# PROOF that GOD Exists......



## NetGuruINC (Jun 4, 2012)

I URGE you all to please go to youtube and type in "nde". There is PROOF what happens to us when we die. Go to youtube and type in "nde" which stands for Near Death Experiences and watch and listen to the hundreds of stories from people who have had heart attacks, cancer, car accidents, shot, stabbed, and listen to their stories of what happened to them. There are videos from people all over the world and their experiences ALL coincide with each other. You will see proof that God and Jesus are real, Angels are real, and Hell is real. Everyone needs to check it out seriously...

And these experiences are not all just from Christians, there are stories from atheists, muslims, every type of person walking this earth. Go to youtube and type in "nde"


----------



## ctwalrus (Jun 4, 2012)

now go look up dmt, the pineal gland, and there relation to nde's

i experienced a creator like being of energy as well


----------



## TrynaGroSumShyt (Jun 4, 2012)

Lol, no man...


----------



## NetGuruINC (Jun 4, 2012)

brewing said:


> removed


No need for the insult, its just common sense to me if you wanted to know if there is a God, wouldnt you listen to people who have died and had CPR and paramedics bring them back? I would. It seems to be that people cant put religion to the side for a second and just keep it simple, listen to people who've been clinically dead and listen to what they have to say.


----------



## ctwalrus (Jun 4, 2012)

NetGuruINC said:


> No need for the insult, its just common sense to me if you wanted to know if there is a God, wouldnt you listen to people who have died and had CPR and paramedics bring them back? I would.


well then if you want to listen to that specific classification of people, let me tell you, there is no god.


----------



## crazyhazey (Jun 4, 2012)

you posted this on my thread already, have they really hammered it into your head that hard? NDE's are cause by you pinneal gland, its dimethyltryptamine being released in very large amounts, causing you to go on a very long DMT trip, some times itll reflect someones life. if someone sees heaven or hell, they probably based their lives on the fear of going to hell and wanting to go to heaven. dont let god be the answer to everything, go back to my thread and leave your beliefs at the door, read what me and heisenburg said and rethink your theory on the fallacy that a near death experience is proof of the existence of god. ive done DMT multiple times, and small amounts are released in your brain while dreaming, does having a dream about heaven prove god is real? please elaborate.


----------



## Doer (Jun 4, 2012)

Well, that doesn't prove anything. We have a very, very, vivid sense of imagination. It's called dreaming. In this case, trauma dream. And how can it be surprising that in a trauma dream, we patterned what we have been taught to hope for?

On the other hand the Christian heaven could be very much alive in that last few seconds as our pleasure centers let go the brain chemicals . As we lose what little time sense we ever had, and our survival instinct is overwhelmed with the trauma, it is very possible that we can slip into a death dream that seems eternal to us. So, I am not bursting your bubble completely, perhaps?


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jun 4, 2012)

ctwalrus said:


> now go look up dmt, the pineal gland, and there relation to nde's
> 
> i experienced a creator like being of energy as well


...ok, I get that. But... Just because we know about the pineal and dmt and the god helmet and and and... does not show the how's or why's of the actual experience. Something as 'cold and collected' as natural selection wouldn't send us off with a pleasant trip, would it? I mean, why? So really, we're seeing the projected image but not the projector itself.


----------



## brewing up (Jun 4, 2012)

its prob the bodys way of dying peacefully drugged up from natural defences


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jun 4, 2012)

brewing said:


> its prob the bodys way of dying peacefully drugged up from natural defences


...to what end? (hehe...)


----------



## brewing up (Jun 4, 2012)

there is no god, if anything the whole god story has come from aliens


----------



## NetGuruINC (Jun 4, 2012)

crazyhazey said:


> you posted this on my thread already, have they really hammered it into your head that hard? NDE's are cause by you pinneal gland, its dimethyltryptamine being released in very large amounts, causing you to go on a very long DMT trip, some times itll reflect someones life. if someone sees heaven or hell, they probably based their lives on the fear of going to hell and wanting to go to heaven. dont let god be the answer to everything, go back to my thread and leave your beliefs at the door, read what me and heisenburg said and rethink your theory on the fallacy that a near death experience is proof of the existence of god. ive done DMT multiple times, and small amounts are released in your brain while dreaming, does having a dream about heaven prove god is real? please elaborate.


Honestly, if you dont want to believe in it then thats fine im not pushing it on anyone. There are lots of people who are going to read this thread and I didnt post it to get YOUR approval, im sure at least 1 person will be glad they read this post. Im glad its sparking so much interest though.

Also, your using an experience from a controlled substance as an offense to debate a matter like this? How silly is that?


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jun 4, 2012)

brewing said:


> there is no god, if anything the whole god story has come from aliens


...yep, and aliens are within and there can be no God but God so we're all God then right? Including the aliens?


----------



## Doer (Jun 4, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...to what end? (hehe...)


 IT could be to set you up for the Kingdom you created. When you look at the God question from religions fantasy it is so shattered. But, if we look at religion as a way to mold our death dream. it makes perfect sense.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jun 4, 2012)

Doer said:


> IT could be to set you up for the Kingdom you created. When you look at the God question from religions fantasy it is so shattered. But, if we look at religion as a way to mold our death dream. it makes perfect sense.


...seems about right to me. Maybe death is the after-image of life. You'll get to see all the stuff you 'kinda' missed.


----------



## Rcb (Jun 4, 2012)

I FCKING LOVE DMT!!!!


----------



## gogsyc (Jun 4, 2012)

NetGuruINC said:


> I URGE you all to please go to youtube and type in "nde". There is PROOF what happens to us when we die.


well if its on Youtube it must be real


----------



## crazyhazey (Jun 4, 2012)

NetGuruINC said:


> Honestly, if you dont want to believe in it then thats fine im not pushing it on anyone. There are lots of people who are going to read this thread and I didnt post it to get YOUR approval, im sure at least 1 person will be glad they read this post. Im glad its sparking so much interest though.
> 
> Also, your using a controlled substance as an offense to debate a matter like this? How silly is that?


believe? im trying to save you from falling into this shit like all the fucking people in our nation have. the 1 person who will agree with you is just as ignorant to science as you are. read about the pinneal glad before you go off trying to categorize dimethyltrytamine as a "controlled substance", it exists in your brain already. DMT= dimethyltryptamine if you didnt understand. now please, go on and tell us how the release of this chemical in your brain proves that god is real. please do. id love to hear all the proof you have.


----------



## Doer (Jun 4, 2012)

NetGuruINC said:


> Honestly, if you dont want to believe in it then thats fine im not pushing it on anyone. There are lots of people who are going to read this thread and I didnt post it to get YOUR approval, im sure at least 1 person will be glad they read this post. Im glad its sparking so much interest though.
> 
> Also, your using an experience from a controlled substance as an offense to debate a matter like this? How silly is that?


If we on rollitup would stop the emotion charged right-fight debates, then some of us could discuss ideas. But, I see a lot of forum behaviour that is very juvi. Why are you guys arguing about nothing? Are you trying to be RIGHT?  Impossible. No one is saving anyone from anything on a God discussion. Get over it.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jun 4, 2012)

gogsyc said:


> well if its on Youtube it must be real



...don't know if that's a great argument. There's some really real stuff on there. Like, really real


----------



## NetGuruINC (Jun 4, 2012)

And for the rest of you scientist out there talking like you have a PHD, checkout the near death experience from a REAL Neuroscientist:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlwyU0_M88o


----------



## gogsyc (Jun 4, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...don't know if that's a great argument. There's some really real stuff on there. Like, really real


Really ?


----------



## Doer (Jun 4, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...seems about right to me. Maybe death is the after-image of life. You'll get to see all the stuff you 'kinda' missed.


Maybe life is the afterimage of death, in quantum speak?


----------



## NetGuruINC (Jun 4, 2012)

gogsyc said:


> well if its on Youtube it must be real


Only when theres hundreds of videos from people all over the world saying the same thing that dont even know each other, and all of them have proof from doctors and paramedics that they were clinically dead, thats when you can say its real


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jun 4, 2012)

NetGuruINC said:


> And for the rest of you scientist out there talking like you have a PHD, checkout the near death experience from a REAL Neuroscientist:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlwyU0_M88o



...bowtie - this guy's legit


----------



## gogsyc (Jun 4, 2012)

Doer said:


> Maybe life is the afterimage of death, in quantum speak?


Maybe how you existed before you were born will be how it will be after u die


----------



## brewing up (Jun 4, 2012)

there all money grabbing cons and sick cults to control people


----------



## crazyhazey (Jun 4, 2012)

Doer said:


> If we on rollitup would stop the emotion charged right-fight debates, then some of us could discuss ideas. But, I see a lot of forum behaviour that is very juvi. Why are you guys arguing about nothing? Are you trying to be RIGHT?  Impossible. No one is saving anyone from anything on a God discussion. Get over it.


the sad thing is a near death experience doesnt have anything to do with the existence of god, its your pinneal gland releasing the chemical known as DMT into your body, much like a really long dream. those who have a disregard for science do not deserve my respect, as they dont respect people put their lives towards researching the things religion attempts to answer, if you dont remember not too long ago these religious groups killed people for finding the facts of life. we have the answers now, some are just too ignorant to listen.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jun 4, 2012)

Doer said:


> Maybe life is the afterimage of death, in quantum speak?



...weird, they say experience is 'taste' and quarks have 'flavor'. Maybe we're here to _season_ our next existence


----------



## Doer (Jun 4, 2012)

NetGuruINC said:


> And for the rest of you scientist out there talking like you have a PHD, checkout the near death experience from a REAL Neuroscientist:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlwyU0_M88o


I know about him. His experience was that his experience was impossible (from a very limited 21 Century view of Neuroscience.) But, it still happened in a dream. The order of things made it seem impossible to him after he regained consciousness and time sense, (to the degree possible) He remembered an order of events even though he should realized the paradox of him pushing order onto a past trauma dream memory.

And no one here accuses me of talking like I have a PhD. Quite the opposite.


----------



## gogsyc (Jun 4, 2012)

NetGuruINC said:


> Only when theres hundreds of videos from people all over the world saying the same thing that dont even know each other, and all of them have proof from doctors and paramedics that they were clinically dead, thats when you can say its real


Not necessarily, there are thousands of hours of film about all kind of crazy shit just because there is alot of it does'nt make it real


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jun 4, 2012)

Doer said:


> I know about him. His experience was that his experience was impossible (from a very limited 21 Century view of Neuroscience.) But, it still happened in a dream. The order of things made it seem impossible to him after he regained consciousness and time sense, (to the degree possible) He remembered an order of events even though he should realized the paradox of him pushing order onto a past trauma dream memory.


...but without being able to describe it, it would have no function but for himself. Whoa, maybe that's the way it's suppoooooosed to be  (But, I dunno...)


----------



## TogTokes (Jun 4, 2012)

I have some Proof that Wizards are real, and Santa really does Fly! 

Watch this!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83M60qeRyMc&feature=related

I am super cereal.


----------



## NetGuruINC (Jun 4, 2012)

crazyhazey said:


> the sad thing is a near death experience doesnt have anything to do with the existence of god, its your pinneal gland releasing the chemical known as DMT into your body, much like a really long dream. those who have a disregard for science do not deserve my respect, as they dont respect people put their lives towards researching the things religion attempts to answer, if you dont remember not too long ago these religious groups killed people for finding the facts of life. we have the answers now, some are just too ignorant to listen.


LOL, your trying to make it all complex and complicated, its very simple, YOU DIE.... WHAT HAPPENS? No needs for scientist, or DMT talk, or even religion. Just a simple question, when we die.... What happens? Simply listen to the people who have been clinically dead, there are hundreds on youtube, and come to your own conclusion. No need for DMT bro, eheh


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 4, 2012)

crazyhazey said:


> believe? im trying to save you from falling into this shit like all the fucking people in our nation have. the 1 person who will agree with you is just as ignorant to science as you are. read about the pinneal glad before you go off trying to categorize dimethyltrytamine as a "controlled substance", it exists in your brain already. DMT= dimethyltryptamine if you didnt understand. now please, go on and tell us how the release of this chemical in your brain proves that god is real. please do. id love to hear all the proof you have.


Good luck.

Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day; teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime; give a man religion and he will die praying for a fish. - Anonymous

&#8203;Spaghetti. 
​


----------



## Gastanker (Jun 4, 2012)

When you die DMT floods your body - aren't we talking about what happens when you die? lol Btw, none of those people they interviewed died - really hard to interview a dead person. 

Now here's some real proof. 
[video=youtube;_65HTRGJqo4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_65HTRGJqo4[/video]


----------



## TogTokes (Jun 4, 2012)

Gastanker said:


> When you die DMT floods your body - aren't we talking about what happens when you die? lol Btw, none of those people they interviewed died - really hard to interview a dead person.
> 
> Now here's some real proof.
> [video=youtube;_65HTRGJqo4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_65HTRGJqo4[/video]


Nice haha.... Mold is obviously jesus.


----------



## NetGuruINC (Jun 4, 2012)

gogsyc said:


> Not necessarily, there are thousands of hours of film about all kind of crazy shit just because there is alot of it does'nt make it real


Youve got people who have told the doctors EXACTLY what they were doing while they were clinically dead. Clinically dead means YOUR HEART HAS STOPPED AND IS NOT BEATING. So tell me how is it possible for a person to know that in the waiting room, their mom was praying, and they dad was on the phone frantic. But yet theyre heart has stopped and their dead in the emergency room. EVERY story has the same experience. So what are they all psychics?


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 4, 2012)

gogsyc said:


> Maybe how you existed before you were born will be how it will be after u die


Indeed, it's true. You were simple minerals floating in the universe. Then your mother ingested them and collected them into you. After you die, your body breaks down into simple minerals, which another pregnant lady will eat, and make another baby.


----------



## Doer (Jun 4, 2012)

NetGuruINC said:


> Only when theres hundreds of videos from people all over the world saying the same thing that dont even know each other, and all of them have proof from doctors and paramedics that they were clinically dead, thats when you can say its real


No one that reveals these dreams is clinically dead. These are so-called NDE. You can read about how long it takes to actually die from severe trauma.


----------



## Gastanker (Jun 4, 2012)

When I died I didn't have that experience... Actually NONE of the people I know that have died have had that experience. Do you have any idea of how many people clinically die? the vast majority don't have an experience like you claim "everyone" has...


----------



## TogTokes (Jun 4, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> Indeed, it's true. You were simple minerals floating in the universe. Then your mother ingested them and collected them into you. After you die, your body breaks down into simple minerals, which another pregnant lady will eat, and make another baby.


better go on a diet.


----------



## TogTokes (Jun 4, 2012)

Why people make Religious posts on a marijuana forum is beyond me. Stop already.


----------



## Gastanker (Jun 4, 2012)

Do you know what dead is?


----------



## Doer (Jun 4, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> Indeed, it's true. You were simple minerals floating in the universe. Then your mother ingested them and collected them into you. After you die, your body breaks down into simple minerals, which another pregnant lady will eat, and make another baby.


But, are YOU mere meat? Or are you consciousness riding the meat-bot? There are no simple minerals floating around to make consciousness. One does not even attain any consciousness of the self aware variety for many month after birth, 18-24 months, actually.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jun 4, 2012)

TogTokes said:


> Why people make Religious posts on a marijuana forum is beyond me. Stop already.



*points at your avatar*


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 4, 2012)

TogTokes said:


> better go on a diet.


People give birth to huge babies all the time. See, I have proof! (Waves a National Enquirer in the air)


----------



## gogsyc (Jun 4, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> Indeed, it's true. You were simple minerals floating in the universe. Then your mother ingested them and collected them into you. After you die, your body breaks down into simple minerals, which another pregnant lady will eat, and make another baby.



Mystery solved, thank you


----------



## crazyhazey (Jun 4, 2012)

NetGuruINC said:


> Only when theres hundreds of videos from people all over the world saying the same thing that dont even know each other, and all of them have proof from doctors and paramedics that they were clinically dead, thats when you can say its real


where does it say that when your dead and you see things that the idea of god is automatically a fact? i dont see your logic here. your brain lives long past the time your whole body lives, once again, its just your pinneal gland. why dont you look up the pinneal gland on youtube since you seem to have so much time to just watch near death experiences.

you seem to deny so many facts, theres no way you werent a hardcore christian before this. get off riu if all you wanna do is recruit people to your flawed religion, its a scam and all the countries and continents besides ours has come to realize this. ill go get heisenburg's quote, we've already discussed how NDE's have nothing to do with god's existence. im sorry but your just posts are just becoming annoying and whenever i confront you, theres no real comeback. this conversation is pointless, me and heisenburg already proved you wrong, you just went off to another thread in hope to find someone as ignorant to the existence of your pinneal gland. not to mention you tried telling me DMT is a controlled substance, believe it or not you use it every night when you go to bed. 



NetGuruINC said:


> you guys want proof of the truth? go to youtube and type in "nde" and checkout near death experiences. EVERY video and i mean EVERY PERSON who had a near death experience has reported either going to hell or heaven, some went to heaven and saw Jesus and other relatives, some went to hell and saw torment. This is TRUE stuff you guys NEED to check it out theres tons of these videos of people reporting their NDE. Jesus is the truth and the only way, do the research on NDE's (Near Death Experiences)





Heisenberg said:


> How is a disruption in normal brain function evidence for Jesus?
> 
> NDE's are nothing new, and very few people actually report seeing heaven or hell specifically. Some see flames, some see a bright light, some float above their body, some review moments from thier life, some float through a foggy tunnel, some hear buzzing and tones, some see relatives, both dead and alive... the list is actually pretty big, and none of these happen within the same experience. What's more interesting is the staggering number of people who come near death and do not experience anything. I guess most of us do not get to go either place.
> 
> If you are going to be impressed by the similarities in the stories, then you must acknowledge that other experiences humans have are almost identical. Divers or pilots experiencing rapid pressure change, people taking LSD, people fasting for long periods, people who are dreaming, and people suffering from schizophrenia all have NDE's that have nothing to do with death. The common thread is altered brain function.


----------



## NetGuruINC (Jun 4, 2012)

TogTokes said:


> Why people make Religious posts on a marijuana forum is beyond me. Stop already.


First of all my post is under Spirituality, Sexuality, and Philosophy, its where its suppose t obe. Secondly if you dont like it then why are you posting?


----------



## Doer (Jun 4, 2012)

TogTokes said:


> Why people make Religious posts on a marijuana forum is beyond me. Stop already.


You think the ganga is a Sin? Self fulfill yourself.


----------



## TogTokes (Jun 4, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> People give birth to huge babies all the time. See, I have proof! (Waves a National Enquirer in the air)


haha!!!! indeed.


----------



## NetGuruINC (Jun 4, 2012)

crazyhazey said:


> where does it say that when your dead and you see things that the idea of god is automatically a fact? i dont see your logic here. your brain lives long past the time your whole body lives, once again, its just your pinneal gland. why dont you look up the pinneal gland on youtube since you seem to have so much time to just watch near death experiences.
> 
> you seem to deny so many facts, theres no way you werent a hardcore christian before this. get off riu if all you wanna do is recruit people to your flawed religion, its a scam and all the countries and continents besides ours has come to realize this. ill go get heisenburg's quote, we've already discussed how NDE's have nothing to do with god's existence. im sorry but your just posts are just becoming annoying and whenever i confront you, theres no real comeback. this conversation is pointless, me and heisenburg already proved you wrong, you just went off to another thread in hope to find someone as ignorant to the existence of your pinneal gland. not to mention you tried telling me DMT is a controlled substance, believe it or not you use it every night when you go to bed.


you must be crazy if you think im going to read all of that, I told you if you dont want to hear about it then dont, your opinion has been noted, why are you still posting?


----------



## crazyhazey (Jun 4, 2012)

NetGuruINC said:


> I have to call you an idiot, im sorry, I do. Do you know what CPR is used for? Do you know what shock defibrillation is? Do you know what emergency surgery is?


im done being nice to you, now your just being straight up fuckin arrogant.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jun 4, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> People give birth to huge babies all the time. See, I have proof! (Waves a National Enquirer in the air)



...I think most women would say that any baby is a huge baby. I mean, like, holy crap


----------



## TogTokes (Jun 4, 2012)

NetGuruINC said:


> First of all my post is under Spirituality, Sexuality, and Philosophy, its where its suppose t obe. Secondly if you dont like it then why are you posting?


I am here for the LOLs sir nothing more. Good day to you sir!


----------



## Gastanker (Jun 4, 2012)

I like that the OP believes in a god that cant control death and life. So were saying that man has bested god and can bring people back from the dead? If resurrection is no big deal then why do we care about Jesus?


----------



## Doer (Jun 4, 2012)

NetGuruINC said:


> I have to call you an idiot, im sorry, I do. Do you know what CPR is used for? Do you know what shock defibrillation is? Do you know what emergency surgery is?


Why stoop to name calling? Are you that inarticulate?


----------



## crazyhazey (Jun 4, 2012)

NetGuruINC said:


> you must be crazy if you think im going to read all of that, I told you if you dont want to hear about it then dont, your opinion has been noted, why are you still posting?


i see religion has gotten the best of you, please deny everything, thats what your pastor wants you to do right


----------



## TogTokes (Jun 4, 2012)

Pastors love little boys for the most part..


My two cents.


----------



## NetGuruINC (Jun 4, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> *points at your avatar*


In GENESIS it clearly states all plants yielding their own seed is from God. Peaches, watermelon, apples, pairs, plums, all yield their own seed. Marijuana does as well, so in my belief there is nothing wrong with the plant, its the person using the plant who has the responsibility.


----------



## Doer (Jun 4, 2012)

Gastanker said:


> When I died I didn't have that experience... Actually NONE of the people I know that have died have had that experience. Do you have any idea of how many people clinically die? the vast majority don't have an experience like you claim "everyone" has...


.

I've almost died a couple of times, in the hospital. All I remember is the pain begins to ebb.


----------



## NetGuruINC (Jun 4, 2012)

crazyhazey said:


> i see religion has gotten the best of you, please deny everything, thats what your pastor wants you to do right


Actually I dont have a religion nor do I believe in religion. There is no such thing as religion, only truth. Religion is the worst thing in the world fyi


----------



## Gastanker (Jun 4, 2012)

Resurrection is no big deal, happens all the time everyday all around the world. Now Jesus and Mary images on toast...


----------



## TogTokes (Jun 4, 2012)

NetGuruINC said:


> Actually I dont have a religion nor do I believe in religion. There is no such thing as religion, only truth. Religion is the worst thing in the world fyi


Religion has to be the Number 1 Cause of wars/violence in some countries.


----------



## NetGuruINC (Jun 4, 2012)

TogTokes said:


> Religion has to be the Number 1 Cause of wars/violence in some countries.


Well at least there is 1 thing we do agree on....


----------



## Gastanker (Jun 4, 2012)

This is the one that persuaded me. Definitely a god out there, no debating about it after you see this.


----------



## crazyhazey (Jun 4, 2012)

Doer said:


> You think the ganga is a Sin? Self fulfill yourself.


nothing is a "sin", thats just another way christians and catholics make people fall into religion; fear. if you sin, you go to hell. nobody wants to go to hell, so whatever the church says is a "sin", you will obviously prevent from doing so. this is exactly what they want from you. thats why they get to children at such a young age when their imagination still runs wild, burning in hell doesnt sound nearly as fun as having fun with god in heaven does it? yeah, no shit that kid is gonna listen to every last thing his pastor says, and when that kid gets raped and his pastor tells him he'll go to hell if he tells anyone, how do you think this kid is gonna react? dont let religion fool you, its fucked up and we all know it, either you werent traumatized as a kid or you were, if you let it stick to you then i feel sorry for you. i did feel sorry for the OP, he is probably one of these kids. after he called gastanker an idiot though, i lost what little respect i had for him.


----------



## TogTokes (Jun 4, 2012)

NetGuruINC said:


> Well at least there is 1 thing we do agree on....


I am just not one to believe in any type of Magic bro.

Spirituality wise, i believe what i can see/taste/touch and or grow myself. Fuck all the commercial shit i love the mountains, good internet, and coffee is all i really need haha with some nice sweet ganja.

So i guess mother nature is my God lol.... So to say. 


hard to explain i guess pretty blazed.... Purple Goo has me Screwed


----------



## Doer (Jun 4, 2012)

crazyhazey said:


> im done being nice to you, now your just being straight up fuckin arrogant.


The problem here is that people care what some stranger thinks about them and then get frustrated when they can't be RIGHT. This is forum folks, not a cocktail party. Cocktail banter that would get you punched out is not appropriate for a forum unless and until can reach thru the wire to your nose.


----------



## crazyhazey (Jun 4, 2012)

NetGuruINC said:


> Actually I dont have a religion nor do I believe in religion. There is no such thing as religion, only truth. Religion is the worst thing in the world fyi


lol yet your pushing the fact that the release of DMT proves god exists? why do you have such a commitment to this? you believed in god waaaay before you watched those youtube videos i guarantee.


----------



## ctwalrus (Jun 4, 2012)

im more intrigued and fascinated with the mysteries of dmt than i am with the mysteries of god/religion/nde's

like for instance, why is the human mind capable of hallucinating like that, there has to be a reason for the ability. HAS TO! 
this question has and will always daunt me


----------



## TogTokes (Jun 4, 2012)

I would never touch a drug called DMT, i am fine how i am lol.

SPAGHETTI


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jun 4, 2012)

NetGuruINC said:


> In GENESIS it clearly states all plants yielding their own seed is from God. Peaches, watermelon, apples, pairs, plums, all yield their own seed. Marijuana does as well, so in my belief there is nothing wrong with the plant, its the person using the plant who has the responsibility.



...all I meant was _Don't Panic_  > and, of course, the pointing part was kinda funny / themed.


----------



## NetGuruINC (Jun 4, 2012)

Gastanker said:


> This is the one that persuaded me. Definitely a god out there, no debating about it after you see this.
> 
> 
> You can keep making jokes thats fine, but dont think its stopping people from at least checking out what im saying, glad your interested though.....
> ...


----------



## TogTokes (Jun 4, 2012)

Here you go man, Watch it lemme know what you think...

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


----------



## ctwalrus (Jun 4, 2012)

TogTokes said:


> I would never touch a drug called DMT, i am fine how i am lol.
> 
> SPAGHETTI



no you really should, normally i wouldnt peer pressure. but i think your missing out on a quintessential part of life without this experience of ego rip, reality drop, and forceful prioritization


----------



## crazyhazey (Jun 4, 2012)

TogTokes said:


> I would never touch a drug called DMT, i am fine how i am lol.
> 
> SPAGHETTI


you do it every night when you go to sleep, how do you feel now.


----------



## TogTokes (Jun 4, 2012)

ctwalrus said:


> no you really should, normally i wouldnt peer pressure. but i think your missing out on a quintessential part of life without this experience of ego rip, reality drop, and forceful prioritization


Are you serious?


----------



## Doer (Jun 4, 2012)

crazyhazey said:


> nothing is a "sin", thats just another way christians and catholics make people fall into religion; fear. if you sin, you go to hell. nobody wants to go to hell, so whatever the church says is a "sin", you will obviously prevent from doing so. this is exactly what they want from you. thats why they get to children at such a young age when their imagination still runs wild, burning in hell doesnt sound nearly as fun as having fun with god in heaven does it? yeah, no shit that kid is gonna listen to every last thing his pastor says, and when that kid gets raped and his pastor tells him he'll go to hell if he tells anyone, how do you think this kid is gonna react? dont let religion fool you, its fucked up and we all know it, either you werent traumatized as a kid or you were, if you let it stick to you then i feel sorry for you. i did feel sorry for the OP, he is probably one of these kids. after he called gastanker an idiot though, i lost what little respect i had for him.


Respect is an odd concept for forum. Politeness is much better. No name calling, no raising the VOICE, no characterizations of the person, (horses-ass and worse) and realize we are all wrong. No one can be right in a forum.


----------



## Gastanker (Jun 4, 2012)

Lol, an out of control drugged up alcoholic is your reference point? Really?


----------



## TogTokes (Jun 4, 2012)

but if you force it, does it not affect what produces it in your body overall?

Not sure if i am right but thought i read that somewhere, Meth etc does it i do know.


----------



## ctwalrus (Jun 4, 2012)

crazyhazey said:


> you do it every night when you go to sleep, how do you feel now.



not consciously. you know its different dont pass it off as a simple dream.


----------



## glassblower3000 (Jun 4, 2012)

you get a free dmt high when you die???that proves there is a god...lol


----------



## TogTokes (Jun 4, 2012)

crazyhazey said:


> you do it every night when you go to sleep, how do you feel now.


very fucking high my friend.


----------



## ctwalrus (Jun 4, 2012)

TogTokes said:


> Are you serious?


very. 
dmt will strip you of your beliefs and show you that your nothing
at the same time it will show you what a beautiful connection you make in the universe.

its complete bliss and will honestly change the way you think for the better. 
ive never seen a negative opinion from someone whos done it.


----------



## Gastanker (Jun 4, 2012)

My wife likes it when I choke her during sex. I'm pretty sure it's because she's becoming closer to god while she climaxes. Hmmm, maybe god's a pervert.


----------



## ctwalrus (Jun 4, 2012)

TogTokes said:


> very fucking high my friend.


no hes right. dmt is produced in small amounts in sleep. 
large amounts at the point of birth and death 

you can experience those large amounts through non natural ingestion but thats not to say its unnatural. 
litterally every living thing has dmt in it from grass to jellyfish. 
reptiles produce large amounts as well, and in fact the pineal gland in reptiles has a cornea and a retina. AS IF IT WERE THE THIRD EYE 
the pineal gland in all creatures is located dead center of the brain, right between the eyes.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jun 4, 2012)

...here's one important question (to me). Where did all the material in each unique experience come from? And I mean in either 'spiritual experience' or 'non-spiritual experience'. Are you only there to witness it, or do you have a part in the creation of it? Most of the time people are overwhelmed by the experience so to me that could mean one of two things:

1 - the experience is from something 'other' and really affects a person at the core

or

2 - the experience was created by the person and the person is taken back by what they can actually do


3 - conscious co-creation?


----------



## NetGuruINC (Jun 4, 2012)

Gastanker said:


> My wife likes it when I choke her during sex. I'm pretty sure it's because she's becoming closer to god while she climaxes. Hmmm, maybe god's a pervert.


Why must this forum have immature posters like you? you must be a teenager, this post was just for people who may have been interested, if ur not interested then cool, why are u still posting?


----------



## crazyhazey (Jun 4, 2012)

Doer said:


> The problem here is that people care what some stranger thinks about them and then get frustrated when they can't be RIGHT. This is forum folks, not a cocktail party. Cocktail banter that would get you punched out is not appropriate for a forum unless and until can reach thru the wire to your nose.


are you implying that i care what this guy thinks about me? i could give less fucks, im sorry but nobody on here will effect me except those that present me with actual knowledge that can be proven through science or repeated experimentation. i dont respect someone who calls a respected member of our community an idiot for asking a simple question, better yet those who dont even debate on a thread they started and respond to a post by saying "im not gonna read all that", he read all those posts before, if you read it, me and heisenburg already disproved him on this subject, hes just afraid to admit being wrong. thats pathetic, sorry. no actually, im not sorry at all. whoever tries to keep spreading false information after being clearly disproved is the real idiot here.


----------



## crazyhazey (Jun 4, 2012)

TogTokes said:


> very fucking high my friend.


lol are you another person who denies the existence of the pinneal gland?


----------



## Gastanker (Jun 4, 2012)

How am I not interested. I'm very interested in how you blindly follow the belief of a select few when the majority of experiences differ. You haven't brushed on this at all. Why do the VAST MAJORITY of people who's hearts stop not have these experiences?


----------



## crazyhazey (Jun 4, 2012)

ctwalrus said:


> not consciously. you know its different dont pass it off as a simple dream.


yes it is different, the same way an NDE is different from a dream, its in much larger amounts. thats it, that doesnt mean you dont have a little bit of DMT released while dreaming. its amazing that so many people see DMT as such a bad drug, little do they know they've been doing it for years. i love how hypocritical our world is


----------



## Gastanker (Jun 4, 2012)

If you take blood thinners and get up too quickly you'll get light headed and see flashing lights. I'm curious, is this the same as seeing angels?


----------



## ctwalrus (Jun 4, 2012)

Gastanker said:


> If you take blood thinners and get up too quickly you'll get light headed and see flashing lights. I'm curious, is this the same as seeing angels?


yes!!
do me, yourself, and others the favor of doing this, repeatedly over and over. 
theres a darwin in your future lad!


----------



## mellokitty (Jun 4, 2012)

this forum sorely needs a "sarcasm" button.......


----------



## Doer (Jun 4, 2012)

crazyhazey said:


> are you implying that i care what this guy thinks about me? i could give less fucks, im sorry but nobody on here will effect me except those that present me with actual knowledge that can be proven through science or repeated experimentation. i dont respect someone who calls a respected member of our community an idiot for asking a simple question, better yet those who dont even debate on a thread they started and respond to a post by saying "im not gonna read all that", he read all those posts before, if you read it, me and heisenburg already disproved him on this subject, hes just afraid to admit being wrong. thats pathetic, sorry. no actually, im not sorry at all. whoever tries to keep spreading false information after being clearly disproved is the real idiot here.


No. You seem to care that he does not agree with you. You seem to insist on characterizing him. "he's just afraid to admit being wrong, that's pathetic..." Why care? Or why act like you do? You are as wrong as he is, imo.


----------



## Doer (Jun 4, 2012)

mellokitty said:


> this forum sorely needs a "sarcasm" button.......


 Sarcasm is a very poor form of communication.
Woops, I'm being sarcastic.


----------



## crazyhazey (Jun 4, 2012)

ctwalrus said:


> not consciously. you know its different dont pass it off as a simple dream.


only difference is the amount of DMT released, if you do a small amount it does seem a bit like a simple dream, although the body high can be a bit overwhelming when you first try it.


----------



## Doer (Jun 4, 2012)

NetGuruINC said:


> Why must this forum have immature posters like you? you must be a teenager, this post was just for people who may have been interested, if ur not interested then cool, why are u still posting?


Why do you care who posts what? The right-fight?


----------



## crazyhazey (Jun 4, 2012)

Doer said:


> No. You seem to care that he does not agree with you. You seem to insist on characterizing him. "he's just afraid to admit being wrong, that's pathetic..." Why care? Or why act like you do? You are as wrong as he is, imo.


its pathetic when someone avoids facts that you present, better yet the facts that like all of us did. and wait, so saying that a NDE is caused by the release of DMT is wrong? if it is i dont wanna be right.


----------



## lordjin (Jun 4, 2012)

Hey, anyone want to smoke some weed?


----------



## crazyhazey (Jun 4, 2012)

lordjin said:


> Hey, anyone want to smoke some weed?


hahaha ah LJ perfect timing, id love to but im taking a tolerance break at the moment.


----------



## Gastanker (Jun 4, 2012)

I use to smoke weed but someone 'proved' to me that it's a communist conspiracy to take over the world. You see at least ten different people were video recorded saying so - if it's on youtube its true you know...


----------



## lordjin (Jun 4, 2012)

crazyhazey said:


> hahaha ah LJ perfect timing, id love to but im taking a tolerance break at the moment.


Oh, shit! Tolerance break! I need that! How's it going? Are you pushing kids off their skateboards yet? That's what I do during "tolerance breaks." Lol.


----------



## crazyhazey (Jun 4, 2012)

Gastanker said:


> I use to smoke weed but someone 'proved' to me that it's a communist conspiracy to take over the world. You see at least ten different people were video recorded saying so - if it's on youtube its true you know...


hahahaha im loving these posts, keep em comin.


----------



## crazyhazey (Jun 4, 2012)

lordjin said:


> Oh, shit! Tolerance break! I need that! How's it going? Are you pushing kids off their skateboards yet? That's what I do during "tolerance breaks." Lol.


damn lj i was one of those kids at one time, not cool... hahahaha nah im just fuckin with ya, i dont think anyone would have dared pushed me when i still skated, i was always with a whole bunch of kids when i did, i think most people avoided us in fact(not trying to sound like a badass).
and no actually im doing pretty good amazingly. i do smoke for back pain and insomnia, but i was kinda going over budget as far as weed and hash goes. i mean i feel fine, just not as entertained as weed would make me, you know how it goes, television just doesnt have as much humor as it does when im high as a kite. but after about the 3rd day of not smoking, you forget smoking really exists at all, well, until the back pain and insomnia kick in of course lol.


----------



## NetGuruINC (Jun 4, 2012)

crazyhazey said:


> its pathetic when someone avoids facts that you present, better yet the facts that like all of us did. and wait, so saying that a NDE is caused by the release of DMT is wrong? if it is i dont wanna be right.


LOL, I went to the store to get some swisher sweets, I come back and your still going on about how wrong I am, other users are even asking why your still commenting. Dude, OK, you believe in DMT, we get it. Why are your panties all in a bunch? Did this post effect you that much? It seems you are in your feelings, its a weed forum dude smoke a joint and chill out Mr. DMT. eheh


----------



## crazyhazey (Jun 4, 2012)

NetGuruINC said:


> LOL, I went to the store to get some swisher sweets, I come back and your still going on about how wrong I am, other users are even asking why your still commenting. Dude, OK, you believe in DMT, we get it. Why are your panties all in a bunch?


oh i thought you were just watching more near death experiences trying to find god, my mistake. and are you telling me you don't "believe" in DMT? it exists and its in your brain right now, go to bed and youll be doing a small amount of it. and if you see god in your dreams tell us how that proves he exists. btw who asked why i was still commenting?


----------



## NetGuruINC (Jun 4, 2012)

crazyhazey said:


> oh i thought you were just watching more near death experiences trying to find god, my mistake. and are you telling me you don't "believe" in DMT? it exists and its in your brain right now, go to bed and youll be doing a small amount of it. and if you see god in your dreams tell us how that proves he exists. btw who asked why i was still commenting?


Dude im telling you that your opinion has been noted. Your opinion is of 1 man, you are 1 opinion from 1 man and you have your right to your opinion. The point of this post was just to show people about near death experiences and to come to their own conclusions. You have come to your conclusion, now can you move on to the next thread? All me and you are going to do is agree to disagree. Your not my wife im not going back and forth with you dude, its not that serious....


----------



## BA142 (Jun 4, 2012)

I have proof that God doesn't exist. It's called the complete lack of actual scientific proof.


----------



## lordjin (Jun 4, 2012)

crazyhazey said:


> damn lj i was one of those kids at one time, not cool... hahahaha nah im just fuckin with ya, i dont think anyone would have dared pushed me when i still skated, i was always with a whole bunch of kids when i did, i think most people avoided us in fact(not trying to sound like a badass).
> and no actually im doing pretty good amazingly. i do smoke for back pain and insomnia, but i was kinda going over budget as far as weed and hash goes. i mean i feel fine, just not as entertained as weed would make me, you know how it goes, television just doesnt have as much humor as it does when im high as a kite. but after about the 3rd day of not smoking, you forget smoking really exists at all, well, until the back pain and insomnia kick in of course lol.


Don't worry, I only push little, little kids on skateboards... leaving the older skate-gangs alone Lol. And aside from pushing the occasional elderly person, that's about it. 

Three days? Wow. I haven't gone a day without smoking for the past three years. Lately I've been trying to remember what it's like NOT being high, but I just can't recall! Lol. I have been thinking about taking a break just for the hell of it, though. The only thing that concernes me is that I'll have to stop for a week or more to have any kind of real impact on my tolerance. I have it coursing through my veins constantly, so even on days I don't smoke in the morning, I'm high all day. Yeah, gotta stop for a bit myself.


----------



## NetGuruINC (Jun 4, 2012)

BA142 said:


> I have proof that God doesn't exist. It's called the complete lack of actual scientific proof.


Scientist only accept proof from things that can be measured. If it cant be measured then science will always rule it out. For this simple fact alone, a scientist is the last person you want to listen to, because they are completely closed minded. I mean come on think about it, the earth has been here for millions of years, a human being only lives about 80 years including scientist. It's baffling to me when people talk about "scientific proof", compared to how long this earth has been here the human race has only been alive for 2 minutes. Literally...... so how much could a scientist/human being possibly know? Lol

Everyone on this forum hasnt been here for more than 80 years, and on top of that I bet only 1 or two people have a degree in this field and they probably arent even logged on right now. The earth has been here for millions of years, and somehow people think theyve got it all figured out, THATS hilarious to me....


----------



## lordjin (Jun 4, 2012)

Smoke enough weed, you'll see angels.


----------



## crazyhazey (Jun 4, 2012)

NetGuruINC said:


> Dude im telling you that your opinion has been noted. Your opinion is of 1 man, you are 1 opinion from 1 man and you have your right to your opinion. The point of this post was just to show people about near death experiences and to come to their own conclusions. You have come to your conclusion, now can you move on to the next thread? All me and you are going to do is agree to disagree. Your not my wife im not going back and forth with you dude, its not that serious....


an opinion is something that doesnt have proof, this isnt what i presented here, i presented solid facts but you chose ignorance. but to you, if someone "dies" and sees what they believe to be god then comes back to tell the story, it is automatically proof to you. me and heisenburg presented you all of these same facts on my thread too, yet you didnt respond. 
your thoughts arent worth mine or anyones efforts as your beliefs can be swayed by hearing about someone's NDE, which is a high dosage DMT trip. i can tell you about all my DMT trips, they have as much meaning as these near death experiences, as you wont learn outside knowledge when DMT is released, only knowledge about yourself. im sorry if im educated on a drug that just so happens to be the only thing that causes these experiences as wells as dreaming, it seems your ignorance led you to believe a high dosage DMT trip is the works of god, its simply your pinneal gland releasing a chemical that makes you see what is really in the depths of your mind, what you revolve your life around especially, im sure many people look for god before they die so just because they "saw" something doesnt mean it does exist, ive done DMT and been to places i cant explain, this doesnt mean this place exists in reality, rather in my mind.

i dont see any point in speaking to you, whenever i try to present a point, youll probably just write "your crazy to think im gonna read all that", some people are illiterate and theyd love to be able to learn what i have presented to you, unfortunately you dont appreciate the fact that your opinion about god existing due to the sights people see during the release of DMT has no proof and can easily be disproved by anyone, dont be mad that your wrong, be happy that you can know the real answer. my work here is done.


----------



## lordjin (Jun 4, 2012)

NetGuruINC said:


> Scientist only accept proof from things that can be measured. If it cant be measured then science will always rule it out. For this simple fact alone, a scientist is the last person you want to listen to, because they are completely closed minded. I mean come on think about it, the earth has been here for millions of years, a human being only lives about 80 years including scientist. It's baffling to me when people talk about "scientific proof", compared to how long this earth has been here the human race has only been alive for 2 minutes. Literally...... so how much could a scientist possibly know? Lol


You're not by any chance an Ancient Astronaut Theorist? I am.


----------



## Gastanker (Jun 4, 2012)

Hehe, DMT is one mans opinion? Gotta love that. Hmmm, youtube or scholarly articles? Lets see who believes in DMT - 

*Abstract*

The visions of dream sleep are suggested to occur through a dream mechanism which implicates tryptamine derivatives as endogenous paychedelics. The hallucinations that occur in some schizophrenic syndromes are also proposed to occur through a similar, though desynchronized, mechanism. These compounds occur in the human pineal gland and are regarded as neurotransmitters or neuroregulators. A protocol for experimental verification is suggested.


*Abstract (endogenous = Growing or originating from within an organism)*

We generated dose-response data for the endogenous and ultra-short-acting hallucinogen, N,N-dimethyltryptamine (DMT), in a cohort of experienced hallucinogen users, measuring multiple biological and psychological outcome measures. Subjective responses were quantified with a new rating scale, the HRS, which provided better resolution of dose effects than did the biological variables.





*Biogenesis of 5-methoxy-N,N-dimethyltryptamine in human pineal gland*







Oh wait, there's several hundred pages of scholarly articles on how DMT is in the human body...


----------



## crazyhazey (Jun 4, 2012)

lordjin said:


> Don't worry, I only push little, little kids on skateboards... leaving the older skate-gangs alone Lol. And aside from pushing the occasional elderly person, that's about it.
> 
> Three days? Wow. I haven't gone a day without smoking for the past three years. Lately I've been trying to remember what it's like NOT being high, but I just can't recall! Lol. I have been thinking about taking a break just for the hell of it, though. The only thing that concernes me is that I'll have to stop for a week or more to have any kind of real impact on my tolerance. I have it coursing through my veins constantly, so even on days I don't smoke in the morning, I'm high all day. Yeah, gotta stop for bit myself.


hahaha ah pushing down elderly people, one of my favorite past times. and yup, i went a straight year and a half but decided i needed to slow down after i needed to smoke more than 2 grams of high grade or probably a little under a gram of hash to get to sleep. and its different even when you take 1 day off, it wont last for long but you will feel different, its like a realllllly good wake n bake. and damn, you should slow down yourself lj, you can never smoke too much weed but you should be able to know what it feels like to be a bit sober, thats what makes it worth getting high.


----------



## mellokitty (Jun 4, 2012)

lordjin said:


> You're not by any chance an Ancient Astronaut Theorist? I am.


..... scientology? (j/k, couldn't resist.)


----------



## Gastanker (Jun 4, 2012)

Scientists are bad because they offer evidence? Conspiracy theorists are good because they don't provide evidence? I love that logic...


----------



## NetGuruINC (Jun 4, 2012)

Gastanker said:


> Hehe, DMT is one mans opinion? Gotta love that. Hmmm, youtube or scholarly articles? Lets see who believes in DMT -
> 
> *Abstract*
> 
> ...



OMG, this guy just did a science fair project on my thread! LOL. I NEVER said I dont believe in DMT. So please enough with the gotdamn DMT from you two! you two seem to be the only ones talking about DMT. As previously stated if you dont agree your opinion has been noted, I seem to be making you two guys angry.. ehehe. take a chill pill u two


----------



## Gastanker (Jun 4, 2012)

I've never seen a flying pink elephant so I assume it exists. I did see my mutt licking my feet this morning - likely a figment of my imagination.


----------



## lordjin (Jun 4, 2012)

mellokitty said:


> ..... scientology? (j/k, couldn't resist.)


How dare you ridicule my unique belief system?


----------



## Gastanker (Jun 4, 2012)

I never mentioned DMT until you said it was just one mans opinion that it naturally exists...


----------



## Gastanker (Jun 4, 2012)

And if searching a scholarly database is the same as a science project... Well I just don't know what to say to that. Did you go to school?


----------



## NetGuruINC (Jun 4, 2012)

Gastanker said:


> I never mentioned DMT until you said it was just one mans opinion that it naturally exists...


Learn to comprehend before you type, I said HE is 1 man, and since he is 1 man thats 1 OPINION. Get it? OK, Ok, Ok, I forgot about you, so thats TWO opinions. Are you happy? Im gonna send a joint to you two, you two seem to be really interested in this topic, im flattered honestly


----------



## crazyhazey (Jun 4, 2012)

NetGuruINC said:


> OMG, this guy just did a science fair project on my thread! LOL. I NEVER said I dont believe in DMT. So please enough with the gotdamn DMT from you two! you two seem to be the only ones talking about DMT. As previously stated if you dont agree your opinion has been noted, I seem to be making you two guys angry.. ehehe. take a chill pill u two


your the one saying the trip from a near death experience is the work of god, dont get mad when your wrong then try to play it off as if we're the angry people here. if you havent noticed, everyone is making fun of you. you have made a fool out of yourself, and continue to make it progressively worse. read your original post, genius.


----------



## Gastanker (Jun 4, 2012)

Wait, I cant comprehend? You said it was one mans opinion - so I provided the opinion of many more men - men who are highly regarded in that particular field. Get it?


----------



## lordjin (Jun 4, 2012)

crazyhazey said:


> hahaha ah pushing down elderly people, one of my favorite past times. and yup, i went a straight year and a half but decided i needed to slow down after i needed to smoke more than 2 grams of high grade or probably a little under a gram of hash to get to sleep. and its different even when you take 1 day off, it wont last for long but you will feel different, its like a realllllly good wake n bake. and damn, you should slow down yourself lj, you can never smoke too much weed but you should be able to know what it feels like to be a bit sober, thats what makes it worth getting high.


Without the darkness, how can we have light?

Good point.


----------



## lordjin (Jun 4, 2012)

I love this thread.


----------



## NetGuruINC (Jun 4, 2012)

crazyhazey said:


> your the one saying the trip from a near death experience is the work of god, dont get mad when your wrong then try to play it off as if we're the angry people here. if you havent noticed, everyone is making fun of you. you have made a fool out of yourself, and continue to make it progressively worse. read your original post, genius.


Well, its a forum, so why would I have feelings? Secondly, you and Gastanker are the only ones commenting, so define "everyone", lol. Dude im smoking some tangerine dream and reading posts, why would i be upset? I am actually flattered that my post has gotten so much attention, I thank you for giving it notice honestly....


----------



## Gastanker (Jun 4, 2012)

Damn, if you are going to ask a question but are too lazy to look at any of the answers you are provided with... I think that makes you a bit dull.


----------



## mellokitty (Jun 4, 2012)

lordjin said:


> How dare you ridicule my unique belief system?


hey, at least i didn't accuse you of being a moonie this time.


----------



## lordjin (Jun 4, 2012)

mellokitty said:


> hey, at least i didn't accuse you of being a moonie this time.


Ugh... still stinging from that one.


----------



## crazyhazey (Jun 4, 2012)

lordjin said:


> How dare you ridicule my unique belief system?


haha if tom cruise listens to Scientology, then of course its true and alien are the answer to everything! thats all the proof i need, right?


----------



## NetGuruINC (Jun 4, 2012)

ok lets see.... crazyhazey and Gastanker...... I see an army of two, you need more people! eheheh, heres a joint fellas, chill out dont be so in your feelings, remember this is just a website on the internet, ehehhe


----------



## crazyhazey (Jun 4, 2012)

NetGuruINC said:


> Well, its a forum, so why would I have feelings? Secondly, you and Gastanker are the only ones commenting, so define "everyone", lol. Dude im smoking some tangerine dream and reading posts, why would i be upset? I am actually flattered that my post has gotten so much attention, I thank you for giving it notice honestly....


you changed you stance on this subject like 3 times, first it seemed like you acted like DMT has nothing to do with this, then claimed DMT is a controlled substance, then continued to tell us you knew the whole time that it existed in your body. so, please tell us, do you still believe things seen in near death experience are fact? id love to know how your opinion has changed. noticed i used opinion, because you have 0 proof. thats what an opinion means, but hey, im sure you knew that too right?


----------



## Gastanker (Jun 4, 2012)

I think we have the hundreds of thousands of people that "die" each year and don't hallucinate on our side. And then there's all the doctors, and all the biologists, and the nutritionists, and those that study anatomy, and the chemists... 

Wait who did you say was on your side? Just the 10 youtube videos?


----------



## TheStrainMaker (Jun 4, 2012)

brewing said:


> its prob the bodys way of dying peacefully drugged up from natural defences


 I agree, our endorphin system releases everything during our final flush. . .


----------



## Gastanker (Jun 4, 2012)

We obviously need more youtube proof people. Lets all start googling "god doesn't exist" and look for videos. I'm sure the videos we post wont be biased at all and will be only made by rational people. Youtubes the best place to go for evidence right?


----------



## lordjin (Jun 4, 2012)

This is a hot thread. I can spot 'em a mile away.


----------



## NetGuruINC (Jun 4, 2012)

crazyhazey said:


> you changed you stance on this subject like 3 times, first it seemed like you acted like DMT has nothing to do with this, then claimed DMT is a controlled substance, then continued to tell us you knew the whole time that it existed in your body. so, please tell us, do you still believe things seen in near death experience are fact? id love to know how your opinion has changed. noticed i used opinion, because you have 0 proof. thats what an opinion means, but hey, im sure you knew that too right?


LOL, im being ATTACKED by these two! ehehe this is very entertaining to me, Ok check it out fellas, listen. This is just a FORUM. There is no need to pour your personal feelings out on a FORUM. I DO NOT believe DMT has anything to do with these experiences and I have the right to my opinion just as you do yours.

I have given you the right to your opinion why cant you give me mine? Why are u guys so angry? Ok, you believe I have 0 proof and that I dont know what im talking about. You stated that 3 pages ago, why are you repeating yourself? Jeez man its not that serious, just a forum man


----------



## crazyhazey (Jun 4, 2012)

so, i just wanted to show much sense you have really made, remember these are your words so dont deny it. 



NetGuruINC said:


> Also, your using an experience from a controlled substance as an offense to debate a matter like this? How silly is that?


i wasnt aware my experience with the drug DMT wasnt relevant when we we're talking about proving god through the sights that people have seen when the large dosage of the same "controlled substance" was released in their brain, but obviously my experience with the very drug that induces these visions has nothing to do with this matter. in fact, its "silly" to you.


----------



## mellokitty (Jun 4, 2012)

lordjin said:


> This is a hot thread. I can spot 'em a mile away.


oh, geez.

*toddles off into .gif collection*


----------



## Gastanker (Jun 4, 2012)

You have the right to have your opinion - why are you attacking us for ours. Don't get angry when I take these three doctors opinion over the self admitted drug abuser/alcoholic (not you, the first video I got on youtube on the subject).


----------



## NetGuruINC (Jun 4, 2012)

Gastanker said:


> You have the right to have your opinion - why are you attacking us for ours. Don't get angry when I take these three doctors opinion over the self admitted drug abuser/alcoholic (not you, the first video I got on youtube on the subject).


