivalent, and had I a remanent spirit that cared, it would much prefer debate to imposed polite silence. My opinion. cn


i agree respect and awareness is good

but GMan is playing devils advocate with the perception of what happened he is not honoring anyone . . . . and definitely not in a debate about the horrors of that place hes here playing games with the reality of what happened 

trying to play it off as just another event of perception 

he is disrespecting their memories .. . . i for one find it disgusting, their are plenty of other topics that could be used that do not evoke so much pain and history . . . . .like i said its weak sauce and gman is an ass clown, using hyper terminology to elicit a emotional response from those involved in his debate . . . .. its a debate ploy to bring the conversation to the level of the event/term and limit the amount of valid retorts by using a emotional charged concept . . . . .


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 20, 2012)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> i agree respect and awareness is good
> 
> but GMan is playing devils advocate with the perception of what happened he is not honoring anyone . . . . and definitely not in a debate about the horrors of that place hes here playing games with the reality of what happened
> 
> ...


I'm the one who brought Auschwitz up by the way. I needed an event that, a) everyone was familiar with and b) that no one in their right mind denies.


----------



## cannabineer (Nov 20, 2012)

Beefbisquit said:


> I'm the one who brought Auschwitz up by the way. I needed an event that, a) everyone was familiar with and b) that no one in their right mind denies.


Only in the Spirituality section can God win.  cn


----------



## tyler.durden (Nov 20, 2012)

ganja man23 said:


> You are very welcome. Thank you for the comment, its much of a compliment to me. I'm sure they have said the same thing to many brilliant minds before mine. Im the fuckin man you didn't get that yet did you? If a pathetic closed minded and fearful piece of shit who has no objective but arguing online because he's too much of a hated recluse in society Claims something like that.... I am proud to be out of my fucking mind. Thanks for new siggy. I might just LOL every time I post now. Hopefully my new one will allow others and see what an asshole you have been from the very start. Eliminating people like you will be the next step in society. Good luck.


 So, according to you - You have a brilliant mind - You're the man - I am close-minded and hated - I should be eliminated from society. Good stuff. It seems that you cannot see the reality in any situation, not surprising taking into account the crap you've chosen to fill your head with, it's severely damaged your cognitive ability and reasoning skills. This is just another attempt by you to recreate reality to fit your delusions, but the reality is that when RIU members click on my sig they'll get to see your actual words that show what a nutter you are, and when they click on your new sig they will see that you simply made up words in an attempt to show me in a bad light, and that will show how dishonest and desperate you are. You've even attempted to claim scientific study, which is obviously a complete lie, as the only knowledge you demonstrate is from pseudo-scientific quack sites. The fact that you thought you could fool members that have actually studied these things in depth into thinking that you study the same subjects is further evidence of your beautiful mind. You haven't even learned the basics. I told you before that your posts would expose you and your inane, make-believe version of spirituality, better than I ever could, and in that regard you never disappoint...


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 20, 2012)

tyler.durden said:


> when they click on your new sig they will see that you simply made up words in an attempt to show me in a bad light, and that will show how dishonest and desperate you are.


People won't be able to see it because I'm pretty sure that slanderous attacks masquerading as an actual quote will be deleted. He's already been caught in multiple lies so this behavior isn't surprising but if it were my website, I would at least temp-ban him for such disgusting behavior.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 20, 2012)

tyler.durden said:


> So, according to you - You have a brilliant mind - You're the man - I am close-minded and hated - I should be eliminated from society. Good stuff. It seems that you cannot see the reality in any situation, not surprising taking into account the crap you've chosen to fill your head with, it's severely damaged your cognitive ability and reasoning skills. This is just another attempt by you to recreate reality to fit your delusions, but the reality is that when RIU members click on my sig they'll get to see your actual words that show what a nutter you are, and when they click on your new sig they will see that you simply made up words in an attempt to show me in a bad light, and that will show how dishonest and desperate you are. You've even attempted to claim scientific study, which is obviously a complete lie, as the only knowledge you demonstrate is from pseudo-scientific quack sites. The fact that you thought you could fool members that have actually studied these things in depth into thinking that you study the same subjects is further evidence of your beautiful mind. You haven't even learned the basics. I told you before that your posts would expose you and your inane, make-believe version of spirituality, better than I ever could, and in that regard you never disappoint...


Maybe he's really, really good at counting dropped toothpicks...


----------



## tyler.durden (Nov 20, 2012)

Beefbisquit said:


> Maybe he's really, really good at counting dropped toothpicks...


 Definitely good with that stuff, definitely. He's an excellent driver, dad let's him drive slow in the driveway. Uh-oh, BB and TD made a joke


----------



## tyler.durden (Nov 20, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> I have a new one too. I prefer to ensig something i like however. cn


 Oh, I like mine. I like it a LOT


----------



## tyler.durden (Nov 20, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> People won't be able to see it because I'm pretty sure that slanderous attacks masquerading as an actual quote will be deleted. He's already been caught in multiple lies so this behavior isn't surprising but if it were my website, I would at least temp-ban him for such disgusting behavior.


 Cool, you were right. The mods rock in this sub-forum...


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Nov 20, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> Are you suggesting my goal in debate should be to lose?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thank you for reassuring that there is no common ground with you and discussions with you are not at all discussions but rather a pointless game with a bigoted troll disguised as a respectful intelligent man of science. Disagree? Please describe what you think is common ground and when is it possible to agree to disagree? I think I know the gist of the answer to the second one lol. 

I am not arguing about science here. Science has assumptions and opinions about my spiritual beliefs. 

No, my attempts to deflect do succeed, it is the relentless pushing of your opinion that gives you the illusion of it failing. Im not telling you to shut up, Im just reminding you that what you are doing is pointless and shows a personal problem with how others view the world, it offends you that almost everyone doesnt have your mindset so you keep singing 'the song that never ends' because it makes you feel like your way of thinking is still the best to asses reality. 

Do you not remember you last post to me about my spiritual friend? It looked like you were getting pretty heated there. Name calling, personal attacks, all the pent up shit just came out and you sugar coated it like you were still the mature intellectual. I wasnt even discussing with you last time you lashed out at me lol you just jumped in, yet I started it? I dont even think I was attacking everyone else, I was just successfully arguing against their points. I think your anger started when I dismantled your opinion that even if my friend were psychic I dont know how the telepathy is being done, because you want that to be apart of the material world to not ruin your delusion of reality. 

Oh I still stick to my word with everything I said about you. Egotistic bigot that gets a mental erection from recognition. You are afraid to move out of the box because when ever this box is proven to exist then a lot of your reality will come crashing down. You are indeed a loser wasting time and you are still an extremist in sheeps clothing. If the world had your standards and mindset and passion then theres bound to be many maniacs causing chaos against those that oppose the mindset. Yes, you are a mess pretending to have it together online. On here, there is no need for improvement, you have made it. 