Once again, thankyou for making my thread so interesting, ive literally gotten 18 messages from users in the past hour asking who else im subscribed to on youtube. For anyone else who wants to know you can just subscribe to my channel and ill update videos as I come across them, message me for my youtube name


----------



## ineverveg (Jun 4, 2012)

NetGuruINC said:


> Scientist only accept proof from things that can be measured. If it cant be measured then science will always rule it out. For this simple fact alone, a scientist is the last person you want to listen to, because they are completely closed minded. I mean come on think about it, the earth has been here for millions of years, a human being only lives about 80 years including scientist. It's baffling to me when people talk about "scientific proof", compared to how long this earth has been here the human race has only been alive for 2 minutes. Literally...... so how much could a scientist/human being possibly know? Lol
> 
> Everyone on this forum hasnt been here for more than 80 years, and on top of that I bet only 1 or two people have a degree in this field and they probably arent even logged on right now. The earth has been here for millions of years, and somehow people think theyve got it all figured out, THATS hilarious to me....


 ......

that being the case ,why can't you accept the scientific answer to your nde hallucinations. 

what scientists can figure out with carbon dating is that the turin shroud is from the middle ages, therefor so is jesus , and the church won't let anyone test other historical finds as they would get the wrong date as well lol

why any god would allow half of his representatives to beast and nonce the children from their churches needs some explanation, you can understand that he isn't bothering himself to stop disasters and famine ect, but he could sort out his peedo priests ....


----------



## Gastanker (Jun 4, 2012)

Why don't you let us know your opinion of these studies? I assume you just think the doctors/scientists are lying? 

[h=2]Abstract[/h]The Near-Death Experience (NDE) is a dissociative mental state with characteristic features. These can be reproduced by ketamine which acts at sigma sites and blocks N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) linked phencyclidine (PCP) receptors to reduce ischaemic damage. Endogenous ligands, alpha and beta-endopsychosin, have been detected for these receptors which suggests an explanation for some NDE's: the endopsychosins may be released in abnormal quantity to protect neurons from ischaemic and other excitotoxic damage, and the NDE is a side effect on consciousness with important psychological functions.


----------



## Gastanker (Jun 4, 2012)

Would you believe this statement for the simple fact that I made it? I could put it in a video on youtube... 

"I hear pot gets you high because god gave it special powers - not because it contains cannabinoids that effect our CB receptors."

Why so close minded?


----------



## crazyhazey (Jun 4, 2012)

NetGuruINC said:


> LOL, im being ATTACKED by these two! ehehe this is very entertaining to me, Ok check it out fellas, listen. This is just a FORUM. There is no need to pour your personal feelings out on a FORUM. I DO NOT believe DMT has anything to do with these experiences and I have the right to my opinion just as you do yours.
> 
> I have given you the right to your opinion why cant you give me mine? Why are u guys so angry? Ok, you believe I have 0 proof and that I dont know what im talking about. You stated that 3 pages ago, why are you repeating yourself? Jeez man its not that serious, just a forum man


you can victimize yourself, or justify yourself. i guarantee the first one isnt gonna get you any more support than you have now.
and let me get this straight, so basically, your gonna take your *opinion* over a fact, remember, its an opinion when there is no proof, you seem to not know how to use the words opinion and fact. and i wasnt aware that you cant accept facts, remember, *facts*, they have proof that the pinneal gland releases DMT when you die, but you deny facts, and you obviously have never done any more DMT than you have whenever you dream(deny this all you want too, its still not an opinion) so you cannot begin to tell me what does and doesnt cause a near death experience, im sure if you tried the so called "controlled substance" you wouldnt be so ignorant towards the *fact* that NDE's are only caused by DMT, it might actually make sense to you, and maybe you could stop using god as your shortcut to answer thing like the rest of america. 

so tell me, is the sky purple? you seem like you could convince yourself that and argue about it for hours, and still tell someone its their opinion when they tell you the sky is blue.


----------



## NetGuruINC (Jun 4, 2012)

ineverveg said:


> ......
> 
> that being the case ,why can't you accept the scientific answer to your nde hallucinations.
> 
> ...


Well GOD doesnt allow anything, we ALL have free will. Imagine if you controlled a big group of robots and forced them to do good things. How would you feel as a creator? Would you feel respected? No you wouldnt because you know the only reason their doing good is because your FORCING them to. The ONLY way you could feel respected is if you gave them the opportunity to do bad things, but they still did good things with complete free will. THAT is what makes a creator feel respected and loved, when a person has every opportunity to do bad, but they chose to do good instead. Just my opinion....


----------



## kpmarine (Jun 4, 2012)

OP, you are ignoring the fact that this is not a randomized sample of people who have clinically died, thus making it irrelevant to anything. If I was clinically dead, and had no NDE, I would have no reason to make a video telling people about my NDE. Therefore, your videos only prove that some people have an NDE. It proves nothing more, they don't all have the exact same experience even. In a study done of people who had suffered cardiac arrest, only 18% even had an NDE. So if NDE's are proof of an afterlife, most of us are not invited.


----------



## NetGuruINC (Jun 4, 2012)

I gotta get back to the office I have a company to run, id love to sit and entertain this more ill log back in a few hours from now...... I appreciate the comments...


----------



## NetGuruINC (Jun 4, 2012)

kpmarine said:


> OP, you are ignoring the fact that this is not a randomized sample of people who have clinically died, thus making it irrelevant to anything. If I was clinically dead, and had no NDE, I would have no reason to make a video telling people about my NDE. Therefore, your videos only prove that some people have an NDE. It proves nothing more, they don't all have the exact same experience even. In a study done of people who had suffered cardiac arrest, only 18% even had an NDE. So if NDE's are proof of an afterlife, most of us are not invited.


Your opinion is respected, as I stated it was just for viewers to come to their own conclusion.


----------



## Gastanker (Jun 4, 2012)

*PROOF! Marijuana is SATAN!!* Can't argue with it, it's PROOF! You tube = proof right? 

[video=youtube;ZlXPWAXKL70]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlXPWAXKL70&amp;feature=related[/video]


----------



## crazyhazey (Jun 4, 2012)

Gastanker said:


> *PROOF! Marijuana is SATAN!!* Can't argue with it, it's PROOF! You tube = proof right?
> 
> [video=youtube;ZlXPWAXKL70]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlXPWAXKL70&amp;feature=related[/video]


HOLY FUCK ITS ON YOUTUBE IT HAS TO BE TRUE!? 
im quitting asap, i dont wanna smoke satan!


btw i wish i could like this post a thousand times, that old guys too funny.


----------



## lordjin (Jun 4, 2012)

How dare you say I am going to hell because I am smoking marijuana?

I want you to know that this is the way that I am getting close to God!

I'm a fucking sorcerer! I knew it! Awesome!


----------



## kpmarine (Jun 4, 2012)

NetGuruINC said:


> Your opinion is respected, as I stated it was just for viewers to come to their own conclusion.


Just out of curiosity, how can you believe that 18% of people having experiences that do not always correlate is evidence of god's existence? I mean, how do you rationalize it? I'm genuinely trying to understand how you came to your conclusion. That means for every 18 clinically dead and resuscitated people who have an NDE, 82 clinically dead and resuscitated people did not have one. Then, amongst the 18, not everyone even experienced the same thing. I can't see how any reliable conclusions could be drawn, but maybe I'm missing something.


----------



## Gastanker (Jun 4, 2012)

Well at this point I'm going to have to stop arguing. Playing with sorcerers is strictly against the rules in my household.


----------



## crazyhazey (Jun 4, 2012)

Gastanker said:


> Well at this point I'm going to have to stop arguing. Playing with sorcerers is strictly against the rules in my household.


yeah, ill fuck with warlocks but if i hear the word sorcerer im outta this bitch.


----------



## mellokitty (Jun 4, 2012)

aw fuck, sorcerers.......

*spaghetti*


----------



## crazyhazey (Jun 4, 2012)

mellokitty said:


> aw fuck, sorcerers.......
> 
> *spaghetti*


i wish i could give people like super rep or something, you got creative with that one lol you deserve more for your efforts.


----------



## mellokitty (Jun 4, 2012)

crazyhazey said:


> i wish i could give people like super rep or something, you got creative with that one lol you deserve more for your efforts.


phew!!

i was starting to think i might have to invoke Nibbles the Deer.......


----------



## NetGuruINC (Jun 4, 2012)

Wow overwhelming the number of replies to this post, I knew it would be very controversial


----------



## TogTokes (Jun 4, 2012)

NetGuruINC said:


> Wow overwhelming the number of replies to this post, I knew it would be very controversial


Either that or just plain nonsense lol.


----------



## Doer (Jun 4, 2012)

NetGuruINC said:


> Ok well let me be, why are u still on my thread? Lol, get off my dull D-I-C-K


You may have started it but you certainly don't own it.


----------



## NetGuruINC (Jun 4, 2012)

Doer said:


> You may have started it but you certainly don't own it.


HUH? Who said I owned it to begin with? I dont remember that posting.....


----------



## Doer (Jun 4, 2012)

Gastanker said:


> Why don't you let us know your opinion of these studies? I assume you just think the doctors/scientists are lying?
> 
> *Abstract*
> 
> The Near-Death Experience (NDE) is a dissociative mental state with characteristic features. These can be reproduced by ketamine which acts at sigma sites and blocks N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) linked phencyclidine (PCP) receptors to reduce ischaemic damage. Endogenous ligands, alpha and beta-endopsychosin, have been detected for these receptors which suggests an explanation for some NDE's: the endopsychosins may be  released in abnormal quantity to protect neurons from ischaemic and other excitotoxic damage, and the NDE is a side effect on consciousness with important psychological functions.


I've posted about Magnetic Resonance brain therapy. It has some of the same effects. There have been double blind experiments where the subject can be made to feel "divine presence", as well as the "fires of hell." These descriptions were from the subjects' after reports. If magnets and brain chemicals can give the experience, it just show to me our entire sensorium, i.e. this Life, is a completely Subjective experience. And as we gained consciousness as the thinking human race, maybe 70-80 thousand years ago, we created a Subjective consensus called "Reality." 

To me the analog is a baby. It has to learn the magnetic edges of "matter" are subject to entropy and then sorts out the consensus as it begins to verbalize but yet has no real volition. A thrall. By the time we are verbal we are forced into the consensus to survive.


----------



## Doer (Jun 4, 2012)

Go back and read my post where I quoted you saying, "my thread..."


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Jun 4, 2012)

DMT perfectly explains NDE's man, quit being so ignorant and acknowledge that. Right before you die DMT floods your brain and sends you on a amazing trip that words do no justice to. Jesus is not the way, also an extremely ignorant claim, Christians will manifest Jesus when they die, Muslims will manifest Mohammed, and Hindu's will manifest Krishna when they die, and your telling me Jesus is the truth? Gimme a break!.. If it makes you feel better a lot of people think DMT is the way to experience god, they dont call it "The spirit molecule" for nothing. I too think DMT is the closest we can get to god, in some experiments people have had the same trip and talking to the same god-like being at the same time. Some people think those are manifestations of your own imagination but I think that they are actual god-like beings, and perhaps those beings chose to take form of your religious idol (Jesus) because you would be most comfortable that way and they would be able to ease you into the reality of the afterlife without you being so scared and confused... Just my theory though, no one fuckn knows. Just accept that its DMT causing those experiences, a lot of people think DMT is a connection to god.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 4, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> DMT perfectly explains NDE's man, quit being so ignorant and acknowledge that. Right before you die DMT floods your brain and sends you on a amazing trip that words do no justice to. Jesus is not the way, also an extremely ignorant claim, Christians will manifest Jesus when they die, Muslims will manifest Mohammed, and Hindu's will manifest Krishna when they die, and your telling me Jesus is the truth? Gimme a break!.. If it makes you feel better a lot of people think DMT is the way to experience god, they dont call it "The spirit molecule" for nothing. I too think DMT is the closest we can get to god, in some experiments people have had the same trip and talking to the same god-like being at the same time. Some people think those are manifestations of your own imagination but I think that they are actual god-like beings, and perhaps those beings chose to take form of your religious idol (Jesus) because you would be most comfortable that way and they would be able to ease you into the reality of the afterlife without you being so scared and confused... Just my theory though, no one fuckn knows. Just accept that its DMT causing those experiences, a lot of people think DMT is a connection to god.


So when I'm about to die, I'm going to experience an embrace from a massive pile of SPAGHETTI!?


----------



## ThE sAtIvA hIgH (Jun 4, 2012)

i got all excited when i read the title of this thread , my errection soon subsided.


----------



## lordjin (Jun 4, 2012)

ThE sAtIvA hIgH said:


> i got all excited when i read the title of this thread , my errection soon subsided.


Well your avatar is appropriate at least.


----------



## Doer (Jun 4, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> So when I'm about to die, I'm going to experience an embrace from a massive pile of SPAGHETTI!?


We may but hope!


----------



## mellokitty (Jun 4, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> So when I'm about to die, I'm going to experience an embrace from a massive pile of SPAGHETTI!?


according to the theory so far, ONLY if you're a church of FSM-er.


----------



## mindphuk (Jun 4, 2012)

Why is it that when Christians have NDEs they see Jesus and Mary, when Jews have them they see Moses and Elijah, and Hindi see Vishnu, Brahm&#257;, Shiva or whatever god they learned about? If an NDE was a real experience that occurred outside of our own brains, it shouldn't matter what culture and religion you are, all NDEs should be so similar, as to remove any doubt. 

Good of the OP for proposing that NDE could be a way to investigate the existence of life-after-death, but a big FAIL for ignoring and disregarding all evidence to the contrary. 


In a new exercise by a California organization that studies lucid dreaming, volunteers have been conditioned to dream near-death experiences, including the classic scenario of flying toward a light at the end of a tunnel. The researchers say their experiment demonstrates that these heavenly visions must be products of the human mind rather than supernatural phenomena.
.
.
More than 8 million Americans have had a near-death experience, and they most often occur during states of anesthesia-induced sleep, according to the center. Prior work by neurologists, including Kevin Nelson of the University of Kentucky, suggests that NDEs are indeed generated by the same brain mechanisms that cause lucid dreams. Nelson's research shows that both types of experiences arise when part of the brain called the dorsolateral prefrontal region &#8212; our "logical center," which is usually active only when we're awake &#8212; becomes active during REM sleep, allowing extremely vivid dreams that seem to be happening in real life. He calls the transitional state between dreaming and wakefulness a "borderland of consciousness" and believes it is in this mixed state that lucid dreams and NDEs occur.
With Nelson's research in mind, Raduga designed his experiment to determine if volunteers could be coached to dream up NDEs when in the transitional phase between sleep and waking. This would demonstrate that reports of NDEs, which are commonly cited as proof of the supernatural, really are just lucid dreams.
Volunteers who successfully generated NDEs described their experiences for the researchers. One participant, identified by the center asNadezhda S., stated: "I was able to leave my body after a couple of tries. Now that I was out of my body, I wanted to see the tunnel and it immediately appeared in front of me &#8230; Once I flew to the end of that tunnel &#8230; I saw my deceased husband there in the spirit. We spoke for several minutes. His words, touch, bearing, and feelings were real, just like during his life. Later on, when I felt it was time to leave, I went up to the tunnel, jumped and gently landed in my body."
http://www.livescience.com/19106-death-experiences-lucid-dreams.html​


----------



## crazyhazey (Jun 5, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> DMT perfectly explains NDE's man, quit being so ignorant and acknowledge that. Right before you die DMT floods your brain and sends you on a amazing trip that words do no justice to. Jesus is not the way, also an extremely ignorant claim, Christians will manifest Jesus when they die, Muslims will manifest Mohammed, and Hindu's will manifest Krishna when they die, and your telling me Jesus is the truth? Gimme a break!.. If it makes you feel better a lot of people think DMT is the way to experience god, they dont call it "The spirit molecule" for nothing. I too think DMT is the closest we can get to god, in some experiments people have had the same trip and talking to the same god-like being at the same time. Some people think those are manifestations of your own imagination but I think that they are actual god-like beings, and perhaps those beings chose to take form of your religious idol (Jesus) because you would be most comfortable that way and they would be able to ease you into the reality of the afterlife without you being so scared and confused... Just my theory though, no one fuckn knows. Just accept that its DMT causing those experiences, a lot of people think DMT is a connection to god.


we can tell him this all we want, it just seems like he'll call said facts our "opinions", or he'll take the shortcut and say "your crazy to think im gonna read all that". this guy doesnt know the difference between an opinion and a fact, if you noticed, he wrote in capital letters, *PROOF* that god exists, we all know, there is no such proof to the existence of god, and a near death experience, which is a very high dosage DMT trip, has no concrete evidence of a god. i see plenty of things on DMT, i see orbs of light that communicate things that are beyond words, all sort of beautiful sights, now this doesnt mean these things exist in reality, nor do i learn any outside knowledge about the world, only knowledge about myself.

the explanation would be the depths of your mind, our trip is effected by our beliefs, culture, fears, etc., cheif walkin eagle, you, me and plenty other people on here already told him this, but till a few pages ago he said that he gets i "believe" in DMT, not that it exists. seeing heaven and hell in a near death experience is anything but a message from god, and if you read back, it seems as if the OP seems to deny the existence of DMT in your body and it almost seemed like he had never heard of the pinneal gland, im not gonna repost it but he also told me it was "silly" that i related a near death experience(once again, high dosage DMT trip), to the times ive used the very "controlled substance"(thats what he thinks DMT is, little does he know he uses it when he dreams) that causes these very experiences, the only real difference is the dosage of the chemical.

after one denies *facts *from more than like 10 people(he claimed me and gastanker we're the only ones who were calling him wrong really, its obvious thats untrue and we can all go to the first page and find a handfull of people who highly disagree with him), you have to wonder, are his beliefs really worth our time? i mean, if one denies the very proofs of science but goes to youtube to find "proof", but once people give him some actual facts, he goes on to tell us these are our opinions. you can look at my thread Religion: why you believe what you believe and how can you prove it, he wrote the same thing over there but stopped talking after me and heisenburg questioned why he took the visions seen from a DMT trip as proof to the existence of god, of course, he didnt respond.

this is the problem with most religions nowadays too, they cant accept the very known facts that people worked their lives to accomplish, i have said it before and i will say it again, i have no respect for someone who takes the "knowledge" from youtube over known facts, people answer the questions that religion attempted to, the religious groups even killed most of the people who tried to disprove their flawed knowledge, by not accepting what knowledge they worked so hard to find theres some level of disrespect and a lack of appreciation for the accomplishments of man, he'd rather go on youtube and hear about people's *opinion* on what we all know to be a high dosage DMT trip, in which it is extremely common to see the being you believe to be god, however i am atheist so my religion or lack thereof has no effect on my visions, i rather see things from my past, or what lies in the depths of my mind and imagination. 

he can keep telling us NDE's are the work of god, but theres actual proof out there it is your pinneal gland releasing the chemical known as DMT, yet he will continue to answer that question with the word "god", claim to not be religious, yet still take knowledge from youtube over actual scientific proof. he doesnt deserve my time, your time, or any of ours, he even told gastanker that a person is dead once their heart stops, he even called him an idiot for not believing so. whos the real idiot here? the person who told him a simple fact, or the person who continues to use the visions seen from what is basically a really intense dream as "proof" of the existence of god. we all know the brain lives far past the body too. i have seen some ridiculous things on DMT, or rather in dreams, i guess all those things exist in reality right?


----------



## TogTokes (Jun 5, 2012)

HEEEEEY YOU GUUUUIIIIIIZZZ! GODS REAL!~ <proof


----------



## crazyhazey (Jun 5, 2012)

TogTokes said:


> HEEEEEY YOU GUUUUIIIIIIZZZ! GODS REAL!~ <proof


do you have any youtube videos to prove it? hahaha


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jun 5, 2012)

..."Proof that God exists". If no one can see God but God, as it is expressed in most Holy books, then one has to 'become' God to recognize God. Proof that God exists comes from seeing God - 'being God'. It means to be able to see the 'God' in everyone. This brings compassion for one's fellow man, etc...

This does not mean 'to play God', that is the domain of the psychotic...as evidenced by past atrocities.


----------



## mellokitty (Jun 5, 2012)

crazyhazey said:


> we can tell him this all we want, it just seems like he'll call said facts our "opinions", or he'll take the shortcut and say "your crazy to think im gonna read all that". this guy doesnt know the difference between an opinion and a fact, if you noticed, he wrote in capital letters, *PROOF* that god exists, we all know, there is no such proof to the existence of god, and a near death experience, which is a very high dosage DMT trip, has no concrete evidence of a god. i see plenty of things on DMT, i see orbs of light that communicate things that are beyond words, all sort of beautiful sights, now this doesnt mean these things exist in reality, nor do i learn any outside knowledge about the world, only knowledge about myself.
> 
> the explanation would be the depths of your mind, our trip is effected by our beliefs, culture, fears, etc., cheif walkin eagle, you, me and plenty other people on here already told him this, but till a few pages ago he said that he gets i "believe" in DMT, not that it exists. seeing heaven and hell in a near death experience is anything but a message from god, and if you read back, it seems as if the OP seems to deny the existence of DMT in your body and it almost seemed like he had never heard of the pinneal gland, im not gonna repost it but he also told me it was "silly" that i related a near death experience(once again, high dosage DMT trip), to the times ive used the very "controlled substance"(thats what he thinks DMT is, little does he know he uses it when he dreams) that causes these very experiences, the only real difference is the dosage of the chemical.
> 
> ...


holy shit you expect me to READ that? (i did anyways.  )


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jun 5, 2012)

mellokitty said:


> holy shit you expect me to READ that? (i did anyways.  )


...was this pointed at me?


----------



## mellokitty (Jun 5, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...was this pointed at me?




when tongue-in-cheeking goes wrong..... 

appropriate quote inserted.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jun 5, 2012)

mellokitty said:


> when tongue-in-cheeking goes wrong.....
> 
> appropriate quote inserted.



...awesome, for a second there I was going to put the waterpipe down and walk away sloooowly


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 5, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ..."Proof that God exists". If no one can see God but God, as it is expressed in most Holy books, then one has to 'become' God to recognize God. Proof that God exists comes from seeing God - 'being God'. It means to be able to see the 'God' in everyone. This brings compassion for one's fellow man, etc...
> 
> This does not mean 'to play God', that is the domain of the psychotic...as evidenced by past atrocities.


If no one can see GOOD but GOOD, then one has to 'become' GOOD to recognize GOOD. Proof that GOOD exists comes from seeing GOOD - 'Being GOOD' It means to be able to see the 'GOOD' in everyone. This brings compassion for one's fellow man, Etc...

You misspelled good a bunch of times, but I've got your back.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jun 5, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> If no one can see GOOD but GOOD, then one has to 'become' GOOD to recognize GOOD. Proof that GOOD exists comes from seeing GOOD - 'Being GOOD' It means to be able to see the 'GOOD' in everyone. This brings compassion for one's fellow man, Etc...
> 
> You misspelled good a bunch of times, but I've got your back.


...lol, thanks frawfraw 

[video=youtube;Qffy6uHkcTU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qffy6uHkcTU[/video]


----------



## Filthy Phil (Jun 5, 2012)

Yeah, sorry, that is not proof that god exists. It is no more proof than the countless people who died, cqme back, and didnt see anything towards evidence that god doesnt exist. 

This argument has been made countless times, perhaps after a few thousand years of bickering we can reside at the position that no one has proof toward existance or lack there of. All anyone has is faith in their beliefe, and that $houldnt be grounds for much argumentation


----------



## lordjin (Jun 5, 2012)

Proof that God exists...


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Jun 5, 2012)

^thats just proof that awesomeness exists


----------



## lordjin (Jun 5, 2012)

Zaehet Strife said:


> ^thats just proof that awesomeness exists


Whether we profess the word of organized religion or not, I believe everyone worships something.

I choose to worship wine, women, and song. Only replace wine with weed (really good weed), and put women before weed.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jun 5, 2012)

lordjin said:


> Whether we profess the word of organized religion or not, I believe everyone worships something.
> 
> I choose to worship wine, women, and song. Only replace wine with weed (really good weed), and put women before weed.


...good day to you, Bacchus


----------



## lordjin (Jun 5, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...good day to you, Bacchus


That's Bacchus-D to you, friend.





And sometimes F.





Watch out for that F. Lol.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 5, 2012)

A cool video...

[youtube]fdVucvo-kDU[/youtube]


----------



## lordjin (Jun 5, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> A cool video...
> 
> [youtube]fdVucvo-kDU[/youtube]


Hooray for Atheism!


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 5, 2012)

Doer said:


> But, are YOU mere meat? Or are you consciousness riding the meat-bot? There are no simple minerals floating around to make consciousness. One does not even attain any consciousness of the self aware variety for many month after birth, 18-24 months, actually.


I was self-aware before I was born. At the very least, I have a confirmed memory of being born. I would say that if I were preconscious at the time, i would not have been able to have and remember a "me" experience. cn


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jun 5, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> I was self-aware before I was born. At the very least, I have a confirmed memory of being born. I would say that if I were preconscious at the time, i would not have been able to have and remember a "me" experience. cn


..Hi neer, trippy 

...but if I'm reading that correctly, it almost sounds like that "spirit / mind having a human experience" idea I've seen around in my travels.

Either way, it paints a nifty picture. I have memory very far back, it reeks of nostalgia.


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 5, 2012)

Eye, I'm not sure what you mean with "spirit/mind having a human experience" ... can i impose upon you to jog my memory? 

Obtw (shameless plug) have you seen my "LimeRIUcks" thread? You're in there. cn


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jun 5, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> Eye, I'm not sure what you mean with "spirit/mind having a human experience" ... can i impose upon you to jog my memory?
> 
> Obtw (shameless plug) have you seen my "LimeRIUcks" thread? You're in there. cn



...hey neer, happy to oblige. I meant to say that some people, myself included, feel that we're a spirit, or mind having a human experience. That is say that we occupy a body and navigate with that mind, or spirit and move on when the tics no longer tock, hehe 

Also, cool  I will check out this new thread of yours!


----------



## MrFrance (Jun 5, 2012)

definitely something else after death i've been there - for me it felt like some kind of judgement, very dark. no point in trying to explain definitely a location thing


----------



## Doer (Jun 5, 2012)

Well, I guess you were not truly dead. Good on you.


----------



## Doer (Jun 5, 2012)

Oh, btw, can anyone really prove there is nothing beyond our mundane reality? Nothing beyond the usual? Nothing about Now? Forget all the trappings of what we think we know about these matters and puzzle this.

If there is indeed, a maco-quantum effect ,a Many Worlds spawned by every tiny, fine grained increment of irreversible events. And if we, as a quantum mind, Observer, alter the experimental quantum effects. If we and some other conscious forms, exercise free will. If this is one of the ways the many worlds get altered. Seems big to me. Our world then was spawned by something, perhaps, not created, as such.

And it now seems the consensus of the Math heads is our Perception of Reality is Conceiving Reality.
Not as woo. As science.


----------



## Doer (Jun 5, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> I was self-aware before I was born. At the very least, I have a confirmed memory of being born. I would say that if I were preconscious at the time, i would not have been able to have and remember a "me" experience. cn[/QUO TE]
> 
> Very interesting, and, I think very rare. Are you describing a visual memory? Do you mind providing more detail? I collect these stories.


----------



## crazyhazey (Jun 5, 2012)

MrFrance said:


> definitely something else after death i've been there - for me it felt like some kind of judgement, very dark. no point in trying to explain definitely a location thing


we have to remember our brain still lives long past our body though, so after your brain dies, can we truly know what comes next?


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 5, 2012)

Doer said:


> cannabineer said:
> 
> 
> > I was self-aware before I was born. At the very least, I have a confirmed memory of being born. I would say that if I were preconscious at the time, i would not have been able to have and remember a "me" experience. cn[/QUO TE]
> ...


----------



## Heisenberg (Jun 6, 2012)

Nice to see so many new icebergs floating through this thread, makes it easier on the glacier. 


Those who choose to assume NDE=life-after-death and then cease investigation choose a closed mind. That seems to be the sort of people the OP is fishing for.

Those who are interested in further investigation and would like to hear a summary opinion of science will listen to this.

Or just read


> The burden of proof for anyone claiming that NDEs are evidence for the survival of the self beyond the physical function of the brain is to rule out other more prosaic explanations. This burden has not been met.
> 
> Neuroscientists are piecing together plausible explanations for each of the components of the NDE. The sensation of floating outside one&#8217;s body can be reliably induced by suppressing that part of the brain that makes us feel as if we possess our bodies. The experience is identical to that reported by those who have had an NDE. This experience can be replicated by drugs or magnetic stimulation. There are even reports (I have had one such patient) of people who have a typical NDE experience during seizures. The bright light can be explained as a function of hypoxia (relative lack of oxygen) either to the retina or the visual cortex. Any everything else is simply the culturally appropriate hallucinations of a hypoxic brain.
> 
> The only way to definitively distinguish between memories formed during CPR and those formed during the period of encephalopathy is for the memories to contain specific details that could only have been obtained during the CPR. This claim is often made, but either there is a lack of compelling documentation, or the details are too vague to be definitive. People describing a typical CPR experience, for example, is not specific. Sometimes people after a NDE will claim to recognize the nurse or doctor who worked on them, but they may just be attaching those memories to people they encountered before or after the experience.


----------



## Doer (Jun 6, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> Doer said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sorry, Doer ... the memory is so specific that it might serve to identify me. cn
> ...


----------



## Doer (Jun 6, 2012)

crazyhazey said:


> we have to remember our brain still lives long past our body though, so after your brain dies, can we truly know what comes next?


Yes, sir, it is very hard to say and when we take into account the quantum information paradox, it's impossible to say subjectively when the inner experience stops. Also, impossible to say the nature or subjective duration of the death dream. This from wiki. Did not know about the jelly fish. No natural death? Got those genes in the lab somewhere, I hope. No telomerases? No TTAGGG coding on the gene ends?
----------------------------
Almost all animals who survive external hazards to their biological functioning eventually die from senescence. The only known exception is the jellyfish _Turritopsis nutricula_, thought to be, in effect, immortal.[SUP][3][/SUP] Unnatural causes of death include suicide and homicide. From all causes, roughly 150,000 people die around the world each day.[SUP][4][/SUP]

Physiological death is now seen as a process, more than an event: conditions once considered indicative of death are now reversible.[SUP][5][/SUP] Where in the process a dividing line is drawn between life and death depends on factors beyond the presence or absence of vital signs. In general, clinical death is neither necessary nor sufficient for a determination of legal death. A patient with working heart and lungs determined to be brain dead can be pronounced legally dead without clinical death occurring. Paradoxically, as scientific knowledge and medicine advance, a precise medical definition of death becomes more problematic.[SUP][6][/SUP]


----------



## BackyardBuds (Jun 6, 2012)

....are we still going at this....man....science this, religion that...blah, blah, blah. Can't we all just smoke a bong and get along


----------



## Doer (Jun 6, 2012)

BackyardBuds said:


> ....are we still going at this....man....science this, religion that...blah, blah, blah. Can't we all just smoke a bong and get along


I think we all are smoking the bong and getting along, discussing science-religion, blah blah. Do you have something to add or subtract? Perhaps a reduction of your eyelids?


----------



## BackyardBuds (Jun 6, 2012)

Well....I guess I could. I think some people are so desperate to prove or disprove something, that it comes off as pushy and annoying, and frankly makes people less likely to even listen with an open mind....let alone listen at all. I respect the fact that some people believe in God or what every deity or choose to follow scientific theory/process. Personally, finding a balance between spiritual and physical is what makes me tick. If you believe in God....then God bless you. If science is more your thing...more power to you. If you wanna go fishing....leave your baggage on the shore or you'll be swimming home. Now, its off the dentist and hopefully some fishin'....tight lines and stay high.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Jun 6, 2012)

Nobody wants to admit one simple fact. 

Science has proven religion wrong time and time again. Science admits when it is wrong, changes, and tries to find out the truth again.

Religion has never proven science wrong, only science has. Religion hardly ever admits when it is wrong, and when it does, its so full of bull shit excuses about it you can smell it half way across the world.

People can't handle the truth, they don't want it, they would rather live happily in delusion. Some see this as a curse, some see it with envious eyes... some see it as absurd and rightly fucking retarded and weak.

Whatevs.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jun 6, 2012)

Zaehet Strife said:


> Nobody wants to admit one simple fact.
> 
> Science has proven religion wrong time and time again. Science admits when it is wrong, changes, and tries to find out the truth again.
> 
> ...


...hey man, opinions are like assholes, everyone's got one - tighten up or spew crap I guess...  Religion isn't in the business of proving anything wrong other than our perceptions of self, imo. Why is it the strict domain of 'scientists' to prove people wrong? Does it make for a more effective cure of disease?

I'm not a pure genius, but it is easy to see that one of these words is not like the others, one of these words does not belong:

"science" - "fucking retarded" - "weak"


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 6, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...  Religion isn't in the business of proving anything wrong other than our perceptions of self, imo. Why is it the strict domain of 'scientists' to prove people wrong? Does it make for a more effective cure of disease?


Yes, it does. It's called the Scientific Method.



The difference is when a scientist approaches another scientist and says, "I think you made an error here.", the other scientist says, "Oh, my! Thank you!"
When you approach a person of faith and say "I think you made an error here.", they say,"NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! FAITH! FAITH! FAITH!"


----------



## TogTokes (Jun 6, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> Yes, it does. It's called the Scientific Method.
> 
> View attachment 2201442
> 
> ...


So true. And even sometimes the religious person will bomb some towers lol. Or w/e else they decide to do.. Religion rocks!


----------



## Doer (Jun 6, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...hey man, opinions are like assholes, everyone's got one - tighten up or spew crap I guess...  Religion isn't in the business of proving anything wrong other than our perceptions of self, imo. Why is it the strict domain of 'scientists' to prove people wrong? Does it make for a more effective cure of disease?
> 
> I'm not a pure genius, but it is easy to see that one of these words is not like the others, one of these words does not belong:
> 
> "science" - "fucking retarded" - "weak"


I gotta agree here. Religion these days has nothing against science. And science these days is not out to disprove religion. Science looks at an obviously Subjective world and calls that Objective research. Religion takes the only Objective knowledge we have, of our own Self and calls that Subjective Experience.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jun 6, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> Yes, it does. It's called the Scientific Method.
> 
> View attachment 2201442
> 
> ...


...thanks, I get that. But why apply it to another person's life? There's life, and there's science. The two go well together, yet are _sort of_ mutually exclusive. We can't prove why people are even here in the first place. < in the physical sense, sure, that's easy to prove (fckn fun as hell too  )

...personally, when pointing out a flaw in thinking, I have yet to run into someone who has said, "sorry, no, I'm right - I'm a person of faith and that means I'm right." An extreme example, but do you see what I am saying?


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 6, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...thanks, I get that. But why apply it to another person's life? There's life, and there's science. The two go well together, yet are _sort of_ mutually exclusive. We can't prove why people are even here in the first place. < in the physical sense, sure, that's easy to prove (fckn fun as hell too  )
> 
> ...personally, when pointing out a flaw in thinking, I have yet to run into someone who has said, "sorry, no, I'm right - I'm a person of faith and that means I'm right." An extreme example, but do you see what I am saying?


I hear that every time I exchange ideas with a person of faith. I believe the line is :"I just know."

Science is the observation of the universe, including life. It completely applies to us all, and equally. Just because we don't know something, doesn't mean we should guess. And just because someone guessed, doesn't mean you should perpetuate the guess. A posse ad esse. This is what boggles the Atheists mind. If you are susceptible to faulty logic, how far does that faulty logic infect your reasoning? The spectrum ranges from those who don't even believe to people killing their children in the name of their God. If a man truly believed a "Being" was watching all the time, would he steal? No. Would he rape? No. Would he even have sex with his own wife knowing it's a heavenly porno production? No! So some who claim to have faith, really don't. They buckle their safety belts, look both ways before crossing the street, and stay away from alligators for one reason only. Observation by scientists. So why utilize the technologies based on the sciences, only to deny the evidence which supports said science. Answer= Delusion! 

Delusion defined:  a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary; _also_*:* the abnormal state marked by such beliefs. 

ALL evidence collected thus far does NOT support anything close to the Quran or the Bible. Yet the belief persists...Hmmmm.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jun 6, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> I hear that every time I exchange ideas with a person of faith. I believe the line is :"I just know."
> 
> Science is the observation of the universe, including life. It completely applies to us all, and equally. Just because we don't know something, doesn't mean we should guess. And just because someone guessed, doesn't mean you should perpetuate the guess. A posse ad esse. This is what boggles the Atheists mind. If you are susceptible to faulty logic, how far does that faulty logic infect your reasoning? The spectrum ranges from those who don't even believe to people killing their children in the name of their God. If a man truly believed a "Being" was watching all the time, would he steal? No. Would he rape? No. Would he even have sex with his own wife knowing it's a heavenly porno production? No! So some who claim to have faith, really don't. They buckle their safety belts, look both ways before crossing the street, and stay away from alligators for one reason only. Observation by scientists. So why utilize the technologies based on the sciences, only to deny the evidence which supports said science. Answer= Delusion!
> 
> ...


...and sometimes a scientist's output is verbose. "All evidence collected" - I know actual, practicing scientists who disagree with that idea (some living and some deceased - just to point out a range of age).

We're missing something here and that is the fact that technology is void of feeling. Technology is dead until we make it 'come to life' by using it. I'm reminded here of Aristotle's "Prime Mover", for whatever reason


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 6, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...and sometimes a scientist's output is verbose. "All evidence collected" - I know actual, practicing scientists who disagree with that idea (some living and some deceased - just to point out a range of age).
> 
> We're missing something here and that is the fact that technology is void of feeling. Technology is dead until we make it 'come to life' by using it. I'm reminded here of Aristotle's "Prime Mover", for whatever reason


I have to disagree with you there. Technology is void of feeling, yes. But scientists who don't value evidence? You have to understand that every theory is subjected to testing by 1,000's of scientists. If the theory performs for everyone, it is accepted as a valid theory. If it does not, it is ruled false. It is pointless to focus on the amount of the information we don't have. This value is limitless for us at this stage. We must endeaver to review the evidence in an unbiased manner. The only way to do that among ourselves, is to have everyone, "Take a gander" and record what they observed. Now look at what has been decided by ALL FAITHS. We call it science. Science is the observation of life without emotion. How effective would your iphone be if it suffered from depression? How good would your steering be if it experienced fear. Perhaps emotions are holding us back from reaching 1.0 on the Kardashev scale?


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 6, 2012)

Large-scale surveys show dramatic declines in religiosity in favor of secularization in the 
developed democracies. Popular acceptance of evolutionary science correlates negatively with levels of religiosity, and the United States is the only prosperous nation where the majority absolutely believes in a creator and evolutionary science is unpopular. Abundant data is available on rates of societal dysfunction and health in the first world. Cross-national comparisons of highly differing rates of religiosity and societal conditions form a mass epidemiological experiment that can be used to test whether high rates of belief in and worship of a creator are necessary for high levels of social health. Data correlations show that in almost all regards the highly secular democracies consistently enjoy low rates of societal dysfunction, while pro-religious and antievolutionAmerica performs poorly.

http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/phil_of_religion_text/CHAPTER_9_MORALITY_VALUES/Religion_Morality_Autonomous.htm


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jun 6, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> I have to disagree with you there. Technology is void of feeling, yes. But scientists who don't value evidence? You have to understand that every theory is subjected to testing by 1,000's of scientists. If the theory performs for everyone, it is accepted as a valid theory. If it does not, it is ruled false. It is pointless to focus on the amount of the information we don't have. This value is limitless for us at this stage. We must endeaver to review the evidence in an unbiased manner. The only way to do that among ourselves, is to have everyone, "Take a gander" and record what they observed. Now look at what has been decided by ALL FAITHS. We call it science. Science is the observation of life without emotion. How effective would your iphone be if it suffered from depression? How good would your steering be if it experienced fear. Perhaps emotions are holding us back from reaching 1.0 on the Kardashev scale?


...these are not scientists who do not value evidence. Science is subject to its own laws, or burdens, that is common knowledge. It is how they approach science that differs. I'm lost on a person who says "well, you can't be a believer and a scientist". I think it comes down to "wow, nifty materials we have to work with." and less of the "wow, that is incredible evidence to support a scientific theory, however, because I believe I cannot accept that it is true." God becomes the framework of a believing scientist's life, and then he / she goes on with that life 

edit: I like this list. It does nothing to 'prove' God's existence, but makes me think all the more about it.

1. Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)

Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who put forward the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun. He attended various European universities, and became a Canon in the Catholic church in 1497. His new system was actually first presented in the Vatican gardens in 1533 before Pope Clement VII who approved, and urged Copernicus to publish it around this time. Copernicus was never under any threat of religious persecution - and was urged to publish both by Catholic Bishop Guise, Cardinal Schonberg, and the Protestant Professor George Rheticus. Copernicus referred sometimes to God in his works, and did not see his system as in conflict with the Bible.


2. Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627)

Bacon was a philosopher who is known for establishing the scientific method of inquiry based on experimentation and inductive reasoning. In De Interpretatione Naturae Prooemium, Bacon established his goals as being the discovery of truth, service to his country, and service to the church. Although his work was based upon experimentation and reasoning, he rejected atheism as being the result of insufficient depth of philosophy, stating, "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man&#8217;s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity." (Of Atheism)


3. Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)

Kepler was a brilliant mathematician and astronomer. He did early work on light, and established the laws of planetary motion about the sun. He also came close to reaching the Newtonian concept of universal gravity - well before Newton was born! His introduction of the idea of force in astronomy changed it radically in a modern direction. Kepler was an extremely sincere and pious Lutheran, whose works on astronomy contain writings about how space and the heavenly bodies represent the Trinity. Kepler suffered no persecution for his open avowal of the sun-centered system, and, indeed, was allowed as a Protestant to stay in Catholic Graz as a Professor (1595-1600) when other Protestants had been expelled!


4. Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

Galileo is often remembered for his conflict with the Roman Catholic Church. His controversial work on the solar system was published in 1633. It had no proofs of a sun-centered system (Galileo's telescope discoveries did not indicate a moving earth) and his one "proof" based upon the tides was invalid. It ignored the correct elliptical orbits of planets published twenty five years earlier by Kepler. Since his work finished by putting the Pope's favorite argument in the mouth of the simpleton in the dialogue, the Pope (an old friend of Galileo's) was very offended. After the "trial" and being forbidden to teach the sun-centered system, Galileo did his most useful theoretical work, which was on dynamics. Galileo expressly said that the Bible cannot err, and saw his system as an alternate interpretation of the biblical texts.


5. Rene Descartes (1596-1650)

Descartes was a French mathematician, scientist and philosopher who has been called the father of modern philosophy. His school studies made him dissatisfied with previous philosophy: He had a deep religious faith as a Roman Catholic, which he retained to his dying day, along with a resolute, passionate desire to discover the truth. At the age of 24 he had a dream, and felt the vocational call to seek to bring knowledge together in one system of thought. His system began by asking what could be known if all else were doubted - suggesting the famous "I think therefore I am". Actually, it is often forgotten that the next step for Descartes was to establish the near certainty of the existence of God - for only if God both exists and would not want us to be deceived by our experiences - can we trust our senses and logical thought processes. God is, therefore, central to his whole philosophy. What he really wanted to see was that his philosophy be adopted as standard Roman Catholic teaching. Rene Descartes and Francis Bacon (1561-1626) are generally regarded as the key figures in the development of scientific methodology. Both had systems in which God was important, and both seem more devout than the average for their era.


6. Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)

Pascal was a French mathematician, physicist, inventor, writer and theologian. In mathematics, he published a treatise on the subject of projective geometry and established the foundation for probability theory. Pascal invented a mechanical calculator, and established the principles of vacuums and the pressure of air. He was raised a Roman Catholic, but in 1654 had a religious vision of God, which turned the direction of his study from science to theology. Pascal began publishing a theological work, Lettres provinciales, in 1656. His most influential theological work, the Pensées ("Thoughts"), was a defense of Christianity, which was published after his death. The most famous concept from Pensées was Pascal's Wager. Pascal's last words were, "May God never abandon me."


7. Isaac Newton (1642-1727)

In optics, mechanics, and mathematics, Newton was a figure of undisputed genius and innovation. In all his science (including chemistry) he saw mathematics and numbers as central. What is less well known is that he was devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding God's plan for history from the Bible. He did a considerable work on biblical numerology, and, though aspects of his beliefs were not orthodox, he thought theology was very important. In his system of physics, God was essential to the nature and absoluteness of space. In Principia he stated, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."


8. Robert Boyle (1791-1867)

One of the founders and key early members of the Royal Society, Boyle gave his name to "Boyle's Law" for gases, and also wrote an important work on chemistry. Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "By his will he endowed a series of Boyle lectures, or sermons, which still continue, 'for proving the Christian religion against notorious infidels...' As a devout Protestant, Boyle took a special interest in promoting the Christian religion abroad, giving money to translate and publish the New Testament into Irish and Turkish. In 1690 he developed his theological views in The Christian Virtuoso, which he wrote to show that the study of nature was a central religious duty." Boyle wrote against atheists in his day (the notion that atheism is a modern invention is a myth), and was clearly much more devoutly Christian than the average in his era.


9. Michael Faraday (1791-1867)

Michael Faraday was the son of a blacksmith who became one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century. His work on electricity and magnetism not only revolutionized physics, but led to much of our lifestyles today, which depends on them (including computers and telephone lines and, so, web sites). Faraday was a devoutly Christian member of the Sandemanians, which significantly influenced him and strongly affected the way in which he approached and interpreted nature. Originating from Presbyterians, the Sandemanians rejected the idea of state churches, and tried to go back to a New Testament type of Christianity.


10. Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)

Mendel was the first to lay the mathematical foundations of genetics, in what came to be called "Mendelianism". He began his research in 1856 (three years before Darwin published his Origin of Species) in the garden of the Monastery in which he was a monk. Mendel was elected Abbot of his Monastery in 1868. His work remained comparatively unknown until the turn of the century, when a new generation of botanists began finding similar results and "rediscovered" him (though their ideas were not identical to his). An interesting point is that the 1860's was notable for formation of the X-Club, which was dedicated to lessening religious influences and propagating an image of "conflict" between science and religion. One sympathizer was Darwin's cousin Francis Galton, whose scientific interest was in genetics (a proponent of eugenics - selective breeding among humans to "improve" the stock). He was writing how the "priestly mind" was not conducive to science while, at around the same time, an Austrian monk was making the breakthrough in genetics. The rediscovery of the work of Mendel came too late to affect Galton's contribution.


11. William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)

Kelvin was foremost among the small group of British scientists who helped to lay the foundations of modern physics. His work covered many areas of physics, and he was said to have more letters after his name than anyone else in the Commonwealth, since he received numerous honorary degrees from European Universities, which recognized the value of his work. He was a very committed Christian, who was certainly more religious than the average for his era. Interestingly, his fellow physicists George Gabriel Stokes (1819-1903) and James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) were also men of deep Christian commitment, in an era when many were nominal, apathetic, or anti-Christian. The Encyclopedia Britannica says "Maxwell is regarded by most modern physicists as the scientist of the 19th century who had the greatest influence on 20th century physics; he is ranked with Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein for the fundamental nature of his contributions." Lord Kelvin was an Old Earth creationist, who estimated the Earth's age to be somewhere between 20 million and 100 million years, with an upper limit at 500 million years based on cooling rates (a low estimate due to his lack of knowledge about radiogenic heating).


12. Max Planck (1858-1947)

Planck made many contributions to physics, but is best known for quantum theory, which revolutionized our understanding of the atomic and sub-atomic worlds. In his 1937 lecture "Religion and Naturwissenschaft," Planck expressed the view that God is everywhere present, and held that "the holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of symbols." Atheists, he thought, attach too much importance to what are merely symbols. Planck was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God (though not necessarily a personal one). Both science and religion wage a "tireless battle against skepticism and dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition" with the goal "toward God!"


13. Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."


...okay, even if you skimmed the list, do you think any of these guys contributed to science as we know it today?


----------



## lordjin (Jun 6, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> Large-scale surveys show dramatic declines in religiosity in favor of secularization in the
> developed democracies. Popular acceptance of evolutionary science correlates negatively withlevels of religiosity, and the United States is the only prosperous nation where the majorityabsolutely believes in a creator and evolutionary science is unpopular. Abundant data is availableon rates of societal dysfunction and health in the first world. Cross-national comparisons of highlydiffering rates of religiosity and societal conditions form a mass epidemiological experiment thatcan be used to test whether high rates of belief in and worship of a creator are necessary for highlevels of social health. Data correlations show that in almost all regards the highly secular democracies consistently enjoy low rates of societal dysfunction, while pro-religious and antievolutionAmerica performs poorly.
> 
> http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/phil_of_religion_text/CHAPTER_9_MORALITY_VALUES/Religion_Morality_Autonomous.htm


Interesting and disturbing tidbit.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 6, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...these are not scientists who do not value evidence. Science is subject to its own laws, or burdens, that is common knowledge. It is how they approach science that differs. I'm lost on a person who says "well, you can't be a believer and a scientist". I think it comes down to "wow, nifty materials we have to work with." and less of the "wow, that is incredible evidence to support a scientific theory, however, because I believe I cannot accept that it is true." God becomes the framework of a believing scientist's life, and then he / she goes on with that life


I don't understand. So a scientist can discover evidence, submit the evidence, form a theory for review, all the while believing it's a sham because he has Faith. I would think that the faith would hinder such actions. Why continue if everything you discover is not the way you believe it to be, and you refuse to accept any other truths? Perhaps the faith is not there, and the scientist has undeniable knowledge which he/she must value as a scientist. This explains why educators and scientists are primarily secular. Because, "They just know." 

The truth is most people, especially Americans, do not think very hard about the positions they take. They adopt the beliefs of the family or community for emotional reasons. Did you know when left to their own devises, children never contemplate God. Funny how you need to teach religion before critical thinking. As someone who was raised with out religion, it fascinates me how real Gods seem to people. They admit they sound like loons when describing these crazy beliefs, yet have a child like fear of not doing it. Super weird!


----------



## keepitcoastal (Jun 6, 2012)

I'm not reading through all 23 pages does this asshole still not understand our brains create dmt naturally as does every other living thing on this planet. And our dreams and natural trips reflect our beliefs and fears. If your not a moron it makes perfect sense if you choose to not listen to the facts presented in front of you, then you are indeed a moron


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jun 6, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> Super weird!


...perfect way to sign this one off 

...I'm glad this didn't turn into riUFC 

Ah, I spoke too soon:



keepitcoastal said:


> I'm not reading through all 23 pages does this asshole still not understand our brains create dmt naturally as does every other living thing on this planet. And our dreams and natural trips reflect our beliefs and fears. If your not a moron it makes perfect sense if you choose to not listen to the facts presented in front of you, then you are indeed a moron


----------



## Doer (Jun 6, 2012)

keepitcoastal said:


> I'm not reading through all 23 pages does this asshole still not understand our brains create dmt naturally as does every other living thing on this planet. And our dreams and natural trips reflect our beliefs and fears. If your not a moron it makes perfect sense if you choose to not listen to the facts presented in front of you, then you are indeed a moron


I think, as a moron, I should take exception to your insulting tone. It seems rather moronic to me.


----------



## Doer (Jun 6, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> I don't understand. So a scientist can discover evidence, submit the evidence, form a theory for review, all the while believing it's a sham because he has Faith. I would think that the faith would hinder such actions. Why continue if everything you discover is not the way you believe it to be, and you refuse to accept any other truths? Perhaps the faith is not there, and the scientist has undeniable knowledge which he/she must value as a scientist. This explains why educators and scientists are primarily secular. Because, "They just know."


I think we are confusing the sense of wonder, that is the true core motivation of Science and Spirit. All the necessary trapping for rigor and discipline of thought are munched into the popular myths leveled at both camps. Then we are feed the dumbed down pap of the Press. There is really no reason to reduce the discussion to black and white, like this. No need for broad generalization that were feed to you by your parents, right?


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 6, 2012)

Doer said:


> I think we are confusing the sense of wonder, that is the true core motivation of Science and Spirit. All the necessary trapping for rigor and discipline of thought are munched into the popular myths leveled at both camps. Then we are feed the dumbed down pap of the Press. There is really no reason to reduce the discussion to black and white, like this. No need for broad generalization that were feed to you by your parents, right?


I'm not confusing spirit with wonder. Wondering is what motivates science, yes. But what generalization is instilled by my parents? That faith is illogical and unnatural? That there exists a black and white difference between empirical evidence and lore? These were not instilled by my parents. Perhaps I missed your point.


----------



## lordjin (Jun 6, 2012)

Oh my God! I'm actually reading this thread! What's wrong with this picture? Lol!


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 6, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...these are not scientists who do not value evidence. Science is subject to its own laws, or burdens, that is common knowledge. It is how they approach science that differs. I'm lost on a person who says "well, you can't be a believer and a scientist". I think it comes down to "wow, nifty materials we have to work with." and less of the "wow, that is incredible evidence to support a scientific theory, however, because I believe I cannot accept that it is true." God becomes the framework of a believing scientist's life, and then he / she goes on with that life
> 
> edit: I like this list. It does nothing to 'prove' God's existence, but makes me think all the more about it.
> 
> ...


You're proving my point, not yours. Why wonder about the galaxy if you "know" already. These men were NOT satisfied by the claims of the Bible, or any other claims which could not be tested. Where was there faith then? 

Your forgetting you were killed for non belief! Most of these men dare not say such things. A man who walks into a hospital when ill is a fucking Atheist. He just doesn't realize it. If he had "Faith", he would pray for healing. If it came, it was God's will. If he died, it was God's will. How many people do you know who REALLY, REALLY believe in their heart that God is watching us all right now. Please! No one would dare do anything. I love it when people say, "Everyone thought the world was flat." No, they didn't. Every sailor, map maker, and scientist KNEW the world was round and NOT the center. To bad every time they wrote it down, it was burned for blasphemy. Faith refutes proof, silly. So these "Faithful" scientists didn't really have faith, or they would have never sought proof. The National Cancer Society refused to take a large donation because it was from a secular cause, and they feared the other faiths would stop donating funds. It's so plain to see.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 6, 2012)

"Through the reading of popular scientific books, I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true. The consequence was a positively fanatic orgy of free thinking coupled with the impression that youth is intentionally being deceived by the state through lies; it was a crushing impression."

​http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1607298,00.html

Einstein had no faith. Einstein's parents, on the same hand, were "entirely irreligious." They did not keep kosher or attend synagogue, and his father Hermann referred to Jewish rituals as "ancient superstitions," according to a relative.

​


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 6, 2012)

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

In response to a letter from an Atheist immigrant who wrote Einstein upon reading inaccurate reports of Einstein having Faith.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Jun 6, 2012)

Want to know what i think is a cool idea? This is something i don't think a lot of people really give enough credit, and really don't think about much. 

The fact that you don't have to believe in science, for it to be true (or more accurately, the closest approximation to the truth)

Take for example, gravity. I am not required to believe in gravity in order for it to be so (exist), and for me to do experiments accordingly to prove that gravity is so (exists). Say i take this laptop, and i hold it arms length above my head right at this moment. Although as hard as it may be to type like this, it holds no relevance. What does matter though, is the fact that no matter what i believe... that when i drop this laptop its going to land on my head. It doesn't matter if i don't believe, do believe, or have no opinion at all... when i drop the laptop it is going to land on my head every single time. We call this force gravity, and belief is not a requirement for understanding this concept, just an apple, your head, and a tree if anything.

Another great example: Take the numbers 5 and 5. When you add these together you get the number 10. Now, yet again, beliefs have no relevance here, for no matter if you believe 5+5=11, or 5+ 5=9, if you fallow the scientific method, or more simply common sense. You will notice that no matter the belief, 5 + 5 will always = 10. 

Coolest thing about science, you don't have to believe it for it to be true.

_Most absurd thing about religion/theology/metaphysics/spirituality - you are required to hold the belief in order for it to be true._

^and even so, these concepts you hold without facing up to the burdens of proof, are not true... they are only true through your own individual subjective perceptions, nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## lordjin (Jun 6, 2012)

Zaehet Strife said:


> Want to know what i think is a cool idea? This is something i don't think a lot of people really give enough credit, and really don't think about much.
> 
> The fact that you don't have to believe in science, for it to be true (or more accurately, the closest approximation to the truth)
> 
> ...


But let me ask you this. If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one around to hear it, does the Pope shit in the woods?


----------



## tyler.durden (Jun 6, 2012)

Zaehet Strife said:


> Want to know what i think is a cool idea? This is something i don't think a lot of people really give enough credit, and really don't think about much.
> 
> The fact that you don't have to believe in science, for it to be true (or more accurately, the closest approximation to the truth)
> 
> ...


This is what I've always referred to as objective reality: what actually happens regardless of one's subjective perspective or beliefs. When standing before an ocean, one will drown if they keep walking forward. If one walks off a cliff, they will fall to their injury or death. These things will always happen whether or not one believes in oceans and cliffs...


----------



## crazyhazey (Jun 6, 2012)

keepitcoastal said:


> I'm not reading through all 23 pages does this asshole still not understand our brains create dmt naturally as does every other living thing on this planet. And our dreams and natural trips reflect our beliefs and fears. If your not a moron it makes perfect sense if you choose to not listen to the facts presented in front of you, then you are indeed a moron


thankyou, this guy denies facts then calls them our opinions, i think he stopped looking up youtube videos and maybe read something unbiased for once, probably why he stopped posting on his own thread... just too embarrassed to admit how very wrong he was.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jun 6, 2012)

lordjin said:


> But let me ask you this. If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one around to hear it, does the Pope shit in the woods?


...the black pope does, the white pope isn't _really_ here. Just sayin'


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jun 6, 2012)

tyler.durden said:


> This is what I've always referred to as objective reality: what actually happens regardless of one's subjective perspective or beliefs. When standing before an ocean, one will drown if they keep walking forward. If one walks off a cliff, they will fall to their injury or death. These things will always happen whether or not one believes in oceans and cliffs...


..."call on God, but row away from the rocks". I've always liked that expression.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jun 6, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> You're proving my point, not yours. Why wonder about the galaxy if you "know" already. These men were NOT satisfied by the claims of the Bible, or any other claims which could not be tested. Where was there faith then?
> 
> Your forgetting you were killed for non belief! Most of these men dare not say such things. A man who walks into a hospital when ill is a fucking Atheist. He just doesn't realize it. If he had "Faith", he would pray for healing. If it came, it was God's will. If he died, it was God's will. How many people do you know who REALLY, REALLY believe in their heart that God is watching us all right now. Please! No one would dare do anything. I love it when people say, "Everyone thought the world was flat." No, they didn't. Every sailor, map maker, and scientist KNEW the world was round and NOT the center. To bad every time they wrote it down, it was burned for blasphemy. Faith refutes proof, silly. So these "Faithful" scientists didn't really have faith, or they would have never sought proof. The National Cancer Society refused to take a large donation because it was from a secular cause, and they feared the other faiths would stop donating funds. It's so plain to see.



...scientism. Oh dear, you're the baptist of atheists


----------



## Doer (Jun 7, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> I'm not confusing spirit with wonder. Wondering is what motivates science, yes. But what generalization is instilled by my parents? That faith is illogical and unnatural? That there exists a black and white difference between empirical evidence and lore? These were not instilled by my parents. Perhaps I missed your point.


I have no point, except to point out you were raised by your parents into a belief system. You were raised in a secular home. You have strong beliefs "faith is unnatural." That points to doctrine, since no one can know that. And by the same token it seems quite likely your definitions of "empirical evidence and lore" are likewise compromised. There is a very slippery dividing line between these two. Lore can turn out to be science and science can turn out to be lore. We cannot escape nature or nurture.


----------



## Doer (Jun 7, 2012)

*"Most absurd thing about religion/theology/metaphysics/spirituality - you are required to hold the belief in order for it to be true.*"

If we look at this puzzle, we can assign "belief" as a variable. We can then substitute another word, less charged. Let's use prep.

Now, if I told you, to perform the experiment, you first have to prep for it, OK, then? Then I say, this experiment is not part of your Subjective Reality where all the mundane physics and various properties, constants, etc work quite well to create the illusion of Objectivity. HuH?

Yes, you must prep. This experiment requires tuning into the only Objective reality there is, your Self. It is very difficult to create the stillness and wonder required to begin. It requires prep. With no prep, no result. Does that make a bit more sense? You don't take a nurf bat to a knife fight. And when we try to go past the Illusion master, Mr. Mind we are in a contest of free will. Can you actually
muster the will to ignore your mind cloud?

The result of experiencing what is beyond little self, is fascinating, and does not have to be proved in the Subjective "real" world. It's for your Self alone.


----------



## Legolandon (Jun 7, 2012)

NetGuruINC said:


> I URGE you all to please go to youtube and type in "nde". There is PROOF what happens to us when we die. Go to youtube and type in "nde" which stands for Near Death Experiences and watch and listen to the hundreds of stories from people who have had heart attacks, cancer, car accidents, shot, stabbed, and listen to their stories of what happened to them. There are videos from people all over the world and their experiences ALL coincide with each other. You will see proof that God and Jesus are real, Angels are real, and Hell is real. Everyone needs to check it out seriously...
> 
> And these experiences are not all just from Christians, there are stories from atheists, muslims, every type of person walking this earth. Go to youtube and type in "nde"


In the event that someone dies, followed by revival, there is scientific proof that the human mind will often project very realistic visuals such as a bright light, cloud formations etc. as a result of all endorphines (such as DMT(Strongest known hallucinogen)) releasing in the brain as they are no longer necessary to a dead person.... Coincedence? Highly unlikely!

I am also inclined to ask, what is it your business what a person believes? No loving god would leave the responsibility of saving a humans "soul" from eternal torture (simply because he failed to provide any proof of his existence) to other humans! I think "god" needs to put a lot more effort than he is, to actually make himself recognizable. Starting with, ending his human army used to discriminate, brainwash, and not to mention kill for him.


If you have a reasonable argument to reply with, please post it! 

 and


----------



## Doer (Jun 7, 2012)

Legolandon said:


> In the event that someone dies, followed by revival, there is scientific proof that the human mind will often project very realistic visuals such as a bright light, cloud formations etc. as a result of all endorphines (such as DMT(Strongest known hallucinogen)) releasing in the brain as they are no longer necessary to a dead person.... Coincedence? Highly unlikely!
> 
> No loving god would leave the responsibility of saving a humans "soul" from eternal torture (simply because he failed to provide any proof of his existence) to other humans!
> 
> ...


Here's the problem, so many attributes, human attributes, have been assigned to IT. Then we use that Abrahmic logic, to banter these traits. "What loving God...?" "Would not a Just God...?" Well, already the speech pattern assumes multiple gods. Worse, it assumes these human traits, Loving and Just are attributes of IT.

Since IT is essential un-knowable except through Self, all assignments of characterizations to IT are man-made, not Objective, since they are uttered into this Subjective soup we call Reality.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 7, 2012)

Doer said:


> I have no point, except to point out you were raised by your parents into a belief system. You were raised in a secular home. You have strong beliefs "faith is unnatural." That points to doctrine, since no one can know that. And by the same token it seems quite likely your definitions of "empirical evidence and lore" are likewise compromised. There is a very slippery dividing line between these two. Lore can turn out to be science and science can turn out to be lore. We cannot escape nature or nurture.


Faith IS unnatural. It's not some opinion I hold. And you're confusing secular home with Atheist home. I was raised without practicing religions, not being taught to disapprove of them. The doctrine I received was to value education, use critical thinking, and base my decisions on facts. Lore can coincide with science, but lore is communication, science is observation. Science can be trusted because the results have been determined by ALL backgrounds. No one ever asked me what side of science I'm on.  I disagree we can not "escape" nature or nurture. Is religion Natural? Does any other species on earth practice it? Has it ever been done before? No. Imagine a Tuna having faith that the shark won't eat him. Ha! Every other animal makes decisions based on experience and observation. It's already been proven Religion doesn't instill nobility or transitivity. When we as a species can stop talking to ourselves in corners wearing fancy night gowns, we might progress.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 7, 2012)

Doer said:


> *"Most absurd thing about religion/theology/metaphysics/spirituality - you are required to hold the belief in order for it to be true.*"
> 
> If we look at this puzzle, we can assign "belief" as a variable. We can then substitute another word, less charged. Let's use prep.
> 
> ...


How one perceives the universe is dependent on so many things. One huge one is emotions. I want an Objective understanding of the Universe. Objective means without influence of personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. I want a greater understanding. This is how I learn. By having everyone look at the universe. Then I can start to figure out what is uniform, and what my projections are, which makes me understand me more. Sigh.


----------



## Dr.J20 (Jun 7, 2012)

crazyhazey said:


> believe? im trying to save you from falling into this shit like all the fucking people in our nation have. the 1 person who will agree with you is just as ignorant to science as you are. read about the pinneal glad before you go off trying to categorize dimethyltrytamine as a "controlled substance", it exists in your brain already. DMT= dimethyltryptamine if you didnt understand. now please, go on and tell us how the release of this chemical in your brain proves that god is real. please do. id love to hear all the proof you have.


Not that this is proof or anything, but some dmt researchers are postulating about the fact that all living things have dmt--plant and animal--meaning it may be the molecular basis for some kind of interspecial communication; now that's probably not really what you'd call "God" but it may be a link to some kind of notion that all carbon based life is connected in some way--even a neutral way.

Also, lets be clear here, it isn't kind to lambast someone because he may or may not know about the physiological realities of the pineal gland, but, in fairness, we, as a species, don't know everything about ourselves, much less our world and universe. Also, you haven't read every piece of philosophy, religious or otherwise, which has a great deal to bear on the discussion of the existence of God; so, all i'm saying it isn't necessary to use knowledge aggressively
be easy


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Jun 7, 2012)

Doer said:


> The result of experiencing what is beyond little self, is fascinating, and does not have to be proved in the Subjective "real" world. It's for your Self alone.


^and even so, these concepts you hold without facing up to the burdens of proof, are not true... they are only true through your own individual subjective perceptions, nothing more, nothing less.

these experiences or concepts are what we make of them, and are all dependent on the environment we grew up in, how we were raised, and the culture that was instilled in us as we grew from babyhood to adulthood. 

as you experience "self" these experiences will be different depending on all of the factors stated above.


----------



## Dr.J20 (Jun 7, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> Faith IS unnatural.


Primal man heard thunder and developed belief to explain it until science showed what it really was; if science never disproves something does it mean that thing exists? certainly not, but all it means is science has not proved it. 



afrawfraw said:


> No one ever asked me what side of science I'm on.


You must have missed those "is light a particle or wave?" and "why do the effects of gravity change at the quantum level?" debates in the history of science.



afrawfraw said:


> Does any other species on earth practice it?


 While I do tend to agree with you here, we can't directly communicate with most species and would have a hard time answering whether the concept of religion exists in animal social groups.


afrawfraw said:


> It's already been proven Religion doesn't instill nobility or transitivity.


 I'd like a source on this one.

be easy


----------



## Doer (Jun 7, 2012)

Doer said:


> cannabineer said:
> 
> 
> > OK, less specific. Most folks I get these stories from have a very specific Type of first memory. I'm always wary about pre-loading the subjects' memory with too much input. IAC, I am most interested in which sense conducted your first memory. So, without details of the events, when the memory is produced for you now, is it a visual, a sound, a feel on skin? Like that.
> ...


----------



## Dr.J20 (Jun 7, 2012)

Zaehet Strife said:


> ^and even so, these concepts you hold without facing up to the burdens of proof, are not true... they are only true through your own individual subjective perceptions, nothing more, nothing less.


you might consider reading up on the phenomenological perspective on the intersubjective constitution of reality via perspectival perception.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 7, 2012)

Fire at will!


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 7, 2012)

I propose we rename the thread: "Proof WHY gods exist."


----------



## Illegal Smile (Jun 7, 2012)

I think when you die you go wherever you were before you were born.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Jun 7, 2012)

Dr.J20 said:


> you might consider reading up on the phenomenological perspective on the intersubjective constitution of reality via perspectival perception.


Ive been trying, but i cant find a good source, would you be so kind as to provide me with a link please?

Or, if you could explain simply the point you are trying to get across. Im thinking that your point is that "truth" has the same validity if it comes from science and experimentation than whats within our own minds and our imagination.

If this is so, i have to disagree.

Without carrying the burden of proof for all the thoughts you have within your mind, you have no basis for knowledge, just basis for imagination.

Religion/spirituality/metaphysics/theology, these subjects all require belief in order for them to be true. Science does not, gravity does not, math does not.


----------



## Dr.J20 (Jun 7, 2012)

To those who so adamantly cleave to truth, proof, fact, while I agree these things are important, what of the aesthetic?
This is only a tangential departure, a detour really, a different way of approaching the existence of god.

there is no proof or truth value to an aesthetic production, we can scientifically detect it, but no science on earth can unravel why or how all of art functions, behaves, interacts with and effects us. art has a marked and measurable effect on human individuals and societies, including effects on progress of the species, yet cannot be reduced scientifically to a manner of absolute goods, truths, positives, etc. Certainly a piece of art is a subjective phenomenon, the question, "what is art?" is contentious, but, nonetheless it has a measurable, though inexplicable, and unpredictable, effect on people. it fits into reality, has an effect on humanity, but is not of the same category as science, and yet can elicit progress. 

be easy...sorry for the multi-posts


----------



## Dr.J20 (Jun 7, 2012)

Zaehet,
Sorry, i don't have a link per-se but looking into merleau-ponty would be a good start...maurice merleau-ponty and edmund husserl would be my two recs. for people to read on phenomenology right now, sartre gets into it in later work, and that's good too.

no, the point is most definitely not that "truth" has the same validity whether it comes from the mind or science/experimentation; rather, it says both participate in a communication such that being cosubstantiates reality; thus, that we exist, so does the reality we can study with science and observe with perception but, also, that we do these things constitutes reality in a simultaneous exchange that has always gone on. the only difference is the level of detail in our perception...i'm grossly oversimplifying this right now though, the intricacies are perplexing an fascinating and do ultimately lead you into some really good questions to ask of yourself, society, and existence

be easy


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Jun 7, 2012)

Im not sure if this is a question or a statement. Science allows me to appreciate beauty to the fullest. Understanding just how a rainbow works with the bending of light and prisms in water. Being able not only to see the beauty of the flower, but also understanding what exactly is going on inside this biological structure fills me with a sense of appreciation and wonder. 

As with everything including art, music, taste, these things are all subjective. As we all know people find more or less pleasure in looking at different things, people like different music and have different tastes. 

My point is exactly this: _Religion/spirituality/metaphysics/theology, these subjects all require belief in order for them to be true _(in some way shape or form)_. Science does not, gravity does not, math does not. _


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Jun 7, 2012)

As science continues to unravel the fabric of the cosmos, i am sure many more, if not all of our deepest desired questions will be answered, and most likely they will be answers that we probably wont like very much lol.

Imaginations give us the subjective truths we want, 
Theology gives us the subjective truths of others, 
Science gives us the closest approximation to the objective truths in this reality.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 7, 2012)

My money is on the Mold theory. We're probably a colony of what another species calls something like bacteria or mold. "Timmy! You better get that pizza out of your room or it's going to human. You don't want your room all humany, do you!?" Lol.


----------



## crazyhazey (Jun 7, 2012)

Dr.J20 said:


> Not that this is proof or anything, but some dmt researchers are postulating about the fact that all living things have dmt--plant and animal--meaning it may be the molecular basis for some kind of interspecial communication; now that's probably not really what you'd call "God" but it may be a link to some kind of notion that all carbon based life is connected in some way--even a neutral way.
> 
> Also, lets be clear here, it isn't kind to lambast someone because he may or may not know about the physiological realities of the pineal gland, but, in fairness, we, as a species, don't know everything about ourselves, much less our world and universe. Also, you haven't read every piece of philosophy, religious or otherwise, which has a great deal to bear on the discussion of the existence of God; so, all i'm saying it isn't necessary to use knowledge aggressively
> be easy


well it certainly isnt trying to prove anything through youtube videos. drJ, you always have a problem with my posts lol, but i somehow find what you have say is almost offensive, yet helpful. almost confusing. but back to the subject, i didnt say ive read every piece of philosophy, religion, etc. i dont think anyone could cover every piece of knowledge if they dedicated their lives to it, so i dont see how that had to do with anything i said but oh well. 
it is fitting to know DMT is found in everything, after i go into a DMT trip i find myself at peace with all surroundings, as if im part of it. its almost impossible to put into words, if you know what im talking about im sure you could explain it in better terms. i did not begin to "lambast" him until he started to act arrogant, i dont respect those people with an unappreciative attitude, rather offensive attitude nonetheless. he did deny many facts however, such as the fact that we all possess DMT in our body and the pinneal gland is responsible for most visions seen during something like a near death experience. im sorry if my reasoning comes off as aggressive to you, i dont mean it in anyway offensively and most things i could say shouldnt be taken too seriously, after all we are just on a forum. also, this user had a particularly dickish attitude, and he was very close minded. i need not explain anything, just read some of his posts.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jun 7, 2012)

Zaehet Strife said:


> My point is exactly this: _Religion/spirituality/metaphysics/theology, these subjects all require belief in order for them to be true _(in some way shape or form)_. Science does not, gravity does not, math does not. _


Hey, zs  I have this natural tendency to ask what really is so bad about belief. Could it be that it is the only thing that provides a non-tangible framework for science? If no one believed that things were 'possible, but not guaranteed', would we bother trying to make things better? For me, I'd have to say that the purpose of science is to benefit the lives of people, regardless of their beliefs about God. Science, per se, does not have 'a mind of its own', and will not judge the 'user'.


----------



## Dr.J20 (Jun 7, 2012)

Zaehet Strife said:


> Im not sure if this is a question or a statement. Science allows me to appreciate beauty to the fullest. Understanding just how a rainbow works with the bending of light and prisms in water. Being able not only to see the beauty of the flower, but also understanding what exactly is going on inside this biological structure fills me with a sense of appreciation and wonder.
> 
> My point is exactly this: _Religion/spirituality/metaphysics/theology, these subjects all require belief in order for them to be true _(in some way shape or form)_. Science does not, gravity does not, math does not._


My point is exactly this: if religion, spirituality, metaphysics, and theology all require belief in order for them to be true--a point which i would contend, as well I would contend the conflating of these as not really fair but anyway-- and you thereby relegate these as less valuable than science and math, then where do you place art? I mean, you don't have to believe in art at all, nor does it have to be true, is it therefore exempt from the system of hierarchical valuation in which you place math and science above religion, metaphysics, theology, and spirituality?

I am NOT discussing the beautiful or sublime in nature, but created art. art has no truth value, no need for proof at all. it, as you say, is a subjective creation of man and we all have individual tastes, but you cannot deny that artistic productions have effected individuals and societies on a scale comparable to that of science. our political existence is very real, and the aesthetic has motivated people to do great things like overthrow unjust, repressive theocracies that were keeping science down, for example. Is art only good insofar as it can advance science? if a religious artist inspired a scientist's adventure into exploration would that be enough of a reason to accept the idea that a homogeneously anti-belief society may not actually be the best?


----------



## kpmarine (Jun 7, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> Hey, zs  I have this natural tendency to ask what really is so bad about belief. Could it be that it is the only thing that provides a non-tangible framework for science? If no one believed that things were 'possible, but not guaranteed', would we bother trying to make things better? For me, I'd have to say that the purpose of science is to benefit the lives of people, regardless of their beliefs about God. Science, per se, does not have 'a mind of its own', and will not judge the 'user'.


There is nothing inherently wrong with belief. It's what you believe in, that can be good or bad. Beliefs can be built on fact, feelings, or fiction. The important thing is to evaluate them to make sure they are valid. Most importantly, one must make sure to constantly question unproven beliefs. Otherwise, you risk ending up with beliefs that are at best, incorrect, and at worst, hazardous to you and others around you. That's how I look at it.


----------



## Doer (Jun 7, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> Faith IS unnatural. It's not some opinion I hold. And you're confusing secular home with Atheist home. I was raised without practicing religions, not being taught to disapprove of them. The doctrine I received was to value education, use critical thinking, and base my decisions on facts. Lore can coincide with science, but lore is communication, science is observation. Science can be trusted because the results have been determined by ALL backgrounds. No one ever asked me what side of science I'm on.  I disagree we can not "escape" nature or nurture. Is religion Natural? Does any other species on earth practice it? Has it ever been done before? No. Imagine a Tuna having faith that the shark won't eat him. Ha! Every other animal makes decisions based on experience and observation. It's already been proven Religion doesn't instill nobility or transitivity. When we as a species can stop talking to ourselves in corners wearing fancy night gowns, we might progress.


Well, you define your world as if your parents were not involved in your pre-verbal upbringing. And these statements that you make with such weight of conviction are not facts. Emphasis alone IS!!!! not enough. That's the beef with religion, fancy night gowns for emphasis. And you know very little of the religions and beliefs of other animals as you seem to know very little about this topic. Religion seems quite the natural order of things for humans.

To just deny that fact is somewhat thoughtless, in spite of your secular upbringing, as wonderful as it may have been. Obviously secular humans are made, not born. Yet, Religion has been here "forever." And you don't know what is a religion to humpback whales , do you? 

So, you have opinions, only. So what?


----------



## Doer (Jun 7, 2012)

Zaehet Strife said:


> ^and even so, these concepts you hold without facing up to the burdens of proof, are not true... they are only true through your own individual subjective perceptions, nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> these experiences or concepts are what we make of them, and are all dependent on the environment we grew up in, how we were raised, and the culture that was instilled in us as we grew from babyhood to adulthood.
> 
> as you experience "self" these experiences will be different depending on all of the factors stated above.


But, they are true, my forum mate. Only in your group defined subjective illusion do I have any burden of proof. Prep first. I'm not trying to relate my Objective experience to your Subjective hyper-analytically thought. HLT has to stop. Prep has to occur. 

If I say, in the Uncertainty experiments, OK, let's prep. Turn on the electron beam.
A- Oh, prepping? My preconception is we don't need that.

Q- My preconception is you don't want to be part of this experiment, perhaps?

It's two different worlds. If you can't get how quantum science and matters of Self coincide then, you would want do the prep (i.e. suspend your dis-belief)

It's work. Not as easy as Science. And the works of Science do not discount the works with Self. Religion is only the question, not the answer. But, like science, without seeking there is no finding. Without prep, there is no result.

And please believe me, when the hyper-analytical thinking can be controlled and then ignored... well, how many can say they have mastered the science of Self? I assure we would realize without agreeing or disagreeing, the experience is the same. It is what is here and now, for Us, when we are prepped well enough to ignore the mind cloud.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jun 7, 2012)

kpmarine said:


> There is nothing inherently wrong with belief. It's what you believe in, that can be good or bad. Beliefs can be built on fact, feelings, or fiction. The important thing is to evaluate them to make sure they are valid. Most importantly, one must make sure to constantly question unproven beliefs. Otherwise, you risk ending up with beliefs that are at best, incorrect, and at worst, hazardous to you and others around you. That's how I look at it.


...that's totally fair. Thanks.


----------



## Legolandon (Jun 7, 2012)

Doer said:


> Here's the problem, so many attributes, human attributes, have been assigned to IT. Then we use that Abrahmic logic, to banter these traits. "What loving God...?" "Would not a Just God...?" Well, already the speech pattern assumes multiple gods. Worse, it assumes these human traits, Loving and Just are attributes of IT.
> 
> Since IT is essential un-knowable except through Self, all assignments of characterizations to IT are man-made, not Objective, since they are uttered into this Subjective soup we call Reality.


I appreciate that correction, I couldn't agree more!


----------



## Mindmelted (Jun 7, 2012)

Nice fantasy........


----------



## tyler.durden (Jun 7, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> Hey, zs  I have this natural tendency to ask what really is so bad about belief. Could it be that it is the only thing that provides a non-tangible framework for science? If no one believed that things were 'possible, but not guaranteed', would we bother trying to make things better? For me, I'd have to say that the purpose of science is to benefit the lives of people, regardless of their beliefs about God. Science, per se, does not have 'a mind of its own', and will not judge the 'user'.


Hey, Eye! I'm going to try to field this one, assuming I am understanding you correctly. You ask what is so bad about belief, I assume you mean belief in religion/deities. Belief directly influences one's thoughts and actions; if the belief is grounded in reality this is a good thing, if not beliefs can lead one astray from reality. Speculation is a huge part of science, one speculates on what may be true, then goes about acquiring data to try to prove the assumption incorrect. If they cannot prove it incorrect, the hypothesis starts to gain a foothold as others try to prove it incorrect, and so on. Religious speculation goes about this in reverse; it claims to have answers first, then goes about attempting to find any data to solidify its presupposed truth. We never see theists working arduously to disprove their dogma and ideas, but this is what it takes to responsibly attempt to understand objective reality...


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 7, 2012)

Doer said:


> Well, you define your world as if your parents were not involved in your pre-verbal upbringing. And these statements that you make with such weight of conviction are not facts. Emphasis alone IS!!!! not enough. That's the beef with religion, fancy night gowns for emphasis. And you know very little of the religions and beliefs of other animals as you seem to know very little about this topic. Religion seems quite the natural order of things for humans.
> 
> To just deny that fact is somewhat thoughtless, in spite of your secular upbringing, as wonderful as it may have been. Obviously secular humans are made, not born. Yet, Religion has been here "forever." And you don't know what is a religion to humpback whales , do you?
> 
> So, you have opinions, only. So what?


So you really believe what you just wrote!? That religion is natural? You obviously have no idea...And you point the finger and call me ignorant. Classic.

I just have to ask. Since your claiming My "opinion" that religion would not occur unless taught and children raised without any religion never suddenly "find god", surely you could site some sources? Like, a controlled experiment? Perhaps a theory of "Animal Spirituality"? Or "Universal Spirituality Theory"? Without indoctrination, every one would be an Atheist. Period. Again, sources please. 

*Indoctrination is the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology (see doctrine).[SUP][1][/SUP] It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned.[SUP][2][/SUP] As such the term may be used pejoratively, often in the context of education, political opinions, theology or religious dogma. The term is closely linked to socialization; in common discourse, indoctrination is often associated with negative connotations, while socialization refers to cultural or educational learning.

"Expected not to question."

Am I debating using wiki? Oh, ya. I forgot. Your trying to prove something you can't. So I don't care.*


----------



## drive (Jun 7, 2012)

Doer said:


> Well, you define your world as if your parents were not involved in your pre-verbal upbringing. And these statements that you make with such weight of conviction are not facts. Emphasis alone IS!!!! not enough. That's the beef with religion, fancy night gowns for emphasis. And you know very little of the religions and beliefs of other animals as you seem to know very little about this topic. Religion seems quite the natural order of things for humans.
> 
> To just deny that fact is somewhat thoughtless, in spite of your secular upbringing, as wonderful as it may have been. Obviously secular humans are made, not born. Yet, Religion has been here "forever." And you don't know what is a religion to humpback whales , do you?
> 
> So, you have opinions, only. So what?


Doer what do you suppose a philosophy/ religious disscusion with a whale is like DUDE you just BLEW my mind


----------



## Doer (Jun 7, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> So you really believe what you just wrote!? That religion is natural? You obviously have no idea...And you point the finger and call me ignorant. Classic.


It's classic in that I never called you any names and never pointed any fingers.  Since religion has been part of the human experience always and there has never been a time when it has not, just stamping your foot and claiming it's unnatural is a joke.

It's like the joke of claiming whales have no religion. You don't know. And now your speech is becoming riled. So, it's a rhetorical device to lash back like this. There is no right fight here.

Just submit your proof that religion is unnatural, if you can. Just restating it is.....not useful?

As for the rest, let us calmly approach it this way. Are you actually saying that indoctrination is not necessary to reject the entire notion of a spirit world? You must have had secular upbring to suggest that, right? How can a baby survive without indoctrination? You don't know that either, do you?

You're beliefs are being challenged, so what? We do that for all non-denominations alike.


----------



## mellokitty (Jun 7, 2012)

this thread just keeps getting better and better........


----------



## Doer (Jun 7, 2012)

drive said:


> Doer what do you suppose a philosophy/ religious disscusion with a whale is like DUDE you just BLEW my mind


With themselves, not us. Let's not be so homo-centric for a second. They have language. Whale song. An oral tradition. Seems to be based on vast memory. We just can't decode it. I think it would be astounding! What a conversation.


----------



## Dr.J20 (Jun 7, 2012)

tyler, I would only say that by using rhetoric which privileges "objective reality" you have already limited yourself to a specific epistemology and perspective on existence that is questioned by some very intelligent people indeed.


----------



## TogTokes (Jun 7, 2012)

Is magic real?

Do reindeer fly?

Can santa jump down a smoke shoot?

when did wizards really exist?

what date were the dragons killed?

If gods real, why aren't any of those lol...............................

Seems pretty plain and simple to me.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 7, 2012)

Doer said:


> It's classic in that I never called you any names and never pointed any fingers. Since religion has been part of the human experience always and there has never been a time when it has not, just stamping your foot and claiming it's unnatural is a joke.
> 
> It's like the joke of claiming whales have no religion. You don't know. And now you speech is becoming riled. So, it's a rhetorical device to lash back like this. There is no right fight here.
> 
> Just submit your proof that religion is unnatural, if you can. Just restating it is.....not useful?


You stated I knew very little about animal behavior. But with your next breath you state religion is natural. OK then. Plastic is natural. Global warming is natural. When I say natural, I mean it does not occur in the wild. 

And to state just because religion is almost as old as our species as grounds to define it as natural. I guess ignorance is our nature too? Why do we question everything? It's in our nature. But indoctrination by definition can not be questioned. Which is it. We are curious by nature, or we're not. I don't hate religion, just the logic required to obtain it.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 7, 2012)

Doer said:


> With themselves, not us. Let's not be so homo-centric for a second. They have language. Whale song. An oral tradition. Seems to be based on vast memory. We just can't decode it. I think it would be astounding! What a conversation.


Probably either, "Invisible what? WTF are you talking about" or "There are demons who ride the air above. When EEEEEEEEEEEEWWWWWWWWWWWWOOOOOOOOOO (Whale deity) calls you, he commands a demon to spear you and drag you onto a demon vessel."

Since whales are intelligent and don't dive onto the beaches every year at the same time, or sing as they slaughter each other, I'm going with option 1.


----------



## Heisenberg (Jun 7, 2012)

Pantheism is atheism without the appreciation for parsimony.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 7, 2012)

Indeed many group early pagans into the religion pile. Not so. For many years, seasons, stars, planets, and elements were recorded to teach future generations. They were welcome to question the winter solstice, for example. But claiming crazy ass unheard of shit, and then saying, "NO! No questions. It just is." is another game.


----------



## Doer (Jun 7, 2012)

TogTokes said:


> Is magic real?
> 
> Do reindeer fly?
> 
> ...


If one makes up definitions of gods and then accuses others of believing in that definition, again, there is your Subjective Illusion that you call Reality. You assume we all buy it. You wish to assume, with the other self described Atheists, that these oxymoronic juxtapositions are not just self serving pretzel logic. It's a twisty form of rhetoric that echo the other religions. Yes, to me Atheism is another religion of the outer Subjective. It seeks to deny what is proposed, in a rather zelot portrayal of passion. Not religion nor science have anything to do with the Inner Objective Self.


----------



## Dr.J20 (Jun 7, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> Why do we question everything? It's in our nature.


 I'm not so sure i agree with this one,...western philosophy has tended to encourage questioning...from the socratic method's basis in questioning to descartes duality via extreme skepticism, western philosophy has approached understanding through question-and-answer rhetoric, but that is not necessary nor is it inherently natural; children are curious, but they don't necessarily question things the way you're talking about. 

i see approaching this by constructing the false opposition "unnatural vs. natural" as unproductive and specious. You jokingly discard plastic as unnatural (via sarcasm) but if you trace its processing through the various human manipulations, you find it came from petrol which was produced by the compression of certain geological features over millions of years.--side note, would you consider plastic natural if it came from hemp oil?-- is man not part of nature? are not his efforts, executed within the scope of nature, not subject to and thus part of nature? So basically what I'm saying is this separation of man from and above nature is the result of some very close minded, repressive, imperialists. 

be easy


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jun 7, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> So you really believe what you just wrote!? That religion is natural? You obviously have no idea...


...religare - "to bind"

...fusion - I don't have to write this one out


----------



## drive (Jun 7, 2012)

the late George Carlin said Maybe the earth wants plastic and thats why it created us


----------



## Doer (Jun 7, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> Indeed many group early pagans into the religion pile. Not so. For many years, seasons, stars, planets, and elements were recorded to teach future generations. They were welcome to question the winter solstice, for example. But claiming crazy ass unheard of shit, and then saying, "NO! No questions. It just is." is another game.


You are claiming many changes of subject here. And still with the unknowable and broad generalizations. I'm really doubting that you have ever looked into it.

So, here's a little story. I got to thinking that there must be some evolution to organized religion. Since Al Gore and I invented the internet  I got busy. Very, very busy. You have no idea where the most modest search terms will lead. But, I had super fast computers and got past all the hatred of the muslins vs hindu and all the opinions of modern religiousness, with dismay. I was looking for when a belief in One God began. And, I am not religious. I know the Inner Objective. I have time on my hands, what can I say. I searched for many months and got too exposed to hate. But, I found there is no time when there was not a sure acceptance of One God. I can go back as far a 2500 BC when the Aryans invaded the Indus, also in the three rivers area, now China. The sad mistranslation of Heaven for God, in Imperial Chinese is an anti-wog expression of the British.

I turned to anthropology and the study of oral traditions. Guess what? The concept of the Sky God above all other spirits is as old as there is old. We cannot say, that religion is unnatural, unless humans are unnatural.

In fact, the animism, paganism, Baalism, and worse, including all -isms, up to today, are imposed. The natural state seems to be an assumption of Oneness with Self and nature at all levels.


----------



## Heisenberg (Jun 7, 2012)

Dr.J20 said:


> I'm not so sure i agree with this one,...western philosophy has tended to encourage questioning...from the socratic method's basis in questioning to descartes duality via extreme skepticism, western philosophy has approached understanding through question-and-answer rhetoric, but that is not necessary nor is it inherently natural; children are curious, but they don't necessarily question things the way you're talking about.
> 
> i see approaching this by constructing the false opposition "unnatural vs. natural" as unproductive and specious. You jokingly discard plastic as unnatural (via sarcasm) but if you trace its processing through the various human manipulations, you find it came from petrol which was produced by the compression of certain geological features over millions of years.--side note, would you consider plastic natural if it came from hemp oil?-- is man not part of nature? are not his efforts, executed within the scope of nature, not subject to and thus part of nature? So basically what I'm saying is this separation of man from and above nature is the result of some very close minded, repressive, imperialists.
> 
> be easy


I will agree with the one narrow point that religion being natural or unnatural seems to a be a non-sequitor. I'm not understanding the point, or seeing what difference it makes.


----------



## Doer (Jun 7, 2012)

drive said:


> the late George Carlin said Maybe the earth wants plastic and thats why it created us


God made mud.
God got lonesome.
So God said to some of the mud, "Sit up!"
"See all I've made," said God, "the hills, the sea, the
sky, the stars."
And I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look
around.
Lucky me, lucky mud.
I, mud, sat up and saw what a nice job God had done.
Nice going, God.
Nobody but you could have done it, God! I certainly
couldn't have.
I feel very unimportant compared to You.
The only way I can feel the least bit important is to
think of all the mud that didn't even get to sit up and
look around.
I got so much, and most mud got so little.
Thank you for the honor!
Now mud lies down again and goes to sleep.
What memories for mud to have!
What interesting other kinds of sitting-up mud I met!
I loved everything I saw!
Good night.
I will go to heaven now.
I can hardly wait...
To find out for certain what my wampeter was...
And who was in my karass...
And all the good things our karass did for you.
Amen. 
&#8213; Kurt Vonnegut, _ Kurt Vonnegut's Cat's Cradle _


----------



## Dr.J20 (Jun 7, 2012)

Doer said:


> The natural state seems to be an assumption of Oneness with Self and nature at all levels.


just to take up this point a little further: Take a look at Jacques Lacan's theorization of the mirror stage of development: the point in your existence when you recognize yourself as a distinct physiological entity: for his purposes, distinct from your mother with whom you, until reaching this stage, believed yourself coterminous. Hence, until you make this recognition, your "natural" state is one which functions from a presumption of connectedness, not difference.


----------



## Dr.J20 (Jun 7, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> I will agree with the one narrow point that religion being natural or unnatural seems to a be a non-sequitor. I'm not understanding the point, or seeing what difference it makes.


point being, you can't argue that the natural state is irreligious or areligious; the response i was making was to someone who had said that it makes sense to be an atheist because this is your "natural" state; thats contentious at best. if religion isn't "natural" then how did it ever start? I mean, it must have some roots in the natural because it comes from man who assimilated knowledge from his empirical experiences of and in the natural. And, therefore, discounting religion on the basis that it is "unnatural" would seem wrongheaded to me.


----------



## Doer (Jun 7, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> I will agree with the one narrow point that religion being natural or unnatural seems to a be a non-sequitor. I'm not understanding the point, or seeing what difference it makes.


It was claimed to be unnatural, we are discussing that. I certainly am not makng a point about it or saying it makes a difference.

It is a typical claim that I took the trouble to refute for myself. And it has to do with the nature vs nurture question. And if there can be a natural, yet, un-indoctrinated state of man. Obviously, no, there cannot be.


----------



## Heisenberg (Jun 7, 2012)

Dr.J20 said:


> point being, you can't argue that the natural state is irreligious or areligious; the response i was making was to someone who had said that it makes sense to be an atheist because this is your "natural" state; thats contentious at best. if religion isn't "natural" then how did it ever start? I mean, it must have some roots in the natural because it comes from man who assimilated knowledge from his empirical experiences of and in the natural. And, therefore, discounting religion on the basis that it is "unnatural" would seem wrongheaded to me.


Yes, and I was agreeing with that.


----------



## brewing up (Jun 7, 2012)

i am Gandalf the white, formally known as Gandalf the grey, have you seen my flying pig?


----------



## drive (Jun 7, 2012)

*none shall pass!!!*


----------



## Heisenberg (Jun 7, 2012)

Doer said:


> It was claimed to be unnatural, we are discussing that. I certainly am not makng a point about it or saying it makes a difference.
> 
> It is a typical claim that I took the trouble to refute for myself. And it has to do with the nature vs nurture question. And if there can be a natural, yet, un-indoctrinated state of man. Obviously, no, there cannot be.


I believe atheism is the natural state in the sense that we are born atheist, sort of a default. If you haven't heard the theist's argument, then you are an 'innocent' atheist. But I believe this is a problem of semantics, as atheism is a confusing word that shouldn't exist as a title.


----------



## Dr.J20 (Jun 7, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> I believe atheism is the natural state in the sense that we are born atheist, sort of a default. If you haven't heard the theist's argument, then you are an 'innocent' atheist. But I believe this is a problem of semantics, as atheism is a confusing word that shouldn't exist as a title.


you might be interested in some of the anthropological work done on the "blank slate" theory of our natural infancy, as Jonathan Haidt mentions in his ted talk on the root of our moral psychology...the ted talk touches the discussion going on in these forums so i've added a link for everyone interested

www.*ted*.com/*talks*/*jon*athan_*haidt*_on_the_moral_mind.html


----------



## drive (Jun 7, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> I believe atheism is the natural state in the sense that we are born atheist, sort of a default. If you haven't heard the theist's argument, then you are an 'innocent' atheist. But I believe this is a problem of semantics, as atheism is a confusing word that shouldn't exist as a title.


Perhaps....


----------



## Doer (Jun 7, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> I believe atheism is the natural state in the sense that we are born atheist, sort of a default. If you haven't heard the theist's argument, then you are an 'innocent' atheist. But I believe this is a problem of semantics, as atheism is a confusing word that shouldn't exist as a title.


And perhaps not. There is no default. An imprint of some kind may be necessary for survival. And of course, for protection, something must be done. We can turn to thought experiments.

Two babies. No three. One is the "control" if such a term is possible for this. One is raised by technicians, who are carefully trained to act as Mom and Dad, but no language is taught or spoken.

Two is cared for in secret, to him, and in a neutral environment, but alone.

Three, is cared for in secret, to him, and in a natural environment, out in the open, exposed somewhat to the elements and with animal babies, birds, reptiles, etc.

The kids are raised until 7 years when they are all taught a synthetic language (no human clues there) and quizzed in it.

Well, the point of all this is to show that it is impossible to design an experiment like this. Even in our minds, it can never be truly double blind.


----------



## mindphuk (Jun 7, 2012)

Dr.J20 said:


> My point is exactly this: if religion, spirituality, metaphysics, and theology all require belief in order for them to be true--a point which i would contend, as well I would contend the conflating of these as not really fair but anyway-- and you thereby relegate these as less valuable than science and math, then where do you place art? I mean, you don't have to believe in art at all, nor does it have to be true, is it therefore exempt from the system of hierarchical valuation in which you place math and science above religion, metaphysics, theology, and spirituality?


IMO, art is a non-sequitur or red herring. Art does not even pretend to answer questions. You may as well say, what about furniture? Philosophy -- whether theological, scientific, political, metaphysical, or whatever-- is an attempt to answer certain questions about the nature of reality or aspects of our life. Out of all of the philosophies man has come up with, science is the only one that has actually given us answers that can be confirmed and has been demonstrated to be accurate time and again. Art is not a philosophy so does not belong in the category of question answering and therefore is a weak attempt to distract from the actual discussion.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Jun 7, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> IMO, art is a non-sequitur or red herring. Art does not even pretend to answer questions. You may as well say, what about furniture? Philosophy -- whether theological, scientific, political, metaphysical, or whatever-- is an attempt to answer certain questions about the nature of reality or aspects of our life. Out of all of the philosophies man has come up with, science is the only one that has actually given us answers that can be confirmed and has been demonstrated to be accurate time and again. Art is not a philosophy so does not belong in the category of question answering and therefore is a weak attempt to distract from the actual discussion.


I was working on that... but you said it much better than i. Great job, this is amazing literature ^ and a great idea . Thanks man.


----------



## Doer (Jun 7, 2012)

Some things can be demonstrated inside to our inner Objective. Call it super-micro, outside in, science. The opposite, perhaps of physical science since as Observer, we have a very large role, even in that. In this science, Observer is all. We prep, we observe, we know. And also, the opposite of maco-science, it is proven, but can't be proved. The experience is repeatable, but if one ever gets any tech from it, it can't be shared.

There is this concept of Now, and all who get there, somehow, take great joy from the experience. Every bit of life is Now except that mostly we live, not in the Outer world we see as so Objective. Oh, no, not even that. We live in a mind cloud as I'm sure we know. 

We only pay our coin of attention when required. Yikes! The Brakes!  At work we get paid to pay attention. For entertainment we force our attention into the very present and call it a great movie, a perfect downhill ski run, that sunset took my breath away.

Now there are those who say this experience is reproducible without the adrenalin, on demand and constantly. This is the scientific verification and is available to all. But, the very thing you require so's ya don't buy a pig in a poke, so to speak, is the one thing that will prevent your prep, and yield no result. And considering all the other quantum paradox principles we've touched on, this is not surprising to me.

As I have learned this pesky belief in a powerful spirit world is part of us. Most of the world today takes it as fact, as they did before the mission of Christ. As they have done for as far back as is known. Not saying the superstitious trappings of fear and control are correct, just that the overwhelming evidence is that it all boils down to the same thing. Some may say it's the fear of the dark and the fear of death, hate and superstition. But, I say, there is something in us that causes this surety of joy. I disregard all definitions of this Self Experience, but this one, Joy, It seems a powerful force if history is a judge.

So, we can say religions of the world don't get it, are the root of many wrongs, but we can't say the world would be better now if we never had religions in this world. We always have. Those that prep may find. But, it's not the questioning plea of religion. The religions have sought to humbly describe, as science has. Yet, both are bent to good and evil. Just breathe deep. Why waste the oxygen? Peace.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jun 7, 2012)

tyler.durden said:


> Hey, Eye! I'm going to try to field this one, assuming I am understanding you correctly. You ask what is so bad about belief, I assume you mean belief in religion/deities. Belief directly influences one's thoughts and actions; if the belief is grounded in reality this is a good thing, if not beliefs can lead one astray from reality. Speculation is a huge part of science, one speculates on what may be true, then goes about acquiring data to try to prove the assumption incorrect. If they cannot prove it incorrect, the hypothesis starts to gain a foothold as others try to prove it incorrect, and so on. Religious speculation goes about this in reverse; it claims to have answers first, then goes about attempting to find any data to solidify its presupposed truth. We never see theists working arduously to disprove their dogma and ideas, *but this is what it takes to responsibly attempt to understand objective reality...*


...Hey Tyler, I agree with a lot of this. No doubt that there are a ton of people who do not know 'any' kind of method. Well, Methodists? 

...understanding objective reality takes a good 'dip' into eros consciousness, a certain kind of creative mindset. Reason I say this is because it is other half of 'empiriosity' (sorry, Bill Maher  ). It is concerned with the making, not the equating. I could also say it is the voice of intuition, which is something we receive - and not 'go forward and prove' in the way science does (not to say that is 'bad'). Couldn't we even say here that the sun has it's own 'language' and that the earth also has it's own language for 'creating'? How do they communicate to create this 'consensus' we call home? We can't negate one or the other, so far as I currently understand.

I think the two work together, just like the observer and observed idea. In the same way, the sun and earth are in equal need of each other to even _give us the chance_ at trying to figure them out. To me that points to a duality - something mutual. I can't help it man!


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 8, 2012)

Dr.J20 said:


> I'm not so sure i agree with this one,...western philosophy has tended to encourage questioning...from the socratic method's basis in questioning to descartes duality via extreme skepticism, western philosophy has approached understanding through question-and-answer rhetoric, but that is not necessary nor is it inherently natural; children are curious, but they don't necessarily question things the way you're talking about.
> 
> i see approaching this by constructing the false opposition "unnatural vs. natural" as unproductive and specious. You jokingly discard plastic as unnatural (via sarcasm) but if you trace its processing through the various human manipulations, you find it came from petrol which was produced by the compression of certain geological features over millions of years.--side note, would you consider plastic natural if it came from hemp oil?-- is man not part of nature? are not his efforts, executed within the scope of nature, not subject to and thus part of nature? So basically what I'm saying is this separation of man from and above nature is the result of some very close minded, repressive, imperialists.
> 
> be easy


I've had this debate before. If we regard everything as natural, then case closed. I stated earlier that I defined natural in this case as occurring in the wild. Also, I think your confusing Religion with tradition. Religion begins when you are told information, commanded never to question it, and then change your brain patterns through repetition. Acknowledging a change in seasons is not religion. Claiming there's a Joo Joo who controls the tides is religion. Children are VERY inquisitive. It's funny how everyone hates the "WHY" phase of toddlers. I love it! Why the fuck are you doing that, Mom? Why do you believe that, Dad. Then they rejoice when they train their child not to question motives. We should continue this practice to death. Where would we be if we never questioned the answers we are given? As for western Psychology, I'm not sure I accept it's practices. Psychology NOW is more about adjusting people to their society rather than making people happier through understanding. So according to you, Crystal Meth and the A-bomb are natural. I have no argument if this is your definition of nature. "Nature" is billions of years old. Our species is 50-75K years old. Humans have changed the model more than any other species, and we're doing it to fast for our bodies to even adapt. This is what I consider Unnatural. Delusion on the other hand runs rampant in our species. This is what will kill our species. Perhaps Sociopaths are an evolutionary step, in order to curb our emotional delusions.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 8, 2012)

Doer said:


> You are claiming many changes of subject here. And still with the unknowable and broad generalizations. I'm really doubting that you have ever looked into it.
> 
> So, here's a little story. I got to thinking that there must be some evolution to organized religion. Since Al Gore and I invented the internet  I got busy. Very, very busy. You have no idea where the most modest search terms will lead. But, I had super fast computers and got past all the hatred of the muslins vs hindu and all the opinions of modern religiousness, with dismay. I was looking for when a belief in One God began. And, I am not religious. I know the Inner Objective. I have time on my hands, what can I say. I searched for many months and got too exposed to hate. But, I found there is no time when there was not a sure acceptance of One God. I can go back as far a 2500 BC when the Aryans invaded the Indus, also in the three rivers area, now China. The sad mistranslation of Heaven for God, in Imperial Chinese is an anti-wog expression of the British.
> 
> ...


Perhaps it is in IGNORANT's nature to practice religion. Question: Why is it that the more knowledge Humans collect, the more Atheism grows? Religion was strongest when ignorance prevailed. Instead of looking at Man's ignorant, simple beginnings, try looking at the actual evolution of religions. As information becomes available, religions have to adapt. Why are the religions adapting if it's in our nature. I believe what you are saying is it is in an Ignorant Man's nature to practice religion. I would agree with this statement.

And sorry, but Atheism is older. As soon as the first man decided to Worship, he became a participant in a religion. What was he before that?


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 8, 2012)

Doer said:


> The religions have sought to humbly describe, as science has.


 Uuh..OK. Ya. Religion and Science are so close in motive, or practice, or...WHAT!? Name one "Humble" religion. I can name 1. Fundamental Buddhism. 

[h=3]The Three Trainings or Practices:[/h]These three consist of:


*Sila:* Virtue, good conduct, morality. This is based on two fundamental principles:






The principle of equality: that all living entities are equal.





The principle of reciprocity: This is the "_Golden Rule_" in
Christianity -- to do onto others as you would wish them to do 
onto you. It is found in all major religions.


*Samadhi:* Concentration, meditation, mental development. Developing one's mind is the path to wisdom which in turn leads to personal freedom. Mental development also strengthens and controls our mind; this helps us maintain good conduct.
*Prajna:* Discernment, insight, wisdom, enlightenment. This is the real heart of Buddhism. Wisdom will emerge if your mind is pure and calm

No hells or murders. No commandments to condemn non-believers. No incontestable claims.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 8, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> "FAITH". The ONLY way religion works is faith. Because without faith, you would call your minister a blathering idiot. "Faith" forces you to change the parameters of your logic. Why does deductive reasoning work for every other scenario in life EXCEPT religion? Hmmmm. Also, the universe is not, "Nothing." Just because you were sold a religion, doesn't mean you should ignore science. There are two earth type planets we have discovered SO FAR. We are also on the verge of discovering how matter can shed mass. This would answer the "Something from nothing".
> 
> Since we're on the Bible, some good 'ol Christian reading for ya!
> 
> ...


Just thought this should be here, too.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jun 8, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> As information becomes available, religions have to adapt. Why are the religions adapting if it's in our nature.


...here's an honest question: why do people study to become better at natural talents? Same thing as religion adapting, imo  Ever notice how people say that they 'practice' a certain religion? Nothing's perfect, or there would be no need for evolution in the first place - I guess.

...I wonder if science is also a 'practice'?