And with the ancient aliens theory, NDE's, OBE's, and the unconvincing 'fallible mind' argument. Cool opinions and ideas, bro


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Nov 20, 2012)

Let me guess, tl;dr? lol


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 20, 2012)

ganja man23 said:


> i just LOLed at my sig.... I'm going to go laugh a little more.


Neither slander nor abusive name calling will be tolerated here. It should go without saying that it is not okay to call someone an asshole or piece of shit, but in this forum we warn before we ban. Your sig has proven that you are not above lying and deceit, in fact you seem to embrace it.

Consider yourself warned.


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 20, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Let me guess, tl;dr? lol


Not at all, I read the first line of every paragraph. 

Looks like a rehash of the post I already responded to, so I will just refer you to my previous response.


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Nov 20, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> Neither slander nor abusive name calling will be tolerated here. It should go without saying that it is not okay to call someone an asshole or piece of shit, but in this forum we warn before we ban. Your sig has proven that you are not above lying and deceit, in fact you seem to embrace it.
> 
> Consider yourself warned.


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 20, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


>


Think it's an abuse of power to enforce that people not be called a piece of shit? You are okay with someone forging a signature to insinuate illegal sexual acts? Or are you just jumping at the chance to jab?


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Nov 20, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> Think it's an abuse of power to enforce that people not be called a piece of shit? You are okay with someone forging a signature to insinuate illegal sexual acts? Or are you just jumping at the chance to jab?


Yes to the last one. Just like you did last time you lashed out at me lol


----------



## cannabineer (Nov 20, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> I am not arguing about science here. Science has assumptions and opinions about my spiritual beliefs.


Unless you can specify these ... I don't believe that. cn



Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Yes to the last one. Just like you did last time you lashed out at me lol


Your saying so does not make it so. My experience has been that Heisenberg has been patient, dispassionate and relentlessly consistent. I recognize him as my superior in formulating and presenting a rational argument. My opinion. cn


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Nov 20, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> Unless you can specify these ... I don't believe that. cn
> 
> 
> 
> Your saying so does not make it so. My experience has been that Heisenberg has been patient, dispassionate and relentlessly consistent. I recognize him as my superior in formulating and presenting a rational argument. My opinion. cn


Its true. It was when we were talking about my friend. I showed Heis how his argument didnt make sense, he stayed silent for a good while. No attacks were going on, just arguing, then Heis jumped in out of nowhere with a flurry of personal attacks and name calling along with some points that were easily countered, then he wouldnt read my response to his points, thats what happens when Heis shows emotion.


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 20, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> I am not arguing about science here. Science has assumptions and opinions about my spiritual beliefs.


 And this is from you strong understanding of science and the scientific method? You seem incapable of learning. There are many opinions, but science is a methodology, it doesn't hold opinions. Scientists do. Science investigates things like OBE, NDEs, ancient aliens. Science has thus far not found any credible evidence that they are anything more than natural events. Science is still open to more investigation. The people you choose to listen to, ignore the scientific method. If you have read much about the history of scientific advance, you would understand why and how we are where we are. You would understand that people want the answers regardless of where they lead and if that leads to a fact that consciousness can be explained as an emergent phenomena that evolved over millions of years and is 100% the effect of chemicals and neurons, you shouldn't be dismayed that we don't live on forever, you should be amazed at how incredible nature is. 

That is my spiritual experience, when I look into a patch of sky with nothing there and see trillions of new worlds; when I marvel at the adaptations that have created such an incredibly diverse biosphere, I am in awe. If you believe we live on forever in new realms, that's fine and I will never be able to disprove it, it is unfalsifiable, which makes any positive claim without empirical evidence, which by nature of the definition of spiritual, is impossible, then we will forever be at an impasse. That you can't accept that and continue to believe that we are close minded idiots, then so be it. Just understand that there is good reason to remain skeptical about things that can't pass the rigors of the scientific method and be accepted by mainstream science; while at the same time, there are multitudes of reasons how uncritical thought can get you into trouble. An example of fringe thinking that was right might be helpful. Continental drift theory was soundly rejected by the mainstream, and probably rightly so because it lacked a testable mechanism. That changed with sonar examination of the ocean, new evidence, offers credible explanation, rejected hypothesis reworked with new data, plate tectonics has strong reliable confirmatory data. Give me something like that and my mind is changed and you are correct. 

This is really the crux of all of our issues. You reject methodological naturalism, and at that point, we loose all common ground. You will never accept naturalistic explanations for everything, no matter how convincing, and in that way you become attached to dogma.


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Nov 20, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> And this is from you strong understanding of science and the scientific method? You seem incapable of learning. There are many opinions, but science is a methodology, it doesn't hold opinions. Scientists do. Science investigates things like OBE, NDEs, ancient aliens. Science has thus far not found any credible evidence that they are anything more than natural events. Science is still open to more investigation. The people you choose to listen to, ignore the scientific method. If you have read much about the history of scientific advance, you would understand why and how we are where we are. You would understand that people want the answers regardless of where they lead and if that leads to a fact that consciousness can be explained as an emergent phenomena that evolved over millions of years and is 100% the effect of chemicals and neurons, you shouldn't be dismayed that we don't live on forever, you should be amazed at how incredible nature is.
> 
> That is my spiritual experience, when I look into a patch of sky with nothing there and see trillions of new worlds; when I marvel at the adaptations that have created such an incredibly diverse biosphere, I am in awe. If you believe we live on forever in new realms, that's fine and I will never be able to disprove it, it is unfalsifiable, which makes any positive claim without empirical evidence, which by nature of the definition of spiritual, is impossible, then we will forever be at an impasse. That you can't accept that and continue to believe that we are close minded idiots, then so be it. Just understand that there is good reason to remain skeptical about things that can't pass the rigors of the scientific method and be accepted by mainstream science; while at the same time, there are multitudes of reasons how uncritical thought can get you into trouble. An example of fringe thinking that was right might be helpful. Continental drift theory was soundly rejected by the mainstream, and probably rightly so because it lacked a testable mechanism. That changed with sonar examination of the ocean, new evidence, offers credible explanation, rejected hypothesis reworked with new data, plate tectonics has strong reliable confirmatory data. Give me something like that and my mind is changed and you are correct.
> 
> This is really the crux of all of our issues. You reject methodological naturalism, and at that point, we loose all common ground. You will never accept naturalistic explanations for everything, no matter how convincing, and in that way you become attached to dogma.


Bro, seriously? tl;dr, gimme a break... lol I know Heis is the one that uses that, but I couldnt resist with you.


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 20, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Its true. It was when we were talking about my friend. I showed Heis how his argument didnt make sense, he stayed silent for a good while. No attacks were going on, just arguing, then Heis jumped in out of nowhere with a flurry of personal attacks and name calling along with some points that were easily countered, then he wouldnt read my response to his points, thats what happens when Heis shows emotion.