----------



## Doer (Jun 8, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> Perhaps it is in IGNORANT's nature to practice religion. Question: Why is it that the more knowledge Humans collect, the more Atheism grows? Religion was strongest when ignorance prevailed. Instead of looking at Man's ignorant, simple beginnings, try looking at the actual evolution of religions. As information becomes available, religions have to adapt. Why are the religions adapting if it's in our nature. I believe what you are saying is it is in an Ignorant Man's nature to practice religion. I would agree with this statement.
> 
> And sorry, but Atheism is older. As soon as the first man decided to Worship, he became a participant in a religion. What was he before that?


I see your viewpoint. You strictly define religion as ignorance go from there. You don't pick up on the fact that there was no deciding one way are the other. What you call religion is the outcome of the organizational efforts of society. But, I wish that you could take yourself back to a huddling band of early humans. It's getting dark. The wood got wet and the fire is low. Dangerous. The hunt was bad that day and so it's only roots and a few berries. Getting colder.

Sir, it is only a construct of your Imagination to think that a member of that tribe was free to not believe in what ever joo joo du jour, they had going. You think anyone at that fire could say, screw it, I'm not singing these stupid songs. They all grab a rock and that's it for you. That attitude will not be tolerated in this dire situation. You, today enjoy an anonymous freedom of expression and yet you still get torqued up. You would not last a day in that band of ancestors unless you zipped it and keep it zipped.

The thing is, the situation for man has always been dire, and a faith in a higher purpose has alway been with us. And there has always been an un-tolerated fringe that will deny the experience of the rest of us.

The liberalism and altruism of modern western society created a situation where atheism is a new experiment in tolerance, like democracy. Many see it as a religion , with precepts and passions, also. Before, society did not allow someone to deny God. They just burned them. The situation was too dire.

And I have lookied into Buddism, To the very roots. These are the guys that get the tech to rise above pain from Self and then show off by burning themselves alive. Fundamental Buddhism is a very cold and cruel culture to the ones that are not of fortunate birth. The disenfranchised are excoriated and made to feel guilty for past lives. Made to suffer more, now.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 8, 2012)

Doer said:


> I see your viewpoint. You strictly define religion as ignorance go from there. You don't pick up on the fact that there was no deciding one way are the other. What you call religion is the outcome of the organizational efforts of society. But, I wish that you could take yourself back to a huddling band of early humans. It's getting dark. The wood got wet and the fire is low. Dangerous. The hunt was bad that day and so it's only roots and a few berries. Getting colder.
> 
> Sir, it is only a construct of your Imagination to think that a member of that tribe was free to not believe in what ever joo joo du jour, they had going. You think anyone at that fire could say, screw it, I'm not singing these stupid songs. They all grab a rock and that's it for you. That attitude will not be tolerated in this dire situation. You, today enjoy an anonymous freedom of expression and yet you still get torqued up. You would not last a day in that band of ancestors unless you zipped it and keep it zipped.
> 
> ...


Except for the man who started the fire, using science. The tribe calls him magic fire man. And the Bard who wrote the first song, Magic music man. You, sir, are forgetting every religion had a first participant. We wern't "Born Religious" if that's what your getting at. It has been proven, that given no doctrine, man chooses atheism. 

As for killing me. That came later. The early religions were much more tolerant. "NO, I won't sing these stupid songs. Want to learn how to make a bow like mine?". "Ugg want bow for more food. Ugg no care what Moon you sing to." 

You see the situation was to dire to refuse science. It wasn't until religion had established control over huge populations did violence erupt. Or did I miss the chapter on the Moon God Crusades?

P.S. I'm 72" tall and way over 300lbs. If we were in a cave community, I'd instruct you. Perhaps you could be my shaman.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 8, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...here's an honest question: why do people study to become better at natural talents? Same thing as religion adapting, imo  Ever notice how people say that they 'practice' a certain religion? Nothing's perfect, or there would be no need for evolution in the first place - I guess.
> 
> ...I wonder if science is also a 'practice'?


So you're postulating that Religion is in our DNA and is evolving with us? Where's Uncle Buck when you need him!? 

Why do people study natural talents? Which natural talents? If you mean running, we didn't always need to practice running. We ran down our prey. It took over 1,000 calories just to gather berries. We practice physical movement because the model has changed quickly, and our bodies haven't been given enough time to adapt or evolve.

Did you just call science a religion. I hope not. It would clearly illustrate an ignorance of both.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jun 8, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> So you're postulating that Religion is in our DNA and is evolving with us? Where's Uncle Buck when you need him!?
> 
> Why do people study natural talents? Which natural talents? If you mean running, we didn't always need to practice running. We ran down our prey. It took over 1,000 calories just to gather berries. We practice physical movement because the model has changed quickly, and our bodies haven't been given enough time to adapt or evolve.
> 
> Did you just call science a religion. I hope not. It would clearly illustrate an ignorance of both.



...actually, yes, I am saying that in order for us to even have dna required 'religion' - 'union'. There are atheists in this very forum that have posted their belief in the 'religious dna'. My answer was "well, it takes a lot of abuse, this gene".

*if you follow science, you can't know every minute detail about it. You take it on faith that your forefathers were accurate in their apprehension of concepts. Since then, people have built on those 'truths' that can't exactly be seen. Math is pretty mystical until an object is produced. So, yes, I say that the methods of science are religious in nature - ritualistic even.

Math and Science are 'areas' of life to be studied and used appropriately, not life itself. I think some people need to just take the lab coat off for a while and put their feet in the dirt. Ugg Ugg


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 8, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...actually, yes, I am saying that in order for us to even have dna required 'religion' - 'union'. There are atheists in this very forum that have posted their belief in the 'religious dna'. My answer was "well, it takes a lot of abuse, this gene".
> 
> *if you follow science, you can't know every minute detail about it. You take it on faith that your forefathers were accurate in their apprehension of concepts. Since then, people have built on those 'truths' that can't exactly be seen. Math is pretty mystical until an object is produced. So, yes, I say that the methods of science are religious in nature - ritualistic even.
> 
> Math and Science are 'areas' of life to be studied and used appropriately, not life itself. I think some people need to just take the lab coat off for a while and put their feet in the dirt. Ugg Ugg


I am speechless.


----------



## TheRyanMaster (Jun 8, 2012)

This is some good literature to read while your high, thanks guys


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 8, 2012)

Was I just trolled?

Religion= Union

Science and religion are comparable.

DNA requires religion to exist.

Yup. Damn, yer good Eye. Have you taken on UB yet? He's good too.


----------



## Doer (Jun 8, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> Except for the man who started the fire, using science. The tribe calls him magic fire man. And the Bard who wrote the first song, Magic music man. You, sir, are forgetting every religion had a first participant. We wern't "Born Religious" if that's what your getting at. It has been proven, that given no doctrine, man chooses atheism.
> 
> As for killing me. That came later. The early religions were much more tolerant. "NO, I won't sing these stupid songs. Want to learn how to make a bow like mine?". "Ugg want bow for more food. Ugg no care what Moon you sing to."
> 
> ...


I'm sure that's how it would be, having had you best me all my life in physical contest, I'd turn to being the man behind the curtain, enjoying your protection and manipulating your superstitions. This suggests it is the natural, prototype state. Even connecting sex with birth must be far in the future.

It's a bit bald however to suggest that one day a guy made fire and was the magic man. The first magic man figured out out to bring fire back to camp. Then there were ages of just guarding fire. I am interested in what proof you have that the natural state is atheist and not merely agnostic.

To discuss the roots of religion, we need to go back to before 2500 bc or so when it started to get organized. As your shaman, we would not tolerate atheists. We do now, as the straits for us are not so dire. One slant on 'no atheists in foxholes is that they are fragged." The situation is intolerable with so much at stake.

As for this:
"*The early religions were much more tolerant. "NO, I won't sing these stupid songs. Want to learn how to make a bow like mine?". "Ugg want bow for more food. Ugg no care what Moon you sing to." 

*What!? "Much more tolerant....??" You just made that up and it has no basis in anthropology whatsoever. The idea that modern tolerance is allowed in proto-scocieties is just not correct. It's quite the opposite. Tech skills were closely guarded and began the tradeguild format. No one is allow to decide to make hunting tools rather than sing with the tribe. No one is allow to do anything without the blessing of shaman. It just would not occur to them, modern man.


----------



## Dr.J20 (Jun 8, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> IMO, art is a non-sequitur or red herring. Art does not even pretend to answer questions. You may as well say, what about furniture? Philosophy -- whether theological, scientific, political, metaphysical, or whatever-- is an attempt to answer certain questions about the nature of reality or aspects of our life. Out of all of the philosophies man has come up with, science is the only one that has actually given us answers that can be confirmed and has been demonstrated to be accurate time and again. Art is not a philosophy so does not belong in the category of question answering and therefore is a weak attempt to distract from the actual discussion.


I kind of resent the claim that I am trying to distract from the actual discussion by bringing up art. I took a view from the perspective of effect, a tactic i thought a bunch of science nazis might appreciate or at least be open to. the effect of art on humanity is wide ranging and shares some motives with these philosophies: what is the endgame of answering these questions? presumably, a better existence, right? So art takes a different approach: instead of trying answer questions, it provides an aesthetic moment, a point of repose for the mind, enabling that mind to consider an unbounded reality, a realm of pure potential. This kind of centering has been shown to be good for individuals (like meditation)--art therapy comes to mind as well.
That art moves individuals to alter their lives, alters their existences, even changes the way they perceive the world, places art in the category of "attempts at making life better" as do philosophy, religion, science, metaphysics. 
I had hoped to open the discussion from another angle to see if we could arrive at some kind of common understanding; fruitful argumentation, ideally, results in both parties coming away with something new, something gained.IMO. 
But it seems as though there will be no tolerance for the idea that a diverse society (a) is the best, healthiest, most productive society, and (b) requires diverse individuals, including those of differing beliefs. 

Could one of you proof mongers explain to me how your all not just agnostic? I mean you can't exactly disprove the existence of the spiritual/metaphysical, just as much as you can't prove it exists, so wouldn't, "we don't know, yet" be the most scientific answer about this?


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jun 8, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> Was I just trolled?
> 
> Religion= Union
> 
> ...



...bleh. I'm sorry that you have not read into the depths of religion. We're meant to emulate the sun, get it? It IS a solar religion. What does the sun do?

There is, to a person who believes in 'Christos', a God 'behind' the sun (Father). This is really why we're 'in it'. If you cannot navigate the symbolic language, please don't jump to calling me a troll.

As far as you know, what created you? Can you answer that?

...either way, yes, for sure - you have just been trolled


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jun 8, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> I am speechless.


...I'm changing this post. There, changed.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jun 8, 2012)

Doer said:


> As your shaman, we would not tolerate atheists. We do now, as the straits for us are not so dire.


...that is one hell of an interesting point.


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 8, 2012)

Dr.J20 said:


> I kind of resent the claim that I am trying to distract from the actual discussion by bringing up art. I took a view from the perspective of effect, a tactic i thought a bunch of science nazis might appreciate or at least be open to. the effect of art on humanity is wide ranging and shares some motives with these philosophies: what is the endgame of answering these questions? presumably, a better existence, right? So art takes a different approach: instead of trying answer questions, it provides an aesthetic moment, a point of repose for the mind, enabling that mind to consider an unbounded reality, a realm of pure potential. This kind of centering has been shown to be good for individuals (like meditation)--art therapy comes to mind as well.
> That art moves individuals to alter their lives, alters their existences, even changes the way they perceive the world, places art in the category of "attempts at making life better" as do philosophy, religion, science, metaphysics.
> I had hoped to open the discussion from another angle to see if we could arrive at some kind of common understanding; fruitful argumentation, ideally, results in both parties coming away with something new, something gained.IMO.
> *But it seems as though there will be no tolerance for the idea that a diverse society (a) is the best, healthiest, most productive society, and (b) requires diverse individuals, including those of differing beliefs. *
> ...


I am a bit surprised by this. Why would we not want the best, healthiest, most productive society? It seems a sure way to be one up on the survival sweepstakes. 
I have been following the "is religion or atheism the default condition?" with some interest. My studies of the world to date suggest that religious sentiment/sensibility is hardwired into the human brain at some level. The sheer traction of the idea of engaged spirits can only have its basis in a shared neurochemical quirk ... unless, of course, some of the magic DOES turn out to have real power behind it. But I am diffident of that. cn


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 8, 2012)

Doer said:


> I'm sure that's how it would be, having had you best me all my life in physical contest, I'd turn to being the man behind the curtain, enjoying your protection and manipulating your superstitions. This suggests it is the natural, prototype state. Even connecting sex with birth must be far in the future.
> 
> It's a bit bald however to suggest that one day a guy made fire and was the magic man. The first magic man figured out out to bring fire back to camp. Then there were ages of just guarding fire. I am interested in what proof you have that the natural state is atheist
> and not merely agnostic.


Atheism has no doctrines. That's how. Without being introduced to information which can not be questioned, we act on what we observe, not what we don't.

Agnostics have information on deities. Without that information, they would be Atheists. Atheist simply means no belief in Gods. Neither religion hater, nor science nerd, nor antagonist. Just no belief. 

You believe even in a secluded room, raised from birth with no knowledge of any Gods, a human will suddenly invent religion. No. Religion is not society, or values, or family. It's a group of ideas never to be questioned, ever. Pretty lame to me. My first clue is when someone says, "trust me." That's when I run.

"The first thing to understand about religion is that it does not activate one particular capacity in the mind, a &#8220;religious module&#8221; or system that would create the complex set of beliefs and norms we usually call religion."

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/why_is_religion_natural/

So while it has integrated itself into our nature it is in fact, unnatural to participate in religion. You MUST have external knowledge (Remember, can't be questioned) to be religious. 

"_Refutation is more difficult than belief._ It takes greater effort to challenge and rethink established notions than just accept them. Besides, in most domains of culture we just absorb other people&#8217;s notions. Religion is no exception. If everyone round about you says that there are invisible dead people around, and everyone acts accordingly, it would take a much greater effort to try and verify such claims than it takes to accept them, if only provisionally."
[youtube]AsUW8JcnzZs[/youtube]


----------



## Doer (Jun 8, 2012)

These are just made up definitions. And then Ace Ventura movie snips? Laughable. But, meaningless. 

What is the proof and what was the experiment that shows a rejection of God without ever knowing about IT? Hold on! Are you even seeing your own paradox? I hope you read my thought experiment about this. What say you?

The book, Lord of the Flies, is a great and eye opening treatment of this subject. You perhaps are claiming more thickness to the skin of civil behavior than I do.

And it is very interesting that the link you provided is a double-speak web page on being told what to say.

Don't say, this, say that. The word substitution of religion. A entire page of catechism.

*Do not say...**But say... *Religion answers people&#8217;s metaphysical questionsReligious thoughts are typically activated when people deal with concrete situations (this crop, that disease, this new birth, this dead body, etc.)


Atheism is a fools religion of fear and rejection. You have to know about IT to reject IT. Agnosticism is not dependent on knowing anything or being exposed to anything. It's really about not caring about the definitions of IT. Atheists care passionately for some reasons they are very vocal about.


----------



## Dislexicmidget2021 (Jun 8, 2012)

*




Originally Posted by Doer  
The religions have sought to humbly describe, as science has.


*LOL,Now heres a sig waiting to happen.....carry on.*

*


----------



## Doer (Jun 8, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> I am a bit surprised by this. Why would we not want the best, healthiest, most productive society? It seems a sure way to be one up on the survival sweepstakes.
> I have been following the "is religion or atheism the default condition?" with some interest. My studies of the world to date suggest that religious sentiment/sensibility is hardwired into the human brain at some level. The sheer traction of the idea of engaged spirits can only have its basis in a shared neurochemical quirk ... unless, of course, some of the magic DOES turn out to have real power behind it. But I am diffident of that. cn


In quantum speak, we actual change our world by Observation. Therefore the worldview in the past was not only different, the world was different, in that we were closer in our perceptions to the Many Worlds. That is scary and so we tried and tried to get to an Objective basic for Reality. But, the quantum case is practically closed, imo. There is no Objective basis for Reality.

We don't even know if dark matter was "there" before we observed the pans of galaxies rotating as if they were spheres. Preception is Conception, I'm afraid.


----------



## mindphuk (Jun 8, 2012)

Dr.J20 said:


> I kind of resent the claim that I am trying to distract from the actual discussion by bringing up art. I took a view from the perspective of effect, a tactic i thought a bunch of science nazis might appreciate or at least be open to. the effect of art on humanity is wide ranging and shares some motives with these philosophies: what is the endgame of answering these questions? presumably, a better existence, right? So art takes a different approach: instead of trying answer questions, it provides an aesthetic moment, a point of repose for the mind, enabling that mind to consider an unbounded reality, a realm of pure potential. This kind of centering has been shown to be good for individuals (like meditation)--art therapy comes to mind as well.
> That art moves individuals to alter their lives, alters their existences, even changes the way they perceive the world, places art in the category of "attempts at making life better" as do philosophy, religion, science, metaphysics.
> I had hoped to open the discussion from another angle to see if we could arrive at some kind of common understanding; fruitful argumentation, ideally, results in both parties coming away with something new, something gained.IMO.
> But it seems as though there will be no tolerance for the idea that a diverse society (a) is the best, healthiest, most productive society, and (b) requires diverse individuals, including those of differing beliefs.
> ...


Resent it all you want but that's exactly what your post did. To summarize, you said - if we think philosophy X is better, more useful than philosophy A, B and C, what about this other thing that isn't a philosophy? It's not any different than if we were discussing fruit and you said, "You think oranges are better than apples, bananas or kiwi, but what about television?" 
Whether you 'intended' to do this or not, my post should have made you aware that this is what you did and instead of feeling insulted or angry, maybe you should have thought about it a bit so you can learn to recognize when you make a fallacious argument.

My post says nothing about the comparative value of art wrt philosophical endeavors. The point is that they are different things and conflating them into a discussion about belief is meaningless and only serves to attempt to 'trap' your opponent into trying to answer a question that is meaningless. 

As for your 'proof monger' comment, I would ask if you decline to seek evidence in other areas of your life as you do here? Do you care whether the medicine you take has evidence that it works or the food you eat won't kill you, or that every piece of technology that you own and use was developed using the principles of critical, skeptical thinking? If it wasn't for people like me and other science-oriented individuals, you would still be making your art on cave walls.


Science is indeed agnostic about every question that is asked. If you believe anyone has said otherwise, I personally would like to see a link to the post.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 8, 2012)

Rejection!? I don't reject God, sir.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 8, 2012)

Doer said:


> Atheism is a religion. You have to know about IT to reject IT. Agnosticism is not dependent on knowing anything or being exposed to anything. It's really about not caring about the definitions of IT. Atheists care passionately for some reasons they are very vocal about.


Another sig just screamin'...


----------



## Doer (Jun 8, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> Rejection!? I don't reject God, sir.


I thought you patterned yourself as an atheist. And that is the natural state. But, perhaps you mean that old saw of, you can't reject something that doesn't exist?


----------



## Doer (Jun 8, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> Another sig just screamin'...


Feel free to use it if you'd like to.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 8, 2012)

Doer said:


> I thought you patterned yourself as an atheist. And that is the natural state. But, perhaps you mean that old saw of, you can't reject something that doesn't exist?


Now your discarding fundamental truths. I can't nor care to argue imaginary scenarios.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 8, 2012)

Doer said:


> Feel free to use it if you'd like to.


Roger that.


----------



## Doer (Jun 8, 2012)

Am I getting you mixed up with someone? Are you not proposing atheism as a natural FACT?


----------



## Doer (Jun 8, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> Now your discarding fundamental truths. I can't nor care to argue imaginary scenarios.


You did you use the quote you said was screamin' What's up with that?


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 8, 2012)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

Look at the Antonyms for Religion. 

"Atheism is a religion." Sheesh.

(Insert comment here)


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 8, 2012)

You gave me permission....


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 8, 2012)

Doer said:


> Am I getting you mixed up with someone? Are you not proposing atheism as a natural FACT?


Condition. Your trying to straw man but you've seldom encountered an Atheist, and can tell by your arguments, you have no idea how an Atheist feels. You assume an Atheist rejects God. You keep using the word God, not Gods, or Allah, or even Qi.

Folks have been polite, because they are assuming you are ill equipped for a scientific debate. Don't shoot the messenger. To say you have faith is one thing. But to try to support faith with science is Laughable. Then you state dinosaurs were being witnessed by man. Then you accuse me of using a "What to say" site as a source. Written by a man at a university who studies behavior. In a team. Of other scientists. Please understand.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 8, 2012)

&#8220;There are things known and there are things unknown, and in between are the doors of perception.&#8221; - Aldous Huxley​


----------



## Doer (Jun 8, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> You gave me permission....


You must be journalist.


----------



## Doer (Jun 8, 2012)

Doer said:


> Am I getting you mixed up with someone? Are you not proposing atheism as a natural FACT?


I'm quite sure you were proposing, just very recently that, a-the-ism is a natural born condition of humans. Are you starting to realize how impossible that is? Any -theism is a result of cognition. "Don't know anything" is how we are born. Not an -ism it's a condition of ignorance. A -tic. Ag-nos-tic.


----------



## kpmarine (Jun 8, 2012)

Doer said:


> These are just made up definitions. And then Ace Ventura movie snips? Laughable. But, meaningless.
> 
> What is the proof and what was the experiment that shows a rejection of God without ever knowing about IT? Hold on! Are you even seeing your own paradox? I hope you read my thought experiment about this. What say you?
> 
> ...


Atheism is not a religion. It is merely an act; the act of deciding that there is no proof of a "god". Atheism would not exist without religion, it is completely counter to the concept. It makes no sense to call it a religion. A religion requires belief in a god. A belief that an adult had to force upon me as a child. I never conceived the idea of god on my own. I would still not beleive in a god, even if the idea was not brought up. I believe in a higher power just as little, regardless of my awareness of the concept of it. Atheists care, because religion has, and continues to, perpetuate ignorance and atrocities throughout history. I don't see atheists claiming a divine power says that "god hates fags".


----------



## Doer (Jun 8, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> Condition. Your trying to straw man but you've seldom encountered an Atheist, and can tell by your arguments, you have no idea how an Atheist feels. You assume an Atheist rejects God. You keep using the word God, not Gods, or Allah, or even Qi.
> 
> Folks have been polite, because they are assuming you are ill equipped for a scientific debate. Don't shoot the messenger. To say you have faith is one thing. But to try to support faith with science is Laughable. Then you state dinosaurs were being witnessed by man. Then you accuse me of using a "What to say" site as a source. Written by a man at a university who studies behavior. In a team. Of other scientists. Please understand.


Well, thanks for the nice pat on the head, and being politely condescending. Who was taking about dinosaurs? I've got nothing against atheists or seculars, zealots, or name callers, but, you need to go and peruse the science and tech section, here if you think I'm ill equipped.

What is your stance on the natural state of man, again?


----------



## Doer (Jun 8, 2012)

kpmarine said:


> Atheism is not a religion. It is merely an act; the act of deciding that there is no proof of a "god". Atheism would not exist without religion, it is completely counter to the concept. It makes no sense to call it a religion. A religion requires belief in a god. A belief that an adult had to force upon me as a child. I never conceived the idea of god on my own. I would still not beleive in a god, even if the idea was not brought up. I believe in a higher power just as little, regardless of my awareness of the concept of it. Atheists care, because religion has, and continues to, perpetuate ignorance and atrocities throughout history. I don't see atheists claiming a divine power says that "god hates fags".


It crosses the line to me due to the fervor, passion, zealotry, to proclaim as FACT, the basic understanding of all mankind is wrong. Smarter than the Pope I guess, since he sees it the opposite. So, yet another religion. A pagan expression. Perhaps thought leaders for persecution if the tables were turned, based on the comments I see here.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 8, 2012)

Doer said:


> Well, thanks for the nice pat on the head, and being politely condescending. Who was taking about dinosaurs? I've got nothing against atheists or seculars, zealots, or name callers, but, you need to go and peruse the science and tech section, here if you think I'm ill equipped.
> 
> What is your stance on the natural state of man, again?


I apologize. I must have mixed you up with another poster. He was claiming dinosaurs were around with mankind.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 8, 2012)

Doer said:


> It crosses the line to me due to the fervor, passion, zealotry, to proclaim as FACT, the basic understanding of all mankind is wrong. Smarter than the Pope I guess, since he sees it the opposite. So, yet another religion. A pagan expression. Perhaps thought leaders for persecution if the tables were turned, based on the comments I see here.


It will grieve you sir, to learn we are only aware of 6% of our universe then. Everything we've just debated is probably wrong. "?" is better than fantastical stories...Of which I have no good reason to believe, unless doctrines command so.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 8, 2012)

goodvibes420 said:


> The question who created the creator is answered as follows
> 
> For you to believe in a creator you must believe he has been around forever. Eternity is a hard thing to imagine but to understand religion you must realize that for a god to exist it must be this way. If you believe something cant come from nothing and a god couldnt always be around then how to you explain the universe. Has the universe just always been around or what came before that? to me it makes more sense believing an all powerful creator has existed for ever than to believe a universe has.
> 
> To the dinosaur question, it is not even a known fact when dinosaurs existed. Some scientists believe they existed around the same time as humans and if you believe that then they were created for our enjoyment along with every other aniaml on the planet. he created this world for us and everything on it was created for us to expierience and view. The good as well as the bad.


Thousand pardons. My mush melon mixed up posts. I did. My stoned ass. How's that for a sig?


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 8, 2012)

As for proof that god exists, what's your position again?


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jun 8, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> Thousand pardons. My mush melon mixed up posts. I did. My stoned ass. How's that for a sig?


...doobieeee doobie doooo


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 8, 2012)

Doer said:


> I'm quite sure you were proposing, just very recently that, a-the-ism is a natural born condition of humans. Are you starting to realize how impossible that is? Any -theism is a result of cognition. "Don't know anything" is how we are born. Not an -ism it's a condition of ignorance. A -tic. Ag-nos-tic.


oops, missed this one. Please don't mod me for my money shot all over this thread...

I still contend. Atheism is no belief. Do you believe in ghgxdfhjkohgo;dfh;ouidhsdio;ufighriodjg'spgrji[serouty890seriogjaio'j[0uhehbvgo[isdrsdrsdrsdremh9gth 9seh????? Huh? Do ya? Are you rejecting ghgxdfhjkohgo;dfh;ouidhsdio;ufighriodjg'spgrji[serouty890seriogjaio'j[0uhehbvgo[isdrsdrsdrsdremh9gth 9seh?????

No. You have no knowledge of what that is. So it doesn't concern you. This is the "Innocent Atheist". I was raised secular with every religion trying to recruit me. You have no idea how CRAZY people seem when they all "KNOW" that XXXX is real, and that without doing XXXX that XXXX will happen, but if you XXXX, then you'll get XXXX. It illustrated the entire situation in about 9 months, at age 12. and 13,14,15,16,etc.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 8, 2012)

I wonder if the worms crawling through our skin "Have shit figured out"?


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Jun 8, 2012)

Doer, Atheism is not a religion. 

When you are born, you are classified as an Atheist. For you hold no belief in a supernatural power or god/gods. If you have no belief... you are an Atheist. If you have no belief, it cannot be religious. 

Religion- The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods. Details of belief as taught or discussed.

Atheism- Disbelief in the existence of God or gods.

This is elementary thinking in philosophy, and is extremely simple to understand if you take the time to.

If you do anything BUT believe, you are an Atheist. If you have the capacity to choose, and choose neither, you take an agnostic position about the subject... but this agnostic position falls short as to be classified as philosophical suicide.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jun 8, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> I wonder if the worms crawling through our skin "Have shit figured out"?


...only if they go in head first 

...the 'knowing' that people are relaying is not concrete knowledge, it is abstract. Such is life, man.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 8, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...only if they go in head first
> 
> ...the 'knowing' that people are relaying is not concrete knowledge, it is abstract. Such is life, man.


Nice try on the sig. But any one who knows me will click and see it's out of context.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jun 8, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> Nice try on the sig. But any one who knows me will click and see it's out of context.



...then you see exactly why I did it. I'll take it down now.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 8, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...then you see exactly why I did it. I'll take it down now.


Click on Doer's quote. Is it out of context, or did he really refer to Atheism as a religion? (Jeopardy music please)


----------



## kpmarine (Jun 8, 2012)

Doer said:


> It crosses the line to me due to the fervor, passion, zealotry, to proclaim as FACT, the basic understanding of all mankind is wrong. Smarter than the Pope I guess, since he sees it the opposite. So, yet another religion. A pagan expression. Perhaps thought leaders for persecution if the tables were turned, based on the comments I see here.


Fervent support of a position in no way makes that position a religion. Just because the majority believes it, doesn't make it right; so that's a flawed argument. I wasn't aware that the pope was the leader in intellectual affairs, thanks for the heads up. I'm sure his deep and fascinating insight on condoms, AIDS, abortion, and women's rights shall be informative.


----------



## Doer (Jun 8, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> As for proof that god exists, what's your position again?


Well, if you read back, you will see I never offered any, but I've repeatedly asked for your proof, FACT!!!, etc that atheism is what you've said it was. The natural state. If we were un-sullied by
religiousity we be athiests. Not thiest. We would certainly be rejectosr of theism. Did you read the puzzle I propose?. I try to refrain from make bald statements that I can't back up and I reist your attempts to bully the conversation. So what?


----------



## kpmarine (Jun 8, 2012)

Doer said:


> Well, if you read back, you will see I never offered any, but I've repeatedly asked for your proof, FACT!!!, etc that atheism is what you've said it was. The natural state. If we were un-sullied by
> religiousity we be athiests. Not thiest. We would certainly be rejectosr of theism. Did you read the puzzle I propose?. I try to refrain from make bald statements that I can't back up and I reist your attempts to bully the conversation. So what?


In order to reject something, I would have to believe it exists. I don't, and can't, reject things that are not real.


----------



## Doer (Jun 8, 2012)

kpmarine said:


> Fervent support of a position in no way makes that position a religion. Just because the majority believes it, doesn't make it right; so that's a flawed argument. I wasn't aware that the pope was the leader in intellectual affairs, thanks for the heads up. I'm sure his deep and fascinating insight on condoms, AIDS, abortion, and women's rights shall be informative.


Athiesm is not yet an organized religion. Call it a cult. And we can certainly sense the superiority and sometimes, outright violence of thought, that's common in cult formation, when the intellectuals succed in motivating the minions. A certain type of second class viewpoint is already forming from the "First Class." of Truth. A true intolerance brewing if you ask me. A blame and guilt game to make Religion as the culprit for our moderm ills. The ignorance of some the basic fact of history, show me the dumbed dowm mob is getting ahold of the idea. 

It's something to be feared as any religion, to me. So, the little a-theist, like Mr. H and mPhk, beware the mob secular anti-globalists. For me any label beyond Self is a power game.


----------



## Doer (Jun 8, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> Click on Doer's quote. Is it out of context, or did he really refer to Atheism as a religion? (Jeopardy music please)



This personal attack stance is just showig what a punk you are. I'm proud of what I said.
Lowly sarcasm, how base we stoop.


----------



## Doer (Jun 8, 2012)

kpmarine said:


> In order to reject something, I would have to believe it exists. I don't, and can't, reject things that are not real.


That's the usual wiggle and it's pretel logic, attibutabe to cults. You say you aren't rejecting the concept of diety, but you are.
You claim the concept is false.


----------



## kpmarine (Jun 8, 2012)

A cult is, by definiton, a religion. So now you're just trying to poison the well further against atheist individuals by branding us a "cult". Could you provide me with some examples of what you call "outright violence of thought"? I'm not sure I follow you.


----------



## Heisenberg (Jun 8, 2012)

Doer said:


> Athiesm is not yet an organized religion. Call it a cult. And we can certainly sense the superiority and sometimes, outright violence of thought, that's common in cult formation, when the intellectuals succed in motivating the minions. A certain type of second class viewpoint is already forming from the "First Class." of Truth. A true intolerance brewing if you ask me. A blame and guilt game to make Religion as the culprit for our moderm ills. The ignorance of some the basic fact of history, show me the dumbed dowm mob is getting ahold of the idea.
> 
> It's something to be feared as any religion, to me. So, the little a-theist, like Mr. H and mPhk, beware the mob secular anti-globalists. For me any label beyond Self is a power game.


I am not understanding how a cult can be formed around the lack of believing a proposition, especially when that proposition has a number of reasons, some at odds with each other, for being rejected. Not all atheists, by far, play the blame game. This cult would also have to include those who have never even heard of theism. This is what you choose to indicate when you choose the word atheist. Perhaps skeptics would be a better title, as it at least indicates the the rejection came about for similar and agreeable reasons, and that all participants are aware of the arguments. Even then, skepticism is simply a method for judging truth value. I think you are speaking of anti-religious groups.


----------



## Doer (Jun 8, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> It will grieve you sir, to learn we are only aware of 6% of our universe then. Everything we've justdebated is probably wrong. "?" is better than fantastical stories...Of which I have no good reason to believe, unless doctrines ]command so.


Why would I greve about that? I have postualted many times we are in a Subjective Illusion due to quantum effects. That is, we know nothing. And every new fact we nail down makes us wonder why it is so pat. So, Goldilocks. We are, quite possilby changing the very nature of reality. So, is it a wonder we find us in a perfect place for Knowledge of Self?

We may be making it so, as we go, and there is no way to know. A self-fulling Self. So, I don't think we are in any postion in Science or any other striving to reject the notions that got us here.


----------



## Doer (Jun 8, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> I am not understanding how a cult can be formed around the lack of believing a proposition, especially when that proposition has a number of reasons, some at odds with each other, for being rejected. Not all atheists, by far, play the blame game. This cult would also have to include those who have never even heard of theism. This is what you choose to indicate when you choose the word atheist. Perhaps skeptics would be a better title, as it at least indicates the the rejection came about for similar and agreeable reasons, and that all participants are aware of the arguments. Even then, skepticism is simply a method for judging truth value. I think you are speaking of anti-religious groups.


Yes, we are sceptics and that is why I chose the little "a" form. I believe you suggested it. Let's use sceptics to distance our selves from the -isms. We are born sceptical. I agree there is a big differnce in the sceptism of the value of organized religion and the anti-religious zeal of Atheists. That to me is becoming a cult, with all the bullying, etc that goes with it. That cult will claim all the wrongs of history are to be blamed on Religion. If the freedom of Religion was not guarnteed I'd fear a secular govt where religion was outlawed in the name of FACT.


----------



## kpmarine (Jun 8, 2012)

Doer said:


> Yes, we are sceptics and that is why I chose the little "a" form. I believe you suggested it. Let's use sceptics to distance our selves from the -isms. We are born sceptical. I agree there is a big differnce in the sceptism of the value of organized religion and the anti-religious zeal of Atheists. That to me is becoming a cult, with all the bullying, etc that goes with it. That cult will claim all the wrongs of history are to be blamed on Religion. If the freedom of Religion was not guarnteed I'd fear a secular govt where religion was outlawed in the name of FACT.


If freedom of religion was not guaranteed, I'd be more afraid of a state church.


----------



## Doer (Jun 8, 2012)

kpmarine said:


> A cult is, by definiton, a religion. So now you're just trying to poison the well further against atheist individuals by branding us a "cult". Could you provide me with some examples of what you call "outright violence of thought"? I'm not sure I follow you.


You are rejecting the concept of diety and have a bit of contempt perhaps?


----------



## kpmarine (Jun 8, 2012)

Doer said:


> You are rejecting the concept of diety and have a bit of contempt perhaps?


In the same way I reject the concept of santa, yes, I reject the concept of a diety. Contempt? Where do you get that idea? You didn't show me any of this violence of thought that you allege, by the way.


----------



## Heisenberg (Jun 8, 2012)

Doer said:


> Yes, we are sceptics and that is why I chose the little "a" form. I believe you suggested it. Let's use sceptics to distance our selves from the -isms. We are born sceptical. I agree there is a big differnce in the sceptism of the value of organized religion and the anti-religious zeal of Atheists. That to me is becoming a cult, with all the bullying, etc that goes with it. That cult will claim all the wrongs of history are to be blamed on Religion. If the freedom of Religion was not guarnteed I'd fear a secular govt where religion was outlawed in the name of FACT.


This would be a cult that I personally would detest as much as Christianity. I believe in freedom of religion, believe it is important, and no amount of stupidity found in the various religions changes the value for liberty.


----------



## kpmarine (Jun 8, 2012)

columbiandruglord said:


> Athiests are 400% more likely to be gay than christians.


Where did you get this number? Also, of what relevance is it?


----------



## Doer (Jun 8, 2012)

To see outside causality.

It easy for me to see why we insist there is a higher fate, destiny, angels, bedevilments, etc. Sometimes it seems for ya and sometimes against. Runs of luck stick out from the random events and seem more than coincidence. There may be a scientific explaination, at right angles perhaps, to the questions of science and religion, wonder and depression, inability to control our thoughts and thus our will. The Rosetta stone or a skill almost made extinct by Objectivity?

If we are subject, actually to Many Worlds, we may very well, sense something about the outcomes of all this decision-making a litte bit, just before hand, outside of causality, just a smidge. The sixth sense, the feeling of impending doom, the luck has picked up, played out. I've almost been killed a number of times, just left a little teeth skin behind. Wouldn't it be weird if the only thing holding us back as the Conceivers of this Reality, is simple disbelief.

Well, if Heisenberg and crew got us this far, maybe more experiments can be designed to show some of this.


----------



## Doer (Jun 8, 2012)

kpmarine said:


> In the same way I reject the concept of santa, yes, I reject the concept of a diety. Contempt? Where do you get that idea? You didn't show me any of this violence of thought that you allege, by the way.


It's all here, you can look it up. Much in this thread. If you are skeptical about the views of religion, OK. So am I. But, you did deny rejecting God, and I guess you do. God is the concept of Deity. No more no less. Omni this and that, unknowable except thru Self. Outside of religious limitations. So, you reject religion but not God since that doesn't exist, but the concept of Deity. Got it. So, contempt for the concept of diety?


----------



## Doer (Jun 8, 2012)

kpmarine said:


> If freedom of religion was not guaranteed, I'd be more afraid of a state church.


Tyranny is tyranny, brother.


----------



## kpmarine (Jun 8, 2012)

Doer said:


> It's all here, you can look it up. Much in this thread. If you are skeptical about the views of religion, OK. So am I. But, you did deny rejecting God, and I guess you do. God is the concept of Deity. No more no less. Omni this and that, unknowable except thru Self. Outside of religious limitations. So, you reject religion but not God since that doesn't exist, but the concept of Deity. Got it. So, contempt for the concept of diety?


I looked, didn't see any violence threatened, though I may have missed it. As far as what I do and do not dismiss. I misspoke I think, I was trying to convey that I didn't reject "god" to become an atheist. You seemed to be implying one must reject the concept of "god" to be an atheist. I was an atheist, therefore I rejected it. I was trying to show you that one can be an atheist without even knowing of this "god" idea. As far as contempt for the concept of a deity. I do have contempt for such a thing, only in the "beneath consideration,worthless" sense of it though.


----------



## Doer (Jun 8, 2012)

Roger that, kp, it's the venom in the words that I refer to as violence of thought. Not the threat, though one was vaguely implied, at some point, not by you, of course.

Can you see how a deep experience via drugs or war chanting, or whatever can be so overwhelming to be attributed to diety?
And that luck favors the prepared and so the hand of Providence guides our Nation?


----------



## kpmarine (Jun 8, 2012)

Doer said:


> Roger that, kp, it's the venom in the words that I refer to as violence of thought. Not the threat, though one was vaguely implied, at some point, not by you, of course.
> 
> Can you see how a deep experience via drugs or war chanting, or whatever can be so overwhelming to be attributed to diety?
> And that luck favors the prepared and so the hand of Providence guides our Nation?


Oh, I see what you're saying, It is a topic that gets pretty heated. The whole god debate has had me wondering lately, even more so since you brought it up here. When I see the world around me, I don't see god. As a child, I never saw god in something until I was instructed that I should. I can't help but wonder if there's a particular personality trait that makes you more inclined to believe in such a thing. Ultimately, religion did originate somewhere. I wonder if, before science, people were just more inclined to fabricate a god on their own for lack of better explanations. I don't think it's the default, but I do think it was much easier to go along with theism due to lack of science.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Jun 8, 2012)

All thinking men are atheists. Earnest Hemingway

Everyone is born atheist. Religion is learned. As a learned behavior, peoples' religion 
can be accurately predicted by the religion of their parents and the place where they 
live. Therefore it is no surprise that 77% of Americans are Christian, 97% of Saudis are 
Muslim, 95% of Thais are Buddhist, 80% of Indians are Hindu and 85% of Swedes 
have no religion.

Religionists do not want to admit that everyone is born atheist. The statement infuriates 
them. Religionists want to deny the facts. They call this faith--persisting in believing 
something despite contrary facts. They act as if faith is a good thing. But it does not 
change the fact that everyone is born atheist, religion is learned. Perhaps religionists 
fear that if they admit religion is learned, people will realize that it can be unlearned.

Atheists have no belief in god. Some atheists never learned religion. Others have 
unlearned religion. Literally, atheism means "without deities." In this book, I use it 
slightly more broadly to mean "without religion."

Religion is generally characterized by 1.) believing in a supernatural god or gods, 2.) 
believing in life after death; and, 3.) following a "holy" book or "scripture" that is 
allegedly attributable to their god or gods.

Religion is man-made. Religion is not a divinely inspired truth, it is a product of family 
and society. If you were born in Saudi Arabia, you would most likely be Muslim. If you 
were born in Thailand, you would most likely be Buddhist. There is no one great 
religious truth. Today, there are many religions and over the history of man, there have 
been many more. If you follow a religion it is almost always the result of the time, place 
and family into which you were born.

Each religion claims to know the one true path. But they cannot all be right. To accept 
one religion means denying the others. For example, a Christian finds the religious 
assertions of a Muslim silly or even dangerous. The Christian has no belief in the 
Muslim god. The Christian has no belief in the Muslim scriptures. The Christian is an 
atheist when it comes to Islam. Each religious person is effectively an atheist in the 
remainder of the world's religions. This book asks the religious person, why not add 
one more?

-Copy


----------



## Doer (Jun 8, 2012)

When I was 9, I was picking my nose in church looking at the girl's amazing shoes and those lacy ankles. I was in a line to be "saved." Up at the alter of the little methodist church. I remember my Dad had nudged me, and I went forward, but I was thinking about Super Man, I remember and then those ankles. This girl was tall but I dared not look up. Back to Super Man. OK, my turn. What? Do you blelh blahd dha goa bla? Sure. Took two steps and collapsed into a puddle on overwhelming tears of joy. I was truly smacked thoughtless now, just a pure Self. I had no idea, but is was completely compelling. And I vaguely remember my dad saying, no, he's not embarrassed, just leave him alone. 

Did this happening in my young life in anyway de-rail my growing incredulity of it all, the sheer preposterous nature of the claims? No, I never even connected the experience to the lacy ankles much less the church. But, I didn't question it's substance. Like I don't question lace. The quest to dispute these competing claims of religion has me here.

I'm not religious, but during my later training of a non-christian nature, I was quite surprised to encounter the same experience at certain times. There are names for it, for me it's Self. Also, I have training myself to attempt this experience constantly, without the waterworks, please, to various degrees of success. But, it is ever present, for me, now this opportunity to duck beyond the mind cloud. I say it's Self. I would say you also have it, but, how would I really know?


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Jun 8, 2012)

When you realize that who you are, is merely everyone that you have ever met... the peices that you choose to take, the pieces that you choose to leave. You realize that you aren't who you really are, who you really are is the choices you make. You are choice, you are your own fate, any personality trait you have acquired over time is one that you have learned from another human.

If when you say, "true self" is the same feeling as the feeling of, infinite time, time stop, being born, being in the moment... is the definition of what you are trying to describe, i can understand. Meditation is the only form of mind therapy that can help you achieve "no thought" which is where we originated from. Understanding that when you achieve this "no thought" which from my experience can also be achieved with another human, there is a unique feeling that happens when this "no thinking" surfaces. 

In some, they call this experience enlightenment, some call it god, some call it the spirit realm, some call it the dream break. Some are true to themselves about what they know, and what they do not know. They understand that as soon as they give definition to this type of experience, they change it from what it was (an unexplainable experience) into what you want it to be (enlightenment,god,spirit realm, dream break) -which is exactly what it is not. 

If i have any advice to give, it would be to stop pretending you know things that you do not know... things you do not know, are ideas that you have which hold no basis for the burden of proof beyond our own fallible thought processes.


----------



## Doer (Jun 8, 2012)

I only know one thing.


----------



## abandonconflict (Jun 8, 2012)

Yup, goddidit...


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Jun 8, 2012)

abandonconflict said:


> Yup, goddidit...


Haha, I felt like posting this in the math thread that Pad did.


----------



## lordjin (Jun 8, 2012)

It could also be that we're all being dreamed by a moth.


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Jun 8, 2012)

We could very well be someones dream.


----------



## mindphuk (Jun 9, 2012)

Doer said:


> Athiesm is not yet an organized religion. Call it a cult. And we can certainly sense the superiority and sometimes, outright violence of thought, that's common in cult formation, when the intellectuals succed in motivating the minions. A certain type of second class viewpoint is already forming from the "First Class." of Truth. A true intolerance brewing if you ask me. A blame and guilt game to make Religion as the culprit for our moderm ills. The ignorance of some the basic fact of history, show me the dumbed dowm mob is getting ahold of the idea.
> 
> It's something to be feared as any religion, to me. So, the little a-theist, like Mr. H and mPhk, beware the mob secular anti-globalists. For me any label beyond Self is a power game.


If I'm to be accused of violent thoughts then report me to the Ministry of Love. I seriously question people that are disturbed by and accuse 'others' of such crimethink. In fact, I find it terribly troubling that some people are similarly outraged and in fear of such thoughtcrime making its way into speech. Such labels and attacks against ideas are typically only made by those that wish to silence 'others.' The idea that intolerance for intolerance is itself intolerant is laughable on its face yet disturbingly ubiquitous among bigots themselves.


----------



## Doer (Jun 9, 2012)

No one accused you of violence of thought or venom of words. Besides it's nothing more than impolite. Now I know some young folks think they can be as stupid as they like in forum, name calling, personal insults, etc and it's true they are beyond the immediate bitch slap. So, they feel free. Doesn't make it polite. We have to be somewhat polite in face to face, but not forum, sad fact.

But, you see, I excluded you and Mr. H specifically from what I was mentioning as potentially violent, not yet completely organized, effort against religion. I also likened it to some of the other secular cults in recent history. The ones that tried to wipe out entire peoples.

So, show thin skin if you must. I meant no offense. Mr. H did not seem to take it that way, he said he too would be against such a cult. I expected right minded people to agree about that.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Jun 9, 2012)

Doer said:


> I only know one thing.


You can only really know one thing, that you really know nothing. 

BUT! You CAN *think* you know what you know, that is possible too, but that still doesn't change the fact that you know nothing. 

I am speaking here in terms of spirituality, metaphysics, theology and the like.


----------



## Doer (Jun 9, 2012)

Zaehet Strife said:


> You can only really know one thing, that you really know nothing.
> 
> BUT! You CAN *think* you know what you know, that is possible too, but that still doesn't change the fact that you know nothing.
> 
> I am speaking here in terms of spirituality, metaphysics, theology and the like.


Dude, if the experience if beyond my thinking, by definition, how can I only think I know? Do we only *think* we know the feel of velvet because we cannot describe it scientifically. If I handed you a piece of velvet and your eyes were closed. You'd have an experience, unless you hands were full, missing or had gloves. In other words you were not prepped to feel it. If prepared you will feel the velvet regardless. You may not know what the name of it is, or have never felt it, but it will feel unique.

You suppose my description of the feel of velvet and the value it brings to me must withstand the rigor of debate? That I must prove or at least postulate that my description must match yours, within the puny cauldron of words? About a wordless experience? One that only begins after mind words are ignored?

That's religion and why I don't describe. You can say that I don't know, what I know.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 9, 2012)

Doer said:


> This personal attack stance is just showig what a punk you are. I'm proud of what I said.
> Lowly sarcasm, how base we stoop.


I'm a punk for quoting you in context. I guess I'm a punk then. And I never attacked you. Just in awe that you believe we're not born Atheists and that Atheism is a religion. And yet you stamp your feet and refuse to accept facts, even after being presented by other posters. I don't blame you. Faith ignores all evidence.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 9, 2012)

Doer said:


> That's the usual wiggle and it's pretel logic, attibutabe to cults. You say you aren't rejecting the concept of diety, but you are.
> You claim the concept is false.


Where do you get these straw man attacks from? I don't reject any deity's. You have no idea how an Atheist feels. It's so obvious. Keep screaming, I'm sure that will help.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 9, 2012)

Doer said:


> Why would I greve about that? I have postualted many times we are in a Subjective Illusion due to quantum effects. That is, we know nothing. And every new fact we nail down makes us wonder why it is so pat. So, Goldilocks. We are, quite possilby changing the very nature of reality. So, is it a wonder we find us in a perfect place for Knowledge of Self?
> 
> We may be making it so, as we go, and there is no way to know. A self-fulling Self. So, I don't think we are in any postion in Science or any other striving to reject the notions that got us here.


Humans are subject to mass dilusion. All this self this and self that. Perhaps you should focus on what ALL people see, not just you. I rely on the common observations of all humans. And as for contempt or disdain, I will let you know my position. It is not deity's nor religion I despise. It is the useless logic one must use in order to participate in religion. People are taught from birth, that there are two ways to think, one for the rest of the world, and a completely opposite for the religion. PROBLEM: People, especially in America, use the religion logic for real life scenarios. So even semi-educated people, act very ignorantly when making decisions on who to vote for or what car to buy. Once you stop knowing WHY you believe something or did something, you're a pawn. I see people all the time making assumptions and decisions based on here say and rumors. Sad, really. It's the Blind Faith that ultimately kills the minds of the religious, not the religion, or the deity.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Jun 9, 2012)

Doer said:


> Dude, if the experience if beyond my thinking, by definition, how can I only think I know? Do we only *think* we know the feel of velvet because we cannot describe it scientifically. If I handed you a piece of velvet and your eyes were closed. You'd have an experience, unless you hands were full, missing or had gloves. In other words you were not prepped to feel it. If prepared you will feel the velvet regardless. You may not know what the name of it is, or have never felt it, but it will feel unique.
> 
> You suppose my description of the feel of velvet and the value it brings to me must withstand the rigor of debate? That I must prove or at least postulate that my description must match yours, within the puny cauldron of words? About a wordless experience? One that only begins after mind words are ignored?
> 
> That's religion and why I don't describe. You can say that I don't know, what I know.


The funny thing is, everyone does this, this does not exclude anyone else. Everyone merely THINKS they know what they know, no one can really know what they know, you can only accept that you really know nothing. Or you can pretend you know the things you dont really know, which is the same thing as lying to yourself. 

Here are some examples of things that you do not know, and if you tell yourself you do you are lying to yourself.

1)There is a god/there isn't a god.
2)Aliens are real.
3)You continue to exist when you die.
4)The world is going to end on 2012.
5)Humans are telepathic.
6)Reincarnation is real


If you think you know any of those 5, you are deluded, and you ARE lying to yourself. These are things no one has the tools to carry the burdens of proof. I am not saying science won't come out with the tools needed to figure these things out, but it hasn't yet.

If you want to get an inside look of experiences, and how our minds have this uncanny ability to change our experiences from what they actually are, into what we want them to be (which is exactly what they are not) check out my "Experiences Defined" thread.


----------



## Doer (Jun 9, 2012)

Zaehet Strife said:


> The funny thing is, everyone does this, this does not exclude anyone else. Everyone merely THINKS they know what they know, no one can really know what they know, you can only accept that you really know nothing. Or you can pretend you know the things you dont really know, which is the same thing as lying to yourself.
> 
> Here are some examples of things that you do not know, and if you tell yourself you do you are lying to yourself.
> 
> ...


All these red-herring non-proposals were not from me and I assure you I am not proposing anything but this. The velvet has two sides. If I try to describe further, then I would be the describing the experience and perhaps suggesting it's for you, which I am not. So why swerve the conversation? Let's stick to the feel of velvet analogy, very subjective, but very real, right? I'm not proposing anything else. I'll not even propose my definition of Experience matches what you Defined.


----------



## Doer (Jun 9, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> Humans are subject to mass dilusion. All this self this and self that. Perhaps you should focus on what ALL people see, not just you. I rely on the common observations of all humans. And as for contempt or disdain, I will let you know my position. It is not deity's nor religion I despise. It is the useless logic one must use in order to participate in religion. People are taught from birth, that there are two ways to think, one for the rest of the world, and a completely opposite for the religion. PROBLEM: People, especially in America, use the religion logic for real life scenarios. So even semi-educated people, act very ignorantly when making decisions on who to vote for or what car to buy. Once you stop knowing WHY you believe something or did something, you're a pawn. I see people all the time making assumptions and decisions based on here say and rumors. Sad, really. It's the Blind Faith that ultimately kills the minds of the religious, not the religion, or the deity.


So much like Atheisim. Blind faith.


----------



## Doer (Jun 9, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> Where do you get these straw man attacks from? I don't reject any deity's. You have no idea how an Atheist feels. It's so obvious. Keep screaming, I'm sure that will help.


Well, you do keep using the word screaming.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 9, 2012)

Doer said:


> So much like Atheisim. Blind faith.


WHAT!? How is scientific method blind faith. I claim to know nothing about magics. It is you who blindly believes how an Atheist thinks, lives, feels, Etc. You would argue that religious logic is infallible!?


----------



## Doer (Jun 9, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> WHAT!? How is scientific method blind faith. I claim to know nothing about magics. It ids you who blindly believes how an Atheist thinks, lives, feels, Etc. You would argue that religious logic is infallible!?