Should we bring up the fact that you religiously ignore strong arguments against things you have said. You shift to other topics, never addressing strong evidence AGAINST your beliefs, such as if there were special intervention in pyramid building, how do you explain the evidence that Egyptian kings used master architects and builders and used copper and stone tools and many workers, all of which we find in digs and evidence in papyrus. You don't. You ignore.


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 20, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Bro, seriously? tl;dr, gimme a break... lol I know Heis is the one that uses that, but I couldnt resist with you.


Why don't you respond for once instead of a joke then ignore?


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Nov 20, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> Why don't you respond for once instead of a joke then ignore?


Because I would have to read it in order to respond to it. Duhh.


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 20, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Because I would have to read it in order to respond to it. Duhh.


Why won't you read it? Scared you'll learn something?


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 20, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> Well, I fear i possess only uncommon sense. The former women in my life would emphatically agree. ~big grin that slowly fades~I also admit that i use a coarser, perhaps more practical concept of magic: the use of human will to catalyze an effect on the material world from the immaterial. (in this instance the physicist's concept of energy is material.) It seems to me (I cannot be sure; you come the closest to doing "ethereal" of anyone I've seen on the site) that you're using a more "naturalized" sort of magic, one more metapsychological, if I may force an analogy with metaphysics. cn


...thanks for the response, neer  When you say "the use of human will to catalyze an effect", you get to the heart of it. The material world being catalyzed is the whole human's world. To 'get' will, they say, is to master the lower forces. This (symbolically) moves consciousness up into the torso, where the heart is at the center. Instead of willing material objects to move, one wills other seemingly 'stuck' things. And, oh my, do I have tons of them  Psychological aggregates make dams in the flow; and now science steps in. Heat, right? Most illness is psychosomatic, so... Cool things can happen in the grotto of the forum. I've learned a sht load of stuff from you and tyler and heis and doer and beef and mp and on and on about how to structure my thinking better. Really helpful in achieving any semblance of what my post reads  (also, to hell with this formatting dam!)


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Nov 20, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> Why won't you read it? Scared you'll learn something?


Already read it a million times before, as have many other theists, and we just arent buying it. Seen the abbreviations OBE and NDE and figured it would be another opinion and assumption on the subject, starting that conversation all over again. You think you have absolutely nothing to learn from the metaphysical side of the argument, Im just showing you the same ignorance.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 20, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Seen the abbreviations OBE and NDE and figured it would be another opinion and assumption on the subject


...that makes sense. Those abbreviations have meaning only to classify experience. I guess for the sake of catalogues, and all that. How can you (all of us, that is) place words on consciousness? We can't. Math isn't a language without its slangs, so it can't work there either.


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Nov 20, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...that makes sense. Those abbreviations have meaning only to classify experience. I guess for the sake of catalogues, and all that. How can you (all of us, that is) place words on consciousness? We can't. Math isn't a language without its slangs, so it can't work there either.


It is beyond words, its beyond anything, there is only experience and the words to describe those experiences.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Nov 20, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> It is beyond words, its beyond anything, there is only experience and the words to describe those experiences.


Experience is meaningless when speaking in scientific terms. I've told you this personally half a dozen times. 

That isn't an opinion


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Nov 20, 2012)

It would be very nice to see everyone acknowledge the fact that what is going on here is a bunch of advanced apes arguing about ideas, and some apes have better ideas than the other apes, and the apes with ideas that aren't consistent or contradict themselves get angry and offended. It's easy to pick out which apes here are really advanced, or need to go back to the ice age.


----------



## cannabineer (Nov 20, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...thanks for the response, neer  When you say "the use of human will to catalyze an effect", you get to the heart of it. The material world being catalyzed is the whole human's world. To 'get' will, they say, is to master the lower forces. This (symbolically) moves consciousness up into the torso, where the heart is at the center. Instead of willing material objects to move, one wills other seemingly 'stuck' things. And, oh my, do I have tons of them  Psychological aggregates make dams in the flow; and now science steps in. Heat, right? Most illness is psychosomatic, so... Cool things can happen in the grotto of the forum. I've learned a sht load of stuff from you and tyler and heis and doer and beef and mp and on and on about how to structure my thinking better. Really helpful in achieving any semblance of what my post reads  (also, to hell with this formatting dam!)


Fascinating, eye. I attempted to delineate between traditional magic and the "inner" sort, and you posit that it's a continuum (if I read you right). Do you acknowledge a delineation, and if so, how and where? I ask because I consider traditional magic to be at best unsupported by empirical observation, despite the wealth of legends (which, if you consider Jung to have a point, are retellings of and from the deep brain). 

The one place I will directly disagree is in your assigning a psychosomatic basis to most disease. I have one of the best candidates for a psychosomatic disease ... clinical depression ... as it doesn't have an obvious pathogen or basis in anatomical degeneration/injury. My instance at least has sovereignly resisted any attempts at attitude management, positive thinking, and (I will confess to you) several different sorts of prayer. 
My sisters believe in the psychosomatic basis for disease, and they use it as a bludgeon against those who are "living wrong". Imo that is nowt short of bigotry ... born of best intentions. And we all know where THAT road leads. 



eye exaggerate said:


> ...that makes sense. Those abbreviations have meaning only to classify experience. I guess for the sake of catalogues, and all that. How can you (all of us, that is) place words on consciousness? We can't. Math isn't a language without its slangs, so it can't work there either.


I have a personal fondness for NBEs.  cn


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 20, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Already read it a million times before, as have many other theists, and we just arent buying it. Seen the abbreviations OBE and NDE and figured it would be another opinion and assumption on the subject, starting that conversation all over again. You think you have absolutely nothing to learn from the metaphysical side of the argument, Im just showing you the same ignorance.


I think it's rude to ignore it considering I wrote it in attempts to help you understand some things. I'm not trying to sell you anything so there's nothing to buy, I said nothing about theism or atheism. You can only assume what I wrote because you saw some words? You brought up common ground, although it appears you aren't even interested in that. This seems to be a pattern with you, you read something partial that you don't like and fill in the rest with your imagined attacks. Fine, don't read it, do the same song and dance ignoring information that might be helpful. I guess your posts aren't worthy of being read either.


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Nov 21, 2012)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Experience is meaningless when speaking in scientific terms. I've told you this personally half a dozen times.
> 
> That isn't an opinion


Good thing science isnt the best tool to discover reality. Yes, I know what you have to say, you dont agree with the answers I provided, but instead of disagreeing you just say Im wrong, because science says so lol.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Nov 21, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Good thing science isnt the best tool to discover reality. Yes, I know what you have to say, you dont agree with the answers I provided, but instead of disagreeing you just say Im wrong, because science says so lol.


What _is_ *the best* tool to discover reality?

(give me a straight answer, no games, no "we've been over this a million times before")


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Nov 21, 2012)

Padawanbater2 said:


> What _is_ *the best* tool to discover reality?
> 
> (give me a straight answer, no games, no "we've been over this a million times before")


I guess its first hand experience, especially when that experience can be repeated. I think DMT is a much better tool to discover reality than science is, but experience is the best way. Yeah I know, fallible mind, us believers are so delusional, blah blah blaahh.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Nov 21, 2012)

What evidence do you have that supports your opinion that _first hand experience _is a better tool to discover reality than science? 

Was it _first hand experience _that got us to the Moon?

Was it _first hand experience _that enabled us to see the beginnings of the Universe?

Was it _first hand experience _that allows you and I to communicate from thousands of miles away?


Hands on experience is great, it allows us to test our ideas for ourselves, but saying that is the best tool we have to discover reality is simply absurd. Not only that, it's subject to mistakes, unlike the scientific method when properly applied.

If you can't see that for yourself, you will always rely on other people for correct information. A huge disadvantage in life.


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Nov 21, 2012)

Padawanbater2 said:


> What evidence do you have that supports your opinion that _first hand experience _is a better tool to discover reality than science?
> 
> Was it _first hand experience _that got us to the Moon?
> 
> ...


shallow answers about tech toys lol you showed me! Science cant get its hands on the mysteries of the world yet experiences can and the best thing science can do is say that we could be wrong about those experiences. 

I dont rely on peoples word alone. I research and if what I research relates to my experiences and the knowledge I gained from my experiences then I will add what ever I research to my knowledge.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Nov 21, 2012)

Every question that's ever been answered has been answered using science.

Hows that for _shallow_..


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 21, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> shallow answers about tech toys lol you showed me! Science cant get its hands on the mysteries of the world yet experiences can and the best thing science can do is say that we could be wrong about those experiences. I dont rely on peoples word alone. I research and if what I research relates to my experiences and the knowledge I gained from my experiences then I will add what ever I research to my knowledge.


 Let me get this straight; If experts opinions in their given subjects of expertise don't match up with your very narrow, limited understanding of the world, you discredit the experts opinions and not your own? Basically in order for you to accept something as knowledge it has to get the 'Chief Walkin Eagle's Experience's say this shit is legit' stamp of approval? Am I getting this correct?


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Nov 21, 2012)

Beefbisquit said:


> Let me get this straight; If experts opinions in their given subjects of expertise don't match up with your very narrow, limited understanding of the world, you discredit the experts opinions and not your own? Basically in order for you to accept something as knowledge it has to get the 'Chief Walkin Eagle's Experience's say this shit is legit' stamp of approval? Am I getting this correct?


Kinda sorta not really. When it comes to the base of my beliefs, the experts dont really offer much at all.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 21, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Kinda sorta not really. When it comes to the base of my beliefs, the experts dont really offer much at all.


Ok, and now I have my answer. You think you know it all, so you ignore the experts. Thanks for the honest answer.


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Nov 21, 2012)

Beefbisquit said:


> Ok, and now I have my answer. You think you know it all, so you ignore the experts. Thanks for the honest answer.


They are still experts when talking about my spiritual beliefs? I have been seeking spiritual advice from the wrong people it seems, can you name one of these guru's? lol


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 21, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> They are still experts when talking about my spiritual beliefs? I have been seeking spiritual advice from the wrong people it seems, can you name one of these guru's? lol


If your spiritual beliefs are based on things in the real world, then yes there are experts on your beliefs. If your spiritual beliefs involved god telling you that penguins are aliens, but we have DNA evidence showing us they're actually closely related to species 'xyz', I would say a biologist, or geneticist would be an expert in that particular field of your spiritual beliefs.If your spiritual beliefs fall along the lines of, 'magic underwear let you chill with Jesus', that's a different story. We have to employ reasoning, and maybe a little Occam's razor to come to a conclusion that is _most likely,_ in a scenario like that.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 22, 2012)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Experience is meaningless when speaking in scientific terms. I've told you this personally half a dozen times. That isn't an opinion


...you totally missed the point.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 22, 2012)

Padawanbater2 said:


> you will always rely on other people for correct information. A huge disadvantage in life.


...did you write every science book? Can you tell us the difference between intelligence and consciousness? (going to wait for that answer)


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 22, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...did you write every science book? Can you tell us the difference between intelligence and consciousness? (going to wait for that answer)


Intelligence is the ability to understand new information, consciousness is the phenomenon which allows us to use our intelligence.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 22, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> Fascinating, eye. I attempted to delineate between traditional magic and the "inner" sort, and you posit that it's a continuum (if I read you right). Do you acknowledge a delineation, and if so, how and where? I ask because I consider traditional magic to be at best unsupported by empirical observation, despite the wealth of legends (which, if you consider Jung to have a point, are retellings of and from the deep brain). The one place I will directly disagree is in your assigning a psychosomatic basis to most disease. I have one of the best candidates for a psychosomatic disease ... clinical depression ... as it doesn't have an obvious pathogen or basis in anatomical degeneration/injury. My instance at least has sovereignly resisted any attempts at attitude management, positive thinking, and (I will confess to you) several different sorts of prayer. My sisters believe in the psychosomatic basis for disease, and they use it as a bludgeon against those who are "living wrong". Imo that is nowt short of bigotry ... born of best intentions. And we all know where THAT road leads.


...hey neer, the depression bit is what I was specifically referring to. Not all illness is based in psyche, but in my case a lot of it is. I also got that 'living wrong' stuff from family, etc. Of course, positive thinking isn't the way out of depression. Depressed, there seems to be nothing positive to draw from!...now, deep brain. The road to 'there' is paved with good intentions. So, where do the aggregates reside? Yep, there. In the christian myth (allegory) Christ (Herc, in this thread) descends to that place. The center of the earth. "in the dirt we find it" Cerberus = Cerebellum = Subconscious Mind = infradimension (red / blood / satan).*stopping there for a bit...the delineation is in what magic is used for. Sense gratification, or sense clarification by way of transforming negative (usually sexual) impressions. (The other 6 impressions are those other specific 'sins' that all Holy books describe) Those 7 sins are rooted in 'hell'. To transform them into virtues, one makes the descent into their own earth and meets those 7 at their level. Ouch. Those sins are 'ours'. Sht, I need to take ownership of that stuff?


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 22, 2012)

Beefbisquit said:


> Intelligence is the ability to understand new information, consciousness is the phenomenon which allows us to use our intelligence.


...awesome. So, one is not the other? One is a part of a whole, etc.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 22, 2012)

Consciousness is a phenomenon, and intelligence is a part of that phenomenon, IMO...There seems to be many things which make up 'consciousness', including intelligence, emotions, our basic drives. etc.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 22, 2012)

Beefbisquit said:


> Consciousness is a phenomenon, and intelligence is a part of that phenomenon, IMO...