Would you argue the Atheist logic is infallible? Is science logic infallible? Is logic infallible?


----------



## kpmarine (Jun 9, 2012)

Doer said:


> So much like Atheisim. Blind faith.


Atheism, as we established, is a default. So it is not a position needing faith. A bit of reason and logic helps too.


----------



## chongsbuddy (Jun 9, 2012)

science is the opposite of faith


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 9, 2012)

Doer said:


> I'm quite sure you were proposing, just very recently that, a-the-ism is a natural born condition of humans. Are you starting to realize how impossible that is? Any -theism is a result of cognition. "Don't know anything" is how we are born. Not an -ism it's a condition of ignorance. A -tic. Ag-nos-tic.


 Yes, I did. And "Don't know anything", is Atheist by definition!


Heisenberg said:


> I believe atheism is the natural state in the sense that we are born atheist, sort of a default. If you haven't heard the theist's argument, then you are an 'innocent' atheist. But I believe this is a problem of semantics, as atheism is a confusing word that shouldn't exist as a title.


Others start informing you you have an incomplete understanding of Atheism.



afrawfraw said:


> How one perceives the universe is dependent on so many things. One huge one is emotions. I want an Objective understanding of the Universe. Objective means without influence of personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. I want a greater understanding. This is how I learn. By having everyone look at the universe. Then I can start to figure out what is uniform, and what my projections are, which makes me understand me more. Sigh.


Scientific Method.


Zaehet Strife said:


> ^and even so, these concepts you hold without facing up to the burdens of proof, are not true... they are only true through your own individual subjective perceptions, nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> these experiences or concepts are what we make of them, and are all dependent on the environment we grew up in, how we were raised, and the culture that was instilled in us as we grew from babyhood to adulthood.
> 
> as you experience "self" these experiences will be different depending on all of the factors stated above.


Without proof, your claims are worthless to everyone but you. 


Zaehet Strife said:


> Ive been trying, but i cant find a good source, would you be so kind as to provide me with a link please?
> 
> Or, if you could explain simply the point you are trying to get across. Im thinking that your point is that "truth" has the same validity if it comes from science and experimentation than whats within our own minds and our imagination.
> 
> ...


Selfish motivation is clear. 


Zaehet Strife said:


> As science continues to unravel the fabric of the cosmos, i am sure many more, if not all of our deepest desired questions will be answered, and most likely they will be answers that we probably wont like very much lol.
> 
> Imaginations give us the subjective truths we want,
> Theology gives us the subjective truths of others,
> Science gives us the closest approximation to the objective truths in this reality.


Your understanding of spiritualism is self serving. 


kpmarine said:


> There is nothing inherently wrong with belief. It's what you believe in, that can be good or bad. Beliefs can be built on fact, feelings, or fiction. The important thing is to evaluate them to make sure they are valid. Most importantly, one must make sure to constantly question unproven beliefs. Otherwise, you risk ending up with beliefs that are at best, incorrect, and at worst, hazardous to you and others around you. That's how I look at it.


Evaluating beliefs requires questioning. Impossible after being indoctrinated.


Doer said:


> Well, you define your world as if your parents were not involved in your pre-verbal upbringing. And these statements that you make with such weight of conviction are not facts. Emphasis alone IS!!!! not enough. That's the beef with religion, fancy night gowns for emphasis. And you know very little of the religions and beliefs of other animals as you seem to know very little about this topic. Religion seems quite the natural order of things for humans.
> 
> To just deny that fact is somewhat thoughtless, in spite of your secular upbringing, as wonderful as it may have been. Obviously secular humans are made, not born. Yet, Religion has been here "forever." And you don't know what is a religion to humpback whales , do you?
> 
> So, you have opinions, only. So what?


You claim to have knowledge of animal religions. No proof. Sorry. Useless. 


afrawfraw said:


> So you really believe what you just wrote!? That religion is natural? You obviously have no idea...And you point the finger and call me ignorant. Classic.
> 
> I just have to ask. Since your claiming My "opinion" that religion would not occur unless taught and children raised without any religion never suddenly "find god", surely you could site some sources? Like, a controlled experiment? Perhaps a theory of "Animal Spirituality"? Or "Universal Spirituality Theory"? Without indoctrination, every one would be an Atheist. Period. Again, sources please.
> 
> ...


Here I reiterate your point, that religion just comes to us.


Doer said:


> It's classic in that I never called you any names and never pointed any fingers. Since religion has been part of the human experience always and there has never been a time when it has not, just stamping your foot and claiming it's unnatural is a joke.
> 
> It's like the joke of claiming whales have no religion. You don't know. And now your speech is becoming riled. So, it's a rhetorical device to lash back like this. There is no right fight here.
> 
> ...


You inject weird points, like indoctrination is required for human survival! What name did I call you?


afrawfraw said:


> You stated I knew very little about animal behavior. But with your next breath you state religion is natural. OK then. Plastic is natural. Global warming is natural. When I say natural, I mean it does not occur in the wild.
> 
> And to state just because religion is almost as old as our species as grounds to define it as natural. I guess ignorance is our nature too? Why do we question everything? It's in our nature. But indoctrination by definition can not be questioned. Which is it. We are curious by nature, or we're not. I don't hate religion, just the logic required to obtain it.


If everything is natural, so is religion. I introduce my views on "Natural". 


Doer said:


> It was claimed to be unnatural, we are discussing that. I certainly am not makng a point about it or saying it makes a difference.
> 
> It is a typical claim that I took the trouble to refute for myself. And it has to do with the nature vs nurture question. And if there can be a natural, yet, un-indoctrinated state of man. Obviously, no, there cannot be.


If it doesn't make a difference, why do humans need it to survive? 


kpmarine said:


> Atheism is not a religion. It is merely an act; the act of deciding that there is no proof of a "god". Atheism would not exist without religion, it is completely counter to the concept. It makes no sense to call it a religion. A religion requires belief in a god. A belief that an adult had to force upon me as a child. I never conceived the idea of god on my own. I would still not beleive in a god, even if the idea was not brought up. I believe in a higher power just as little, regardless of my awareness of the concept of it. Atheists care, because religion has, and continues to, perpetuate ignorance and atrocities throughout history. I don't see atheists claiming a divine power says that "god hates fags".


How an Atheist feels. 


afrawfraw said:


> As for proof that god exists, what's your position again?


You acknowledged you had no proof.


afrawfraw said:


> oops, missed this one. Please don't mod me for my money shot all over this thread...
> 
> I still contend. Atheism is no belief. Do you believe in ghgxdfhjkohgo;dfh;ouidhsdio;ufighriodjg'spgrji[serouty890seriogjaio'j[0uhehbvgo[isdrsdrsdrsdremh9gth 9seh????? Huh? Do ya? Are you rejecting ghgxdfhjkohgo;dfh;ouidhsdio;ufighriodjg'spgrji[serouty890seriogjaio'j[0uhehbvgo[isdrsdrsdrsdremh9gth 9seh?????
> 
> No. You have no knowledge of what that is. So it doesn't concern you. This is the "Innocent Atheist". I was raised secular with every religion trying to recruit me. You have no idea how CRAZY people seem when they all "KNOW" that XXXX is real, and that without doing XXXX that XXXX will happen, but if you XXXX, then you'll get XXXX. It illustrated the entire situation in about 9 months, at age 12. and 13,14,15,16,etc.


I try to explain to you how an Atheist really feels. (2nd Atheist experience first hand.) 


Zaehet Strife said:


> Doer, Atheism is not a religion.
> 
> When you are born, you are classified as an Atheist. For you hold no belief in a supernatural power or god/gods. If you have no belief... you are an Atheist. If you have no belief, it cannot be religious.
> 
> ...


Another person reiterates Atheism is indeed, not a religion. 


kpmarine said:


> Fervent support of a position in no way makes that position a religion. Just because the majority believes it, doesn't make it right; so that's a flawed argument. I wasn't aware that the pope was the leader in intellectual affairs, thanks for the heads up. I'm sure his deep and fascinating insight on condoms, AIDS, abortion, and women's rights shall be informative.


And again. 


kpmarine said:


> In order to reject something, I would have to believe it exists. I don't, and can't, reject things that are not real.


And again. 


Doer said:


> Athiesm is not yet an organized religion. Call it a cult. And we can certainly sense the superiority and sometimes, outright violence of thought, that's common in cult formation, when the intellectuals succed in motivating the minions. A certain type of second class viewpoint is already forming from the "First Class." of Truth. A true intolerance brewing if you ask me. A blame and guilt game to make Religion as the culprit for our moderm ills. The ignorance of some the basic fact of history, show me the dumbed dowm mob is getting ahold of the idea.
> 
> It's something to be feared as any religion, to me. So, the little a-theist, like Mr. H and mPhk, beware the mob secular anti-globalists. For me any label beyond Self is a power game.


You change to "Cult." EVEN AFTER being informed of how Atheists think and act, you maintain your beliefs... 


Doer said:


> That's the usual wiggle and it's pretel logic, attibutabe to cults. You say you aren't rejecting the concept of diety, but you are.
> You claim the concept is false.


You inform me how Atheists think and feel.


kpmarine said:


> A cult is, by definiton, a religion. So now you're just trying to poison the well further against atheist individuals by branding us a "cult". Could you provide me with some examples of what you call "outright violence of thought"? I'm not sure I follow you.


Someone else points out your fallible logic. 


Heisenberg said:


> I am not understanding how a cult can be formed around the lack of believing a proposition, especially when that proposition has a number of reasons, some at odds with each other, for being rejected. Not all atheists, by far, play the blame game. This cult would also have to include those who have never even heard of theism. This is what you choose to indicate when you choose the word atheist. Perhaps skeptics would be a better title, as it at least indicates the the rejection came about for similar and agreeable reasons, and that all participants are aware of the arguments. Even then, skepticism is simply a method for judging truth value. I think you are speaking of anti-religious groups.


And again.


Doer said:


> You are rejecting the concept of diety and have a bit of contempt perhaps?


Still you stamp your feet, scream, and tell other Atheists how we see the world.


kpmarine said:


> In the same way I reject the concept of santa, yes, I reject the concept of a diety. Contempt? Where do you get that idea? You didn't show me any of this violence of thought that you allege, by the way.


Another person tries to explain how Atheism feels. 


Zaehet Strife said:


> All thinking men are atheists. Earnest Hemingway
> 
> Everyone is born atheist. Religion is learned. As a learned behavior, peoples' religion
> can be accurately predicted by the religion of their parents and the place where they
> ...


And again. 


Zaehet Strife said:


> When you realize that who you are, is merely everyone that you have ever met... the peices that you choose to take, the pieces that you choose to leave. You realize that you aren't who you really are, who you really are is the choices you make. You are choice, you are your own fate, any personality trait you have acquired over time is one that you have learned from another human.
> 
> If when you say, "true self" is the same feeling as the feeling of, infinite time, time stop, being born, being in the moment... is the definition of what you are trying to describe, i can understand. Meditation is the only form of mind therapy that can help you achieve "no thought" which is where we originated from. Understanding that when you achieve this "no thought" which from my experience can also be achieved with another human, there is a unique feeling that happens when this "no thinking" surfaces.
> 
> ...


Without proof, there is nothing outside your imagination. 


mindphuk said:


> If I'm to be accused of violent thoughts then report me to the Ministry of Love. I seriously question people that are disturbed by and accuse 'others' of such crimethink. In fact, I find it terribly troubling that some people are similarly outraged and in fear of such thoughtcrime making its way into speech. Such labels and attacks against ideas are typically only made by those that wish to silence 'others.' The idea that intolerance for intolerance is itself intolerant is laughable on its face yet disturbingly ubiquitous among bigots themselves.


Uhh, pretty self explanatory.


Zaehet Strife said:


> You can only really know one thing, that you really know nothing.
> 
> BUT! You CAN _*think*_ you know what you know, that is possible too, but that still doesn't change the fact that you know nothing.
> 
> I am speaking here in terms of spirituality, metaphysics, theology and the like.


My "?" position seems well founded using science. 


afrawfraw said:


> I'm a punk for quoting you in context. I guess I'm a punk then. And I never attacked you. Just in awe that you believe we're not born Atheists and that Atheism is a religion. And yet you stamp your feet and refuse to accept facts, even after being presented by other posters. I don't blame you. Faith ignores all evidence.


You call me a punk for quoting you IN CONTEXT! Who's being violent-ish again? 


Zaehet Strife said:


> The funny thing is, everyone does this, this does not exclude anyone else. Everyone merely THINKS they know what they know, no one can really know what they know, you can only accept that you really know nothing. Or you can pretend you know the things you dont really know, which is the same thing as lying to yourself.
> 
> Here are some examples of things that you do not know, and if you tell yourself you do you are lying to yourself.
> 
> ...


In summation, sir, you refuse to alter your understanding of how Atheists see the world. You refuse to accept that the default position, or "Natural" position of humans is Atheistic. You refuse to accept the fact that Atheists are NOT organized, and continue to propose that all atheists are antagonistic, religion haters. Your horse is dead, stop beating it.


----------



## Doer (Jun 9, 2012)

But, it was you that said animals practice no religion, I pointed out that you can't know that. So, bullying and the rest is more simply more of the same. More bullying. And its a full flush attempt to silence me. Throwing your weight around doesn't work. A lot of effort, big guy, for nothing.

I never said anything about knowing how an atheist feels or lives their lives. I do see an anti-religious sentiment growing worldwide and I think it can become another jehad.

Is your logic so unassailable that you are fearless, or do you get riled at the discussion? It's obvious. I don't have to accept your specious FACTS.


----------



## Doer (Jun 9, 2012)

And you know what else is slippery horseshit your propose? I'm not claiming anything. Certainly I don't claim All Atheist anything.
These are the low debate techniques of mental midgets.


----------



## lordjin (Jun 9, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> We could very well be someones dream.


Awesome. I love this stuff.
[video=youtube;TfE5DpzLWJA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfE5DpzLWJA[/video]


----------



## Doer (Jun 9, 2012)

I know. Cobbwebby. I think this may be a link. The military labs are experimenting with quantum communications. Seems the spin properties of some particles can be manipulated whch causes remote particles to instantly pick up that spin change, regardless of how far the distance is physically. Dit, dit, dit, dah, dah dah, dit, dit, dit, dit. 

Seems also, some of the brain parts contain ions in quantum states. The implications are vast. It's not proof of anything.

http://www.quantum-mind.co.uk/physics-c373.html


----------



## lordjin (Jun 9, 2012)

I hate to post the updated version of Twilight Zone's "Shadow Play," but Peter Coyote is a solid actor for the part, and it was the only full episode of it on youtube. No full original. Boo.
[video=youtube;DfpRIjWd3B0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfpRIjWd3B0[/video]


----------



## lordjin (Jun 9, 2012)

And a tribute to the original Twilight Zone episode and the Joy Division song all in one video.
[video=youtube;lzAx72hOE08]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzAx72hOE08[/video]


----------



## lordjin (Jun 9, 2012)

[video=youtube;ofzxmQqGB1w]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofzxmQqGB1w[/video]


----------



## bird mcbride (Jun 9, 2012)

F*ck this shit. I'm still trying to figure out how I got outta the metal cage they had me welded into. We'll find out when we get there.


----------



## spandy (Jun 9, 2012)

NetGuruINC said:


> wouldnt you listen to people who have died and had CPR and paramedics bring them back?


People denied Christ to his face. I say forget them if they don't belive, it's not my problem.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 10, 2012)

Doer said:


> But, it was you that said animals practice no religion, I pointed out that you can't know that. So, bullying and the rest is more simply more of the same. More bullying. And its a full flush attempt to silence me. Throwing your weight around doesn't work. A lot of effort, big guy, for nothing.
> 
> I never said anything about knowing how an atheist feels or lives their lives. I do see an anti-religious sentiment growing worldwide and I think it can become another jehad.
> 
> Is your logic so unassailable that you are fearless, or do you get riled at the discussion? It's obvious. I don't have to accept your specious FACTS.


Even after showing you you refuse. Then call me more names. How did I "Throw my weight around." You DID try to tell others how they felt, in spite of them posting other views. It's obvious. And you started speculating, and I said no proof. I said there is no indication animals practice religion. Sorry you feel "Bullied". I didn't mean to scare you, just show you directly that you're refusing to accept how others feel. There ARE religious antagonists and "Militant Atheists", but you never made the distinction, as I illustrated. And you NEVER admitted that Atheism is the original state of mankind. This is getting boring. Your just dancing around the facts. And they're not MY facts. I can't OWN any facts. They're just facts. Sorry if they don't play into your "Objective view of your own version of the universe". After all, you stated an Objective observance is possible by ones self, not me.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 10, 2012)

Doer said:


> And you know what else is slippery horseshit your propose? I'm not claiming anything. Certainly I don't claim All Atheist anything.
> These are the low debate techniques of mental midgets.


More name calling. So you trolled me then? Look back at your posts. You claimed nothing!!? OK, I get it.


----------



## Doer (Jun 10, 2012)

Well, you know Religion does not prove anything and these trueism are circlular logic. Deny Christ. Meaningless. This is the reason used by the Church to persecute Jews. Religion is stinky bathwater, we want the baby, but not the bathwater. We have been round and round on the topic.  And even Einstein's name's been used in vain. So, just because religions define God as this or that, and the silly definitions change, don't let religion confuse us. Power trips are important subjects or else there is no power to trip about, I guess. IAC, I'd say my view is closer to Albert's. There is absolutely no evidence, for me of a Just, Loving, Smooting and Smiting, Micro-managing, Busybody, Lfetime-helper-friend, santa claus God. I just have to presume that this is the bathwater that stinks to so many here. It is the mental cop-out, and means that Christianity today, especially evangelicals, are practicing a Fate based belief.

Can Tarot or Dice, Joss Sticks, etc, be any different, than fervent gemme gemme praying?
-------------------
Knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. (*Albert Einstein*) 

I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (*Albert Einstein*, 1954)​ 
I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (*Albert Einstein*)​


----------



## Doer (Jun 10, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> More name calling. So you trolled me then? Look back at your posts. You claimed nothing!!? OK, I get it.


Nope, not claiming anything and you still can't produce your claims of Proof and Fact so you seem to be getting a kick out of trying to belittle me. Think your .sig is big joke? Ya look like a fool, a buffoon. And I never said you were a mental midget. You took the mantel, I offered. The shoe must fit.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 10, 2012)

Doer said:


> I gotta agree here. Religion these days has nothing against science. And science these days is not out to disprove religion. Science looks at an obviously Subjective world and calls that Objective research. Religion takes the only Objective knowledge we have, of our own Self and calls that Subjective Experience.


Not a claim? Hmmm.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 10, 2012)

Doer said:


> I have no point, except to point out you were raised by your parents into a belief system. You were raised in a secular home. You have strong beliefs "faith is unnatural." That points to doctrine, since no one can know that. And by the same token it seems quite likely your definitions of "empirical evidence and lore" are likewise compromised. There is a very slippery dividing line between these two. Lore can turn out to be science and science can turn out to be lore. We cannot escape nature or nurture.


No claims here. Certainly not claiming I was doctrined into believing "Faith is unnatural." I didn't talk about faith with my Parents until 12. No claims...


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 10, 2012)

Doer said:


> Well, you define your world as if your parents were not involved in your pre-verbal upbringing. And these statements that you make with such weight of conviction are not facts. Emphasis alone IS!!!! not enough. That's the beef with religion, fancy night gowns for emphasis. And you know very little of the religions and beliefs of other animals as you seem to know very little about this topic. Religion seems quite the natural order of things for humans.
> 
> To just deny that fact is somewhat thoughtless, in spite of your secular upbringing, as wonderful as it may have been. Obviously secular humans are made, not born. Yet, Religion has been here "forever." And you don't know what is a religion to humpback whales , do you?
> 
> So, you have opinions, only. So what?


"Secular Humans are made, not born." Still no claims folks, move along.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 10, 2012)

Doer said:


> It's classic in that I never called you any names and never pointed any fingers. Since religion has been part of the human experience always and there has never been a time when it has not, just stamping your foot and claiming it's unnatural is a joke.
> 
> It's like the joke of claiming whales have no religion. You don't know. And now your speech is becoming riled. So, it's a rhetorical device to lash back like this. There is no right fight here.
> 
> ...


Here you accuse me of name calling. I hadn't called you anything. You called me thoughtless though, along with telling me my facts were opinions, and dim ones at that.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 10, 2012)

Doer said:


> If one makes up definitions of gods and then accuses others of believing in that definition, again, there is your Subjective Illusion that you call Reality. You assume we all buy it. You wish to assume, with the other self described Atheists, that these oxymoronic juxtapositions are not just self serving pretzel logic. It's a twisty form of rhetoric that echo the other religions. Yes, to me Atheism is another religion of the outer Subjective. It seeks to deny what is proposed, in a rather zelot portrayal of passion. Not religion nor science have anything to do with the Inner Objective Self.


No claims about how Atheists feel, huh? SHEESH...

I don't want to stretch this out, but you're wrong. Unless you were arguing a point you don't hold yourself, and fancy footed to continue the debate. This is trolling.


----------



## Doer (Jun 10, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> I'm a punk for quoting you in context. I guess I'm a punk then. And I never attacked you. Just in awe that you believe we're not born Atheists and that Atheism is a religion. And yet you stamp your feet and refuse to accept facts, even after being presented by other posters. I don't blame you. Faith ignores all evidence.


You keep taking about all this evidence, as if you have revealed it. You have not. The rest is just personal attacks. You can't say you have proof and then not provide it. Well, you can forget to. But, it you continue to dodge and weave. It looks foolish.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 10, 2012)

The study was led by Jacqui Woolley, a psychologist at the University of Texas and published in a paper titled _Developmental Changes in the Use of Supernatural Explanations for Unusual Events_ and published in the _Journal of Cognition and Culture_. It was reported by Tom Rees inEpiphenom. He includes the graphic at right which does a good job of summarizing the findings. [click to enlarge]So it's clear that although we might like supernatural or magic explanations when we are young, they don't come to mind naturally - we have to learn to do that.

I'm sure you have a cute come back for this as well, along with more names.​


----------



## Doer (Jun 10, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> No claims about how Atheists feel, huh? SHEESH...
> 
> I don't want to stretch this out, but you're wrong. Unless you were arguing a point you don't hold yourself, and fancy footed to continue the debate. This is trolling.


Since, to me you don't seem to have to have my views stated correctly at all, but are warpping them in a religious sense to suit your religious seeming , fact less belief system,. And since you are also, persecuting and attempting to belittle me personally, then maybe you should butt out. I don't accept your pansy label of "trolling."


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 10, 2012)




----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 10, 2012)

Doer said:


> Since, to me you don't seem to have to have my views stated correctly at all, but are warpping them in a religious sense to suit your religious seeming , fact less belief system,. And since you are also, persecuting and attempting to belittle me personally, then maybe you should butt out. I don't accept your pansy label of "trolling."


You started the name calling. I was condescending maybe. Frustrated that you were refusing sources and laughing at me. "Midget minded" I believe it was. Goldy Locks I believe it was?


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 10, 2012)

Doer said:


> Since, to me you don't seem to have to have my views stated correctly at all, but are warpping them in a religious sense to suit your religious seeming , fact less belief system,. And since you are also, persecuting and attempting to belittle me personally, then maybe you should butt out. I don't accept your pansy label of "trolling."


And I used your own quotes. If I stated them incorrectly, edit your posts please.


----------



## Doer (Jun 10, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> The study was led by Jacqui Woolley, a psychologist at the University of Texas and published in a paper titled _Developmental Changes in the Use of Supernatural Explanations for Unusual Events_ and published in the _Journal of Cognition and Culture_. It was reported by Tom Rees inEpiphenom. He includes the graphic at right which does a good job of summarizing the findings. [click to enlarge]So it's clear that although we might like supernatural or magic explanations when we are young, they don't come to mind naturally - we have to learn to do that.
> ​


An opinion paper is proof? No wonder you held back.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 10, 2012)

Doer said:


> An opinion paper is proof? No wonder you held back.


OOOOOHH I get it. You look at science as opinion. You're right, I'm wrong. Science and blind university studies are opinion. Got it. You make sense to me now!


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 10, 2012)

http://www.psy.utexas.edu/psy/faculty/woolley/woolley.html

An Opinionist. LOL!


----------



## 420IAMthatIAM (Jun 10, 2012)

NetGuruINC said:


> I URGE you all to please go to youtube and type in "nde". There is PROOF what happens to us when we die. Go to youtube and type in "nde" which stands for Near Death Experiences and watch and listen to the hundreds of stories from people who have had heart attacks, cancer, car accidents, shot, stabbed, and listen to their stories of what happened to them. There are videos from people all over the world and their experiences ALL coincide with each other. You will see proof that God and Jesus are real, Angels are real, and Hell is real. Everyone needs to check it out seriously...
> 
> And these experiences are not all just from Christians, there are stories from atheists, muslims, every type of person walking this earth. Go to youtube and type in "nde"[/QUOTE ]Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son,and shall call his name Immanuel. even biblically speaking there was no one called jesus foretold in the scriptures


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 10, 2012)

According to Doer, a "Mental Midget" who thinks people are born Atheist. Check his educational background folks!

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


----------



## Doer (Jun 10, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> OOOOOHH I get it. You look at science as opinion. You're right, I'm wrong. Science and blind university studies are opinion. Got it. You make sense to me now!


Man are you lost. Of course, science is only opinion. Any participant in the process, not you, knows this. I think it may be that Atheists, big A, are the fearful ones. They cling to science as a God. 

BTW, this "study" that was written as a "paper", was not double blind, at all.

"So they read these stories and then asked the listener how the event could be explained." 

Yep, despite your borrowing my words and worse, there still, is no proof. You can wave you hands and push out your chest, but the "claim" you found was my suggestion to counter your insistance that you had evidence to the contrary, I think I have made a better support of my positions, vis a vis, yours, but they are not claims. This is not a right-fight. I just wanted to see your so-called proof.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 10, 2012)

420IAMthatIAM said:


> NetGuruINC said:
> 
> 
> > I URGE you all to please go to youtube and type in "nde". There is PROOF what happens to us when we die. Go to youtube and type in "nde" which stands for Near Death Experiences and watch and listen to the hundreds of stories from people who have had heart attacks, cancer, car accidents, shot, stabbed, and listen to their stories of what happened to them. There are videos from people all over the world and their experiences ALL coincide with each other. You will see proof that God and Jesus are real, Angels are real, and Hell is real. Everyone needs to check it out seriously...
> ...


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 10, 2012)

Doer said:


> Man are you lost. Of course, science is only opinion. Any participant in the process, not you, knows this. I think it may that Atheists, big A, are the fearful ones. They cling to science as a God. And this "study" that was written as a "paper, was not double blind, at all.
> 
> "So they read these stories and then asked the listener how the event could be explained."


*Definition of SCIENCE By Merriam Webster*

*1*
*:* the state of knowing *:* knowledge as distinguished fromignorance or misunderstanding

*2*
_a_ *:* a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the _science_ of theology>_b_ *:* something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a_science_>

*3*
_a_ *:* knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method_b_ *:* such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena *:*natural science

*4*
*:* a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientificlaws <cooking is both a _science_ and an art>

*5*
_capitalized_ *:* christian science


 See science defined for English-language learners »

See science defined for kids »

*Examples of SCIENCE



The program encourages students to pursue a career inscience.
a list of terms commonly used in science
a new branch of science
advances in science and technology
Students are required to take two sciences.
students majoring in a science
The Malay tapir, the largest of the world's four tapir species, remained largely invisible to science until recently. The other three species of these odd, endearing animals all live in South America. &#8212;Anthony King, New York Times, 2 June 2009

*

*Definition of OPINION by Merriam Webster*

*1*
_a_ *:* a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter_b_ *:* approval, esteem

*2*
_a_ *:* belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge_b_ *:* a generally held view

*3*
_a_ *:* a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert_b_ *:* the formal expression (as by a judge, court, or referee) of the legal reasons and principles upon which a legal decision is based

&#8212; *opin·ioned* _adjective_

 See opinion defined for English-language learners »

See opinion defined for kids »

*Examples of OPINION



We asked for their opinions about the new stadium.
In my opinion, it's the best car on the market.
The article discusses two recent Supreme Court opinions.

*

Stop arguing with me and argue with Merriam Webster! It is some people opinions that America is #1. Just saying. Please stop. I understand where you're coming from. You have stated your position on Science. We have nothing left to debate. Thank you for the exchange of ideas. It was interesting studying your philosophy. Stay positive.


----------



## Doer (Jun 10, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> And I used your own quotes. If I stated them incorrectly, edit your posts please.


You use them smarry to look foolish.


----------



## Sir.Ganga (Jun 10, 2012)

Are there people out there that actually believe in GOD??? Maybe aliens...but GOD?

Wake up this is a cannabis site.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 10, 2012)

Doer said:


> And you know what else is slippery horseshit your propose? I'm not claiming anything. Certainly I don't claim All Atheist anything.
> These are the low debate techniques of mental midgets.





Doer said:


> Man are you lost. Of course, science is only opinion. Any participant in the process, not you, knows this. I think it may be that Atheists, big A, are the fearful ones. They cling to science as a God.
> 
> BTW, this "study" that was written as a "paper", was not double blind, at all.
> 
> ...


Horseshit, proposing you claim anything, let alone "All Atheists anything".


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 10, 2012)

P.S. If your upset about the sig, just ask me and I'll remove it. I'm not on this sight to make anyone feel attacked or mocked. I apologized once before.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 10, 2012)

How about it? I need an Objective observation. Could others read over my posts and tell me if I misrepresented Doer's quotes? Did I chop them up so they were out of context? Did I edit them to serve me more effectively?


----------



## Doer (Jun 10, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> P.S. If your upset about the sig, just ask me and I'll remove it. I'm not on this sight to make anyone feel attacked or mocked. I apologized once before.


You snipped it to try to be-little, big boy. You know that. We all know that. You preach your religion.

And seem a bit confused about definition vs reality.


----------



## Heisenberg (Jun 10, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> How about it? I need an Objective observation. Could others read over my posts and tell me if I misrepresented Doer's quotes? Did I chop them up so they were out of context? Did I edit them to serve me more effectively?


If you are going to continue the conversation, the goal should be to find common ground so you can identify the point at which your views diverge.


I've come to understand that when Doer says Atheist (big A), he means science-bent fascist. I am not sure fascism would be acceptable no matter the ideology behind it, so it does seem to be a bit of a red herring. Speaking genuinely, I would be interested in seeing a specific real world example of the big A atheists.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 10, 2012)

Doer said:


> You snipped it to try to be-little, big boy. You know that. We all know that. You preach your religion.
> 
> And seem a bit confused about definition vs reality.


I took out the rest of the quote, but what did the rest of the quote say? Just kidding? I'm not saying Atheism is a religion? You CLEARLY stated Atheism was a religion. Do you retract that statement?


----------



## Doer (Jun 10, 2012)

That's right. And our views diverge on this point of proof. Wild emphasis does not make it proof, nor sarcasm nor belittlement.

And the false premise, that I feel attacked, if incorrect. These are charged topics and I found someone who was making un-supported statements in a condescending and intimidating way. I challenged that. I expected the venom, but not the schoolyard bully. We just can't ever really be sure of the emotion maturity directions of the conversation.

The submission was made, I commented, more insults. IAC, we cannot prove or dis-prove the subject, so we can discuss it without rancor. When I see rancor, I turn to that subject.


----------



## Doer (Jun 10, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> I took out the rest of the quote, but what did the rest of the quote say? Just kidding? I'm not saying Atheism is a religion? You CLEARLY stated Atheism was a religion. Do you retract that statement?


You make difintion. I make another one.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 10, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> If you are going to continue the conversation, the goal should be to find common ground so you can identify the point at which your views diverge.
> 
> 
> I've come to understand that when Doer says Atheist (big A), he means science-bent fascist. I am not sure fascism would be acceptable no matter the ideology behind it, so it does seem to be a bit of a red herring. Speaking genuinely, I would be interested in seeing a specific real world example of the big A atheists.


I believe I've discovered the discrepancy. Doer feels science is an opinion held, not a process.

If this is to be held, I have no sources to back my claims, because it's only opinion that Gravity is real. Evolution is an opinion, Etc.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 10, 2012)

Doer said:


> That's right. And our views diverge on this point of proof. Wild emphasis does not make it proof, nor sarcasm nor belittlement.
> 
> And the false premise, that I feel attacked, if incorrect. These are charged topic and I found someone who was making fun-supported statements in a condecending and intimitating way. I challenged that. I expected the venom, but not the schoolyard bully. We just can never really be sure of the emotion maturity directions of the conversation.
> 
> The submission was made, I commented, more insults. IAC, we cannot prove or dis-prove the subject, so we can discuss it without rancor. When I see rancor, I turn to that subject.


I fail to see where I "Bullied" you or the Venom.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 10, 2012)

I see you edited your statement, which I take as a retraction. Your newer version isn't any better I'm afraid. Do I have permission to use this new one?


----------



## Doer (Jun 10, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> I believe I've discovered the discrepancy. Doer feels science is an opinion held, not a process.
> 
> If this is to be held, I have no sources to back my claims, because it's only opinion that Gravity is real. Evolution is an opinion, Etc.


No to the layman, who needs proof, science is god. But, what causes gravity is not even a theory any more. We don't know. There have been many opinions proposed, challenged and they failed.

Evolution is on a bit better ground, it's a Theory. There is no such thing as scientific fact. It is all subject to constant peer review. It is only the latest evidence. No facts for the fearful. We don't have a clear definition for reality in science.

The items that stand up, like the discoveries of Maxwell and Planke, still have to withstand the detailed review of modern findings.


----------



## Doer (Jun 10, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> I see you edited your statement, which I take as a retraction. Your newer version isn't any better I'm afraid. Do I have permission to use this new one?


What do you consider to be your emotional age? 4?


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 10, 2012)

Doer said:


> What do you consider to be your emotional age? 4?


Why do you insist on attacking me? I asked you to point out my "bullying". Nothing. Where's the venom? Nothing. More attacks. You make crazy statements about a population you obviously know nothing about, and finish with Science is opinion. Yikes. And I'm 4. OK.

If I can't source science, why are we debating it's findings?

You stated religion is the default position. I successfully proved you wrong, and now your upset.

Your ignoring your own retraction. Your ignoring science, putting it in the box with opinion. Opinions can be formed for infinite reasons. Scientific standpoints are not. And the "It's a theory, not a fact" argument!? Seriously!? Who's 4? Scientific theory is waaaaaay different from standard theory definitions. A scientific theory is an observation which all parties involved can verify with accuracy. It holds up, make sense, and performs the exact same way every time. This is hardly opinion, friend.

I'm tired of answering your invented defense of me. I never called you stupid, or retarded. I stated you must be ignorant of some information for making such claims. I see now it isn't ignorance, but rejection.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 10, 2012)

As an example: Religion is an opinion. It is held by many people, BUT NOT ALL. If a religion appears, is put to scientific scrutiny, and proved viable. Is it still a religion, or does it become science? And if every man, women and child participated in this religion, wouldn't the word itself be obsolete? Every one would have the same beliefs, based on science. It's called secularism. You don't need to blindly do anything. If I question science, I'm welcome to do so. So indoctrination is impossible, because I can question anything at any moment. Let's just agree to disagree here. I am starting to feel like I'm beating my dead horse now.


----------



## Doer (Jun 10, 2012)

The most potent example of the Cult is the Ayn Rand Institute. Objectivism itself is a cult since, as I tried to describe. it seeks to deny that ALL our information is processed into our Subjective experience, only. We then thru the confusion of survial of meat, only see the Illusion. And now it seems in Quantum speak we mold even the Objective Illusion as we go. So, Objectivism is neither afloat in religion nor science.

- take God off the Dollar
- take God out of the pledge
- take prayer out of public view
- re-write the Christmas songs
- re-write history to contain only secular references.

I could go on and on. It just take a few searches. I used. "Athiest Cult"


----------



## Doer (Jun 10, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> As an example: Religion is an opinion. It is held by many people, BUT NOT ALL. If a religion appears, is put to scientific scrutiny, and proved viable. Is it still a religion, or does it become science? And if every man, women and child participated in this religion, wouldn't the word itself be obsolete? Every one would have the same beliefs, based on science. It's called secularism. You don't need to blindly do anything. If I question science, I'm welcome to do so. So indoctrination is impossible, because I can question anything at any moment. Let's just agree to disagree here. I am starting to feel like I'm beating my dead horse now.


OK, I officially withdraw my permission to snip my words and call it context. It is not the full quote I gave permission for. So denied.

There are no facts in religion either. No facts of that stature at all in Reality. Even my experience of Self is only a fact to me. This discussion between us began with you claimed facts. I don't.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 10, 2012)

Doer said:


> The most potent example of the Cult is the Ayn Rand Institute. Objectivism itself is a cult since, as I tried to describe. it seeks to deny that ALL our information is processed into our Subjective experience, only. We then thru the confusion of survial of meat, only see the Illusion. And now it seems in Quantum speak we mold even the Objective Illusion as we go. So, Objectivism is neither afloat in religion nor science.
> 
> - take God off the Dollar
> - take God out of the pledge
> ...


Religious Antagonist Cult is a more accurate title. Again...sigh....Atheist simply means no belief. You're attempting to group everyone who doesn't buy into a deity into one movement, order, or society. This is inaccurate. Yes, I would love to see "GOD" removed from American Society. So would the people who founded the country. They were running from religious prosecution. They wanted to ensure no ONE religion would take control of the country. We have failed them. In the 50's, we modified the currency and the pledge to include GOD. A terrible injustice imposed by controlling politicians. This statement alienates any one who doesn't "Thank God" in a country where EVERYONE is supposed to be born on the same playing field. The dream was further smeared when presidents started instructing citizens to pray. Luckily, religion is decreasing with every new generation. After all, Jersey Shore is followed more than 7.6 million viewers. Kids are seeking acceptance from society more than Gods these days. Perhaps the Illuminati are utilizing this?


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 10, 2012)

You also have to realize that not all Atheists are Atheists. Some claim Atheism as a rebellion against their parents. Or because they were pinkied in a pew by a clergyman. Any one who is "Angry" at God or Religion, obviously believes they exist. A true Atheist see's Religion and God the same way you see the Flying Spaghetti Monster. My beef is with the logic. I do not approve of telling children not to question. VERY dangerous premise. Even a friend I have was almost dooped. A car was presented, by a man of cloth. My friend couldn't even question him because of his faith, afraid of the social and spiritual ramifications, so he called me. I inspected the vehicle. It was fine, except for the dusted clutch and cracked flywheel. My friend was astonished. I wasn't. How can such a dangerous logic be allowed? Especially in this day and age.


----------



## Heisenberg (Jun 10, 2012)

I personally do not wish to see God removed from society. I would like to see religious beliefs treated as what they are, unfounded ideas. We certainly don't want to remove all ideas that are groundless, and being groundless, there is no way to distinguish among them to decide which stay and go. They can all stay, but none can be taken seriously on their own merit.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 10, 2012)

Doer said:


> OK, I officially withdraw my permission to snip my words and call it context. It is not the full quote I gave permission for. So denied.
> 
> There are no facts in religion either. No facts of that stature at all in Reality. Even my experience of Self is only a fact to me. This discussion between us began with you claimed facts. I don't.


Sig withdrawn. I have proven what little I claimed. One can dance around the fact that humans are super ignorant, and so science is misguided. But it is science, and science alone which will bring us closer to understanding our universe. Not religion nor emotion.


----------



## Doer (Jun 10, 2012)

And perhaps not even science.


----------



## Doer (Jun 10, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> Religious Antagonist Cult is a more accurate title. Again...sigh....Atheist simply means no belief. You're attempting to group everyone who doesn't buy into a deity into one movement, order, or society. This is inaccurate. Yes, I would love to see "GOD" removed from American Society. So would the people who founded the country. They were running from religious prosecution. They wanted to ensure no ONE religion would take control of the country. We have failed them. In the 50's, we modified the currency and the pledge to include GOD. A terrible injustice imposed by controlling politicians. This statement alienates any one who doesn't "Thank God" in a country where EVERYONE is supposed to be born on the same playing field. The dream was further smeared when presidents started instructing citizens to pray. Luckily, religion is decreasing with every new generation. After all, Jersey Shore is followed more than 7.6 million viewers. Kids are seeking acceptance from society more than Gods these days. Perhaps the Illuminati are utilizing this?


See, you just state this stuff like softballs to be knocked out of the park. 

"I would love to see "GOD" removed from American Society. So would the people who founded the country. They were running from religious prosecution."

They are the ones that put God into the founding principles. "We hold These Truths to be self-evident... ....endowed by our Creator..."

Not labeling you, but this is militant Atheism, you are patterning. The Constitution protects us from that, I hope. So, re-write revisionism is a mark of cult. Not that I mean you are in the cult, but don't think I mis-understand the big picture here.

Religions are cults by definition at least they start that way. But, cults are really subversive cadres against the prevailing social order.


----------



## Heisenberg (Jun 10, 2012)

It would seem by the fact that our founders did not ban religion outright they must have envisioned some acceptable level of religious practice. Rather than restrict the existence of religion, they created conditions in which could exist as many religions as wanted; a place where religion is totally free to spread or even be invented. They made clear the necessity to keep religion in check, and I agree they would probably be unhappy with the lack of separation we see in many areas today, but I think the claim that they would want God removed from society needs a lot of support before I would accept it as more than conjecture. I've seen only evidence that they wanted God removed from politics.


----------



## kpmarine (Jun 10, 2012)

Doer said:


> The most potent example of the Cult is the Ayn Rand Institute. Objectivism itself is a cult since, as I tried to describe. it seeks to deny that ALL our information is processed into our Subjective experience, only. We then thru the confusion of survial of meat, only see the Illusion. And now it seems in Quantum speak we mold even the Objective Illusion as we go. So, Objectivism is neither afloat in religion nor science.
> 
> - take God off the Dollar
> - take God out of the pledge
> ...


Now what you're doing here is painting atheists with the same ideological brush. What you fail to realize, is that atheists don't have a common dogma. We aren't all required to act a certain way. The only requirement is not having a god. You can be an humanitarian, or a selfish asshole. A pacifist, or a militant revolutionary. There are no behavioral requirements. 

I had always understood Ayn Rand's idea of objectivism as the beleif that perception or beleif does not change reality. For example, say you were a flat earther. You had only been presented with facts demonstrating the world as such. In your subjective reality, the world is flat. Whereas, in objective reality, the world continues to be round.


----------



## Heisenberg (Jun 10, 2012)

I think this quote demonstrates the need for objectivity.



> Personal experiences are a terrible way to learn something. As human beings, we are all subject to preconceived notions, personal biases, and differing expectations; and of course any one person's personal sampling of something is, by definition, an uncontrolled, unblinded test subject to external influences and all manner of unknown variables. This is why we all know people who have reached opposite conclusions based on their experiences. They can't all be right, and that's proof enough that personal experience is an unreliable way to learn practically anything. - Brian Dunning


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 10, 2012)

Doer said:


> See, you just state this stuff like softballs to be knocked out of the park.
> 
> "I would love to see "GOD" removed from American Society. So would the people who founded the country. They were running from religious prosecution."
> 
> ...


Wrong. Try again, with the REAL text. Thanks. It says, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by THEIR Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Their creator and OUR creator is a slight of hand to prove a point. Fail. My creator I define as my parents. My universe. MY creator. Possessive.


----------



## Doer (Jun 10, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> I think this quote demonstrates the need for objectivity.


With all respect, this to me, is also a red herring. The quote says as it's point, *"They can't all be right, and that's proof enough that personal experience is an unreliable way to learn practically anything."* 

Sure, I agree, but emphasis on "unrelaible" (not impossible) and on "practically" (does not rule out All learning)

And I will say it is also, an elegantly overloaded term in this context. And all the definitions I can think of for "practical" I totally agree with. Eye witness testimony is "practically" considered non-evidence these days if two will disagree. The mind fools easily when events move fast. So, that itself rules out most of the tales of religion. And since we eye witness our lives, are we perfect in sorting our quantum un-certainty? And when we eye witness these quantum experiments it changes them, such that we must consider the emerging consensus of Many Worlds.

I wonder if these Worlds could reconcile the schism of the old science and old religion as move to a better understanding of these Observer/Creator aspects that are being proposed.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 10, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> It would seem by the fact that our founders did not ban religion outright they must have envisioned some acceptable level of religious practice. Rather than restrict the existence of religion, they created conditions in which could exist as many religions as wanted; a place where religion is totally free to spread or even be invented. They made clear the necessity to keep religion in check, and I agree they would probably be unhappy with the lack of separation we see in many areas today, but I think the claim that they would want God removed from society needs a lot of support before I would accept it as more than conjecture. I've seen only evidence that they wanted God removed from politics.


Of course they wanted Americans to be able to practice religion. But practicing it and injecting it into a culture are two different scenarios. I think it's confusing because until recently, society and religion went hand in hand. A secular society is unknown to most. What do most humans do when they encounter unknown situations? 

Religion is a great tool to divide populations. THAT is why politicians argue it's relevance.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 10, 2012)

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201005/why-atheism-will-replace-religion

Weird stuff.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 10, 2012)

I have no interest in what one delusional entity thinks it sees. My senses and thought processes are fallible. So I don't trust what I perceive, however "real" it may seem. Manipulate my emotions, manipulate my perception. Who can I trust? A practice which seeks information only. A population of all faiths and backgrounds, drawn together to discover common truths. Can I say, "There's no god."? Of course not. I can only say that everyone who looked at the problem, discovered we don't have enough information. So "?" will have to do for now.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Jun 10, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> I have no interest in what one delusional entity thinks it sees. My senses and thought processes are fallible. So I don't trust what I perceive, however "real" it may seem. Manipulate my emotions, manipulate my perception. Who can I trust? A practice which seeks information only. A population of all faiths and backgrounds, drawn together to discover common truths. Can I say, "There's no god."? Of course not. I can only say that everyone who looked at the problem, discovered we don't have enough information. So "?" will have to do for now.


Be reasonable and not belief something that we cannot see, smell, taste, touch or hear. Great post.


----------



## Dr.J20 (Jun 10, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> Speaking genuinely, I would be interested in seeing a specific real world example of the big A atheists.


I would think Pol Pot, Hitler, and Stalin would fit into the capital-A Atheist group you're discussing


----------



## Dr.J20 (Jun 10, 2012)

Zaehet Strife said:


> Be reasonable and not belief something that we cannot see, smell, taste, touch or hear. Great post.


So where does misperception fall into this? can you see, smell, taste touch or hear the subconscious mind? there are many phenomena which do not exist in a physical way such that man may perceive them but that does not mean they (a) don't exist, and (b) don't matter. I understand you're going to add all of the equipment and technological advancement that enables us to study things we don't immediately or directly perceive, but with each addition of machinery etc. you add another layer of accepted error; What i don't understand is why there is some great feeling that this point in time will never have its knowledge base rocked by some incredible discovery the way it has over and over throughout history.


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 10, 2012)

Doer said:


> In quantum speak, we actual change our world by Observation. Therefore the worldview in the past was not only different, the world was different, in that we were closer in our perceptions to the Many Worlds. That is scary and so we tried and tried to get to an Objective basic for Reality. But, the quantum case is practically closed, imo. There is no Objective basis for Reality.
> 
> We don't even know if dark matter was "there" before we observed the pans of galaxies rotating as if they were spheres. [Perception?] is Conception, I'm afraid.


Quantumspeak is speculative at best. It's metaphysics dressed up in the latest hard-science terminology. So I take it with the proverbial grain of salt. 

Since all we have is our perception, cognition, experience and memory ... I have no difficulty with the idea that everything one knows is subjective. I consider objectivity to be an abstraction, a boundary condition. cn


----------



## Heisenberg (Jun 10, 2012)

Dr.J20 said:


> I would think Pol Pot, Hitler, and Stalin would fit into the capital-A Atheist group you're discussing


Below is my standard response to this idea, although I originally wrote it to someone who was claiming this idea as hard truth, which you are not, so it may sound a bit harsh. BTW, I was responding to the Big A atheists as a hypothetical idea. I do not believe atheism is the root of any problem.


Equivocating non-belief in God with committing heinous acts is a blatant duplicity and no intelligent person here is going to tolerate it.


We have said it, over and over and over in many threads. Pick any name from that list, any example, and ask yourself. Was the problem here that these people were being too rational? 


Lets take Jim Jones. Did this atrocity occur because Jim and his followers applied too much critical thought? Did they demand too much evidence and were too consistent in their logic? Was the problem that they wanted things to make too much sense?


Lets take Kim Jong. Is the problem with this situation that he and his people apply too much analysis? Are they being too careful in their thinking and being too reasonable in their actions? Are they too concerned with being conscientious and precise? 


Lets take Jeffrey Dahmer. Was his rape, murder and cannibalistic acts a result of being too focused on legitimacy? Was he requiring too much validation and keeping his thoughts too organized? Was he too involved with accuracy and fastidious inquiry?


Do I need to go through the entire list? Skepticism is essentially what every atheist here is promoting. We advocate applying critical examination to the claim of a deity. Is this what lead Alfred Kinsey to exploit children for sex? 


The atheist posters in this sub forum are simply promoting rational skepticism. We are trying to discourage dogmatic adherence to an ideology, which was the engine of Hitlers reign. Knowing that we do not believe in God tells you nothing about what we do believe in or what our intentions are.

Religion has been defended in 3 ways in this thread.


Religion is true - We've shown that can't be proven or even supported.


Religion does good things - We've shown nothing good religion provides is unique to religion itself, although the potential evil religion holds is indeed unique and all too easy to unleash.


Atheism leads to bad things - As stated, we are promoting skepticism. Atheism is a term vested on us by theists. The same thing we can find wrong with atheistic regimes are the same things we find wrong with religious regimes; dogmatic adherence. Rational thinking, evidential accountability, and enlightened attitudes helped us overcome fascist and communist dogmas. We should let these forces of sophistication eradicate religious dogma as well.


----------



## dashcues (Jun 10, 2012)

^Great post!
We should all seek to attain this level of communication.(Which many here already do).
Easily understood Heisenberg.


----------



## Derple (Jun 10, 2012)

I just thought of something, maybe the 'bright light' that people see when having a near death experience, is actually them just about to be born again, and the light is just the exit of the vagina?
Food for thought.


----------



## Heisenberg (Jun 10, 2012)

Derple said:


> I just thought of something, maybe the 'bright light' that people see when having a near death experience, is actually them just about to be born again, and the light is just the exit of the vagina?
> Food for thought.


Interesting thought, but what about those that see light and come back? Are they born dead, or go back inside?


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 10, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> Interesting thought, but what about those that see light and come back? Are they born dead, or go back inside?


"Aw, Mom, just five more minutes ... " cn


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jun 11, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> "Aw, Mom, just five more minutes ... " cn





...hehe


----------



## Doer (Jun 11, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> Quantumspeak is speculative at best. It's metaphysics dressed up in the latest hard-science terminology. So I take it with the proverbial grain of salt.
> 
> Since all we have is our perception, cognition, experience and memory ... I have no difficulty with the idea that everything one knows is subjective. I consider objectivity to be an abstraction, a boundary condition. cn


Yes, it is speculation. Mathmatical speculation, however, at least. If folks can see a metaphysical interpretation, that is certainly not in the math.
The salt grains are free to take. I can not accept the statement phrased that way. It is not metaphysics cloaked.

Metaphysics may be trying to borrow it. But, the cloak of hard science is real. What it actually covers is yet, unknown. I don't think you meant to say that it's a bunch numerolgists, astroloigers, and tarot readers, influencing the Quantum Math, are you?


----------



## Doer (Jun 11, 2012)

Zaehet Strife said:


> Be reasonable and not belief something that we cannot see, smell, taste, touch or hear. Great post.


And yet if I told that my experirence with, Self not bound in thought, also contained new sensations of sight, hearing, and taste, you would say that's Subjective and that I can't expect to be able prove anything like this in the arena of ideas.

So, are these senses you speak of as so concrete, Objective experiences? No.

I'll continue with this for a moment. You and afawfaw are not color blind (I hope) I hold up a card and the color is what? You both say Green! Correct. This color is defined as Greeen as it bounces green and absorbs the rest. You eye takes that frrequency and absorbs it. Collaspes the waves and detect the particles. That is the end of Objective. 

Now, please think about this. There is no way for us to actually know, though we agree that the color we all see is the same.

In other words, I think I see green but I could be experiencing what you call orange and when we bounce that green light into your eyes, you see what I would call "blue" but you call it greeen. I see what you call orange, but I call that green.

This is not color blind where the colors can't be told apart. This is a detailed thought experiement to suggest that we don't know actaually what the other guy experiences because we don't have an internal absolute, we only have the consensus we built up slowly from birth about what others would call this color we see. Make sense?


----------



## Doer (Jun 11, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> Wrong. Try again, with the REAL text. Thanks. It says, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by THEIR Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
> 
> Their creator and OUR creator is a slight of hand to prove a point. Fail. My creator I define as my parents. My universe. MY creator. Possessive.


I didn't make the full QUOTE, fool. You tired to toss in garbage. It is the Creator, not the idiotic hairsplitting. I was stopping your concetual garbage. The garbage that the founding fothers tried to take God out and somehow we are putting it back in. Just lies. So, qubbile your little tap dance. You have already been revealed a militant, revisionist Athiest of the cult. No more dancing wih you.


----------



## kpmarine (Jun 11, 2012)

Doer said:


> And yet if I told that my experirence with, Self not bound in thought, also contained new sensations of sight, hearing, and taste, you would say that's Subjective and that I can't expect to be able prove anything like this in the arena of ideas.
> 
> So, are these senses you speak of as so concrete, Objective experiences? No.
> 
> ...