...I like that you referred to consciousness as a phenomenon (to me, not perceptible by "solitary" natural faculty). Phenomenal  (being a bit 'crazy', I see the number 5 in the word phenomenon - as a conjunction of faculties that experience a conscious reality.)


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 22, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...I like that you referred to consciousness as a phenomenon (to me, not perceptible by "solitary" natural faculty). Phenomenal  (being a bit 'crazy', I see the number 5 in the word phenomenon - as a conjunction of faculties that experience a conscious reality.)


I believe it's a natural phenomenon, that will eventually be explained by science. We're just not there yet....


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 22, 2012)

Beefbisquit said:


> I believe it's a natural phenomenon, that will eventually be explained by science. We're just not there yet....


...that's cool. I agree that it is natural. I think combinations are the key. ooo, that sounds so dna


----------



## cannabineer (Nov 22, 2012)

Eye, you might like this. I've only made it to point 8 and am not sure I agree, but was struck by this sentence. cn



> [7] To summarize this difficulty: if reality were mind-independent, the mind would have to be mind-independent in order to be real. A 'scientific study of consciousness' cannot imply mind-independent reality; if it does, it cannot say anything about subjective experience. Such an assumption is self-contradictory - not only for the understanding of mind but also in general. This would seem to be a fairly obvious point, but it is neglected in some recent publications on consciousness and related matters.


From

http://meta-religion.com/Philosophy/Articles/Philosophy_of_the_mind/is_the_mind_real.htm


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 22, 2012)

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


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 22, 2012)

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


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 22, 2012)

[video=youtube;fjbWr3ODbAo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjbWr3ODbAo[/video]


this shit is fascinating.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 22, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> [video=youtube;fjbWr3ODbAo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjbWr3ODbAo[/video]this shit is fascinating.


I love Dan Dennett....


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Nov 22, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...you totally missed the point.





eye exaggerate said:


> ...did you write every science book? Can you tell us the difference between intelligence and consciousness? (going to wait for that answer)


What was the point?

Intelligence is the capacity for learning, reasoning and understanding

Consciousness is ones own thoughts and feelings


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 22, 2012)

Consciousness is the awareness of experiencing self and environment, intelligence is the ability to make sense of it.


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 22, 2012)

I would have to ask how one defines intelligence before deciding on the difference. As I was discussing earlier with ganja man, there are many animals that demonstrate varying levels of intelligence, but tests confirm that they may not even be self-aware. We all know dogs display intelligence as an ability to learn. Bees and many other insects show intelligence in problem solving at the level of the hive but not so much individually, i.e. the hive mind. It is well established that predators need more intelligence than prey and this is often demonstrable with brain architecture. 

Consciousness is merely being self-aware and for that we need the ability of abstract thought, another level of intelligence, so in a way, they are related IMO.


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 22, 2012)

http://bigthink.com/lauriesantos

Laurie Santos is doing some cool work with monkeys in this area.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 22, 2012)

Padawanbater2 said:


> What was the point?


...the point was that you cannot look at a 'holy' book with scientific eyes. It does not require the sort of scrutiny that you'd prescribe. It's no big deal, it's just that you can't expect to argue about your own thoughts and feelings, right? Those are subjective and have no real place in the scientific arenas.


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Nov 22, 2012)

the bible claims to be the one and true reality . . .its is not meant to be interpreted as subjective . . .. so that pretty much settlers that argument


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 23, 2012)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> the bible claims to be the one and true reality . . .its is not meant to be interpreted as subjective . . .. so that pretty much settlers that argument


...yes, and no (imo). How could someone be sustained on locusts and wild honey, as an example. I think that's why people scrap over this stuff. To your point, though, it is not a subjective view that we're supposed to take when looking at 'any biblos', either. They call that lunacy. Religare (religion) is union, sexual union...so in that sense it happens to be the only creator of multiple realities - unless you were in a Sigourney Weaver movie  However, that doesn't make that particular scroll the only one to 'eat'. At this point in my development, I feel comfortable in saying that all of those books form a bigger picture. They should compliment each other instead of divide. But, I dream.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Nov 23, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...the point was that you cannot look at a 'holy' book with scientific eyes. It does not require the sort of scrutiny that you'd prescribe. It's no big deal, it's just that you can't expect to argue about your own thoughts and feelings, right? Those are subjective and have no real place in the scientific arenas.


I certainly can look at a book that makes objective claims about reality with scientific eyes. 

It depends on what you're arguing.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 23, 2012)

Padawanbater2 said:


> I certainly can look at a book that makes objective claims about reality with scientific eyes. It depends on what you're arguing.


...apocrypha and its interpretation is what you'd be arguing, in this case. It's a tough gig no matter which 'side' a person is on. It's even an argument within the groups of believers. I guess the thing to remember is that a lot of these cats were being persecuted one way or another. They had to hide with words.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 23, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> Eye, you might like this. I've only made it to point 8 and am not sure I agree, but was struck by this sentence. cnFromhttp://meta-religion.com/Philosophy/Articles/Philosophy_of_the_mind/is_the_mind_real.htm


...that is so very cool. Gracias for the link! Kind of a mind bender


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 23, 2012)

mindphuk said:


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


...the question asked at 3:47(ish) is messed up


----------



## cannabineer (Nov 23, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> I would have to ask how one defines intelligence before deciding on the difference. As I was discussing earlier with ganja man, there are many animals that demonstrate varying levels of intelligence, but tests confirm that they may not even be self-aware. We all know dogs display intelligence as an ability to learn. Bees and many other insects show intelligence in problem solving at the level of the hive but not so much individually, i.e. the hive mind. It is well established that predators need more intelligence than prey and this is often demonstrable with brain architecture.
> 
> Consciousness is merely being self-aware and for that we need the ability of abstract thought, another level of intelligence, so in a way, they are related IMO.


I think awareness is a softer criterion than self-awareness. I would say a waking dog or lizard is conscious ... even if not very much so in the lizard's case. cn


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 23, 2012)

I believe my dog is conscious. It clearly exhibits emotions like happiness, sadness, shame, deceit, panic, etc., etc.,. I don't have any basis for this, just living with him and being around him all the time...


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 23, 2012)

[video=youtube;dZrzRrPRdC0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZrzRrPRdC0[/video]
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I enjoyed this episode


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 23, 2012)

Beefbisquit said:


> I believe my dog is conscious. It clearly exhibits emotions like happiness, sadness, shame, deceit, panic, etc., etc.,. I don't have any basis for this, just living with him and being around him all the time...


Sadness, yes, shame no. Guilt, shame, etc. are human responses to a moral value. Like intelligence, consciousness can have varying levels of meaning. It can simply mean sentience, then qualia, and every level up to self-awareness and intentionality.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 23, 2012)

I'm not sure if I completely agree. I think even in the animal kingdom there's a sense of the 'golden rule', at least within their own species. Our moral systems could be less voluntary than it seems at first glance, at least in the most basic sense.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 23, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> Consciousness is merely being self-aware and for that we need the ability of abstract thought, another level of intelligence, so in a way, they are related IMO.