Except, color coordination and combination would be impossible, were this the case.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 11, 2012)

Doer said:


> I didn't make the full QUOTE, fool. You tired to toss in garbage. It is the Creator, not the idiotic hairsplitting. I was stopping your concetual garbage. The garbage that the founding fothers tried to take God out and somehow we are putting it back in. Just lies. So, qubbile your little tap dance. You have already been revealed a militant, revisionist Athiest of the cult. No more dancing wih you.


Cop out. The part you quoted was inaccurate. The ENTIRE concept of your argument hinged on the OUR VS THEIR. Perhaps English is your second language. I'll admit, English is a twisted, sloppy language. You continue to attack me, claim it's in defense of some ghost post. OK. It's people like you who can't envision what the founding fathers were saying. We take no position on religion. We will not promote any religion over any other. The founding fathers knew religion could be used to corrupt the American Dream. THEIR is extremely important. Not to you. Splitting hairs!? If the founding fathers were so gung ho on religion, why didn't our currency have god on it? Why did the pledge mention nothing about God? We DID put god into America in the 1950's, after the founding fathers were long gone. Sorry you don't know your American History. The Fathers weren't Anti-religious, but they wanted it to be a private affair, not splashed onto every fucking court house! 

You have been revealed as a liar. You claimed Faith was the Human Default. Proved wrong. You claim to be immersed in education, yet you have no knowledge of American History. Then you attack me to try to win pity, or something. Either you're clueless, or you're trolling me. Either way. This is probably the most offensive post I've thrown your way. 

To each YOUR own.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jun 11, 2012)

*raises hand* I have a question.

...spiritual practice has been going on for a lot longer than scientific practice has. I hope this something we can agree on. Religion is on in years and 'wise'. Natural science is an adolescent in comparison. This is something we can 'prove' by going for a read down history lane. (Obviously, I don't mean religious fanaticism, thank you.)

Religion is a 'mother and a father' to the masses. I'm getting the impression that scientism is a spoiled kid. (?)

Sorry, I am being as objective as I can. I am not meaning to throw jabs or belittle anyone.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 11, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> *raises hand* I have a question.
> 
> ...spiritual practice has been going on for a lot longer than scientific practice has. I hope this something we can agree on. Religion is on in years and 'wise'. Natural science is an adolescent in comparison. This is something we can 'prove' by going for a read down history lane. (Obviously, I don't mean religious fanaticism, thank you.)
> 
> ...


Yes, you're correct. Now look at increased practice of science, as opposed to increased religious practice. When we practiced only religion, how was the Human Condition? What was the life expentancy? How were politics handled? How was medicine? Education? Travel? Communication? 

There was a long period in Human history when Religion ruled unquestioned over large Countries...

This would be the last memory of anyone opposing the Christians...
http://www.medievalweaponinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/crusader-shield-801508.jpg


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jun 11, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> Yes, you're correct. Now look at increased practice of science, as opposed to increased religious practice. When we practiced only religion, how was the Human Condition? What was the life expentancy? How were politics handled? How was medicine? Education? Travel? Communication?
> 
> There was a long period in Human history when Religion ruled unquestioned over large Countries...
> 
> ...


...hey man, I get that last part, I wouldn't have wanted to fck people up! To your point, in the bible there is a quote about 'praying in private', which is what most people are doing these days. The church represents a body, and people moving away from it is more indicative of people having less and less faith in people. The church has, but hasn't, changed.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 11, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...hey man, I get that last part, I wouldn't have wanted to fck people up! To your point, in the bible there is a quote about 'praying in private', which is what most people are doing these days. The church represents a body, and people moving away from it is more indicative of people having less and less faith in people. The church has, but hasn't, changed.


I'm not pissing on the fence or anything, but folks never had faith in people. If we could put our faith in people, we wouldn't need Governments or Human Rights. Religion used to provide false hope, in a weary world when a lot of folks would just kill themselves. We've exhausted religious participation. It has yielded no results. Imagine if Science were given exclusive multi-hundred year rein? Imagine if scientists ran our government, not sell outs. Imagine scientists running your state. Brings a small tear to my eye. To command based on objective information, instead of what people feel. Not wasting countless years flip flopping on pointless issues like abortion and gay rights. Addressing homelessness and ignorance in America. But then the government would lose control, because it would not need it. 

Each year millions of women and children are abused in America, but religion persists about Gays and Abortions, and birth control. And no one argues, because they can't, because their religious, and so on, and so on.


----------



## kpmarine (Jun 11, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...hey man, I get that last part, I wouldn't have wanted to fck people up! To your point, in the bible there is a quote about 'praying in private', which is what most people are doing these days. The church represents a body, and people moving away from it is more indicative of people having less and less faith in people. The church has, but hasn't, changed.


The problem is that you have politicians calling for "national days of prayer", or concurring that gay people somehow warrant fewer rights than other people; that is not "praying in private". Every church I've been to (Only christian ones, so I'll grant you that my sample is limited to one religion.) preaches hellfire and damnation for the "unsaved". That may cause unity, but it's a unity based on unquestioning faith and fear of authority. My faith in people has increased greatly since I left the church. I came to the realization that you don't need church imposed morality to be a good person. For example, christian churches went on a crazy crusade against pokemon when I as a kid. They said it was encouraging acceptance of "cult and evolutionary practices in children.", or Harry Potter books for the reasons of "witchcraft". How is implying that people who continue to be interested in those things are bad people by god's standards fostering faith in people? Religion only fosters community amongst those who participate in their particular practices.


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 11, 2012)

Doer said:


> Yes, it is speculation. Mathmatical speculation, however, at least. If folks can see a metaphysical interpretation, that is certainly not in the math.
> The salt grains are free to take. I can not accept the statement phrased that way. It is not metaphysics cloaked.
> 
> Metaphysics may be trying to borrow it. But, the cloak of hard science is real. What it actually covers is yet, unknown. I don't think you meant to say that it's a bunch numerolgists, astroloigers, and tarot readers, influencing the Quantum Math, are you?


I give metaphysics higher regard than outright superstition. Astrologers etc. are mystics: they rely upon a supernatural influence on the natural world with an indispemsable mediating agency: the _soul._ Mystics, the lot. Metaphysicists try to reach after the Big Questions while still trying to play as fair as possible. It's speculation v. outright animism. Jmo. cn


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 11, 2012)

Doer said:


> And yet if I told that my experirence with, Self not bound in thought, also contained new sensations of sight, hearing, and taste, you would say that's Subjective and that I can't expect to be able prove anything like this in the arena of ideas.
> 
> So, are these senses you speak of as so concrete, Objective experiences? No.
> 
> ...



It is my experience that sight and hearing are perhaps the two senses that are most standardized among physically healthy people. But I have been always fascinated by the subtle differences. A friend insisted that schoolbuses (which practically define Yellow for me) are closer to Orange. My xgf and I had a running playful squabble about "is that blue or purple". But the place where I seem to be an outlier is: star colors. The reddest stars appear caramel-yellow to my eyes, and the white stars distinctly blue. Blue stars, of course, are like welding arcs, so marvelously plasma-blue. Most stars are blue to my eyes. To my ex, they were yellow. To my sister, green. This was my lesson in the variability of even the most standardized sensual experience. 



kpmarine said:


> Except, color coordination and combination would be impossible, were this the case.


Just saw this. I suspect that the relations among colors remain intact, so what coordinates harmoniously for one will also do so for ... me, with my somewhat offset sense of color. cn


----------



## kpmarine (Jun 11, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> It is my experience that sight and hearing are perhaps the two senses that are most standardized among physically healthy people. But I have been always fascinated by the subtle differences. A friend insisted that schoolbuses (which practically define Yellow for me) are closer to Orange. My xgf and I had a running playful squabble about "is that blue or purple". But the place where I seem to be an outlier is: star colors. The reddest stars appear caramel-yellow to my eyes, and the white stars distinctly blue. Blue stars, of course, are like welding arcs, so marvelously plasma-blue. Most stars are blue to my eyes. To my ex, they were yellow. To my sister, green. This was my lesson in the variability of even the most standardized sensual experience.
> 
> 
> 
> Just saw this. I suspect that the relations among colors remain intact, so what coordinates harmoniously for one will also do so for ... me, with my somewhat offset sense of color. cn


Everyone has slight differences on how they see a shade of color, some to the point where we have created a term for it. I would speculate that we have slight variations in our color receptors. much like how nothing else is physically identical from person to person; which causes us to pick up slightly more or less of a certain pigment.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jun 11, 2012)

kpmarine said:


> The problem is that you have politicians calling for "national days of prayer", or concurring that gay people somehow warrant fewer rights than other people; that is not "praying in private". Every church I've been to (Only christian ones, so I'll grant you that my sample is limited to one religion.) preaches hellfire and damnation for the "unsaved". That may cause unity, but it's a unity based on unquestioning faith and fear of authority. My faith in people has increased greatly since I left the church. I came to the realization that you don't need church imposed morality to be a good person. For example, christian churches went on a crazy crusade against pokemon when I as a kid. They said it was encouraging acceptance of "cult and evolutionary practices in children.", or Harry Potter books for the reasons of "witchcraft". How is implying that people who continue to be interested in those things are bad people by god's standards fostering faith in people? Religion only fosters community amongst those who participate in their particular practices.


...thanks. Do you think that any form 'nationalism' should be disregarded?

Insofar as the church situation goes, my experiences have been different. I guess it may be a denominational difference, I don't know.

Someone reads some scripture, someone else gives a current day example or interpretation. No fire and brimstone, even when I was a kid. *shrugs* If the passage happened to be on the more severe side, the interpretation was always clear in relaying the symbolism.


----------



## Dr.J20 (Jun 11, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> Below is my standard response to this idea, although I originally wrote it to someone who was claiming this idea as hard truth, which you are not, so it may sound a bit harsh. BTW, I was responding to the Big A atheists as a hypothetical idea. I do not believe atheism is the root of any problem.
> 
> 
> Equivocating non-belief in God with committing heinous acts is a blatant duplicity and no intelligent person here is going to tolerate it.
> ...



Heisenberg, I agree with this but I want to make perfectly clear that I was not attempting to insinuate a causative correlation between the acts committed by Hitler, Pol Pot, etc., and the fact that none of them believed in a God. I recognize that there are many theists who would want to go down that slippery slope without recognizing that it gets nowhere: Popes have committed heinous acts and atrocities, right?--they have, if any of you think this was a sarcastic remark, read some history.

My interest in this line of questioning is largely to reveal that the claim, made by some atheists here, "the world would be better without religion," is just plain old unprovable. I just don't like the reductive, puerile understanding that says, "world religions have been the cause of so much suffering, we'd be better off without them all" especially when the person making that statement has only the most cursory experience with only the slimmest cross-section of a particularly western religion. By the same token, they are being as provincial as someone who thinks that because hitler and pol pot called themselves atheists that the world would be a better place if everyone believed in God. I only advocate a diversity of perspectives, a respect for communication, and an honest attempt at peaceful coexistence. Skepticism, rational thought, and sophistication certainly are necessary for this, but I would like to just ask if we can remove the adjective "religious" from its appendage to dogma. Until we have a firm definition of what "religion" is to everyone, we need not to discuss it as if it is a broad and largely homogenous category.

I would also offer that anyone who looks at these lists could say that it is extremely dangerous to apply harsh rationale to insufficient understanding, as these men all did. Hitler was using a certain sense of logic when he decided that gregor mendel's work with genetics and darwin's work with evolution could be taken to mean that the perfection of man can be achieved through selective breeding; this would be an example of someone working from an incomplete understanding. It would, incidentally, be an iteration of a mythology intervening to inhibit that understanding as he was applying the Aryan myth to the Germanic peoples. I would argue that religious fervor which precipitates the same kind of fascist behavior is just another iteration of the same corruptibility of man. We can all point to people claiming to be Catholic, Muslim, Buddhist or atheist who have achieved both great good and great evil. I think the endgame here is to agree that we're all trying to figure out the best way for everyone to live as happily as possible. So those theists out there who see some Baptist fascistically advocating the harming of homosexuals, you need to stand up and say "no, this is wrong, Jesus loved everyone, blessed are the meek, fuck off you fascist preacher" and whenever an atheist hears another atheist saying something like "let's corral all these moron religious people into one area so we can get rid of them," it is the moral and ethical responsibility of the hearing atheist to correct his fascist cohort, and ensure him that the truth will win out and ignorance will be vanquished through peaceful and respectful communication and interaction. 
be easy


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jun 11, 2012)

Dr.J20 said:


> I would also offer that anyone who looks at these lists could say that it is extremely dangerous to apply harsh rationale to insufficient understanding, as these men all did. Hitler was using a certain sense of logic when he decided that gregor mendel's work with genetics and darwin's work with evolution could be taken to mean that the perfection of man can be achieved through selective breeding; this would be an example of someone working from an incomplete understanding. It would, incidentally, be an iteration of a mythology intervening to inhibit that understanding as he was applying the Aryan myth to the Germanic peoples. I would argue that religious fervor which precipitates the same kind of fascist behavior is just another iteration of the same corruptibility of man. We can all point to people claiming to be Catholic, Muslim, Buddhist or atheist who have achieved both great good and great evil. I think the endgame here is to agree that we're all trying to figure out the best way for everyone to live as happily as possible. *So those theists out there who see some Baptist fascistically advocating the harming of homosexuals, you need to stand up and say "no, this is wrong, Jesus loved everyone, blessed are the meek, fuck off you fascist preacher" and whenever an atheist hears another atheist saying something like "let's corral all these moron religious people into one area so we can get rid of them," it is the moral and ethical responsibility of the hearing atheist to correct his fascist cohort, and ensure him that the truth will win out and ignorance will be vanquished through peaceful and respectful communication and interaction. *
> be easy


...very well said


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 11, 2012)

It could easily be proven that Mankind is better off without religion. Good luck getting the grants for that experiment.


----------



## dashcues (Jun 11, 2012)

We live in a time where religion still bear the sins of the fathers.And why not? The wounds are still fresh.Let's face it.Religious persecution in its time was the worst of the worst. The Crusades,Roman catholic conquests,Inquisition,etc.,etc.Pick your poison
These times still echo through what we know of as religion today.KKK,supremacist,Muslim extremist,etc.,etc. Again,pick a poison.There's plenty of them.

We bear a heavy cross.After all it is(of) religion that is attached forevermore to these events.Even if it was misrepresented,it will never change history.What's done is done.

So,we must bear the burden.It is the price we pay for the sins of the fathers.The price we pay for our beliefs.Maybe one day the wounds will heal over.For it is said that time heals all wounds.But we must agree that our religious forebears cut pretty deep.So it is not likely we'll see it healed within our generation,but we can work to the future.How?Don't ask me I'm just another guy on the internet.

But I would like to see it.I hope by the next generation.So that our descendants never have to bear the same burden.


----------



## Dr.J20 (Jun 11, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> It could easily be proven that Mankind is better off without religion. Good luck getting the grants for that experiment.


how, exactly?


----------



## kpmarine (Jun 11, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...thanks. Do you think that any form 'nationalism' should be disregarded?
> 
> Insofar as the church situation goes, my experiences have been different. I guess it may be a denominational difference, I don't know.
> 
> Someone reads some scripture, someone else gives a current day example or interpretation. No fire and brimstone, even when I was a kid. *shrugs* If the passage happened to be on the more severe side, the interpretation was always clear in relaying the symbolism.


There's too much in the bible that is outright hate, no matter how you try to look at it. Then there's the petty and selfish god that destroyed sodom and gomorrah, but was cool with Lot knocking up his daughters, after turning his wife into a pillar of salt for looking back at her now destroyed home. Or, there's the tale of Job; god torments poor Job to prove a point to the devil. Really? An all powerful god feels the need to prove a point to satan? Then there's the fact that it calls homosexuals an "abomination", no symbolism in there. Then there's the constant preaching against the rich in the new testament. Then, to top it all off, there's the fact that the "bible" was assembled by a bunch of people who got to pick for themselves what went in the bible. Even if there is some legitimacy to religion, christianity is definitely not where you will find it.


----------



## Dr.J20 (Jun 11, 2012)

kpmarine said:


> Then there's the fact that it calls homosexuals an "abomination", no symbolism in there.


IF YOU DON'T WANT TO READ SOMETHING LONG PLEASE, >>>

The bible does not say this. those leviticus quotes are translations taken out of context and reinterpreted by persons ill-equipped to do such intellectual work, then used selectively to incite anger and abhorrence towards homosexuals. The socio-historical context of Leviticus is just as important as what is written there, and those stories in the Bible have, for a very long time, been understood as teaching parables to help people understand fundamental concepts more easily: like love and respect your fellow man, be honest, be cognizant of your limitations. Yeah with hard work, study, and rational investigation we SHOULD all come to these understandings, but not everybody has been so fortunate to have the amount of wealth required to sit around and ponder this kind of thing. In one of these threads (maybe even this one) someone went down the "is religion natural to man?" line of questioning: in one sense, when man was fighting for his life daily, i'm not real sure whether he had time for the concept of religion, or anything else for that matter--seems like he'd be pretty busy trying to get food water and shelter. 
not sure that one went anywhere but the bible doesn't say homosexuality is an abomination--that quote is more along the lines "for a man to lay with another man is an abomination" and, if my study of this isn't too terribly rusty, the proscriptions there are more pointedly about obedience and the protection of the jewish 'tribe.' So, your lambast against Christians falls flat as their claim to the Hebrew Bible usually rests with the fact that Jesus was a Jew and so, since he studied that i'm sure it seemed like a good idea to his followers to include that in the new religion they were going to build around his teachings, even though his teachings were radical "revisions" of those very strict and often contradictory rules of the Hebrew bible. Since they also thought only very learned men would be reading these books and would be very capable of sorting out the logical conundra found within, they did not take it upon themselves to make these texts very clear and reconciled.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>READ THIS:

I'm going to stop myself here because this is getting longwinded and out of hand. the point is, the bible is, whether you believe it is inspired or not, written by the hands of men. If you want to say its a horrible book and should be banned because of what is in it and how many people have done wrong things because of it, then you need to also ban any book that results in a similar outcome. once we get to banning books though, its a slippery slope to another dark age.
be easy


----------



## kpmarine (Jun 11, 2012)

Dr.J20 said:


> IF YOU DON'T WANT TO READ SOMETHING LONG PLEASE, >>>
> 
> The bible does not say this. those leviticus quotes are translations taken out of context and reinterpreted by persons ill-equipped to do such intellectual work, then used selectively to incite anger and abhorrence towards homosexuals. The socio-historical context of Leviticus is just as important as what is written there, and those stories in the Bible have, for a very long time, been understood as teaching parables to help people understand fundamental concepts more easily: like love and respect your fellow man, be honest, be cognizant of your limitations. Yeah with hard work, study, and rational investigation we SHOULD all come to these understandings, but not everybody has been so fortunate to have the amount of wealth required to sit around and ponder this kind of thing. In one of these threads (maybe even this one) someone went down the "is religion natural to man?" line of questioning: in one sense, when man was fighting for his life daily, i'm not real sure whether he had time for the concept of religion, or anything else for that matter--seems like he'd be pretty busy trying to get food water and shelter.
> not sure that one went anywhere but the bible doesn't say homosexuality is an abomination--that quote is more along the lines "for a man to lay with another man is an abomination" and, if my study of this isn't too terribly rusty, the proscriptions there are more pointedly about obedience and the protection of the jewish 'tribe.' So, your lambast against Christians falls flat as their claim to the Hebrew Bible usually rests with the fact that Jesus was a Jew and so, since he studied that i'm sure it seemed like a good idea to his followers to include that in the new religion they were going to build around his teachings, even though his teachings were radical "revisions" of those very strict and often contradictory rules of the Hebrew bible. Since they also thought only very learned men would be reading these books and would be very capable of sorting out the logical conundra found within, they did not take it upon themselves to make these texts very clear and reconciled.
> ...


I don't want to ban it, for the very reason you state. There's value to be found in any book, if you look hard enough. Plus, I've never been a fan of censorship in general. I like that people have a tenacious belief in their faith, it can truly be a great thing at times. Frankly, I wish I knew more people who looked at the bible in the same way you do.


----------



## HeartlandHank (Jun 11, 2012)

NetGuruINC said:


> I URGE you all to please go to youtube and type in "nde". There is PROOF what happens to us when we die. Go to youtube and type in "nde" which stands for Near Death Experiences and watch and listen to the hundreds of stories from people who have had heart attacks, cancer, car accidents, shot, stabbed, and listen to their stories of what happened to them. There are videos from people all over the world and their experiences ALL coincide with each other. You will see proof that God and Jesus are real, Angels are real, and Hell is real. Everyone needs to check it out seriously...
> 
> And these experiences are not all just from Christians, there are stories from atheists, muslims, every type of person walking this earth. Go to youtube and type in "nde"


Dimethyltrytamine, you don't have to get in a car accident to have one of the NDEs.


----------



## thump easy (Jun 11, 2012)

i got a few stories that i cant explain but got dam thier good one day maybee ill tell you.. lolz


----------



## HeartlandHank (Jun 11, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> *raises hand* I have a question.
> 
> ...spiritual practice has been going on for a lot longer than scientific practice has. I hope this something we can agree on. Religion is on in years and 'wise'. Natural science is an adolescent in comparison. This is something we can 'prove' by going for a read down history lane. (Obviously, I don't mean religious fanaticism, thank you.)
> 
> ...


You cannot compare science and religion like that.
Science is about accepting nothing as fact. Building on understandings. A living neverending review of data. Reasoning.
Religion is about faith. Believing despite anything you might hear or see. 

In my opinion, Science has no conflict with religion. Religion however, has quite the conflict with science.
Any belief that discourages from using reasoning... I don't know.
Maybe my simple, Taught beliefs - Reasoning = Faith , equation is over simplified, but...

I would to hear more about science being a spoiled kid. I wonder if you mean that in the way I am understanding you.

"


----------



## HeartlandHank (Jun 11, 2012)

You really cannot even talk about religion in a way of evaluating it against science. What is there to measure the value, accuracy, or whatever of religion? Try putting faith, prayers and miracles on a scale. These things could be 13.9 billion years old and it's going to read 0.0.

I guess my point is, Science and Religion are different games. It's like the Yankees playing the Celtics. Either the Celtics have to show up and play baseball, or the Yankees have to trade in their cleats for high tops. Whoever the away team is will lose. If Kevin Garnett goes up to the pitchers mound and throws a basketball to home plate, (both sides trying to play their own sport) you are just going to have a fucking mess, and get nowhere.


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 12, 2012)

HeartlandHank said:


> You really cannot even talk about religion in a way of evaluating it against science. What is there to measure the value, accuracy, or whatever of religion? Try putting faith, prayers and miracles on a scale. These things could be 13.9 billion years old and it's going to read 0.0.
> 
> I guess my point is, Science and Religion are different games. It's like the Yankees playing the Celtics. Either the Celtics have to show up and play baseball, or the Yankees have to trade in their cleats for high tops. Whoever the away team is will lose. If Kevin Garnett goes up to the pitchers mound and throws a basketball to home plate, (both sides trying to play their own sport) you are just going to have a fucking mess, and get nowhere.


But just imagine the SOUND of a solid swing connecting with that big ball. Gnarlissimo. (Shame about the batter's wrists.) cn


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jun 12, 2012)

HeartlandHank said:


> You cannot compare science and religion like that.
> Science is about accepting nothing as fact. Building on understandings. A living neverending review of data. Reasoning.
> Religion is about faith. Believing despite anything you might hear or see.
> 
> ...


...that's the outer shell of religion, my friend  What I am comparing is a term known as religare, 'union'. It is the basis of religions, or, the root understanding of religious attributes in man's condition. Religion is not all churches, ties, and knee length skirts. So, yes, I can compare them like that  It is a provable truth that religion has been on man's mind longer than scientific study has. Doesn't make one better than the other, it just 'is'.

I was a kid once, you were, we all were, etc... There was a point in our childhoods that we started to 'know stuff'. This usually results in the kid thinking they are more than a kid, 'smart'. Our parents would normally have something to say about their new little 'smart ass'. I'm finding more and more that young aspiring scientists are a bit like that. They gain a bit of knowledge and puff up with pride. Me, I puff up with good ganja - hehe!

*also, real religion is about a never ending review of data that pours from one's own mouth, so yet again comparable


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Jun 12, 2012)

I think there are two main reasons why people believe in things that are not real (religion/theology/spirituality).

1._ It makes you feel special._
(you really aren't special in the eyes of the universe, you're are merely a by-product)

2._ It makes you feel like you will still exist after you die._
(you as in who you are, when you realize what makes you who you are, you begin to understand that you barrow, take or leave pieces of yourself from others. We are nothing but our ability to make choices, everything else was learned and taken from others)

You are not special, no one is... and most likely when you die you cease to exist. It may not really be this way, but this is where all evidence points to.

You can be a courageous and suck it up, accept it... or be a coward and pretend to know things that you really don't know to make yourself feel better, or feel special, or feel like you are going to continue to exist when you die.

The choice is yours.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jun 12, 2012)

Zaehet Strife said:


> You can be a man and suck it up [...] The choice is yours.


...Gobstoppers, I choose Gobstoppers


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Jun 12, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...Gobstoppers, I choose Gobstoppers


^Defined: Fantasy, i choose fantasy.

I am completely ok with this, even if i may not agree.


----------



## Dr.J20 (Jun 12, 2012)

HeartlandHank said:


> You really cannot even talk about religion in a way of evaluating it against science. What is there to measure the value, accuracy, or whatever of religion? Try putting faith, prayers and miracles on a scale. These things could be 13.9 billion years old and it's going to read 0.0.
> 
> I guess my point is, Science and Religion are different games. It's like the Yankees playing the Celtics. Either the Celtics have to show up and play baseball, or the Yankees have to trade in their cleats for high tops. Whoever the away team is will lose. If Kevin Garnett goes up to the pitchers mound and throws a basketball to home plate, (both sides trying to play their own sport) you are just going to have a fucking mess, and get nowhere.


While I tend to agree with much of this, and I do dig the sports analogy, I would like to point out that scales and evaluations are, at some point, invented by man. I bet if we all sat down and tried hard enough we could come up with a scale of evaluation to rate religion, religious practice, etc. But, we would have to all agree that this defined scale is based upon a set of group deliberations in order to erect a hierarchy of values. We could use very rational measures like surveys of practitioners self-reported happiness levels, etc.; and, these would be collected and balanced against more objective, standard measures of the individual like health, and observations of how often the engage in logically deduced moral behavior.; we could then also define religious practice according to how well one follows a given religious doctrine--as compared to both the writings and contemporary teachings of that religious institution--thereby erecting several spectra (a la the Levi-Strauss personality assessments). In short, we could collect a shit-ton of data ABOUT religion and its followers and then place our findings on numerical scales but, as you sort of point out, to what avail? you couldn't collect this data and directly compare it to science or philosophy or anything without reducing disparate disciplines to their lowest common denominators. And once something has been diminished so greatly it always opens the door for the absented information to be used as argument for why the comparison is wrong. 

anyhow, just a long response to the notion that you can't put religion on a scale. sorry bout that...too much coffee and herb
be easy


----------



## dannyboy602 (Jun 12, 2012)

Zaehet Strife said:


> I think there are two main reasons why people believe in things that are not real (religion/theology/spirituality).
> 
> 1._ It makes you feel special._
> (you really aren't special in the eyes of the universe, you're are merely a by-product)
> ...


I think humans have huge egos. And therin lies our fallibility. But there can be no proof of God's existance. It has to be that way. It is a matter of faith.
I also think we were made in His image and God himself has a huge ego. Who else would undertake the creation of the universe?


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 12, 2012)

Dr.J20 said:


> how, exactly?


By raising a population to value reason above all else. The problem is, this population could not be controlled by another group. They would soon have a monopoly on technologies and science. Look at human history. As science and education increase, Mankind excels. Add religion, and we kill each other. Pretty basic.

I could site countries that have secular societies, but this is not an Atheist society. Just secular. Science has trumped religion from day one. You can argue this point. On your computer or iphone. Over electrical cables and air waves. Through a monitor. In your house. Which is heated. And air conditioned. With science. Not religion. 

Technology = Brought to you by science, not religion.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 12, 2012)

[youtube]uuWjKqlRAUk[/youtube]

The evidence is clear.


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 12, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...that's the outer shell of religion, my friend  What I am comparing is a term known as religare, 'union'. It is the basis of religions, or, the root understanding of religious attributes in man's condition. Religion is not all churches, ties, and knee length skirts. So, yes, I can compare them like that  It is a provable truth that religion has been on man's mind longer than scientific study has. Doesn't make one better than the other, it just 'is'.
> 
> I was a kid once, you were, we all were, etc... There was a point in our childhoods that we started to 'know stuff'. This usually results in the kid thinking they are more than a kid, 'smart'. Our parents would normally have something to say about their new little 'smart ass'. I'm finding more and more that young aspiring scientists are a bit like that. They gain a bit of knowledge and puff up with pride. Me, I puff up with good ganja - hehe!
> 
> *also, real religion is about a never ending review of data that pours from one's own mouth, so yet again comparable


Knee-length skirts?? You ... _rake_. cn


----------



## Dr.J20 (Jun 12, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> The problem is, this population could not be controlled by another group.


Right, and because there would be no control group, it would be impossible to SCIENTIFICALLY PROVE THIS. You would have to evolve at least one entire human species on another planet free from all other interference than the one you are testing: religion. So, no, i don't see how you could easily prove this.



afrawfraw said:


> Add religion, and we kill each other. Pretty basic.


I'm sorry, to blame all killing and wrongness on religion, that's what is pretty basic. man fights over power, religion is just one thing out of which differences arise and was very expedient as a "reason" to start a war. if it hadn't been for religion, we'd still fight over other shit and your kidding yourself if you think otherwise.



afrawfraw said:


> site


I'm sorry for being a dick here, but i'm just tired of watching you misuse the word "site" to mean "cite"



afrawfraw said:


> Science has trumped religion from day one.


This is an opinion based on your perspective. Science doesn't care whether it trumps nor does it try to trump, nor is it even pointedly interested in trumping anything. It is a methodology and epistemology geared towards understanding the physical realm. And, recognizes that there are aspects of existence that are viable, real, and very interesting, but outside of the scope of scientific inquiry. 



afrawfraw said:


> Technology = Brought to you by science, not religion.


Technology, as you have listed it, seems only to include inventions and materials: you have exempted novel ideas and processes. Furthermore, science may do well to explain WHY a technology provides what it provides but it is entirely possible for a layman to make a discovery and use it simply because it achieves his desired goal.
I'll watch your video but the mere fact that its premise is "imagine if all atheists left america" makes me think its probably not going to advance intelligent discussion.
be easy


----------



## Dr.J20 (Jun 12, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> [youtube]uuWjKqlRAUk[/youtube]
> 
> The evidence is clear.


I just watched that and there were few statistics actually presented besides "most" of this kind of person etc. What this also assumes is that the data it does present falls into the realm of causation, but they are in fact correlations, not proof of causation. Since you fail to grasp the difference, refuse to acknowledge the contextual problems with you statements and ultimately are in this discussion, not to advance understanding, but to simply try to aggrandize your position and devalue anyone else's, there is no point in discussing. 
be easy


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jun 12, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> Knee-length skirts?? You ... _rake_. cn


...darn tootin'  Shiny buttons too


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jun 12, 2012)

Dr.J20 said:


> Science doesn't care whether it trumps nor does it try to trump, nor is it even pointedly interested in trumping anything. It is a methodology and epistemology geared towards understanding the physical realm. And, recognizes that there are aspects of existence that are viable, real, and very interesting, but outside of the scope of scientific inquiry.


...man, you've only been here a little while and I can't rep you anymore  "epistemology geared towards understanding the physical realm" - spot on.


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 12, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...darn tootin'  Shiny buttons too


Oh the humanity. cn


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jun 12, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> Oh the humanity. cn






...I was just taking a sip of my soda when I read this, close call


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 12, 2012)

Dr.J20 said:


> I just watched that and there were few statistics actually presented besides "most" of this kind of person etc. What this also assumes is that the data it does present falls into the realm of causation, but they are in fact correlations, not proof of causation. Since you fail to grasp the difference, refuse to acknowledge the contextual problems with you statements and ultimately are in this discussion, not to advance understanding, but to simply try to aggrandize your position and devalue anyone else's, there is no point in discussing.
> be easy


The video states what would happen if you removed a population simply because they did not believe. If you want to refute the claims of the video, present evidence to the contrary. To state I am out for blood is more an emotional reaction than discussion. I can never apply reason to faith. So to devalue someone else's opinion only bolsters it. Every one is entitled to what they want to believe. Just don't try to prove it, unless you really can, using facts. By observing Atheism, we can begin to see how and why it exists at all, like any other alignment, no?


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 12, 2012)

Dr.J20 said:


> Right, and because there would be no control group, it would be impossible to SCIENTIFICALLY PROVE THIS. You would have to evolve at least one entire human species on another planet free from all other interference than the one you are testing: religion. So, no, i don't see how you could easily prove this.


Funding would be incredible. But you would merely have to raise a group without religiosity. Exposed to everything BUT. Secluded. "Another Planet" I take as environment. Within a few hundred years, it would be apparent. 




Dr.J20 said:


> I'm sorry, to blame all killing and wrongness on religion, that's what is pretty basic. man fights over power, religion is just one thing out of which differences arise and was very expedient as a "reason" to start a war. if it hadn't been for religion, we'd still fight over other shit and your kidding yourself if you think otherwise.


I don't. But religion is mans greatest threat. Do you need numbers?




Dr.J20 said:


> I'm sorry for being a dick here, but i'm just tired of watching you misuse the word "site" to mean "cite"


I'm stoned. I'll cite you on site the next time I use cite correctly. Outa sight!




Dr.J20 said:


> This is an opinion based on your perspective. Science doesn't care whether it trumps nor does it try to trump, nor is it even pointedly interested in trumping anything. It is a methodology and epistemology geared towards understanding the physical realm. And, recognizes that there are aspects of existence that are viable, real, and very interesting, but outside of the scope of scientific inquiry.


I never spoke of science as a personality. I merely said science yields more results. 





Dr.J20 said:


> Technology, as you have listed it, seems only to include inventions and materials: you have exempted novel ideas and processes. Furthermore, science may do well to explain WHY a technology provides what it provides but it is entirely possible for a layman to make a discovery and use it simply because it achieves his desired goal.
> I'll watch your video but the mere fact that its premise is "imagine if all atheists left america" makes me think its probably not going to advance intelligent discussion.
> be easy


You seem to have this notion that scientists wear bunny suits and murmur to each other scribbling notes on clipboards...If somebody observes a need, tests different solutions, and draws a conclusion based on results...This is what you described...


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 12, 2012)

Look, I'm not saying science is a "Savior". What I'm saying is it's been witnessed, in human history, as we acquaint ourselves with science, we become more productive, aware beings.


----------



## Heisenberg (Jun 12, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> Look, I'm not saying science is a "Savior". What I'm saying is it's been witnessed, in human history, as we acquaint ourselves with science, we become more productive, aware beings.


Just to play devil's advocate and to test your debate skills, I propose that Science can be a tool of evil as easily as a force of good. Science has revealed many ways in which we could destroy ourselves, it's our collective conscious that caused us to use it for progress. The moral framework for this conscious has been convicted and reinforced by religion. Without these values in place to counter natural shortcomings like hubris, greed, wrath, and sloth, science would destroy our world.


----------



## Kite High (Jun 12, 2012)

ctwalrus said:


> now go look up dmt, the pineal gland, and there relation to nde's
> 
> i experienced a creator like being of energy as well


and that should have ended this dumbass thread...jus sayin


----------



## Heisenberg (Jun 12, 2012)

Kite High said:


> and that should have ended this dumbass thread...jus sayin


I've been here for three years and this thread has been going the whole time, it just changes titles.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jun 12, 2012)

Kite High said:


> and that should have ended this dumbass thread...jus sayin



...in drug-induced states of awareness, are there familiar 'signposts' for all who participate? Does everyone see the same imagery?


----------



## crazyhazey (Jun 12, 2012)

Kite High said:


> and that should have ended this dumbass thread...jus sayin


i attempted to get it through the OP's thick head, but he seemed to deny the existence of dimethyltryptamine, little does he know it exists inside his brain and almost every other organism on this planet. this thread is the product of ignorance, im sure he did some actual research(hopefully not on youtube) after about 20 people told him the same thing i did, realized how ignorant he was, then he ditched his own thread probably feeling like a dumbass for calling everyone's actual proof an "opinion", then proceeded to another thread(maybe another forum) to preach his bullshit about how a basically prolonged, intense dream(honestly just a high dosage DMT trip) is evidence of god's existence. he even posted it on one of my threads, and ditched after we proved him to be wrong. it was pretty funny watching gastanker make a fool out of him though, at least we got a few laughs out of this.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 12, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> Just to play devil's advocate and to test your debate skills, I propose that Science can be a tool of evil as easily as a force of good. Science has revealed many ways in which we could destroy ourselves, it's our collective conscious that caused us to use it for progress. The moral framework for this conscious has been convicted and reinforced by religion. Without these values in place to counter natural shortcomings like hubris, greed, wrath, and sloth, science would destroy our world.


I appreciate the opportunity. Science may never be used for anything sans objective knowledge. TECHNOLOGY on the other, can be used for "Evil". (I assume you mean actions which violate human rights)

It was not the discovery of atomic sciences that killed, but rather little boy and the fat man.

It was not the discovery of black powder that killed, but rather the cannon.

Our destructive nature is ever present. (I personally laugh at people who propose we will be around to witness Type 3 technologies) It is our nature which takes the results of science, and chooses cannons over fireworks and Bombs over medicine.

As for the proposition that Religion has pulled the reins on our nature...Really!? Quite the opposite. Religion allowed a veil to be pulled over peoples eyes. For thousands of years, Science whispered in dark corridors and behind locked doors, while man commited atrocity after atrocity in the name of the Gods. A population that can't argue, is subordinate.

We shall see if the next 800 years sees a return to religion, or science. 

And the reason I think they are oil and water, is because a researcher must go into "Atheist mode" in order to record and ponder all the information. With a reservation, information appearing to refute the preconceived notions is discounted. An Atheistic collecting evidence of a "Supernatural" being would be just as exciting, but in anticipation of more knowledge, not a pair of wings.

This about sums it up. 

[youtube]KSU2Ya3i7Po[/youtube]

When we discover the origins of the universe, if we haven't evolved passed our current nature, someone will "freak out" and use the discovery to destroy every species on the planet. And maybe a few other species we never discovered.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 12, 2012)

Here's a doosy. I contend that Schizoid behavior is the next evolutionary step. By removing our emotional connection with our universe, we become capable of more. Our need for emotions has expired. The model has changed. We will adapt, or die.


----------



## Dr.J20 (Jun 12, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> I appreciate the opportunity. Science may never be used for anything sans objective knowledge. TECHNOLOGY on the other, can be used for "Evil". (I assume you mean actions which violate human rights)
> 
> It was not the discovery of atomic sciences that killed, but rather little boy and the fat man.
> 
> ...


You forgot to respond to the Heisenberg's proposition that religion reinforced our moral framework; you could point out that it was not a necessary condition for religion to reinforce our moral framework. everything religion does to reinforce our moral framework can be accomplished through logical deduction. just to continue the devil's advocacy.


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 12, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...in drug-induced states of awareness, are there familiar 'signposts' for all who participate? Does everyone see the same imagery?


No. Imagine Claudio Naranjo's shock when Ott (?) said, "sorry, no jaguars". It was just another chip in the crumbling edifice of Jung. cn


----------



## Dr.J20 (Jun 12, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> Here's a doosy. I contend that Schizoid behavior is the next evolutionary step. By removing our emotional connection with our universe, we become capable of more. Our need for emotions has expired. The model has changed. We will adapt, or die.


Schizoid behavior is not related to emotional connection. if what you mean by schizoid is irrational then yes, some irrational behavior is solely motivated by emotion but there are other motivators like desire which are not rational as well. 
Our need for emotions has not expired, nor will it expire. Social formation is, in part, reliant upon emotional connection.

Edit: Schizoid behavior is related to emotional connection in that those who exhibit schizoid behavior tend to also exhibit a lack of interest in emotional connection or are emotionally cold; my bad.


----------



## Kite High (Jun 12, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> Here's a doosy. I contend that Schizoid behavior is the next evolutionary step. By removing our emotional connection with our universe, we become capable of more. Our need for emotions has expired. The model has changed. We will adapt, or die.


ingenious thoughts but there is a problem

in your prospect the absence of emotions should lead to logic...however given that the emotionless socio/pyschopath is also not wired for logic process...it is more from a delusion from the detachment than from logic

and logic is boring... emotions are the fire which drives creation in us....

badly wired robots would NOT be evolution but degradation...jus sayin


----------



## drive (Jun 12, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> I appreciate the opportunity. Science may never be used for anything sans objective knowledge. TECHNOLOGY on the other, can be used for "Evil". (I assume you mean actions which violate human rights)
> 
> It was not the discovery of atomic sciences that killed, but rather little boy and the fat man.
> 
> ...


atomic sciences killed madam curie


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 12, 2012)

drive said:


> atomic sciences killed madam curie


No. Radiation did. cn


----------



## Heisenberg (Jun 12, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> I appreciate the opportunity. Science may never be used for anything sans objective knowledge. TECHNOLOGY on the other, can be used for "Evil". (I assume you mean actions which violate human rights)
> 
> It was not the discovery of atomic sciences that killed, but rather little boy and the fat man.
> 
> It was not the discovery of black powder that killed, but rather the cannon.


It was not the discovery of germs which reduced sickness, but the intentions of those to spread the knowledge and the desire to help others. Science allows us to progress fishing tactics to the point of depleting the oceans, morals tell us it isn't right. Morals were given to us by religion long before science. Science fuels blind progress, religion keeps gluttony in check.



> Our destructive nature is ever present. (I personally laugh at people who propose we will be around to witness Type 3 technologies) It is our nature which takes the results of science, and chooses cannons over fireworks and Bombs over medicine.


Exactly, we are destructive selfish creatures by nature, yet we tend to use science for constructive and altruistic applications. This can only be because religion has engraved in us the values which deter narcissism and foster charity. 

(this is of course BS, but you've yet to tell me why)


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jun 12, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> No. Imagine Claudio Naranjo's shock when Ott (?) said, "sorry, no jaguars". It was just another chip in the crumbling edifice of Jung. cn


...Jung's crumbling edifice was his area of study, man 

...seriously though, in introspective 'religion' there are signposts that people witness. Albeit not _exactly_ the same, but carry the same connotations.


----------



## Dr.J20 (Jun 12, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> Exactly, we are destructive selfish creatures by nature, yet we tend to use science for constructive and altruistic applications. This can only be because religion has engraved in us the values which deter narcissism and foster charity.
> 
> (this is of course BS, but you've yet to tell me why)


Afrawfraw posted a somewhat amusing cartoon to respond to this and made a near response in his edit as well, its the same page where you quoted him from...but you don't really need to go look at all that because he doesn't address it.


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 12, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...Jung's crumbling edifice was his area of study, man
> 
> ...seriously though, in introspective 'religion' there are signposts that people witness. Albeit not _exactly_ the same, but carry the same connotations.


I think part of the trouble is that there seems to be a sort of cognitive continuum between one signpost and the next and ... ultimately its opposite. Imo it's one of the things that makes interpreting dreams and visions so fraught. It's impossible to objectively rule if a vision-element is In or Out in terms of corresponding to a signpost. It's a subset of the problem of falsifiability. cn


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 12, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> It was not the discovery of germs which reduced sickness, but the intentions of those to spread the knowledge and the desire to help others. Science allows us to progress fishing tactics to the point of depleting the oceans, morals tell us it isn't right. Morals were given to us by religion long before science. Science fuels blind progress, religion keeps gluttony in check.


It is the blind progress that leads to the discovery of germs, how they work, how they effect us, and how to control them. Why some choose to help, and others to hate, is a matter of environment. Nature VS Nurture. I find it interesting that an overwhelming number of scientists and professors are Atheists. Does a greater understanding of the universe expell religion? Or does religion prohibit a greater understanding of the universe? I digress. 




Heisenberg said:


> Exactly, we are destructive selfish creatures by nature, yet we tend to use science for constructive and altruistic applications. This can only be because religion has engraved in us the values which deter narcissism and foster charity.
> 
> (this is of course BS, but you've yet to tell me why)


Because objective reasoning would NEVER lead one to commit crimes unless necessary for survival. Name another condition, besides indoctrined, which would allow you to execute children, To look at a new born and not see just a human, but an abomination?

Cucullus non facit monachum=It isn't because your a preacher that your son is successful. It is because you nurtured him and interacted with him in accordance with Pavlov's hierarchy, Etc. regardless of being aware of it or not. Religious morality is fleeting. Ethical behavior is obvious, and universal. One can not be ethical, and religious. But you can be Ethical without religion. Good enough? As for anyone remarking,"I'm ethical and religious, so there!" Do you believe that treating homosexuals like we treated newly released slaves is ethical? Yaaaa, thaaaaanks.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 12, 2012)

Here's a clear indicator. How do civilizations the world over control large populations? What is coveted? What is shared openly? Why is education not a priority? What happens to a population without education?


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jun 12, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> I think part of the trouble is that there seems to be a sort of cognitive continuum between one signpost and the next and ... ultimately its opposite. Imo it's one of the things that makes interpreting dreams and visions so fraught. It's impossible to objectively rule if a vision-element is In or Out in terms of corresponding to a signpost. It's a subset of the problem of falsifiability. cn



...very true. Most of the reading I've done is by scientists who tread these waters...brave people for sure. What it takes are the ones who are not in it for the Nobel / Cash / Societal prize to reduce falsifiability?


----------



## goodvibes420 (Jun 12, 2012)

Pointless thread


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jun 12, 2012)

goodvibes420 said:


> Pointless thread


...there are none, just ask light


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 12, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...very true. Most of the reading I've done is by scientists who tread these waters...brave people for sure. What it takes are the ones who are not in it for the Nobel / Cash / Societal prize to reduce falsifiability?


I have traveled in quite scientific circles, and for the majority, tradable prizes were a secondary concern. Many (including your humble interlocutor) were motivated by the quest for understanding. 
However the old right/left-brain dichotomy means that scientists who can also communicate happily with semioticists and poets are a rare breed indeed. Ime. cn


----------



## Dr.J20 (Jun 12, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> As for anyone remarking,"I'm ethical and religious, so there!" Do you believe that treating homosexuals like we treated newly released slaves is ethical? Yaaaa, thaaaaanks.


who is this we you're talking about? is it americans? is it american christians? is it american christian evangelicals of a particular subsect? Again, coercive exercises advocated for by persons claiming a religious affiliation is scant evidence that the world would be better without religion. Also, that the majority of scientists and professors of whom you are aware identify as "atheist" says only that your experience is limited to just that.


----------



## Dr.J20 (Jun 12, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> Name another condition, besides indoctrined, which would allow you to execute children, To look at a new born and not see just a human, but an abomination?


Self-ascribed Nazi. That is, one who approached Nazism of his own reasoning, not by being told that it was right and never questioning it. A Nazi would definitely look at a jewish newborn and see an abomination.


----------



## Heisenberg (Jun 12, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> It is the blind progress that leads to the discovery of germs, how they work, how they effect us, and how to control them. Why some choose to help, and others to hate, *is a matter of environment*. Nature VS Nurture.


This is pretty close to what I was looking for. All that is needed to understand why science is used for constructive progress is to demonstrate an aversion to suffering. Survival and well being has shaped our values, such as possession, and moral expression is simply a summary of those preferences modified by culture. Survival depends on mating, this naturally gave rise to sexual jealousy and the desire to covet others, which through the lens of modern culture is expressed as seeing adultery as a moral failing. Our values can be reduced to the desire for sentient beings to flourish, no god is necessary to provide a moral foundation, especially not one who, depending on his mood, seems perfectly fond of genocide, slavery and human sacrifice. 




> Because objective reasoning would NEVER lead one to commit crimes unless necessary for survival. Name another condition, besides indoctrined, which would allow you to execute children, To look at a new born and not see just a human, but an abomination?


Very good point. Religion often serves as a moral blind-spot, a tool to rationalize atrocities that would sicken reasonable people. Unless most religious people are willing to kill their child when God commands, then they must get their morals some place else.



> One can not be ethical, and religious. But you can be Ethical without religion. Good enough? As for anyone remarking,"I'm ethical and religious, so there!" Do you believe that treating homosexuals like we treated newly released slaves is ethical? Yaaaa, thaaaaanks.


I imagine you will get enough blowback from these statements without me playing devils advocate. I would propose that one can be religious and ethical, but one must engage in some serious cognitive dissonance to avoid feeling conflicted.


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 12, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> Very good point. Religion often serves as a moral blind-spot, a tool to rationalize atrocities that would sicken reasonable people. Unless most religious people are willing to kill their child when God commands, then they must get their morals some place else.


To me, that right there illustrates the moral horror I feel at the Abraham/Isaac story (subversion of a deepest human instinct in service of God, interrupted) and the crucifixion (essentially the same story allowed to run to a conclusion, most cruelly). 

Does that mean I hate all religion? No. But THAT pair of stories ... I am astounded that so few people see the naked human control motive in it. Once your honor is called Loyalty, it's all over. cn

<add> Can God lose on a thread that's being Godwinned?


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 12, 2012)

Dr.J20 said:


> Self-ascribed Nazi. That is, one who approached Nazism of his own reasoning, not by being told that it was right and never questioning it. A Nazi would definitely look at a jewish newborn and see an abomination.


Informing Hitler that you feel comfortable questioning his divinity and motives, well...


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 12, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> I imagine you will get enough blowback from these statements without me playing devils advocate. I would propose that one can be religious and ethical, but one must engage in some serious cognitive dissonance to avoid feeling conflicted.


One can have FAITH, and be ethical. But how can one participate in a community that has unethical beliefs, while being ethical? The only way one could be religious and ethical, is by participating in one that promotes ONLY ethical practices and beliefs. I know of none.


----------



## Dr.J20 (Jun 12, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> One can have FAITH, and be ethical. But how can one participate in a community that has unethical beliefs, while being ethical? The only way one could be religious and ethical, is by participating in one that promotes ONLY ethical practices and beliefs. I know of none.


Buddhism?....

as for your previous statement about hitler, nazism, etc....perhaps it would have helped if i had said a contemporary nazi. he has simply read some fucked up shit and decided it was right, then slaughtered the baby jew. he calls himself a nazi.


----------



## canniboss (Jun 12, 2012)

I think that the truth about the world, reality, and consciousness is so totally fucked up that if you learned what it was all about your head would implode.


----------



## Heisenberg (Jun 12, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> One can have FAITH, and be ethical. But how can one participate in a community that has unethical beliefs, while being ethical? The only way one could be religious and ethical, is by participating in one that promotes ONLY ethical practices and beliefs. I know of none.


Actually I misspoke, lemme correct my own quote.



Heisenberg said:


> I imagine you will get enough blowback from these statements without me playing devils advocate. I would propose that one *can believe they are perfectly* religious and ethical, but one must engage in some serious cognitive dissonance to avoid feeling conflicted.


I find many people side with morals over religion, and then tell themselves God understands, God doesn't care about that rule anymore, God changes with the times, ect. Also known as cognitive dissonance reduction, or rationalizing. This is how most religious Americans can be morally against murder, yet participate in a cult that celebrates human sacrifice.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jun 13, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> Americans can be morally against murder, yet participate in a cult that celebrates human sacrifice.


...yep, human proclivities for divine attributes. The 'little man' for the 'universal man'. The crucifixion, if this is what you are referring to, is a daily inner event.

...you forgot to point out the incest 

"In alchemical manuscripts conciunctio is depicted as the union or coitus of King and Queen, of the red man and the white woman, or just by man and wife. "Connect the slave with his fragrant sister and by themselves they will make the entire work; because as soon as the white woman has been married to the red man, they will hug themselves firmly and become one, they will decompose and perfect each other: from the two bodies they were before they will become one single body that is susceptible for perfection." (Donum Dei, early 16[SUP]th[/SUP] century). As it shows in this quotation coniunctio was often incestuous. We can also find that in other religions, like Sulamith and Adam Kadmon in the Cabala, Adam and Eve in Catholicism, Isis and Osiris in ancient Egypt. In alchemy it usually between mother and son. "Beya mounted Gabricius (her son) and locked him up in his belly, that well that he was not visible anymore. And she hugged Gabricius with such love that she took him completely into her nature and divided him into numerous parts." (Rosarium philosophorum, 1550). A bizarre union but it is entirely symbolic. Carl Gustav Jung says that this symbolic incest is the descent into or the penetration of the unconscious. The mother is the unconscious, the son is the conscious. It is a &#8216;regressus ad uterum&#8217; or the return to the uterus of the mother. Penetration of the female is the same as the penetration of the water or the unconscious. Thus we see that the coniunctio is depicted as the coitus of man and wife, king and queen, but also by the king taking a bath, or drinking water. Sometimes the coitus between man and woman happens in water, in a bath or in a fountain. The water is also synonymous with mercury or quicksilver."


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jun 13, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> I have traveled in quite scientific circles, and for the majority, tradable prizes were a secondary concern. Many (including your humble interlocutor) were motivated by the quest for understanding.
> However the old right/left-brain dichotomy means that scientists who can also communicate happily with semioticists and poets are a rare breed indeed. Ime. cn


...alchemists


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 13, 2012)

Dr.J20 said:


> Self-ascribed Nazi. That is, one who approached Nazism of his own reasoning, not by being told that it was right and never questioning it. A Nazi would definitely look at a jewish newborn and see an abomination.