...I find it interesting that abstract is what God is said to be. I mean this in the gnostic sense. The 'mother' would be the organizer of that which is abstract. She gives form to it. 'organ'izer, heh.

** that's odd, I thought I was replying to mp's post. Sorry about that


----------



## cannabineer (Nov 23, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...I find it interesting that abstract is what God is said to be. I mean this in the gnostic sense. The 'mother' would be the organizer of that which is abstract. She gives form to it. 'organ'izer, heh.
> 
> ** that's odd, I thought I was replying to mp's post. Sorry about that


You had me fuddled for a second there. ~scratches luxuriantly intellectual goatee~ "Did I write that?" cn


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 24, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> You had me fuddled for a second there. ~scratches luxuriantly intellectual goatee~ "Did I write that?" cn


..."The Self doesn't have a doubt that it is the Self." ! (taken from a website where I am currently reading about the "I am not the doer" situation) (fun stuff )


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Nov 24, 2012)

How can we know who we are, if we make ourselves in every single passing moment.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 24, 2012)

Zaehet Strife said:


> How can we know who we are, if we make ourselves in every single passing moment.


...that's why it's so important to be centered. One center of gravity. Every single passing moment is up for observation that way, in every way.

nb: that was my best high / Kilkenny + Guiness response


----------



## ElfoodStampo (Nov 25, 2012)

Hey, here's a story I though was kinda cool. 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-lanza/does-death-exist-new-theo_b_384515.html

It suggests that you never really die, modern "Science" is beginning to agree.


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 25, 2012)

Couple things feel odd to me...



> Although individual bodies are destined to self-destruct, the alive feeling - the 'Who am I?'- is just a 20-watt fountain of energy operating in the brain. But this energy doesn't go away at death.


So the self is a product of the brain but doesn't go away when the brain ceases to function? No mention is made of why he thinks the self does not end; what evidential arrows point in this direction?



> One of the surest axioms of science is that energy never dies; it can neither be created nor destroyed. But does this energy transcend from one world to the other?


Strange that he invokes the laws governing energy without ever defining which type of energy we are talking about. He skipped over the part where the mind went from being a product of energy to being a type of energy itself.



> It turns out that what the observer decided at that point, determined what the particle did in the past. Regardless of the choice you, the observer, make, it is you who will experience the outcomes that will result.


As I understand it, we are not sure that this indicates a change in past events, and an 'observer' does not need to possess a consciousness. It can be a mindless sensor. The idea seems to be that because we can observe, we can transcend time, but this evidence would support the same conclusion for a robot.


----------



## cannabineer (Nov 25, 2012)

ElfoodStampo said:


> Hey, here's a story I though was kinda cool.
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-lanza/does-death-exist-new-theo_b_384515.html
> 
> It suggests that you never really die, modern "Science" is beginning to agree.


But but but.
There's almost no science here ... merely a hijacking of "quantum metaphysics" combined with anecdote.
It's important to see and mark the boundary between science and science-based musings. Jmo. cn


----------



## ClaytonBigsby (Dec 2, 2012)

It's late and I only read the first three pages, but I wanted to comment. I have had paranormal activity throughout my life. My earliest memories were out of body travel, validated by my parents (4 years old). I have seen so many spirits, and been able to validate them for others. Heard spirits too. Even had a poltergeist on two occasions. Everyone is different and has different gifts. If we didn't have or know about the olympics, most people would never know a human could run 100M in 9 seconds because 99.9% of us cannot. A small few can. A small few can see, hear, and be given information from the "spirit world". Perfecting that gift is difficult, for many reasons. Sometimes it seems more a curse. 

Answering the OP's question, I will give an example. A couple of year ago I was online in a role playing game a friend asked me to join. It's not my thing but I was there killing time until my wife came home. It was late. Some girl did something in the game and I thanked her, we started talking. I asked her why she was up so late (4am her time) and she said she was having a hard time sleeping as her mother recently died. She said they were very close. I excused myself to go get a drink and on my way to the kitchen a woman's voice called out twice, loudly and clearly "Shirly!" I live way out in the country, my closest neighbors a football field away. This came from inside my home and I knew what it was as it has happened many times. 

I went back and asked the girl if the name meant anything to her and she said yes, it is my grandmother's name and she is still with us. Her mother had died on her way to see her. I told her I would do some EVP for her. I went to the room where I do that and tried to focus. I was being shown an angry elephant and couldn't shake it. I never think of elephants, and this certainly wasn't the time. I mentioned it to the girl and she said she loved elephants and that she had recently had one tattooed on the back of her neck, her mother was very angry about it. That's how it works sometimes, you have to be open to it and recognize it for what it is. If it were easy, we wouldn't be having these discussions. There were a few more things but you get the idea.


Chief, I think you were talking about children being psychic. William Wordsworth discusses this in his poem "Ode to Intimations of Immortality", where he calls it a "life star". The poem is about reincarnation. Check it out, I think you will like it. Alexander Pope's "Essay on Man" is pretty good too. 

OK, everyone who thinks this is impossible BS because they have never experienced it, go ahead and bash.... 



PS I think I know where Stacy Peterson is, if anyone can help on that front.


----------



## cannabineer (Dec 2, 2012)

I won't bash it. cn


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Dec 2, 2012)

ClaytonBigsby said:


> It's late and I only read the first three pages, but I wanted to comment. I have had paranormal activity throughout my life. My earliest memories were out of body travel, validated by my parents (4 years old). I have seen so many spirits, and been able to validate them for others. Heard spirits too. Even had a poltergeist on two occasions. Everyone is different and has different gifts. If we didn't have or know about the olympics, most people would never know a human could run 100M in 9 seconds because 99.9% of us cannot. A small few can. A small few can see, hear, and be given information from the "spirit world". Perfecting that gift is difficult, for many reasons. Sometimes it seems more a curse.
> 
> Answering the OP's question, I will give an example. A couple of year ago I was online in a role playing game a friend asked me to join. It's not my thing but I was there killing time until my wife came home. It was late. Some girl did something in the game and I thanked her, we started talking. I asked her why she was up so late (4am her time) and she said she was having a hard time sleeping as her mother recently died. She said they were very close. I excused myself to go get a drink and on my way to the kitchen a woman's voice called out twice, loudly and clearly "Shirly!" I live way out in the country, my closest neighbors a football field away. This came from inside my home and I knew what it was as it has happened many times.
> 
> ...


How do you know it was some sort of spirit each time?

How do you know it wasn't something else?


----------



## Heisenberg (Dec 2, 2012)

ClaytonBigsby said:


> OK, everyone who thinks this is impossible BS because they have never experienced it, go ahead and bash....


So anyone who has doubt is a basher? If someone has not experienced what you describe, wouldn't you expect them to be skeptical? I'm not sure I would trust someone who automatically believes a fantastic story without expressing any doubt, but it seems you have decided anyone who doesn't accept this story is against you. Believers vs bashers.


----------



## tyler.durden (Dec 2, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> So anyone who has doubt is a basher? If someone has not experienced what you describe, wouldn't you expect them to be skeptical? *I'm not sure I would trust someone who automatically believes a fantastic story without expressing any doubt*, but it seems you have decided anyone who doesn't accept this story is against you. Believers vs bashers.


Bolded above is a point that often goes overlooked by folks that have experienced the paranormal: You'd think they would understand and empathize with your rational doubt, but they usually act like they are offended by it. If I woke up one day and saw spirits, or could suddenly climb walls or move things with my mind, I would anticipate _only _skepticism until I proved up my fantastic claim. If I told somebody something like that and their response was, 'Wow! That's cool', I wouldn't respect that mind...


----------



## ClaytonBigsby (Dec 2, 2012)

Oh sweet irony. It's always the same here. That is why I stay out of this section. The few of you who think yourselves so intellectually superior by taking the easiest "show me/prove it" approach, bore the hell out of me. Of course I expect people to be skeptical, however, you are the people who always make it "Believers vs Bashers". There is something in between. I do not really do not fall into either category. I speak from actual physical experience, with reproducible results. I have, in fact, offered to assist you in doing your own research in the past. However it is always the same; you want a nice gift wrapped box on a shelf. 

I was responding to the OP's question. My answer was for him/her. This may come as a shock to you, but I don't care if you believe me or not. I am not seeking your approval, nor do I feel the need to "prove" anything to you. I do hope that one day you will be enlightened enough to see that there is so much more than what you may understand today. Science is always evolving for a reason. Try to get ahead of the game. You are like the masses who knew the world was flat because that was the conventional wisdom of the time. I am the guy in the boat looking for the truth.

"I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me." Sir Isaac Newton


----------



## Heisenberg (Dec 3, 2012)

ClaytonBigsby said:


> Oh sweet irony. It's always the same here. *That is why I stay out of this section*. The few of you who think yourselves so intellectually superior by taking the easiest "show me/prove it" approach, bore the hell out of me. Of course I expect people to be skeptical, however, you are the people who always make it "Believers vs Bashers". There is something in between. I do not really do not fall into either category. I speak from actual physical experience, with reproducible results. I have, in fact, offered to assist you in doing your own research in the past. However it is always the same; you want a nice gift wrapped box on a shelf.


So when discussing paranormal, boring inquiries are bad? It seems you wish to avoid certain questions and instead characterize those who would ask as intellectually arrogant. I asked for no proof, and Pad only asked for more information. Can the in-betweeners not also ask skeptical questions? Where is the rhetoric in our responses to your post which suggest an us-vs-them attitude? It seems that you are the one who framed the convo this way in your very first post.



> I was responding to the OP's question. My answer was for him/her. This may come as a shock to you, but I don't care if you believe me or not. I am not seeking your approval, nor do I feel the need to "prove" anything to you.


Actually the part I responded to was addressed to everyone except believers. Where did you get the idea that we demand you to prove yourself? You said yourself you expect others to be skeptical, yet the simplest questions are treated as an attack on your integrity. Strange that skeptical curiosity puts you on the defensive.



> I do hope that one day you will be enlightened enough to see that there is so much more than what you may understand today. Science is always evolving for a reason. Try to get ahead of the game. You are like the masses who knew the world was flat because that was the conventional wisdom of the time. I am the guy in the boat looking for the truth.


I have no problem admitting there is more to the world that what is understood today. That is the entire point to science. Scientists do not just sit around and review answers we already have figured out. Science evolves because it wants new and accurate information, once all the information is gathered, if that's possible, science will cease to have a purpose. Intuition and sloppy observation is what led people to believe the earth was flat and the sun revolved around us, it was careful observation and testing, aka science, which showed us the truth.

So if non-believers are bashers, and those who inquire about proof are boring, that would seem to rule out all but those who agree with you.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Dec 3, 2012)

...fck! It has root in the parasympathetic nervous system. Until anyone here gains control over the ANS overall, zip it! lol It's beyond our control (allllll of us). (being playful here)

Until...  (no, really, it's like a ) I think what happens here is that we catch a glimpse of something 'other'. Regardless of what we believe, we 'feel' those events and they change us. Might be the whole point. (heh)

"Unquestionably, the Sensual Mind develops its basic concepts via external sensory perceptions. Under these conditions the Sensual Mind is terribly crude and materialistic. It cannot accept anything which has not been physically demonstrated. Since the fundamental concepts of the Sensual Mind are based on external sensory data, undoubtedly, it can know nothing about what is real, about the truth, about the mysteries of life and death, about the Soul and the Spirit, etc. For the rogues of the intellect, totally trapped by their external senses and incarcerated within the basic concepts of the Sensual Mind, our esoteric studies are lunacy. In the reasoning of the unreasonable, in an insane world, they are right due to conditioning by the external sensory world. How could the Sensual Mind accept what is not sensory?"

...the quote isn't meant to jab.

...you'll find better expression of this, here: The Solar Astral, Solar Mental and Solar Causal Bodies. Worth looking into, at least it is for me.

edit: it is said that we're born 'lunar', which is mechanical - it is nature as nature is. No biggie. When you start to discuss the senses, it is from a lunar perspective. Not in the mid-eastern sense, I agree that the universe is a mother, and that she's cool. (heh)


----------



## cannabineer (Dec 3, 2012)

But is she a MILI? cn


----------



## ClaytonBigsby (Dec 3, 2012)

Obviously you gentlemen are intelligent, I hope I did not insult, however, it is possible to "outsmart" yourselves. Being skeptical IS asking for proof, really. Some of you enjoy the argument for argument's sake. That doesn't interest me.

This section reminds me of an old joke. This guy goes to prison for the first time, and that night a short while after the lights go out, someone yells out "13!" and the place erupts in laughter. A minute later, someone else yells out "81!!", and again the place goes berserk. The new guy asks his cellie what's going on, and he explains that everyone had been there for so long that they all knew the jokes so well they just gave them numbers. Wanting to fit in, the new guy decided to try it. He waited for a moment of silence and yelled out "26!!", but nobody laughed. Horrified, he asked his cellie if that one wasn't funny. His cellie said, "no, it's very funny, you're just telling it wrong".


Sometimes the questions you think so clearly valid, are not the right ones.

I will leave it at that.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Dec 3, 2012)

You said the results are "reproducable", can you tell me how you would reproduce the experience and end up with the same results, or how I could reproduce the experience and end up with the same results?


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Dec 3, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> Intuition and sloppy observation is what led people to believe the earth was flat and the sun revolved around us, it was careful observation and testing, aka science, which showed us the truth.