Your forgetting once you join, your indoctrinated. Sorry.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 13, 2012)

Dr.J20 said:


> Buddhism?....
> 
> as for your previous statement about hitler, nazism, etc....perhaps it would have helped if i had said a contemporary nazi. he has simply read some fucked up shit and decided it was right, then slaughtered the baby jew. he calls himself a nazi.


This "Nazi" didn't just read some shit. He BELIEVES IT! He has altered his logic parameters to align with Nazism. Indoctrination can have many forms. The only requirement is a demand for obedience without question. Can this "Nazi" gather his fellow Nazi's and discuss why they feel Jew's are fit only to die? Fuck no! And for someone to read such hate, and buy into it, requires more than just being literate. This "Nazi" has been subjected to hate and fear. I've read Hitlers works. I'm no Nazi!

As for Buddhism, I think fundamental Buddhism is close. Not the way it's practiced, but the way it's written. The original 3.


----------



## Dr.J20 (Jun 13, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> This "Nazi" didn't just read some shit. He BELIEVES IT! He has altered his logic parameters to align with Nazism. Indoctrination can have many forms. The only requirement is a demand for obedience without question. Can this "Nazi" gather his fellow Nazi's and discuss why they feel Jew's are fit only to die? Fuck no! And for someone to read such hate, and buy into it, requires more than just being literate. This "Nazi" has been subjected to hate and fear. I've read Hitlers works. I'm no Nazi!
> 
> As for Buddhism, I think fundamental Buddhism is close. Not the way it's practiced, but the way it's written. The original 3.


seems to me your real gripe is that you wish people were smarter.


----------



## Dr.J20 (Jun 13, 2012)

And here's the thing about your definition of indoctrination: what happens when someone questions all of the principles of a 'doctrine' and is met with a lucid, glib, proponent of the doctrine. each of his questions is answered or bested by this proponent, and, because our questioner isn't that well educated, thinks all of the proponents answers make sense? He is only indoctrinated from the perspective of someone who can retort to the proponent and show how his answers do not follow logically or factually. So basically, you can claim that anyone who disagrees with you has been indoctrinated.

and really, if you're going to draw the same distinction between practice and text that i did pages ago and in other threads of the similar bent, what was the point of all this?


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 13, 2012)

Dr.J20 said:


> seems to me your real gripe is that you wish people were smarter.








Perhaps, yes.


----------



## Dr.J20 (Jun 13, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> Your forgetting once you join, your indoctrinated. Sorry.


ok, so to avoid the joining, he is not a nazi, he is an anti-semite. there is no anti-semitic doctrine, just the notion that jewish people are evil, subhuman, etc. this is wrongheaded, for sure, but he would definitely look at a newborn jew as an abomination because all jews are abominations in his eyes. he has no faith himself, either.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 13, 2012)

Dr.J20 said:


> And here's the thing about your definition of indoctrination: what happens when someone questions all of the principles of a 'doctrine' and is met with a lucid, glib, proponent of the doctrine. each of his questions is answered or bested by this proponent, and, because our questioner isn't that well educated, thinks all of the proponents answers make sense? He is only indoctrinated from the perspective of someone who can retort to the proponent and show how his answers do not follow logically or factually. So basically, you can claim that anyone who disagrees with you has been indoctrinated.
> 
> and really, if you're going to draw the same distinction between practice and text that i did pages ago and in other threads of the similar bent, what was the point of all this?


The problem is the logic. Questioning comes from within. When you question the condition of a used car, do you really ask the salesman?


----------



## Dr.J20 (Jun 13, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> Perhaps, yes.



finally, something we can agree on! i wish my like button were there though


----------



## Dr.J20 (Jun 13, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> The problem is the logic. Questioning comes from within. When you question the condition of a used car, do you really ask the salesman?


no, but if you're not a mechanic, aren't you kinda up shit creek looking under the hood?


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 13, 2012)

Dr.J20 said:


> no, but if you're not a mechanic, aren't you kinda up shit creek looking under the hood?


No. You take it to a mechanic that has NOTHING to do with the situation. Tell the mechanic nothing. Not where you got the car, that you might buy it. Nothing. The mechanic will tell you the condition of the car, whether you like it or not. If you refute the claims of the 1st mechanic, take it to another, and another. Then collect the data. People do this all the time. So much so, businesses exist just to make lies LOOK like facts. When people buy a house, they have it inspected. When they buy a car, they research reliability, horsepower, room, Etc. People naturally want to collect information. It's how we survive. But when someone is led to believe that you should accept something before researching it, they lose.

The key is to find someone who could care less. Don't ask a preacher if god exists, ask a university or scientist. Don't ask a Ford dealer who makes the best trucks, ask a hauler, ya know?

Truck=America
Laurie=everywhere else.


----------



## Dr.J20 (Jun 13, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> No. You take it to a mechanic that has NOTHING to do with the situation. Tell the mechanic nothing. Not where you got the car, that you might buy it. Nothing. The mechanic will tell you the condition of the car, whether you like it or not. If you refute the claims of the 1st mechanic, take it to another, and another. Then collect the data. People do this all the time. So much so, businesses exist just to make lies LOOK like facts. When people buy a house, they have it inspected. When they buy a car, they research reliability, horsepower, room, Etc. People naturally want to collect information. It's how we survive. But when someone is led to believe that you should accept something before researching it, they lose.


notice that first "if" though. "if" you refute the claims of the first mechanic; what if you don't? or what if you do and refute all of them for your town. then you can either average your data and say thats probably the best answer, or you can try to learn everything there is to know about machines. the sad reality is, you have more needs and desires than you have time to fully research and understand everything about those needs and desires. its an economic tradeoff based on transaction costs and garnered utility. so at some point you can fall into the trap of feeling like you've exhausted the research and the likeliest answer is your averaged research, but you didn't research widely enough, and so your answer is actually pretty far off.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 13, 2012)

Dr.J20 said:


> notice that first "if" though. "if" you refute the claims of the first mechanic; what if you don't? or what if you do and refute all of them for your town. then you can either average your data and say thats probably the best answer, or you can try to learn everything there is to know about machines. the sad reality is, you have more needs and desires than you have time to fully research and understand everything about those needs and desires. its an economic tradeoff based on transaction costs and garnered utility. so at some point you can fall into the trap of feeling like you've exhausted the research and the likeliest answer is your averaged research, but you didn't research widely enough, and so your answer is actually pretty far off.


Except that the data will align with a Yes or no. After the 3rd mechanic reports a blown transmission, it would be an emotional reaction, "OOOO, I really want this car." not a lack of research, that kills the inquiry. Then, even if you have doubts, a quick "Show me." The mechanic will present his evidence, quite like a hypothesis is presented, to show how he came to his conclusion. "I took it on the freeway. There is no 2nd or fourth gear. I returned to the shop. I tested the hydraulic systems and found a condition. Solenoid 2 is not responding. I tested the solenoid. It failed. You need a new solenoid and a fluid change to repair the transmission. 

Not, "I thinks it's broken, boss."


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 13, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> No. You take it to a mechanic that has NOTHING to do with the situation. Tell the mechanic nothing. Not where you got the car, that you might buy it. Nothing. The mechanic will tell you the condition of the car, whether you like it or not. If you refute the claims of the 1st mechanic, take it to another, and another. Then collect the data. People do this all the time. So much so, businesses exist just to make lies LOOK like facts. When people buy a house, they have it inspected. When they buy a car, they research reliability, horsepower, room, Etc. People naturally want to collect information. It's how we survive. But when someone is led to believe that you should accept something before researching it, they lose.
> 
> The key is to find someone who could care less. Don't ask a preacher if god exists, ask a university or scientist. Don't ask a Ford dealer who makes the best trucks, ask a hauler, ya know?
> 
> ...


 Laurie's a chick name. 
Where soccer is football, a truck's a lorry. cn


----------



## Dr.J20 (Jun 13, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> Except that the data will align with a Yes or no. After the 3rd mechanic reports a blown transmission, it would be an emotional reaction, "OOOO, I really want this car." not a lack of research, that kills the inquiry. Then, even if you have doubts, a quick "Show me." The mechanic will present his evidence, quite like a hypothesis is presented, to show how he came to his conclusion. "I took it on the freeway. There is no 2nd or fourth gear. I returned to the shop. I tested the hydraulic systems and found a condition. Solenoid 2 is not responding. I tested the solenoid. It failed. You need a new solenoid and a fluid change to repair the transmission.
> 
> Not, "I thinks it's broken, boss."


Right, so, unless you know what all of that means, and trust that he has calibrated his tools correctly etc. you're going to have to believe him. or you're going to have to believe the average of several of them. either way, unless you are, yourself, the master of this understanding, its gonna have to come down to a deferral and trust. What i've been driving at is the nature of epistemology. All we ever really get is a consensus of belief based on our best efforts. and logically speaking, this condition is proof by exhaustion, which is the least elegant of proofs and the most vulnerable to attack.


----------



## Dr.J20 (Jun 13, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> The key is to find someone who could care less. Don't ask a preacher if god exists, ask a university or scientist. Don't ask a Ford dealer who makes the best trucks, ask a hauler, ya know?


Ok, and how do we verify who could care less? you mean to tell me there's no possible way a university professor or scientist might have a personal history which imbues him with some care one way or another on the matter of God? how would you be certain there isn't even some subconscious thing: the hauler was anally raped in the back of a ford and doesn't even realize his assessment of their trucks is being colored by this event. just an example


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 13, 2012)

Dr.J20 said:


> Ok, and how do we verify who could care less? you mean to tell me there's no possible way a university professor or scientist might have a personal history which imbues him with some care one way or another on the matter of God? how would you be certain there isn't even some subconscious thing: the hauler was anally raped in the back of a ford and doesn't even realize his assessment of their trucks is being colored by this event. just an example


I think I understand. in a different brand of truck he might have Dodged the ramming. cn


----------



## Heisenberg (Jun 13, 2012)

You guys are focusing on the imperfections of an arbitrary analogy. The answers you get or who you get them from are not important, it is the process used to get the answers which deserves scrutiny. We do not of course have time to personally confirm everything we are told, but we can examine the process even if we do not fully understand the subject. In the case of science we have a process which includes peer review and transparency.


----------



## lordjin (Jun 13, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> You guys are focusing on the imperfections of an arbitrary analogy. The answers you get or who you get them from are not important, it is the process used to get the answers which deserves scrutiny. We do not of course have time to personally confirm everything we are told, but we can examine the process even if we do not fully understand the subject. In the case of science we have a process which includes peer review and transparency.


Wow, is this thread getting esoteric or what?


----------



## Doer (Jun 13, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> You guys are focusing on the imperfections of an arbitrary analogy. The answers you get or who you get them from are not important, it is the process used to get the answers which deserves scrutiny. We do not of course have time to personally confirm everything we are told, but we can examine the process even if we do not fully understand the subject. In the case of science we have a process which includes peer review and transparency.


Yes, I think so. We must also, as you and I have discussed on other topics, make sure we don't blindly worship the peer review process either. When the time periods and record keeping doesn't agree with the new discoveries. When the previous claims have attracted too much money. When new thinking arises that negates the old entrenched thinking, peer review stalls, a bit, I imagine you will agree.


----------



## Heisenberg (Jun 13, 2012)

Doer said:


> Yes, I think so. We must also, as you and I have discussed on other topics, make sure we don't blindly worship the peer review process either. When the time periods and record keeping doesn't agree with the new discoveries. When the previous claims have attracted too much money. When new thinking arises that negates the old entrenched thinking, peer review stalls, a bit, I imagine you will agree.


Yes, I have the same opinion as science, which is, Peer review is both necessary and insufficient. Science is wise as well as smart.

"Science, more succinctly the process of science, is the best idea humans have ever had. It is the way that we come to know the natural world we're part of. Our ability to observe and understand causes and effects in nature has led to our ability to feed billions, map the world, shape cities, forecast weather on Mars -- and to dream. We, like no species we know of, understand a little bit of what makes the Universe go 'round. Science is empowering like nothing else." - Bill Nye

"Science is the best thing humans beings have ever come up with. And if it isn&#8217;t, science will fix it."
&#8212; Bill Nye


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Jun 13, 2012)

"Religion/spirituality is the dumbest idea the human animal has ever come up with... and if it isn't, religion will fix that"


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Jun 13, 2012)

Zaehet Strife said:


> "Religion/spirituality is the dumbest idea the human animal has ever come up with... and if it isn't, religion will fix that"


Might wanna get that spiritual symbol removed from your back then... tehe.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 13, 2012)

Dr.J20 said:


> Ok, and how do we verify who could care less? you mean to tell me there's no possible way a university professor or scientist might have a personal history which imbues him with some care one way or another on the matter of God? how would you be certain there isn't even some subconscious thing: the hauler was anally raped in the back of a ford and doesn't even realize his assessment of their trucks is being colored by this event. Just an example


*Facepalm*

Peer review. If you find a moronic mechanic, it will be proven so. Your "Scenario" leaves out the fact that he's unemployed, because his LORRY (Thanks CN) broke down because he wasn't being reasonable.

If you find a scientist who allows his beliefs to leak into his work, and it's been peer reviewed, they are labeled by the scientific community.. I think it's clergy. I'm not a scientist.


----------



## Dr.J20 (Jun 13, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> Peer review.


so consensus and agreement.



afrawfraw said:


> I'm not a scientist.


that's painfully obvious.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Jun 13, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Might wanna get that spiritual symbol removed from your back then... tehe.


The triforce tattoo on my back symbolizes the awesomeness of a video game that a group of human animals created with the help of science... the best one ever, besides final fantasy 7. Nothing spiritual associated with the symbol unless one presumes to persuade themselves otherwise.


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Jun 13, 2012)

Zaehet Strife said:


> The triforce tattoo on my back symbolizes the awesomeness of a video game that a group of human animals created with the help of science... the best one ever, besides final fantasy 7. Nothing spiritual associated with the symbol unless one presumes to persuade themselves otherwise.


If you say sooo...


----------



## Dr.J20 (Jun 13, 2012)

Zaehet Strife said:


> The triforce tattoo on my back symbolizes the awesomeness of a video game that a group of human animals created with the help of science... the best one ever, besides final fantasy 7. Nothing spiritual associated with the symbol unless one presumes to persuade themselves otherwise.


I highly disagree...while final fantasy 7 is a very good game, the legend of zelda cannot, in me estimation, be trumped.


----------



## kpmarine (Jun 13, 2012)

Dr.J20 said:


> I highly disagree...while final fantasy 7 is a very good game, the legend of zelda cannot, in me estimation, be trumped.


You may have your differing beliefs in other matters, but I will not stand by while the greatness of FF7 is questioned!


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jun 13, 2012)

Dr.J20 said:


> I highly disagree...while final fantasy 7 is a very good game, the legend of zelda cannot, in me estimation, be trumped.


...and after all the heavy flow in these threads lately, this one makes me think the most  You might have a point. But, early Zelda and early Final Fantasy are just too close to call, imo.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Jun 13, 2012)

I was really comparing the legend of Zelda ocarina of time to final fantasy seven... i think seven is better in that sense.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jun 13, 2012)

Tsimtsum

"Tsimtsum is defined as withdrawal. God had, so to speak, withdraw so that a space for independent creatures could come into being."

Makes sense from an 'uncreated' point of view. If a person holds the view that God is the 'un-create, or unmoved mover, etc.', an opening would have to be present for the 'garden' to materialize.

Then, it becomes man's responsibility to 'allow' the presence of God.


----------



## kpmarine (Jun 13, 2012)

Zaehet Strife said:


> I was really comparing the legend of Zelda ocarina of time to final fantasy seven... i think seven is better in that sense.


Buster sword trumps that girly-ass master sword any day. This is truth that no man can deny.


----------



## crazyhazey (Jun 14, 2012)

Dr.J20 said:


> I highly disagree...while final fantasy 7 is a very good game, the legend of zelda cannot, in me estimation, be trumped.


hahaha im starting to think skyrim is better, but nothin beats the classics.


----------



## Dr.J20 (Jun 14, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...and after all the heavy flow in these threads lately, this one makes me think the most  You might have a point. But, early Zelda and early Final Fantasy are just too close to call, imo.


couldn't agree more


----------



## Dr.J20 (Jun 14, 2012)

Zaehet Strife said:


> I was really comparing the legend of Zelda ocarina of time to final fantasy seven... i think seven is better in that sense.


Ah, in that case I will have to retract my prior statement, and agree here. Ocarina is the weakest of 'em imo


----------



## Dislexicmidget2021 (Jun 14, 2012)

I miss FF7,one for the good old days....


----------



## Dr.J20 (Jun 14, 2012)

See guys, we CANNAgree!


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 14, 2012)

Dr.J20 said:


> so consensus and agreement.


Within parameters like cause and effect, tests, Etc, yes.



Dr.J20 said:


> that's painfully obvious.


Your pain, no one else's. I admit my limitations, and you scoff. Funny how no one else comments on my posts as "Ignorant" or "misguided" though.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 14, 2012)

Skyrim is dope. So is the predecessor.


----------



## kpmarine (Jun 14, 2012)

Dr.J20 said:


> See guys, we CANNAgree!


After we WEED through the really controversial stuff.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Jun 14, 2012)

"The wise are instructed by reason, average minds by experience, the stupid by necessity and the brute by instinct."
-Marcus Tullius Cicero

There are way too many average people, all too many stupid people, and far too many brutes on this planet.


----------



## crazyhazey (Jun 14, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> Skyrim is dope. So is the predecessor.


i didnt play oblivion unfortunately, this game has made me eager too. theres so much attention to detail, its like zelda on acid hahahaha


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 14, 2012)

crazyhazey said:


> i didnt play oblivion unfortunately, this game has made me eager too. theres so much attention to detail, its like zelda on acid hahahaha


HAHAHA! I recently heard someone say, "Mario Bros. is like D&D on Acid."

It is a really polished game, with sand box and story line. You will see a lot of this game in others that came shortly after.


----------



## Dr.J20 (Jun 14, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> Your pain, no one else's. I admit my limitations, and you scoff. Funny how no one else comments on my posts as "Ignorant" or "misguided" though.


Not scoffing at ya bro, just giving you a little tweak, didn't realize you were that sensitive...i do believe some others have tried to point out the provincial aspects of your posts as well, but i'm fine taking the brunt. 
be easy


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 14, 2012)

Dr.J20 said:


> Not scoffing at ya bro, just giving you a little tweak, didn't realize you were that sensitive...i do believe some others have tried to point out the provincial aspects of your posts as well, but i'm fine taking the brunt.
> be easy


Not that I read. A couple people felt our recent arguments were irrelevant. I just fail to see how your logic seems reasonable. This is my failure, more than yours.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 14, 2012)

*"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart." 
-- H. L. Mencken*


----------



## crazyhazey (Jun 14, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> HAHAHA! I recently heard someone say, "Mario Bros. is like D&D on Acid."
> 
> It is a really polished game, with sand box and story line. You will see a lot of this game in others that came shortly after.


hahaha makes sense. i like games that have more to em, deus ex is sorta like that too, every choice you make changes the whole game pretty much. but i like skyrim more, i like finding crazy shit to look at, saving it, then going back to it when im on shrooms haha.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 14, 2012)

[youtube]yRHlFJhs0D4[/youtube]

Bump, bump,bump.


----------



## Dr.J20 (Jun 14, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> Not that I read. A couple people felt our recent arguments were irrelevant. I just fail to see how your logic seems reasonable. This is my failure, more than yours.


I think you mean you don't see how my reasoning seems logical, but i'm not sure which reasoning you're talking about now?


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 14, 2012)

Dr.J20 said:


> I think you mean you don't see how my reasoning seems logical, but i'm not sure which reasoning you're talking about now?


You believe that despite investigations, evidence, and pier review, someone can somehow "Become Lost" to the knowledge they seek. I contend that their logic is fallible, not the process.

...reality is a system, completely ordered and fully intelligible, with which thought in its advance is more and more identifying itself. We may look at the growth of knowledge &#8230; as an attempt by our mind to return to union with things as they are in their ordered wholeness&#8230;. and if we take this view, our notion of truth is marked out for us. Truth is the approximation of thought to reality &#8230; Its measure is the distance thought has travelled &#8230; toward that intelligible system &#8230; The degree of truth of a particular proposition is to be judged in the first instance by its coherence with experience as a whole, ultimately by its coherence with that further whole, all comprehensive and fully articulated, in which thought can come to rest. 
​*&#8212; Brand Blanshard*​


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 14, 2012)

Dr.J20 said:


> I think you mean you don't see how my reasoning seems logical, but i'm not sure which reasoning you're talking about now?


No, I fail to see how you fault scientific method for "Buying the lemon" over a misguided purchaser. A Buddhist who sets himself on fire used his logic and came to what he considered a reasonable conclusion. You proposed that even if someone conducted their own investigation, they might fail because of the facts collected. I contended it was the interpretation, not the facts that failed. Or was I wrong? I might have read your point wrong.


----------



## Dr.J20 (Jun 14, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> Truth is the approximation of thought to reality


note it is the approximation, not the co-incidence (purposefully written with hyphen so as not to get bound in the cultural attachments surrounding the word coincedence).

I contend that interpretation is inherently bracketed within the physical. to apply the tools of the physical to the expressly metaphysical is obviously not going to work. You have seemed consistently to state that you believe only in what science can prove to you. My point on this issue is that you then must except all things outside the realm of the physically investigable. Your indicated stance seems to be one privileging the scientific above all else. It is fine to construct a hierarchy of values, but to delimit the ascientific to the point of valuelessness is as dangerous as placing blind faith in unreasonable tenets. thats all. that is the only point i'm trying to make. so going around telling people all religions require people to be stupid and unethical isn't really fair. Mr. Heisenberg's point that it requires great amounts of cognitive dissonance is about as far as it can go; these people employ great cognitive dissonance.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 14, 2012)

Dr.J20 said:


> note it is the approximation, not the co-incidence (purposefully written with hyphen so as not to get bound in the cultural attachments surrounding the word coincedence).
> 
> I contend that interpretation is inherently bracketed within the physical. to apply the tools of the physical to the expressly metaphysical is obviously not going to work. You have seemed consistently to state that you believe only in what science can prove to you. My point on this issue is that you then must except all things outside the realm of the physically investigable. Your indicated stance seems to be one privileging the scientific above all else. It is fine to construct a hierarchy of values, but to delimit the ascientific to the point of valuelessness is as dangerous as placing blind faith in unreasonable tenets. thats all. that is the only point i'm trying to make. so going around telling people all religions require people to be stupid and unethical isn't really fair. Mr. Heisenberg's point that it requires great amounts of cognitive dissonance is about as far as it can go; these people employ great cognitive dissonance.
> 
> And, the buddhist monk that sets himself on fire does not have faulty logic. His logic operates from a set of premises whose validity you dispute. There is no logical reason why i can't be 80 feet tall, only physical reasons. see?


I think you meant Accept, not except. I do it all the time, don't trip. And no, I don't. I don't have to accept anything which can't be proven physically. To do so would be a waste of time. Science eliminates the possible, and leaves what is. Why believe in MIGHT, when IS has so much more appeal?

And who called all religious people idiots!? Unethical, yes. And I proved that. If you set yourself on fire, your logic has failed. Not because I don't accept your beliefs, but because YOU'RE AFLAME! Logic is just the parameters you set to reason life. Infallible logic is based on what is, not what we see, or want to see, or feel we see.


----------



## Dr.J20 (Jun 14, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> I think you meant Accept, not except. I do it all the time, don't trip. And no, I don't. I don't have to accept anything which can't be proven physically. To do so would be a waste of time. Science eliminates the possible, and leaves what is. Why believe in MIGHT, when IS has so much more appeal?


no, i meant except. as in you disregard all things that are not scientifically provable.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 14, 2012)

Dr.J20 said:


> no, i meant except. as in you disregard all things that are not scientifically provable.


Do you believe my life is somehow darkened by this approach?


----------



## Dr.J20 (Jun 14, 2012)

is only has more appeal for you. that's a preference. and when you start questioning what is, and find there are aspects of that "is" outside of the physical, how will you approach those things?


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 14, 2012)

Dr.J20 said:


> is only has more appeal for you. that's a preference. and when you start questioning what is, and find there are aspects of that "is" outside of the physical, how will you approach those things?


Which aspects do you refer to, exactly?


----------



## Dr.J20 (Jun 14, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> Do you believe my life is somehow darkened by this approach?


yes, absolutely. IF your proposition is that its a waste of time to do anything besides investigate physical reality.


----------



## Dr.J20 (Jun 14, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> Which aspects do you refer to, exactly?


the metaphysical.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 14, 2012)

Dr.J20 said:


> yes, absolutely. IF your proposition is that its a waste of time to do anything besides investigate physical reality.


Your mistaken. My life is fantastic. Which aspects of life am I missing?


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Jun 14, 2012)

I do not believe in anything, if i did i would be lying to myself. Though i do carry certain ideas, ideas that are the closest approximation to the truth, which is SCIENCE... and these ideas are ALWAYS subject to change.


----------



## Dr.J20 (Jun 14, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> Your mistaken. My life is fantastic. Which aspects of life am I missing?


for now. we'll see how it goes if you deny that there is value in the metaphysical forever. of course we wouldn't be able to prove it. on your death bed you'll never know whether it was a better life or a worse life without any metaphysical investigation. be easy


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 14, 2012)

Dr.J20 said:


> the metaphysical.


You mean experiencing life? "What's it like"?

I experience this like any other human. I just don't let it effect me so wildly. I have to process each experience with caution, with science. Enter, the skeptic.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 14, 2012)

Dr.J20 said:


> for now. we'll see how it goes if you deny that there is value in the metaphysical forever. of course we wouldn't be able to prove it. on your death bed you'll never know whether it was a better life or a worse life without any metaphysical investigation. be easy


Yes I would. Want the answer? Yes, my life would have been "More fun" with metaphysical contemplation. And more delusional. Pascals wager= A fools' bet.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 14, 2012)

Dr.J20 said:


> for now. we'll see how it goes if you deny that there is value in the metaphysical forever. of course we wouldn't be able to prove it. on your death bed you'll never know whether it was a better life or a worse life without any metaphysical investigation. be easy


If by value you mean comforting a widow, sure. Metaphysics appeals to our emotional side. Hence the propensity for delusion.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Jun 14, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> If by value you mean comforting a widow, sure. Metaphysics appeals to our emotional side. Hence the propensity for delusion.


Well said.

Metaphysics is abstract theory or talk with no basis in reality... it is fantasy (wishful thinking), or if you attempt to make it reality they call that delusion.


----------



## Dr.J20 (Jun 14, 2012)

alright, you guys are right.
be easy.


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 14, 2012)

Dr.J20 said:


> is only has more appeal for you. that's a preference. and when you start questioning what is, and find there are aspects of that "is" outside of the physical, how will you approach those things?


My question would be: How to explore and wring pattern and consequence from these nonphysical things of which you speak? The key to a scientific approach is not materialism (that is a current "best guess" by many scientists, and understood by the more subtle among them to be impoverished) but intellectual hygiene. The scientific method isn't "discard all magic" but "accept only that that can be meaningfully characterized and, with some small amount of luck or grace ... and consistency, reproduced. My opinion. cn


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Jun 14, 2012)

Dr.J20 said:


> yes, absolutely. IF your proposition is that its a waste of time to do anything besides investigate physical reality.


I'm almost positive the only reality other than this one that may be thoroughly investigated is the dream reality. And even the dream reality comes only from our minds, such as spiritual or religious ideas. They can be explored only as much as your imagination can take you, but remember, imagination is not truth... it is speculation of ideas without any basis for physical examination. Therefor these ideas always have some doubt behind them, as they cannot stand up to the burdens of proof required to perceive these ideas as real. 

(Which is exactly why "faith" is a requirement when attempting to claim truth to an idea (yes, beliefs are IDEAS) without any truth value)

Whomever perceives these fantasy ideas as real is faced with an inner conflict, or contradiction. As the true self knows that these ideas have no basis in reality, nor have they been proved beyond reasonable doubt except in the mind of the individual. The individual does everything possible to keep from consciously acknowledging he/she is not certain of their "beliefs" as to not be faced with this inner conflict, or contradiction.

Though it is fun to think about these fantastical ideas and concepts, they must be left at the door of fantasy for us to keep touch with what is real in the only reality we can measure accurately, this one.

"Uncertainty in the presence of vivid hopes, dreams and fears is very painful... but must be endured if we wish to live our lives without the support of comforting fairy tales." -Bertrand Russell

Edit: 
The greatest thing about science is that no one is required to believe anything! Regardless of what you do or do not believe, gravity exists. Take an object and hold it above your head, drop it, gravity. No need to believe.

With religion/spirituality, you are required to believe in order for it to be true or real... with science you do not. Point made.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jun 14, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> I just don't let it effect me so wildly.


...says the staunch atheist


----------



## Dr.J20 (Jun 14, 2012)

Zaehet Strife said:


> I'm almost positive the only reality other than this one that may be thoroughly investigated is the dream reality. And even the dream reality comes only from our minds, such as spiritual or religious ideas. They can be explored only as much as your imagination can take you, but remember, imagination is not truth... it is speculation of ideas without any basis for physical examination. Therefor these ideas always have some doubt behind them, as they cannot stand up to the burdens of proof required to perceive these ideas as real.
> 
> (Which is exactly why "faith" is a requirement when attempting to claim truth to an idea (yes, beliefs are IDEAS) without any truth value)
> 
> ...


yes, i conceded.
you are right. I am wrong.


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 14, 2012)

Dr.J20 said:


> yes, i conceded.
> you are right. I am wrong.


That's a shame. I would have liked for you to answer my question above. cn


----------



## Doer (Jun 15, 2012)

*"My question would be: How to explore and wring pattern and consequence from these nonphysical things of which you speak?"


*Is not the probem with difinition and more importantly, conception and preception? To "explore" ""wiring patterns" "consequences" are concepts of physical. Also, the difinition of physical is now pretty shaky, imo.

If the mind has quantum computing as the core of cognition, then we may be changing the rules of perception slightly over the generations. With new perception comes the abiltiy to conceive new quantum juxapositions and predict consequences, but in a non-causal way.

Our brain is wired, totally for suvival. By relieving survival pressures, we may be allowing the mind to grasp higher concepts al la Aldus Huxley.

Just a stab answer for a very important question. To me it is important, because it is a question. It's not just straight up denial of a preception beyond the thinking, survival lock, common mind.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 15, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...says the staunch atheist


Staunch Atheist? Please define. Someone who REALLY, REALLY doesn't believe in Santa Claus, compared to someone who just doesn't believe in Santa Claus? I'm staunchly standing by my claims that I have no claims, other than you shouldn't waste your time on things the world can't agree even exists. Maybe Staunch Skeptic? I would accept this description of myself.


----------



## mindphuk (Jun 15, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> Staunch Atheist? Please define. Someone who REALLY, REALLY doesn't believe in Santa Claus, compared to someone who just doesn't believe in Santa Claus? I'm staunchly standing by my claims that I have no claims, other than you shouldn't waste your time on things the world can't agree even exists. Maybe Staunch Skeptic? I would accept this description of myself.


It appears in spite of participating in numerous threads over many, many months, some people (eye), are unable to correctly define atheist and continue to conflate it with rational skepticism, just as others conflate atheism and science.


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 15, 2012)

Doer said:


> *"My question would be: How to explore and wring pattern and consequence from these nonphysical things of which you speak?"
> 
> 
> *Is not the probem with difinition and more importantly, conception and preception? To "explore" ""wiring patterns" "consequences" are concepts of physical. Also, the difinition of physical is now pretty shaky, imo.
> ...


I meant "wring" as a verb, implying the work would not be easy. I didn't want to introduce materialist prejudice as "wiring" most certainly would. cn

But I must say that for a question I didn't ask, your answer is quite considered.


----------



## lightitsmokeit420 (Jun 15, 2012)

man this a thread that i want to stay away from drama thread is what this is everyone smoke a bowl


----------



## Doer (Jun 15, 2012)

lightitsmokeit420 said:


> man this a thread that i want to stay away from drama thread is what this is everyone smoke a bowl


Then you are quite welcome to stay away and I wish you had.


----------



## Doer (Jun 15, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> It appears in spite of participating in numerous threads over many, many months, some people (eye), are unable to correctly define atheist and continue to conflate it with rational skepticism, just as others conflate atheism and science.



Not correct when we have taken pains to define the difference. There are religions and sceptics. You, me, Mr. H., etc. are sceptics. Then there are Militant Atheists that have corrupted the concepts of healthy scepticism. It begins to apprear like Cult which are subversive cadres against the social order. There are cultish forces in science, that are not indicitive of science and there are cultish forces in society that are not indicitive of society. Indeed, there are cultish forces in Religion, that are not Religion.

Rewiting of history and using the arguments behind Religion, Science, Society, or Scepticism, is the mark of Cult. Big Atheism is not the same as just being sceptical. Sceptism is very personal. Atheism obviously and publically against organized religion. Denials don't matter.

The Atheist see the religious as confused and somewhat mentally inferior, though they may deny that. The Atheist assumes the sceptics are supportive. 

I am not.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Jun 15, 2012)

To be categorized i would fall into place well with the existential nihilist. Religious/spiritual human animals have a physiological disorder, sometimes willed, sometimes not. 

The hard atheist is in the same category as the theist. One who knows god does or doesn't exist is a liar, because no one can know these things. 

The agnostic atheist (i don't believe in god but i am not certain of its existence or non existence) or agnostic theist (i believe in god but i am not certain of its existence or non existence) are the truthful humans. Each can understand that no one knows, but choose to give an opinion on the subject based on their experiences throughout life.

It is when someone claims certainty in the absence of it when insanity begins to take hold, the hard atheists and theists face this dilemma more so than others. 

Atheist is nothing but a short word to describe "i don't believe in god" some don't understand that just because one does not believe in an omnipotent all powerful creator of the universe, that they do not hold onto other fantasy based beliefs... because many still do. 
_
When coming to terms with absurdity, sometimes it can be so psychologically overwhelming for the beginner atheist, they will choose to replace the beliefs prior with another more preferable belief system that does not use god as a requirement for the belief. _

Examples:
Buddhism
Starchild
Collective consciousness

Pretty much any belief that gives one a sense of meaning or purpose in his/her existence. Something that makes them feel special or unique.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with the existential nihilist perceptions about existence, here is a very short summery. I also have a few threads on the subject going into more detail. *

Existential nihilism* is the philosophical theory that life has no intrinsic meaning or value. With respect to the universe, existential nihilism posits that a single human or even the entire human species is insignificant, without purpose and unlikely to change in the totality of existence. According to the theory, each individual is an isolated being "thrown" into the universe, barred from knowing "why", yet compelled to invent meaning._The inherent meaninglessness of life is largely explored in the philosophical school of existentialism, __where one can potentially create his or her own subjective "meaning" or "purpose".
_
Lightit, this is not drama, this is philosophy. It's not for everyone.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jun 15, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> It appears in spite of participating in numerous threads over many, many months, some people (eye), are unable to correctly define atheist and continue to conflate it with rational skepticism, just as others conflate atheism and science.



...if a person does not believe in God, are they not atheist? If the individual in question was raised in a secular environment, believes that 'belief' in God = fairy tales, etc, etc... what would you say is the case?

...go back over these threads and you'll see that the ones conflating science and atheism are the 'atheists and skeptics'. Not all of them (mind), but a lot.

(if by 'others' you mean all who conflate, I apologize  )


----------



## RoguePlant (Jun 16, 2012)

As we have seen since the beginning of time, religion will create and destroy the best of humanity. For religion we fight, kill, love, hate, build, destroy, suffer, rejoice, and in the end as the lights go dim, no matter what as an individual you believe in, we pray...........The power of belief is deeper than anyone can define, or understand.

I see the future of our society to do as all societies in the past have done.....fall apart to the brink of extinction and then rebuild on an idea of perfection and superiority, that like religion is just human nature, but that's just my opinion, and like we say, "Opinions are like assholes, we all have one, and most stink"

P.S: I did a search, typing strange religion, and this is what came up :About « Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster - Hopefully this will have you rolling on the floor, like it did me !!


----------



## Heisenberg (Jun 16, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...if a person does not believe in God, are they not atheist? If the individual in question was raised in a secular environment, believes that 'belief' in God = fairy tales, etc, etc... what would you say is the case?
> 
> ...go back over these threads and you'll see that the ones conflating science and atheism are the 'atheists and skeptics'. Not all of them (mind), but a lot.
> 
> (if by 'others' you mean all who conflate, I apologize  )



What would be the opposite of staunch atheist? A disloyal atheist?

To me this is further proof of the asinine label of atheism. Can someone be a staunchly unconvinced of gremlins? It's difficult to smoothly integrate the label into our language because it is not normal to label the rejection of a claim.

Some atheists have never heard the arugments, so they can be thought of as 'soft' atheists I suppose. Perhaps staunch atheism could mean, someone who has thought about it and solidified their position, but it didn't seem to be the way it was used here.


----------



## RoguePlant (Jun 16, 2012)

[video=youtube;g1jJ-ttrSd8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1jJ-ttrSd8[/video] 

This is a nice little music video from the Pastafarians, believers in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 16, 2012)

I think the confusion is that I had a couple debates over the value of science and it's position. Just because I use science to debate, doesn't mean it's my whole life. I have a sunburn from playing baseball with my family. While having fun with my family, I never considered science, theism, or atheism. I was busy living. So were my children, and wife.

I did however research consumer reports when selecting my gear. I didn't go into Big 5 and say, "Which gloves and bats are best?"


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jun 16, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> What would be the opposite of staunch atheist? A disloyal atheist?
> 
> To me this is further proof of the asinine label of atheism. Can someone be a staunchly unconvinced of gremlins? It's difficult to smoothly integrate the label into our language because it is not normal to label the rejection of a claim.
> 
> Some atheists have never heard the arugments, so they can be thought of as 'soft' atheists I suppose. Perhaps staunch atheism could mean, someone who has thought about it and solidified their position, but it didn't seem to be the way it was used here.


...here's one of those situations where a word takes on an unintended tone. Staunch, to me, is how I am toward my belief in God. The intent of my post to afrawfraw was a humorous one. Nothing to do with how I perceive him, or atheism  I don't come from a tainted view of 'them', imagine if none of us had made any formal declaration of opinions - would we know the difference? (here, in the forum)


----------



## Doer (Jun 16, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...here's one of those situations where a word takes on an unintended tone. Staunch, to me, is how I am toward my belief in God. The intent of my post to afrawfraw was a humorous one. Nothing to do with how I perceive him, or atheism  I don't come from a tainted view of 'them', imagine if none of us had made any formal declaration of opinions - would we know the difference? (here, in the forum)


Staunch to me, is simply "firm adherence." So, of course, someone can be seen as a staunch dis-bellever in Aliens, for example. Or gremlins, santa claus, on an on. It's a quibble to say it dosesn't count if it is untrue. If it's true, then you can staunchly believe the fact, I guess.

And, I like the think it's best to avoid all labels. Labels, even the "those people" label, is the most Subjective trap there is, imo.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 16, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...here's one of those situations where a word takes on an unintended tone. Staunch, to me, is how I am toward my belief in God. The intent of my post to afrawfraw was a humorous one. Nothing to do with how I perceive him, or atheism  I don't come from a tainted view of 'them', imagine if none of us had made any formal declaration of opinions - would we know the difference? (here, in the forum)


Yes, we would.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jun 16, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> Yes, we would.


...that's unfortunate.


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 16, 2012)

A grand old punchline comes to mind: What you mean "we", Paleface? cn


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 16, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> A grand old punchline comes to mind: What you mean "we", Paleface? cn


*We haven't spoken to anyone else for thousands of years so we started talking to ourselves. - Moorla*


----------



## Kaendar (Jun 20, 2012)

So I read thru like half of this.. its ridiculous how eventually every thread having to do with something that goes beyond what modern science can explain some atheists, or trolls, come and start making personal attacks. I have one message for atheists. You dont believe? Ok. You dont think theres enough proof? Thats fine. But you nor any other human being cannot come out and say "if science cant prove it its not real". Do you know how much shit there is on this planet that human minds cant comprehend, or computers? Do you know how much shit there is in the entire universe?? Science has probably explained maybe 1% of anything. You cannot sit there and tell somebody that just because you are ignorant and dont believe things that cant be proved, that it cant exist. And the funny thing is that science has only proved most things in religion to be true. The bible has almost been proved to completely true because advancements in science. If you were really so smart, you would realize that science and religion are the same thing. (almost). The problem is not too many ppl put 2 and 2 together. This is a weed forum, pot smokers are supposed to be open minded and tolerant of others ideas, especially since we want everyone to be tolerant and open minded to our pot smoking. Stop being stubborn. If I could mail this to you it wud be on a piece of paper that I wiped my ass with.


----------



## Dr.J20 (Jun 20, 2012)

Kaendar said:


> So I read thru like half of this.. its ridiculous how eventually every thread having to do with something that goes beyond what modern science can explain some atheists, or trolls, come and start making personal attacks. I have one message for atheists. You dont believe? Ok. You dont think theres enough proof? Thats fine. But you nor any other human being cannot come out and say "if science cant prove it its not real". Do you know how much shit there is on this planet that human minds cant comprehend, or computers? Do you know how much shit there is in the entire universe?? Science has probably explained maybe 1% of anything. You cannot sit there and tell somebody that just because you are ignorant and dont believe things that cant be proved, that it cant exist. And the funny thing is that science has only proved most things in religion to be true. The bible has almost been proved to completely true because advancements in science. If you were really so smart, you would realize that science and religion are the same thing. (almost). The problem is not too many ppl put 2 and 2 together. This is a weed forum, pot smokers are supposed to be open minded and tolerant of others ideas, especially since we want everyone to be tolerant and open minded to our pot smoking. Stop being stubborn. If I could mail this to you it wud be on a piece of paper that I wiped my ass with.


Careful Kaendar, you admitted to only reading half the thread so you're about to get flamed by a bunch of people. also, I find it interesting that this was your take on the thread. Quite literally, I find it interesting. If you finish the thread please comment on whether you maintain your position. My interest lies with the fact that you seem to be ok with atheism in itself, but it would appear that your reading of their posts understands them as quite hostile and stubborn. While I agree with the tenor of your post above, it may do well to temper your statement. If you'll notice, you've somewhat allied yourself with the non-atheist "camp" (for lack of better terminology) and will be subject to the criticism that your reading of the atheists posts is colored by your own subjective position. Also, that this forum is ostensibly for people who enjoy cannabis, this should not be taken to mean anything about the proclivities, politics or attitudes of the people here. Every kind of person loves kind so you don't have to be a specific kind of person to be here; it takes all kinds.
be easy


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 20, 2012)

Kaendar said:


> So I read thru like half of this.. its ridiculous how eventually every thread having to do with something that goes beyond what modern science can explain some atheists, or trolls, come and start making personal attacks. I have one message for atheists. You dont believe? Ok. You dont think theres enough proof? Thats fine. But you nor any other human being cannot come out and say "if science cant prove it its not real". Do you know how much shit there is on this planet that human minds cant comprehend, or computers? Do you know how much shit there is in the entire universe?? Science has probably explained maybe 1% of anything. You cannot sit there and tell somebody that just because you are ignorant and dont believe things that cant be proved, that it cant exist. And the funny thing is that science has only proved most things in religion to be true. The bible has almost been proved to completely true because advancements in science. If you were really so smart, you would realize that science and religion are the same thing. (almost). The problem is not too many ppl put 2 and 2 together. This is a weed forum, pot smokers are supposed to be open minded and tolerant of others ideas, especially since we want everyone to be tolerant and open minded to our pot smoking. Stop being stubborn. If I could mail this to you it wud be on a piece of paper that I wiped my ass with.


Religion and science are the same thing (Almost)= *&#8220;Every human culture has a set of creation myths, but they&#8217;re in the realm of mythology or religion or folklore and of course they&#8217;re all mutually inconsistent." - **Carl Sagan

*&#8220;In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.&#8221; 
&#8213; ​Carl Sagan

This is why religion and science are never going to be similar. You ask for tolerance and open minds, and then push the BIBLE!? I'm just too ignorant to condone slavery, abuse, murder, genocide, rape, and suggesting that females are substandard. I'm too ignorant to go from "?" to "A cosmic Jewish zombie walked the earth after being stapled to a couple 2X4's, turned water into wine, bread into fish, and had a virgin mother. Who the fuck believes that!? If I did witness Jesus' return, I'd give him a "Double Tap", a fitting response to any Zombie. I apologize for my ignorant understanding of the bible. I had no idea millions of animals could fit on a crudely build freighter. Just too damn ignorant to understand that if GOD wants you to be aware of him, he uses doctrine like any other religion, and makes no appearances. Oh, while your talking shit about Atheists, uh, you're worshiping one. To say that "If science can't prove it it's not real." Shows you have no understanding of science, or how it is revered by people who study it. If science can't even observe it, I don't say "It doesn't exist." I'd say, "Hmmm, looks like we need more information." If I saw a "Miracle", I wouldn't freak out and start thanking shiva, or Allah, or any magical creature. I would ask for an observation using instruments not susceptible to delusion. Just because it looks real and feels real, doesn't mean it's real. I'm sorry to have bothered you with this ignorant posting. - An ignorant skeptic.


----------



## Heisenberg (Jun 20, 2012)

Kaendar said:


> So I read thru like half of this.. its ridiculous how eventually every thread having to do with something that goes beyond what modern science can explain some atheists, or trolls, come and start making personal attacks. I have one message for atheists. You dont believe? Ok. You dont think theres enough proof? Thats fine. But you nor any other human being cannot come out and say "if science cant prove it its not real". Do you know how much shit there is on this planet that human minds cant comprehend, or computers? Do you know how much shit there is in the entire universe?? Science has probably explained maybe 1% of anything. You cannot sit there and tell somebody that just because you are ignorant and dont believe things that cant be proved, that it cant exist. And the funny thing is that science has only proved most things in religion to be true. The bible has almost been proved to completely true because advancements in science. If you were really so smart, you would realize that science and religion are the same thing. (almost). The problem is not too many ppl put 2 and 2 together. This is a weed forum, pot smokers are supposed to be open minded and tolerant of others ideas, especially since we want everyone to be tolerant and open minded to our pot smoking. Stop being stubborn. If I could mail this to you it wud be on a piece of paper that I wiped my ass with.


The reason this is offensive is because you are searching for flaws in the opposition without first searching for flaws in your own opinion and knowledge. Why do you suppose you are entitled to speak critically about a subject you have not explored? You only bring to the table your own flaws and subject us to your cognitive failures. This does not seem to be very responsible or conscientious, in fact it seems very pigheaded and shortsighted.


----------



## crazyhazey (Jun 20, 2012)

Kaendar said:


> So I read thru like half of this.. its ridiculous how eventually every thread having to do with something that goes beyond what modern science can explain some atheists, or trolls, come and start making personal attacks. I have one message for atheists. You dont believe? Ok. You dont think theres enough proof? Thats fine. But you nor any other human being cannot come out and say "if science cant prove it its not real". Do you know how much shit there is on this planet that human minds cant comprehend, or computers? Do you know how much shit there is in the entire universe?? Science has probably explained maybe 1% of anything. You cannot sit there and tell somebody that just because you are ignorant and dont believe things that cant be proved, that it cant exist. And the funny thing is that science has only proved most things in religion to be true. The bible has almost been proved to completely true because advancements in science. If you were really so smart, you would realize that science and religion are the same thing. (almost). The problem is not too many ppl put 2 and 2 together. This is a weed forum, pot smokers are supposed to be open minded and tolerant of others ideas, especially since we want everyone to be tolerant and open minded to our pot smoking. Stop being stubborn. If I could mail this to you it wud be on a piece of paper that I wiped my ass with.


so many things wrong with everything just posted... where to begin? 

science is nowhere near the same thing as religion, religion is basically folk lore to get people to submit to the church(most religions that is), science is knowledge acquired through experimentation and observation. religion is nowhere near the same thing as science, that was incredibly ignorant to say, not to mention religion was created to answer questions that science(which was not yet advanced enough) should have answered, though there is still some things we cant answer we shouldnt go off making establishments that support these ideas(note i said idea, not theory, not proof, but an idea, theres no proof behind an idea). better yet we shouldnt tell people if they deny these ideas theyre gonna burn in hell or some sort of eternal suffering. 

your trying to defend a guy who tried saying dreams(basically what an NDE is) is solid evidence of the existence of god while its just the release of chemicals in your brain, similar to the chemicals you release when dreaming, but he denied the fact that this gland that releases said chemicals(the pinneal gland, and dimethyltryptamine) exists at all(probably like how he denies dinosaurs, after all the worlds just a couple thousand years old right?), revealing his ignorance to something that has been proved, not by a book that has been changed for ages, but through science, something that isnt baseless like religion. he even tried calling one of the respected people in our community stupid, my advice is if you try to recruit people to your pointless religion, go door to door so we have the option of shutting the door on your face, this type of bullshit doesnt belong on a weed forum, especially from someone who gets all their info from a biased source like youtube. now please, dont mail your fecal matter on paper, thats fucking disgusting.


----------



## kpmarine (Jun 20, 2012)

Kaendar said:


> So I read thru like half of this.. its ridiculous how eventually every thread having to do with something that goes beyond what modern science can explain some atheists, or trolls, come and start making personal attacks. I have one message for atheists. You dont believe? Ok. You dont think theres enough proof? Thats fine. But you nor any other human being cannot come out and say "if science cant prove it its not real". Do you know how much shit there is on this planet that human minds cant comprehend, or computers? Do you know how much shit there is in the entire universe?? Science has probably explained maybe 1% of anything. You cannot sit there and tell somebody that just because you are ignorant and dont believe things that cant be proved, that it cant exist. And the funny thing is that science has only proved most things in religion to be true. The bible has almost been proved to completely true because advancements in science. If you were really so smart, you would realize that science and religion are the same thing. (almost). The problem is not too many ppl put 2 and 2 together. This is a weed forum, pot smokers are supposed to be open minded and tolerant of others ideas, especially since we want everyone to be tolerant and open minded to our pot smoking. Stop being stubborn. If I could mail this to you it wud be on a piece of paper that I wiped my ass with.


Ignoring the rest of it, because it's been covered by other posters before me. How do you maintain an air of seriousness about your post when it starts with complaints about the hostile attitude of atheists, then closes with "*If I could mail this to you it wud be on a piece of paper that I wiped my ass with.*" seem a bit hypocritical? While you're mulling that over, I have another bone to pick. Are you aware that not all atheists are the same? I know it may come as a shock, but there's alot of very nice ones in the world. You making a blanket statement about atheists is no different than me saying "All christians are child molesters.", or "All black people steal.". Do you see why profiling is bad? Honestly, most religious people are okay. Having an invisible sky friend is harmless, until he begins condoning misogyny, human sacrifice, slavery, and death for wearing poly/cotton blend clothing. That's what gets people nervous.


----------



## Kaendar (Jun 20, 2012)

crazyhazey said:


> so many things wrong with everything just posted... where to begin?
> 
> science is nowhere near the same thing as religion, religion is basically folk lore to get people to submit to the church(most religions that is), science is knowledge acquired through experimentation and observation. religion is nowhere near the same thing as science, that was incredibly ignorant to say, not to mention religion was created to answer questions that science(which was not yet advanced enough) should have answered, though there is still some things we cant answer we shouldnt go off making establishments that support these ideas(note i said idea, not theory, not proof, but an idea, theres no proof behind an idea). better yet we shouldnt tell people if they deny these ideas theyre gonna burn in hell or some sort of eternal suffering.
> 
> your trying to defend a guy who tried saying dreams(basically what an NDE is) is solid evidence of the existence of god while its just the release of chemicals in your brain, similar to the chemicals you release when dreaming, but he denied the fact that this gland that releases said chemicals(the pinneal gland, and dimethyltryptamine) exists at all(probably like how he denies dinosaurs, after all the worlds just a couple thousand years old right?), revealing his ignorance to something that has been proved, not by a book that has been changed for ages, but through science, something that isnt baseless like religion. he even tried calling one of the respected people in our community stupid, my advice is if you try to recruit people to your pointless religion, go door to door so we have the option of shutting the door on your face, this type of bullshit doesnt belong on a weed forum, especially from someone who gets all their info from a biased source like youtube. now please, dont mail your fecal matter on paper, thats fucking disgusting.


Your very wrong in many ways. Some of the most renowned scientist have compared science and religion, noting that they started the same way and answer the same questions, science explains how, and religion may explain why if you choose to believe. You are the type of person that refuses to even consider what someone else has to say. In an intelligent discussion, one side presents their their theory/ideas or watever and also listens to what the other side has to say as well. You just wanna listen to you. AND your looking like a raging lunatic in the process, I read thru like 20 pages and saw you mention DMT way too much. I dont understand why you couldnt just say what you have to say and move on. Why do you have to go on threads and bash ppls beliefs? Maybe you could be wrong. Ever think about that? 

Also, dont generalize and assume that anybody that believes in god is christian or belongs to a religion. Most people on this planet believe in god or gods and we sure arent all in the same "pointless religion". I personally dont believe in organized religion. Too much of it is for the will of man and not the will of god, take the Catholic church for example. Im one of those people that says some of the bible is metaphorical but still very serious. Did god create the universe in 7 days? Not 7 human days, in human time it took billions of years, but god is beyond knowledge, he is omnipotent so 7 years to him is billions of years to us. Do animals evolve to adapt to their surroundings? Yes. Did dinosaurs exist? Of course. I admit that not everything is right about religion, and even if I didnt believe it that still wouldnt give me the right to disrespect everyone else because they do. I understand where you skepticism or disbelief might stem from, but I challenge you to take the time and wonder what if. What if your wrong. What if we are all wrong and just some part of an alien expirement. Either way you need to think about the fact that in the near infinite spans of this universe, our intelligence and our science doesnt mean shit. Theres so much to ponder about that we wont even scratch the surface before we become extinct. Its ridiculous that some ppl think that they have the answers to the universe.