Intuition begs to differ. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPjuHKfLPdo

Of course, I just did it for the lols.


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Dec 3, 2012)

ClaytonBigsby said:


> It's late and I only read the first three pages, but I wanted to comment. I have had paranormal activity throughout my life. My earliest memories were out of body travel, validated by my parents (4 years old). I have seen so many spirits, and been able to validate them for others. Heard spirits too. Even had a poltergeist on two occasions. Everyone is different and has different gifts. If we didn't have or know about the olympics, most people would never know a human could run 100M in 9 seconds because 99.9% of us cannot. A small few can. A small few can see, hear, and be given information from the "spirit world". Perfecting that gift is difficult, for many reasons. Sometimes it seems more a curse.
> 
> Answering the OP's question, I will give an example. A couple of year ago I was online in a role playing game a friend asked me to join. It's not my thing but I was there killing time until my wife came home. It was late. Some girl did something in the game and I thanked her, we started talking. I asked her why she was up so late (4am her time) and she said she was having a hard time sleeping as her mother recently died. She said they were very close. I excused myself to go get a drink and on my way to the kitchen a woman's voice called out twice, loudly and clearly "Shirly!" I live way out in the country, my closest neighbors a football field away. This came from inside my home and I knew what it was as it has happened many times.
> 
> ...


Very interesting stuff. I will try to get to those poems, I procrastinate on a lot of this stuff, theres too much information out there lol. 

Weird how petty little things like tattoos can still upset a soul thats crossed over and realized life is much more than what happens on Earth. The way they communicate to you is also interesting, they cant just spell it out for you, they give you a riddle to work with. Does it always happen like that when you communicate with whatever is trying to reach out to you?


----------



## eye exaggerate (Dec 3, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> But is she a MILI? cn


...ironically, I'm still trying to piece the 'I' together


----------



## cannabineer (Dec 3, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...ironically, I'm still trying to piece the 'I' together


"inhabit".  cn


----------



## eye exaggerate (Dec 3, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> "inhabit".  cn


...n'ice


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Dec 3, 2012)

See how dangerous it is to _assume _so much without careful examination of the facts.. (rhetorical)


Still waiting on your reply about your experiences being replicable, Bigsby..


----------



## eye exaggerate (Dec 3, 2012)

ClaytonBigsby said:


> Obviously you gentlemen are intelligent, I hope I did not insult, however, it is possible to "outsmart" yourselves. Being skeptical IS asking for proof, really. Some of you enjoy the argument for argument's sake. That doesn't interest me.
> 
> This section reminds me of an old joke. This guy goes to prison for the first time, and that night a short while after the lights go out, someone yells out "13!" and the place erupts in laughter. A minute later, someone else yells out "81!!", and again the place goes berserk. The new guy asks his cellie what's going on, and he explains that everyone had been there for so long that they all knew the jokes so well they just gave them numbers. Wanting to fit in, the new guy decided to try it. He waited for a moment of silence and yelled out "26!!", but nobody laughed. Horrified, he asked his cellie if that one wasn't funny. His cellie said, "no, it's very funny, you're just telling it wrong".
> 
> ...


...it would be half a shame to let this become about intelligence  "extra sensory"


----------



## eye exaggerate (Dec 3, 2012)

...think of the 'abilities' that a shaman has. A shaman has 10 senses. 5 are 'imaginary'. To get to the 'imaginary', one has to calm the thinker - dim the bulb, as it were. Then what? Can you see in the dark? Owls can.

...see?


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Dec 3, 2012)

That analogy doesn't seem to work. Humans can solve complex problems, owls can't. It just highlights different abilities. What would you tell the owl in order to make it think on the level of a human? "dim the bulb"?


----------



## eye exaggerate (Dec 3, 2012)

Padawanbater2 said:


> That analogy doesn't seem to work. Humans can solve complex problems, owls can't. It just highlights different abilities. What would you tell the owl in order to make it think on the level of a human? "dim the bulb"?


...being able to see in the dark is more than a different ability. It implies something of a death. Psychological, of course. Owls do not have to dim the bulb. The bulb works the way it works for them. Humans have the choice. And, if something like an animal tendency is handed back to nature "sacrifice" becomes the open door to something 'other'. By the way, owls can solve complex problems at their level just as well as we can. No room service or loving spouse to solve the food problem. That wasn't the reason for using the owl as an example.


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Dec 3, 2012)

ya owl was a bad choice

animls instinctively eat fuck and procreate . . everything is is just icing 

humans look at the natural world as unnatural, animals see it as the back of ther hands so to speak . . completely different

did you know that some trees can communitcate by scent . . . . . . its not magic its science


----------



## eye exaggerate (Dec 3, 2012)

...elemental - vegetable - animal - human. I could have picked parsley  They've mastered those, and can communicate with them. Also science, magical communication is.


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Dec 3, 2012)

conscious intent should be a part of your distinctions . . . wheres the beef . . . .


----------



## eye exaggerate (Dec 3, 2012)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> conscious intent should be a part of your distinctions . . . .wheres the beef . . . .


...very much agree  ...in the field.


----------



## cannabineer (Dec 3, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...elemental - vegetable - animal - human. I could have picked parsley  They've mastered those, and can communicate with them. Also science, magical communication is.


What's it like to be produce? 
cn


----------



## eye exaggerate (Dec 3, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> What's it like to be produce?
> cn


...I'm a good way through the article. Neat stuff. Receiving impressions is communication. Understanding them takes science - call it rational mind?

"The owl is deeply connected with magic, shamanism and heightened senses"


----------



## cannabineer (Dec 4, 2012)

^Elvis Parsley, no? cn

(the chest hairs are an extra creepy touch.)


----------



## eye exaggerate (Dec 4, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> ^Elvis Parsley, no? cn
> 
> (the chest hairs are an extra creepy touch.)


...yeah, sorry  You'd think there'd be better images - mmmmmmama


----------



## Cannacaster Deluxe (Dec 4, 2012)

That was the funniest shit! I actually LOL'd a couple times. Kudos. I tried sending this message telepathically but there was too much interferance as I live near a slaughterhouse.


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Dec 4, 2012)

Cannacaster Deluxe said:


> That was the funniest shit! I actually LOL'd a couple times. Kudos. I tried sending this message telepathically but there was too much interferance as I live near a slaughterhouse.


More ways to use the Force, there is. Telepathy the only spirit communicator, it is not.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Dec 5, 2012)

Cannacaster Deluxe said:


> That was the funniest shit! I actually LOL'd a couple times. Kudos. I tried sending this message telepathically but there was too much interferance as I live near a slaughterhouse.


...I heard it. But it sounded more like "hey bob-o, what's ZAP!" ...then the sound of a lunch buzzer. *shrugs*


----------



## cannabineer (Dec 5, 2012)

Found this and tougfht of eye. cn


----------