----------



## Kaendar (Jun 20, 2012)

kpmarine said:


> Ignoring the rest of it, because it's been covered by other posters before me. How do you maintain an air of seriousness about your post when it starts with complaints about the hostile attitude of atheists, then closes with "*If I could mail this to you it wud be on a piece of paper that I wiped my ass with.*" seem a bit hypocritical? While you're mulling that over, I have another bone to pick. Are you aware that not all atheists are the same? I know it may come as a shock, but there's alot of very nice ones in the world. You making a blanket statement about atheists is no different than me saying "All christians are child molesters.", or "All black people steal.". Do you see why profiling is bad? Honestly, most religious people are okay. Having an invisible sky friend is harmless, until he begins condoning misogyny, human sacrifice, slavery, and death for wearing poly/cotton blend clothing. That's what gets people nervous.


 As far as the child molestation, I think your getting catholicism and christianity mixed up. Catholic priests molest little boys and tell the masses to worship dead people, not christians.


----------



## Heisenberg (Jun 20, 2012)

Kaendar said:


> As far as the child molestation, I think your getting catholicism and christianity mixed up. *Catholic priests molest little boys and tell the masses to worship dead people, not christians.*


You seem to be confused about the things that come out of your mouth. Sometimes it helps to think things through rather than allow your brain to vomit.


----------



## Kaendar (Jun 20, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> You seem to be confused about the things that come out of your mouth. Sometimes it helps to think things through rather than allow your brain to vomit.


Confused? About what? What you highlighted is said very clearly.


----------



## crazyhazey (Jun 20, 2012)

Kaendar said:


> Your very wrong in many ways. Some of the most renowned scientist have compared science and religion, noting that they started the same way and answer the same questions, science explains how, and religion may explain why if you choose to believe. You are the type of person that refuses to even consider what someone else has to say. In an intelligent discussion, one side presents their their theory/ideas or watever and also listens to what the other side has to say as well. You just wanna listen to you. AND your looking like a raging lunatic in the process, I read thru like 20 pages and saw you mention DMT way too much. I dont understand why you couldnt just say what you have to say and move on. Why do you have to go on threads and bash ppls beliefs? Maybe you could be wrong. Ever think about that?


how are you gonna guess the type of person i am with 0 knowledge of who i am? the post before this one makes almost as much sense as this one. what scientist compared religion to science? did said scientists have a mental disorder? i heard his point, like 5 times, even posted it on one of my threads, sorry if i cant stand hearing misinformation spread like a disease, the bibles already done it enough. and yeah, this guy denied the fact the DMT exists in your mind, as well as almost every other living creature, then changed his view once like 20 other people told him it was true. and yes, im so very wrong about this, i guess studies on the human brain have no value, guess NDEs are just god trying to talk to you  give me a break dude, your delirious. 



> Also, dont generalize and assume that anybody that believes in god is christian or belongs to a religion. Most people on this planet believe in god or gods and we sure arent all in the same "pointless religion". I personally dont believe in organized religion. Too much of it is for the will of man and not the will of god, take the Catholic church for example. Im one of those people that says some of the bible is metaphorical but still very serious. Did god create the universe in 7 days? Not 7 human days, in human time it took billions of years, but god is beyond knowledge, he is omnipotent so 7 years to him is billions of years to us. Do animals evolve to adapt to their surroundings? Yes. Did dinosaurs exist? Of course. I admit that not everything is right about religion, and even if I didnt believe it that still wouldnt give me the right to disrespect everyone else because they do. I understand where you skepticism or disbelief might stem from, but I challenge you to take the time and wonder what if. What if your wrong. What if we are all wrong and just some part of an alien expirement. Either way you need to think about the fact that in the near infinite spans of this universe, our intelligence and our science doesnt mean shit. Theres so much to ponder about that we wont even scratch the surface before we become extinct. Its ridiculous that some ppl think that they have the answers to the universe.


and all religions, including christianity, is just a branch off another, they're all basically the same, names are changed, maybe a few events, but really thats about it, more eastern religions i have no problem with, buddhism never tried to involve themselves with the government or kill people for proving them wrong. where did i say i had the answers to the universe? please point this out. i clearly said that we cant base knowledge of something ancient texts that have been altered so much, though they may vaguely be interpreted to resemble current events theres no proof behind them, what if the only things we can find true can only be proven through science and something that yields actual evidence rather than made up folklore about some guy(s) controlling everything that happens, ever wonder that? you act like science doesnt prove shit, when someone walks off a cliff do they float? nope, thanks science.


----------



## crazyhazey (Jun 20, 2012)

Kaendar said:


> As far as the child molestation, I think your getting catholicism and christianity mixed up. Catholic priests molest little boys and tell the masses to worship dead people, not christians.


yeah im pretty sure all priests have potential to be child rapists/molesters. just my opinion though.


----------



## Kaendar (Jun 20, 2012)

crazyhazey said:


> yeah im pretty sure all priests have potential to be child rapists/molesters. just my opinion though.


Yea thanks for repeating me. Priests are catholic. Whens the last time you went to a christian church that had a priest?


----------



## kpmarine (Jun 20, 2012)

Kaendar said:


> As far as the child molestation, I think your getting catholicism and christianity mixed up. Catholic priests molest little boys and tell the masses to worship dead people, not christians.


Catholics believe in christ, and are the original"Christians". Either way though, that isn't really addressing the message of my reply.


----------



## Heisenberg (Jun 20, 2012)

Kaendar said:


> Yea thanks for repeating me. Priests are catholic. Whens the last time you went to a christian church that had a priest?


What are you adding to or subtracting from Christianity to get Catholicism, and in what context?


----------



## crazyhazey (Jun 20, 2012)

Kaendar said:


> Yea thanks for repeating me. Priests are catholic. Whens the last time you went to a christian church that had a priest?


i was about 8 years old, positive i saw a priest or some sort of preacher, honestly i could give a fuck less about what you wanna call rapists.


----------



## kpmarine (Jun 20, 2012)

Kaendar said:


> As far as the child molestation, I think your getting catholicism and christianity mixed up. Catholic priests molest little boys and tell the masses to worship dead people, not christians.


Courtesy of The Merriam Webster dictionary, I have found you definiton 1a of Christian:
_a_ *:* one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ 

So that covers anyone that believes in jesus, I'm pretty sure.


----------



## thump easy (Jun 20, 2012)

i have many good stories about this issue that he has proven over and over but it comes down to coincedence every time is what i fight with in my head the last time was one of the best times in my life he has just listend to my cry.... after many adventures i was up agenst the wall partners greed and me bailing out i was not eating right i was a bone for i had three month of electricity and three month of rent i had no food i went to the store and stocked up on tuna one tuna a day i rather feed the plants i slept all i could to fight the hunger but i had to pull this last one off.... at the end i was near a bone looking for ketchup in the stores sugar wishing i had bread... the plants were almost done when i noticed a nanerd i was DONE!!!!!! i was done!!!!!!! i yelled WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU WANT YOU TOOK IT ALL AWAY contruction my women everything that was real was gone down to this down to nothing i opened a bud and it was seaded i went acrosss all the buds they had seeds i yelled fuck you.. FUCK EVERONE everyone fucked me im alone!!!!!!!! im done!!!!!!! i prayed night and day i prayed nervous and knowing i was done i had no food down to the last of the cans i streched the cans out water sucks tuna sucks i sweet and smell tuna from my pores i was washed up... I YELLED SHOW ME YOUR REAL SHOW ME!!!!!!!!!! i began to trim buy my lonesome three days of trimming night and day i lost track of days numbers hours i was going crazzy seeds just poped out everywere EVERYFUCKEN WERE!!!!!! i dried and prayed no truck i got jacked on a pink slip i payed big money i was done..... i woke up from a dream it was dried pulled them off the sticks and my electricity got shut off... i walked to the nearest place and they loved it???? i looked and cracked open the nug NO SEEDS I WENT THREW ALL OF THEM NO SEEDS????? i looked and looked no seeds i paniced i llooked and looked and looked NO FUCKEN WAY NO SEEDS in my last bag i opend three tiny lil white seeds fell out that made me think coinsidence?? i still went to my local church and droped a lot of money... i got a few other stories i will share in time???


----------



## Kaendar (Jun 20, 2012)

To answer all of you.. Catholics arent considered christians anymore. They are like mormons, they wrote their own shit and are not going by the bible anymore. They do what they do for the will of man, not the will of god. Catholics are different from Christians. Bottom line.


----------



## Kaendar (Jun 20, 2012)

thump easy said:


> i have many good stories about this issue that he has proven over and over but it comes down to coincedence every time is what i fight with in my head the last time was one of the best times in my life he has just listend to my cry.... after many adventures i was up agenst the wall partners greed and me bailing out i was not eating right i was a bone for i had three month of electricity and three month of rent i had no food i went to the store and stocked up on tuna one tuna a day i rather feed the plants i slept all i could to fight the hunger but i had to pull this last one off.... at the end i was near a bone looking for ketchup in the stores sugar wishing i had bread... the plants were almost done when i noticed a nanerd i was DONE!!!!!! i was done!!!!!!! i yelled WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU WANT YOU TOOK IT ALL AWAY contruction my women everything that was real was gone down to this down to nothing i opened a bud and it was seaded i went acrosss all the buds they had seeds i yelled fuck you.. FUCK EVERONE everyone fucked me im alone!!!!!!!! im done!!!!!!! i prayed night and day i prayed nervous and knowing i was done i had no food down to the last of the cans i streched the cans out water sucks tuna sucks i sweet and smell tuna from my pores i was washed up... I YELLED SHOW ME YOUR REAL SHOW ME!!!!!!!!!! i began to trim buy my lonesome three days of trimming night and day i lost track of days numbers hours i was going crazzy seeds just poped out everywere EVERYFUCKEN WERE!!!!!! i dried and prayed no truck i got jacked on a pink slip i payed big money i was done..... i woke up from a dream it was dried pulled them off the sticks and my electricity got shut off... i walked to the nearest place and they loved it???? i looked and cracked open the nug NO SEEDS I WENT THREW ALL OF THEM NO SEEDS????? i looked and looked no seeds i paniced i llooked and looked and looked NO FUCKEN WAY NO SEEDS in my last bag i opend three tiny lil white seeds fell out that made me think coinsidence?? i still went to my local church and droped a lot of money... i got a few other stories i will share in time???


God works in mysterious ways man. Blessings to you. And be prepared for all the ppl saying that in your deliriousness you must have imagined seeds or something.. they can never believe shit.


----------



## kpmarine (Jun 20, 2012)

Kaendar said:


> God works in mysterious ways man. Blessings to you. And be prepared for all the ppl saying that in your deliriousness you must have imagined seeds or something.. they can never believe shit.


I believe his story proves he took care of the nanners in time. Really not proof of anything other than what a person can do under adverse conditions.


----------



## crazyhazey (Jun 20, 2012)

thump easy said:


> i have many good stories about this issue that he has proven over and over but it comes down to coincedence every time is what i fight with in my head the last time was one of the best times in my life he has just listend to my cry.... after many adventures i was up agenst the wall partners greed and me bailing out i was not eating right i was a bone for i had three month of electricity and three month of rent i had no food i went to the store and stocked up on tuna one tuna a day i rather feed the plants i slept all i could to fight the hunger but i had to pull this last one off.... at the end i was near a bone looking for ketchup in the stores sugar wishing i had bread... the plants were almost done when i noticed a nanerd i was DONE!!!!!! i was done!!!!!!! i yelled WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU WANT YOU TOOK IT ALL AWAY contruction my women everything that was real was gone down to this down to nothing i opened a bud and it was seaded i went acrosss all the buds they had seeds i yelled fuck you.. FUCK EVERONE everyone fucked me im alone!!!!!!!! im done!!!!!!! i prayed night and day i prayed nervous and knowing i was done i had no food down to the last of the cans i streched the cans out water sucks tuna sucks i sweet and smell tuna from my pores i was washed up... I YELLED SHOW ME YOUR REAL SHOW ME!!!!!!!!!! i began to trim buy my lonesome three days of trimming night and day i lost track of days numbers hours i was going crazzy seeds just poped out everywere EVERYFUCKEN WERE!!!!!! i dried and prayed no truck i got jacked on a pink slip i payed big money i was done..... i woke up from a dream it was dried pulled them off the sticks and my electricity got shut off... i walked to the nearest place and they loved it???? i looked and cracked open the nug NO SEEDS I WENT THREW ALL OF THEM NO SEEDS????? i looked and looked no seeds i paniced i llooked and looked and looked NO FUCKEN WAY NO SEEDS in my last bag i opend three tiny lil white seeds fell out that made me think coinsidence?? i still went to my local church and droped a lot of money... i got a few other stories i will share in time???


well, i have this story about this guy who came on this thread and posted a story i couldnt understand to save my life. were you dreaming the whole time, like idk what just happened in that whole thing, maybe clarify without so many exclamation points, maybe press enter a few times so i know where i am, and less capital letters maybe? im just lost here.


----------



## kpmarine (Jun 20, 2012)

Kaendar said:


> To answer all of you.. Catholics arent considered christians anymore. They are like mormons, they wrote their own shit and are not going by the bible anymore. They do what they do for the will of man, not the will of god. Catholics are different from Christians. Bottom line.


Just because you wish to redefine a word does not mean that I have to accept your new definition. Especially when it runs counter to the word's meaning. You are a different denomination of christianity if you're not catholic and believe in jesus. However, you still are a chrisian by definition. That doesn't change no matter what you say.


----------



## thump easy (Jun 20, 2012)

im gona stay off the subject just thought i throw that in their.. wen im ready to write me more ill write it.. K its some good shit thow i dont want to write to much on a nother forum a guy wrote a book on some of my stories without my permision i rather just not do it.. but thier fucken good ones..


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jun 20, 2012)

thump easy said:


> im gona stay off the subject just thought i throw that in their.. wen im ready to write me more ill write it.. K its some good shit thow i dont want to write to much on a nother forum a guy wrote a book on some of my stories without my permision i rather just not do it.. but thier fucken good ones..


...I had a chance to read it. Nice post. I'm glad it works for you.


----------



## crazyhazey (Jun 20, 2012)

thump easy said:


> its okay its only me that needs it for know i have real tatoos of horns on my head i grew up realy fucked in the head i went to prison for coltivation and one other charge ill keep to my self in the mid ninties.. i thier tested the bounderies shit that can only be like winning the lottery that is so coincedence that i dont want to talk about it three time this was proven and all to pray one prayer he showed me against all odds and i chalked it up to co and to this day im straight if we have only been hear for so long the universe is so big thier cant be a big bang a begining the hole universe is endless it cant be explained ass a begining one hole mater and explosion that stoopid... and god is in the same explaination as the big bang.. i belive what works for me but until you have lived what i have seen im better this way!!!!!


ever wonder if god has been your mental crutch? i mean prayer is just like focusing on something really hard, its good you can find comfort in believing in something but just think about it, nobody controls your fate except you, theres still coincidence, we cant give god credit for good and just say everything happened for a reason when something bad happens. life has its way of being ironic sometimes, this even occurs to your everyday atheist, no reason to point to god though. idk, our culture just has a way of manipulating people into thinking theres some strange force behind the things that happen, youd be amazed how much you could get done with a little bit of hope, if you fill that hole with religion, theres no problem, just dont turn to whatever you ask for all the time, you determine what happens to you, the rest is just simple probability.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jun 20, 2012)

^ prayer is meditation.


----------



## crazyhazey (Jun 20, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ^ prayer is meditation.


i thought meditation is living in the moment and clearing your mind? shit. oh well.


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 20, 2012)

kpmarine said:


> Catholics believe in christ, and are the original"Christians". Either way though, that isn't really addressing the message of my reply.


My Orthodox grandmother would have taken some offense.  cn


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jun 20, 2012)

crazyhazey said:


> i thought meditation is living in the moment and clearing your mind? shit. oh well.


...first, clear mind, then live in moment =.=


----------



## crazyhazey (Jun 20, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...first, clear mind, then live in moment


hahaha im sort of always living in the moment so clearing my mind comes second... i think.


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 20, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...first, clear mind, then live in moment =.=


...Rinse. Repeat. cn


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jun 20, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> ...Rinse. Repeat. cn



...and so on, and so on, and so on


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 20, 2012)

Bingo!! cn


----------



## mindphuk (Jun 20, 2012)

Kaendar said:


> So I read thru like half of this.. its ridiculous how eventually every thread having to do with something that goes beyond what modern science can explain some atheists, or trolls, come and start making personal attacks. I have one message for atheists. You dont believe? Ok. You dont think theres enough proof? Thats fine. But you nor any other human being cannot come out and say "if science cant prove it its not real". Do you know how much shit there is on this planet that human minds cant comprehend, or computers? Do you know how much shit there is in the entire universe?? Science has probably explained maybe 1% of anything. You cannot sit there and tell somebody that just because you are ignorant and dont believe things that cant be proved, that it cant exist. And the funny thing is that science has only proved most things in religion to be true. The bible has almost been proved to completely true because advancements in science. If you were really so smart, you would realize that science and religion are the same thing. (almost). The problem is not too many ppl put 2 and 2 together. This is a weed forum, pot smokers are supposed to be open minded and tolerant of others ideas, especially since we want everyone to be tolerant and open minded to our pot smoking. Stop being stubborn. If I could mail this to you it wud be on a piece of paper that I wiped my ass with.


What is ridiculous is that any time a skeptical person expresses doubt to a claim of PROOF, the nutters on this board begin attacking the skeptics and labeling them atheists and conflating that with science. Everyday in most everyone's life, we apply skeptical reasoning to most everything, from financial deals to the doctors you choose and the medicine you take, and even when buying a car. Yet when it comes to something so incredible and unbelievable, skepticism suddenly becomes a bad thing and you become dismissive about it and hypercritical of those that want to apply skeptical, rational thought to these claims. 

Lack of knowledge about something does not make it true. You argument is no different than saying science has not proved faeries, so they are true. Look up the logical fallacy _argumentum ad ignorantium _because you seem to commit this one quite often. 

I am human like you. I would sincerely like to find out that there really is a god or I have a soul that can live beyond my physical life, who wouldn't? So when I see someone make a claim to 'proof' I certainly am interested in hearing this new proof. Then here you come along and insult and criticize me and others for being disappointed when we find out that this proof is hardly what it was claimed and trying to explain to the OP WHY it is inadequate and definitely not proof, let alone good evidence. I'm tolerant of ideas but I do not have to be tolerant of fallacious reasoning being touted as truth. Calling out someone's illogical thinking in a debate/discussion forum is not intolerance, it is teaching.


----------



## Doer (Jun 20, 2012)

crazyhazey said:


> i thought meditation is living in the moment and clearing your mind? shit. oh well.


While it is possible to constantly.......(I can't characterize it) I can't agree with either, (all 3?) of you. 

Prayer is not meditation, but prayer can lead to silent contemplation. Meditation is more like saying the Roseriary, or chanting. Most, if not all meditation involves Chanting of some form. The most effective, imo, are just sounds, not words. Sounds that product beneficial physical vibrations in the skull. Om, Hu, etc.

And then there are internal senses of sound, taste, sight, etc to Preceive, that are totally un-hooked from temporal duality as they are experienced only after the mind clould of thought is ducked completely.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Jun 20, 2012)

_Meditation_ is either deep thinking about a particular subject, or deep no-thinking about anything (just being).

_Prayer_ is either wishful thinking (hoping for something to happen, or not to happen), asking for forgiveness to something contrived from our imagination (god) because we do not have the courage to forgive ourselves, asking something other than ourselves to forgive others so we do not have to, or giving thanks to something other than ourselves or other people/natural events that occur that appear to be in our favor (giving ourselves a mystical sense of importance in an inherently meaningless existence).

That's just my take.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 20, 2012)

If your caught talking to yourself, make sure it's a minister, not a psychiatrist. C'mon, that shit is FUNNY!


----------



## crazyhazey (Jun 21, 2012)

Zaehet Strife said:


> _Meditation_ is either deep thinking about a particular subject, or deep no-thinking about anything (just being).
> 
> _Prayer_ is either wishful thinking (hoping for something to happen, or not to happen), asking for forgiveness to something contrived from our imagination (god) because we do not have the courage to forgive ourselves, asking something other than ourselves to forgive others so we do not have to, or giving thanks to something other than ourselves or other people/natural events that occur that appear to be in our favor (giving ourselves a mystical sense of importance in an inherently meaningless existence).
> 
> That's just my take.


im gonna go with that one, i dont really say Om or whatever when i meditate, i just try to clear my mind and take deep breathes through my nose. i think everyone has a different method though, im not one to define what is or isnt meditation. btw kaendar who was the so called scientist who compared religion and science? im still eager to find out who this so called scientist is, sounds like straight bullshit to me. he probably wont answer me but its worth a try i guess.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jun 21, 2012)

crazyhazey said:


> im gonna go with that one, i dont really say Om or whatever when i meditate, i just try to clear my mind and take deep breathes through my nose. i think everyone has a different method though, im not one to define what is or isnt meditation. btw kaendar who was the so called scientist who compared religion and science? im still eager to find out who this so called scientist is, sounds like straight bullshit to me. he probably wont answer me but its worth a try i guess.


...hey-zey  Here's a clip from wiki to mull over.

Catholic theologians contend that natural reason being a God-given capacity, is not opposed to the Church's teachings, and hence never contradict each other.[SUP][1][/SUP] The role of Catholic Church, throughout history, has therefore led to progress of science and intuitive reasoning. This view is contested by secular historians, who contest that the question has been historically varied from active and even singular support from the Church[SUP][_citation needed_][/SUP] to bitter clashes (with accusations of heresy) in the Middle Ages[SUP][_citation needed_][/SUP], and back once again to a reserved support from the Church. The differences primarily arise due to the different definitions given to science. While secular philosophers consider 'science' in the restricted sense of natural science, theologians have viewed science in a very broad sense, as given by Aristotle's definition that science is the sure and evident knowledge obtained from demonstrations.[SUP][2][/SUP] In this sense, science comprises the entire curriculum of university studies, and Catholic Church has claimed authority in matters of doctrine and teaching of science. With the gradual secularisation of Europe and North America, including though not limited to traditionally Catholic countries, the political power and influence of the Church over matters pertaining to scientific research has gradually faded. Where in the early days of scientific research science and theology of various kinds were considered very much intertwined, it is generally accepted[SUP][_citation needed_][/SUP] throughout 21st Century society that the elucidations and processes of the empirical sciences and the theological claims of religions where they cross over with scientific claims (such as concerning the genesis of the universe and/or humanity) are either fully independent of each other.[SUP][_citation needed_][/SUP]


----------



## crazyhazey (Jun 21, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...hey-zey  Here's a clip from wiki to mull over.
> 
> Catholic theologians contend that natural reason being a God-given capacity, is not opposed to the Church's teachings, and hence never contradict each other.[SUP][1][/SUP] The role of Catholic Church, throughout history, has therefore led to progress of science and intuitive reasoning. This view is contested by secular historians, who contest that the question has been historically varied from active and even singular support from the Church[SUP][_citation needed_][/SUP] to bitter clashes (with accusations of heresy) in the Middle Ages[SUP][_citation needed_][/SUP], and back once again to a reserved support from the Church. The differences primarily arise due to the different definitions given to science. While secular philosophers consider 'science' in the restricted sense of natural science, theologians have viewed science in a very broad sense, as given by Aristotle's definition that science is the sure and evident knowledge obtained from demonstrations.[SUP][2][/SUP] In this sense, science comprises the entire curriculum of university studies, and Catholic Church has claimed authority in matters of doctrine and teaching of science. With the gradual secularisation of Europe and North America, including though not limited to traditionally Catholic countries, the political power and influence of the Church over matters pertaining to scientific research has gradually faded. Where in the early days of scientific research science and theology of various kinds were considered very much intertwined, it is generally accepted[SUP][_citation needed_][/SUP] throughout 21st Century society that the elucidations and processes of the empirical sciences and the theological claims of religions where they cross over with scientific claims (such as concerning the genesis of the universe and/or humanity) are either fully independent of each other.[SUP][_citation needed_][/SUP]


correct me if im wrong but this is basically what ive been saying, the church attempted to have a part in science when answers simply couldnt be found(like in the Middle Ages when they killed Plato), but nowadays due to advances in reasoning and technology the church has become separated from science.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 21, 2012)

crazyhazey said:


> correct me if im wrong but this is basically what ive been saying, the church attempted to have a part in science when answers simply couldnt be found(like in the Middle Ages when they killed Plato), but nowadays due to advances in reasoning and technology the church has become separated from science.


I hope you didn't just say churches attempted to be scientific!? They never have. They have only embraced scientific work if it boosts their cause. Or are you going to sit there and propose that a church, built and operated based on preconceived notions, would seek out contradictory evidence which proves them false, then publish said works, are you?

Or attempted, but failed miserably?


----------



## crazyhazey (Jun 21, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> I hope you didn't just say churches attempted to be scientific!? They never have. They have only embraced scientific work if it boosts their cause. Or are you going to sit there and propose that a church, built and operated based on preconceived notions, would seek out contradictory evidence which proves them false, then publish said works, are you?


notice i said "attempted" hahaha they utterly failed. and hell no, if they could they would probably kill people for proving them wrong(like Plato).


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 21, 2012)

crazyhazey said:


> notice i said "attempted" hahaha they utterly failed. and hell no, if they could they would probably kill people for proving them wrong(like Plato).


Phew, OK. I'll call the wagons off,lol.


----------



## crazyhazey (Jun 21, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> Phew, OK. I'll call the wagons off,lol.


oh shit you had wagons? hahaha


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 21, 2012)

crazyhazey said:


> oh shit you had wagons? hahaha


Yes. Nice fellows in white. They love to add new members. Their "Members Only" jacket is white also, with extra long sleeves for cold nights. But don't worry, they tie them up behind you so they won't drag on the floor.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jun 21, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> I hope you didn't just say churches attempted to be scientific!? They never have. They have only embraced scientific work if it boosts their cause. Or are you going to sit there and propose that a church, built and operated based on preconceived notions, would seek out contradictory evidence which proves them false, then publish said works, are you?
> 
> Or attempted, but failed miserably?


...Philoponus

...Byzantine Science


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 21, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...Philoponus
> 
> ...Byzantine Science


Philoponus=He was posthumously condemned as a heretic by the Orthodox Church in 680-81 because of what was perceived of as a tritheistic interpretation of the Trinity!
Byzantine Science=Not a church.

Confusion=Someone who is of faith practicing science, is not science condoned by a church. Imagine a sermon where the minister ordains that God wants you to question how and why the world exists. Tee hee.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jun 21, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> Philoponus=He was posthumously condemned as a heretic by the Orthodox Church in 680-81 because of what was perceived of as a tritheistic interpretation of the Trinity!
> Byzantine Science=Not a church.
> 
> Confusion=Someone who is of faith practicing science, is not science condoned by a church. Imagine a sermon where the minister ordains that God wants you to question how and why the world exists. Tee hee.


...was birthed of a church. (church=group of people)

...your ability to question is God-given, imo. The point of my post was to tone down the idea that the 'church' has done nothing for science. That's just plain wrong, man. No offense, eh?


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 21, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...was birthed of a church. (church=group of people)
> 
> ...your ability to question is God-given, imo. The point of my post was to tone down the idea that the 'church' has done nothing for science. That's just plain wrong, man. No offense, eh?


Church=Group of people with a preconceived idea or ideas.
Group=Group
Cite specific examples when a Church has ORDAINED or ORDERED research blindly. Doing 1 sided research and interpreting it is not science. 

Hebrews 10:35-38
[FONT=arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif]Isaiah 26:3-4[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif]2 Thessalonians 3:6
2 Thessalonians 2:15
Exodus 20:1-26

Your opinion that God wants you to question him is argued here by, well, GOD. [/FONT]


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jun 21, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> Church=Group of people with a preconceived idea or ideas.
> Group=Group
> Cite specific examples when a Church has ORDAINED or ORDERED research contradictory to the Bible, please.



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

"The theory ofevolution was propounded before Charles Darwin's time, by Lamarck (1809) and Geoffroy de Saint-Hilaire. Darwin, in 1859, gave it a new form by endeavouring to explain the origin ofspecies by means of natural selection. According to this theory the breeding of new speciesdepends on the survival of the fittest in the struggle for existence. The Darwinian theory of selection is Darwinism&#8212;adhering to the narrower, and accurate, sense of the word. As a theory, it is scientifically inadequate, since it does not account for the origin of attributes fitted to the purpose, which must be referred back to the interior, original causes of evolution. Haeckel, with other materialists, has enlarged this selection theory of Darwin's into a philosophical world-idea, by attempting to account for the whole evolution of the cosmos by means of the chance survival of the fittest. This theory is Darwinism in the secondary, and wider, sense of the word. It is thatatheistical form of the theory of evolution which was shown above&#8212;under (2)&#8212;to be untenable. The third signification of the term _Darwinism_ arose from the application of the theory of selection to man, which is likewise impossible of acceptance. In the fourth place, _Darwinism_ frequently stands, in popular usage, for the theory of evolution in general. This use of the word rests on an evident confusion of ideas, and must therefore be set aside."

...they're still testing ideas to this day. Always will - they understand the only 'static, or unmovable' thing is God. I wonder why that is 'bad' or 'unworthy'? Also, they do correct errors publicly, often.

...keep in mind this is catholic. How much do you know about the catholic worldview? Just an honest question, have you studied it beyond media coverage? Sometimes it seems that the views people have about it are as narrow as a razor, but as broad as a paint brush at the same time. Not saying that's you, to be clear.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 21, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Jaki
> 
> "The theory ofevolution was propounded before Charles Darwin's time, by Lamarck (1809) and Geoffroy de Saint-Hilaire. Darwin, in 1859, gave it a new form by endeavouring to explain the origin ofspecies by means of natural selection. According to this theory the breeding of new speciesdepends on the survival of the fittest in the struggle for existence. The Darwinian theory of selection is Darwinism&#8212;adhering to the narrower, and accurate, sense of the word. As a theory, it is scientifically inadequate, since it does not account for the origin of attributes fitted to the purpose, which must be referred back to the interior, original causes of evolution. Haeckel, with other materialists, has enlarged this selection theory of Darwin's into a philosophical world-idea, by attempting to account for the whole evolution of the cosmos by means of the chance survival of the fittest. This theory is Darwinism in the secondary, and wider, sense of the word. It is thatatheistical form of the theory of evolution which was shown above&#8212;under (2)&#8212;to be untenable. The third signification of the term _Darwinism_ arose from the application of the theory of selection to man, which is likewise impossible of acceptance. In the fourth place, _Darwinism_ frequently stands, in popular usage, for the theory of evolution in general. This use of the word rests on an evident confusion of ideas, and must therefore be set aside."
> 
> ...


Once again, a catholic participating in science, is not scientific research by a church. Furthermore, this mans work (I've read one of his works) strives to bridge Catholicity with Science. I'm looking for an ORDER, from a CHURCH, asking for blind studies or experiments.

When a Church starts actively perusing science, I expect an "Edited" version of the bible from that church, written in Mathematics. Simply stating, "We do not disagree with your findings, but that's GODs' work. Your just not seeing the connection." is not participating in science. Your argument proposes that a church is free to announce that the words of GOD are false. This can not happen. So a "Scientific Church" is an oxymoron.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jun 21, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> Once again, a catholic participating in science, is not scientific research by a church. Furthermore, this mans work (I've read one of his works) strives to bridge Catholicity with Science. I'm looking for an ORDER, from a CHURCH, asking for blind studies or experiments.


...I've said my peace here. There's so much material to read in what I've posted and it seems you've chosen not to read it. Again, no offense.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 21, 2012)

*Christian Science is a system of RELIGIOUS thought and practice derived from the writings of Mary Baker Eddy and the BIBLE!

To be scientific, one must be prepared to accept they are wrong. This violates scripture you see. Starting with the attitude that, "My mind is open to all possibilities, except the notion that GOD or GODS may not exist", is not scientific at all. One must be prepared to admit everything they proposed was wrong. A person of faith is bound, and can not state such a position.

Your examples are individuals trying to explain GOD using science. Science tries to explain science, using science.*


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 21, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...I've said my peace here. There's so much material to read in what I've posted and it seems you've chosen not to read it. Again, no offense.


No offense taken. I'm not angry, or offended. I just was wondering why you claimed Churches supported science, and then posted individuals. Except for Byzantine Science, which was a community, not a church. Take care.

As for the one idea that God is unmoveable. This is the key! Not "wrong" or "unacceptable". Just unscientific.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jun 21, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> *Christian Science is a system of RELIGIOUS thought and practice derived from the writings of Mary Baker Eddy and the BIBLE!
> 
> To be scientific, one must be prepared to accept they are wrong. This violates scripture you see. Starting with the attitude that, "My mind is open to all possibilities, except the notion that GOD or GODS may not exist", is not scientific at all. One must be prepared to admit everything they proposed was wrong. A person of faith is bound, and can not state such a position.
> 
> Your examples are individuals trying to explain GOD using science. Science tries to explain science, using science.*


...well sure, but now what? Dude, I don't understand your vehement distaste for all things 'god'. Of course science proves science with science - if it didn't it would be like sending a kid to baseball practice with a bowling ball ...??


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 21, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...well sure, but now what? Dude, I don't understand your vehement distaste for all things 'god'. Of course science proves science with science - if it didn't it would be like sending a kid to baseball practice with a bowling ball ...??


WHAT!? Again, I don't dislike GODS, Science does. Because they have never been observed, and therefore can not be quantified. Is it perhaps you who are experiencing feelings of rejection?


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 21, 2012)

I've posted my opinion on religion many times. I do not feel that people who participate in religion are stupid, or retarded. I feel that religion, from birth, corrupts a human beings' ability to rationalize their environment, because they have been told from birth that some things can't be explained, but instead of casting them aside as immaterial, should be accepted as facts until proven otherwise. Faulty logic does nobody any good. It just makes controlling those folks easier. My beef is with the shitty logic that religions breed.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 21, 2012)

[youtube]p6_XeLAtj3o[/youtube]


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jun 21, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> I've posted my opinion on religion many times. I do not feel that people who participate in religion are stupid, or retarded. I feel that religion, from birth, corrupts a human beings' ability to rationalize their environment, because they have been told from birth that some things can't be explained, bu tinstead of casting them aside as imaterial, should be accepted as facts until proven otherwise. Faulty logic does no body any good. It just makes controlling those folks easier. My beef is with the shitty logic that religions breed.


...alright, some of that is fair and I agree with. What we're 'meant' to be taught, if we'll listen, is that all things are connected. A scientifically bent individual should agree with this. The next train of thought goes like this: "if it is all connected, you could end up chasing your own tail if you're not careful". The reality is that all religions are based in psychology. The principles contained within them are meant to keep a person well. All of those stories and allegories are things that you will experience from one day to the next - written in a very old language. I think science advances the current language, while religions attempt to understand this old language. Oddly, if you can picture it, they are both looking into the unknown.

Now, the religious fanatics have yet to realize this state of mind  But I'm sure that 'religion' hopes they will.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 21, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...alright, some of that is fair and I agree with. What we're 'meant' to be taught, if we'll listen, is that all things are connected. A scientifically bent individual should agree with this. The next train of thought goes like this: "if it is all connected, you could end up chasing your own tail if you're not careful". The reality is that all religions are based in psychology. The principles contained within them are meant to keep a person well. All of those stories and allegories are things that you will experience from one day to the next - written in a very old language. I think science advances the current language, while religions attempt to understand this old language. Oddly, if you can picture it, they are both looking into the unknown.
> 
> Now, the religious fanatics have yet to realize this state of mind  But I'm sure that 'religion' hopes they will.


I agree that religions, at least the later ones, like Christianity, Islam, Etc. are designed to take advantage of fear. Psychology must have been consulted, or observed, in order to do this. Back in the day, rulers had to control the population from turning on the ruling class. How do you do this when you're using them to death? 
The problem starts when better, more sound methods are discovered to nurture the people. I say, "Religions WERE meant to keep a person well." Well, most people. My issue is their isn't just "love thy neighbor" but rather, "Women Suck" and "If they don't believe what you believe, kill them all." The sad truth is, Religion is antiquated and we need to ditch it. Folks can feel just as powerful, good, and needed and wanted without religion. 
*"Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest" --Denis Diderot
**
"The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has killed a great many philosophers." -- Denis Diderot*


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 21, 2012)

I am more humbled at the fact that statistically, I shouldn't be here. But of all the chaotic possibilities in this vast universe, I am here. Cool.


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 21, 2012)

The earliest religions probably taught fear alongside its opposite. I imagine a psychedelic trip is a fair simulation of original or pristine religious thought. We sense the spirit-underlayer and perceive-or-deduce that it's tied into the material world's deep layers, and being humans we see power and consequence. So the step toward seeking activity, ritual, to _propitiate _the spirit and thus gain favor, advantage or at least an exemption from bad fortune in the mundane world ... seems intuitive to me. I ramble. cn


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jun 21, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> I agree that religions, at least the later ones, like Christianity, Islam, Etc. are designed to take advantage of fear. Psychology must have been consulted, or observed, in order to do this. Back in the day, rulers had to control the population from turning on the ruling class. How do you do this when you're using them to death?
> The problem starts when better, more sound methods are discovered to nurture the people. I say, "Religions WERE meant to keep a person well." Well, most people. My issue is their isn't just "love thy neighbor" but rather, "Women Suck" and "If they don't believe what you believe, kill them all." The sad truth is, Religion is antiquated and we need to ditch it. Folks can feel just as powerful, good, and needed and wanted without religion.
> *"Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest" --Denis Diderot
> **
> "The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has killed a great many philosophers." -- Denis Diderot*


...one thing is for sure. Not all of Jung's edifice crumbled...he said that the generations to come would want to move from faith to knowledge. I think religions said that too. Jung just might have been able to see its 'constellation' because of those writings.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 21, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...one thing is for sure. Not all of Jung's edifice crumbled...he said that the generations to come would want to move from faith to knowledge. I think religions said that too. Jung just might have been able to see its 'constellation' because of those writings.


One can hope.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jun 21, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> One can hope.


...one thing to mention about fear and the church using it to their advantage. What we've witnessed in history, if I may say so myself, was a corruption of the idea of using fear to _one's_ advantage - the idea was to rid a person of their fears, initially. Keep in mind how socially complex the groupings of people were. Since they (the religions) knew about fusion in the sun (the cross as representative of 'union') after Christ the idea became to unify those groups. To borrow from the bear - it was also _intuitive_ seeing how the sun is the most important thing to all of us. (in the really broad sense)

If religions wanted to see people with unified minds (as per Christ / fusion), it was because they would 'shine' out of 'darkness' and not be afraid.

That's my take.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 21, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...one thing to mention about fear and the church using it to their advantage. What we've witnessed in history, if I may say so myself, was a corruption of the idea of using fear to _one's_ advantage - to rid a person of their fears. Keep in mind how socially complex the groupings of people were. Since they (the religions) knew about fusion in the sun (the cross as representative of 'union') after Christ the idea became to unify those groups. To borrow from the bear - it was also _intuitive_ seeing how the sun is the most important thing to all of us. (in the really broad sense)
> 
> If religions wanted to see people with unified minds (as per Christ / fusion), it was because they would 'shine' out of 'darkness' and not be afraid.
> 
> That's my take.


You believe the churches had knowledge of fusion before scientists? Or did you mean son?
You have to understand the claims of these churches. They weren't claiming health. Or psychology. Your painting conversion as a tool of peace. Churches aim to build populations under THEIR faith. If they just wanted to unify the populations, why kill them?

As I bolster science and reason, my beliefs become evident, as do yours, when you try to bolster churches as beacons of peace and science. This is why I told you that even if we never discussed faith, we would still be able to deduce one's beliefs. Just as I could never accept the metaphysical, you can not accept the sin of religion itself.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 21, 2012)

Perhaps a universal Church, accepting only what every person can determine as fact would grab my vote. It's called secularism.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jun 21, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> You believe the churches had knowledge of fusion before scientists? Or did you mean son?
> You have to understand the claims of these churches. They weren't claiming health. Or psychology. Your painting conversion as a tool of peace. Churches aim to build populations under THEIR faith. If they just wanted to unify the populations, why kill them?
> 
> As I bolster science and reason, my beliefs become evident, as do yours, when you try to bolster churches as beacons of peace and science. This is why I told you that even if we never discussed faith, we would still be able to deduce one's beliefs. Just as I could never accept the metaphysical, you can not accept the sin of religion itself.


...you dance well for someone with poor balance 


...and yes, they knew about fusion - you have to go and 'see' the symbolism for yourself. Problem is, later, when it was achieved in the material, there were some 'minor' kabooms afterward - and the ensuing 'fear' that they created.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 21, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...you dance well for someone with poor balance


I don't need balance. I have none. Poor would suppose I had any to begin with.


----------



## mari dont you wanna (Jun 21, 2012)

who cares? i have 200 billion dollars... do you believe me? didnt think so. dont believe in everything you hear. thats exactly what the people telling you this shit wants you to do


----------



## TogTokes (Jun 21, 2012)

tell santa i said hi guys.


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 21, 2012)

Sorry. I got there first. Mmmmm blubber. cn


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 21, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...you dance well for someone with poor balance
> 
> 
> ...and yes, they knew about fusion - you have to go and 'see' the symbolism for yourself. Problem is, later, when it was achieved in the material, there were some 'minor' kabooms afterward - and the ensuing 'fear' that they created.


You make me laugh. I like you.


----------



## PsychOut (Jun 21, 2012)

I believe in Frosty the Snowman!


----------



## Kaendar (Jun 21, 2012)

crazyhazey said:


> im gonna go with that one, i dont really say Om or whatever when i meditate, i just try to clear my mind and take deep breathes through my nose. i think everyone has a different method though, im not one to define what is or isnt meditation. btw kaendar who was the so called scientist who compared religion and science? im still eager to find out who this so called scientist is, sounds like straight bullshit to me. he probably wont answer me but its worth a try i guess.


Albert Einstein said that science without the bible is blind and the bible without science is lame.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 21, 2012)

Kaendar said:


> Albert Einstein said that science without the bible is blind and the bible without science is lame.


Einstein was raised by secular Jewish parents. In his _Autobiographical Notes_, Einstein wrote that he had gradually lost his faith early in childhood:. . . I came&#8212;though the child of entirely irreligious (Jewish) parents&#8212;to a deep religiousness, which, however, reached an abrupt end at the age of twelve. Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true. The consequence was a positively fanatic orgy of freethinking coupled with the impression that youth is intentionally being deceived by the state through lies; it was a crushing impression. Mistrust of every kind of authority grew out of this experience, a skeptical attitude toward the convictions that were alive in any specific social environment&#8212;an attitude that has never again left me, even though, later on, it has been tempered by a better insight into the causal connections. It is quite clear to me that the religious paradise of youth, which was thus lost, was a first attempt to free myself from the chains of the 'merely personal,' from an existence dominated by wishes, hopes, and primitive feelings. Out yonder there was this huge world, which exists independently of us human beings and which stands before us like a great, eternal riddle, at least partially accessible to our inspection and thinking. The contemplation of this world beckoned as a liberation, and I soon noticed that many a man whom I had learned to esteem and to admire had found inner freedom and security in its pursuit. The mental grasp of this extra-personal world within the frame of our capabilities presented itself to my mind, half consciously, half unconsciously, as a supreme goal. Similarly motivated men of the present and of the past, as well as the insights they had achieved, were the friends who could not be lost. The road to this paradise was not as comfortable and alluring as the road to the religious paradise; but it has shown itself reliable, and I have never regretted having chosen it.[SUP][2]

Albert Einstein was a deist at best. He believed that something must have caused the universe, but laughed at ideas of an Intelligent being.

"[/SUP]The idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I am unable to take seriously." - (Albert Einstein, Letter to Hoffman and Dukas, 1946)​​


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 21, 2012)

Kaendar said:


> Albert Einstein said that science without the bible is blind and the bible without science is lame.


I have never heard that. Can I ask you to provide a link? cn


----------



## Cut.Throat. (Jun 21, 2012)

Kaendar said:


> Albert Einstein said that science without the bible is blind and the bible without science is lame.


Actually the correct quote is: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 21, 2012)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/12/peopleinscience.religion

Myth dispelled.


----------



## Cut.Throat. (Jun 21, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/12/peopleinscience.religion
> 
> Myth dispelled.





> Due to be auctioned this week in London after being in a private collection for more than 50 years, the document leaves no doubt that the theoretical physicist was no supporter of religious beliefs, which he regarded as "*childish superstitions*".


Einstein is cool. I like Tesla better tho.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 21, 2012)

Cut.Throat. said:


> Einstein is cool. I like Tesla better tho.


Tesla was Einstein, with swag.


----------



## Kaendar (Jun 21, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> *Christian Science is a system of RELIGIOUS thought and practice derived from the writings of Mary Baker Eddy and the BIBLE!
> 
> To be scientific, one must be prepared to accept they are wrong. This violates scripture you see. Starting with the attitude that, "My mind is open to all possibilities, except the notion that GOD or GODS may not exist", is not scientific at all. One must be prepared to admit everything they proposed was wrong. A person of faith is bound, and can not state such a position.
> 
> Your examples are individuals trying to explain GOD using science. Science tries to explain science, using science.*


http://www.defendingthebride.com/pp/sc3/


----------



## crazyhazey (Jun 22, 2012)

Kaendar said:


> Albert Einstein said that science without the bible is blind and the bible without science is lame.


damn i didnt expect einstein of all people to think that. im gonna look for that quote.


----------



## crazyhazey (Jun 22, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> Sorry. I got there first. Mmmmm blubber. cn


ive been wondering where that polar bear was going. id expect his upper chest to be pretty fucked up by now though...


----------



## Kaendar (Jun 22, 2012)

crazyhazey said:


> damn i didnt expect einstein of all people to think that. im gonna look for that quote.


Heres some more..

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html


----------



## crazyhazey (Jun 22, 2012)

Kaendar said:


> Heres some more..
> 
> http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html


im not seeing how these quotes compare religion to science rather than their "need" to coexist, i see exactly what einstein means by "...religion without science is blind" though, hes basically stating that some of religion is just answering questions they dont have the answers for, science fills in these blanks like i have been stating. however, if science came before religion, i dont think religion would have existed or have been nearly as popular as it is today, "blind faith" is the problem i have with religion, i mean we can all act like religion tells the truth but we have corrected it so many times with simple observations, at what point will the bible/other religious texts stop being the word of "God"(its more like the words of multiple people, altered over thousands of years), and just become an encyclopedia? yes, they do teach us about morality and doing "the right thing"(with morality there is no right and wrong, that is completely an aspect of culture), and yes, there is a billion ways to interpret such a thing but if you look at like everyone else does, its been proven incorrect so many times, just take everything with a grain of salt, those who fully submit to religion and reject science(the OP seems like a perfect example) will be blind.


----------



## mindphuk (Jun 22, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> Perhaps a universal Church, accepting only what every person can determine as fact would grab my vote. It's called secularism.


http://www.yoism.org/


----------



## loquacious (Jun 22, 2012)

NetGuruINC said:


> No need for the insult, its just common sense to me if you wanted to know if there is a God, wouldnt you listen to people who have died and had CPR and paramedics bring them back? I would. It seems to be that people cant put religion to the side for a second and just keep it simple, listen to people who've been clinically dead and listen to what they have to say.


Nobody in the history of the world has ever died and come back! Just because your heart stops does not mean your dead.


----------



## PsychOut (Jun 22, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> I have never heard that. Can I ask you to provide a link? cn


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


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jun 22, 2012)

PsychOut said:


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



..."attitude of humility"


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 22, 2012)

loquacious said:


> Nobody in the history of the world has ever died and come back! Just because your heart stops does not mean your dead.


----------



## kpmarine (Jun 22, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


>


I wonder if the Romans dealt with zombies as a result of crucifixion alot?


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 22, 2012)

kpmarine said:


> I wonder if the Romans dealt with zombies as a result of crucifixion alot?


Hence the Lions.


----------



## kpmarine (Jun 22, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> Hence the Lions.


Explains all the leather armor too. Hard to bite through, but mobile.


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 22, 2012)

couldn't resist. cn


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 22, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> couldn't resist. cn








JFC CN!


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 22, 2012)

And another favorite!


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jun 22, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> JFC CN!


...to be true to the idea, you might want to change this. One of them would not be visible. Just sayin'


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 22, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...to be true to the idea, you might want to change this. One of them would not be visible. Just sayin'


Let's spare the rod for this spoiled child. cn


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 22, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...to be true to the idea, you might want to change this. One of them would not be visible. Just sayin'


One is GOD, the other Jesus. Jesus is Christ. Christ is Lord. Our Lord God. Very simple when you're in make believe land.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jun 22, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> One is GOD, the other Jesus. Jesus is Christ. Christ is Lord. Our Lord God. Very simple when you're in make believe land.


...one thing I've noticed about your posts is that they spell out the very nature of what a lot of people here are saying. You're right, one is God (invisible) and the other is Christ (visible). Though, they occupy the same 'space'.

Merci


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jun 22, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> Let's spare the rod for this spoiled child. cn



...thanks, Aaron


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 22, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...one thing I've noticed about your posts is that they spell out the very nature of what a lot of people here are saying. You're right, one is God (invisible) and the other is Christ (visible). Though, they occupy the same 'space'.
> 
> Merci


But I see GOD, too. Mystery solved Scooby Doo! Now get out of my fantasy! Your blocking my view of the naked sexy clowns Jesus gave me for letting him touch me.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jun 22, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> But I see GOD, too. Mystery solved Scooby Doo! Now get out of my fantasy! Your blocking my view of the naked sexy clowns Jesus gave me for letting him touch me.


...........................


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 22, 2012)

^that is funny on so many levels. cn


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 22, 2012)

Toasted ROFL's!


----------



## Kaendar (Jun 22, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> One is GOD, the other Jesus. Jesus is Christ. Christ is Lord. Our Lord God. Very simple when you're in make believe land.


It actually is simple. Jesus was god in human form. The "son of god" is not a seperate being as god, we just choose to say it that way.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Jun 22, 2012)

^i bet you everything you didn't make that idea up yourself...


----------



## PsychOut (Jun 22, 2012)

Let him make it up! It's all made up anyway!


----------



## Kaendar (Jun 23, 2012)

Zaehet Strife said:


> ^i bet you everything you didn't make that idea up yourself...


No, thats common knowledge


----------



## mindphuk (Jun 23, 2012)

Kaendar said:


> No, thats common knowledge


Not only is it not common knowledge, it is not even agreed upon by those that accept the trinity concept


----------



## crazyhazey (Jun 23, 2012)

Kaendar said:


> No, thats common misinformation


corrected that post, your welcome


----------



## Heisenberg (Jun 23, 2012)

Kaendar said:


> No, thats common knowledge




"Microbiology and meteorology now explain what only a few centuries ago was considered sufficient cause to burn women to death.&#8221; 
&#8213; Carl Sagan


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 23, 2012)

[FONT=Lucida Grande, Trebuchet MS, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Who hasn't read the New Pastament!? This is common knowledge people, I mean, REALLY!

[/FONT]http://loose-canon.fsm-consortium.com/page-6/


----------



## crazyhazey (Jun 23, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> Who hasn't read the New Pastament!? This is common knowledge people, I mean, REALLY!
> 
> http://loose-canon.fsm-consortium.com/page-6/


havent read it yet but i like the looks of it hahaha


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 23, 2012)

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." - A.E.


----------



## Doer (Jun 23, 2012)

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. "
*Arthur C. Clarke*, _"Profiles of The Future", 1961 (Clarke's third law)

_
We may find the science of the God principle, yet.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 23, 2012)

Doer said:


> "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. "
> *Arthur C. Clarke*, _"Profiles of The Future", 1961 (Clarke's third law)
> 
> _
> We may find the science of the God principle, yet.


This quote should have added, "To those who don't know how it works."

I'v often wondered the result if we went back in time and tried to expose earlier man to current technology. We'd probably be burned for being warlocks and witches,lol!


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 23, 2012)

Considering we are only aware of about 6% of the universe, (The species who is only aware of 6% of it's universe came up with this figure) if and when we discover the source of our universe, it will most likely be like nothing we have imagined.


----------



## crazyhazey (Jun 23, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> Considering we are only aware of about 6% of the universe, (The species who is only aware of 6% of it's universe came up with this figure) if and when we discover the source of our universe, it will most likely be like nothing we have imagined.


i think the orion nebula spawned the earth, but who knows what made the orion nebula. maybe the universe is a microscopic spec on the bottom of a rock, nobody knows and i dont think we're gonna find out, and if we do its not any time soon.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 23, 2012)

We ARE a spec of dust. The question is, who's wall are we on?


----------



## crazyhazey (Jun 23, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> We ARE a spec of dust. The question is, who's wall are we on?


GODS WALL hahaha i just had to say it before someone else did. but who knows, and why havent we been dusted yet? id expect we're a pretty loud spec of dust, the A bomb must have sounded like tiny screaming. reminds me of horton hears a who.


----------



## afrawfraw (Jun 23, 2012)

crazyhazey said:


> GODS WALL hahaha i just had to say it before someone else did. but who knows, and why havent we been dusted yet? id expect we're a pretty loud spec of dust, the A bomb must have sounded like tiny screaming. reminds me of horton hears a who.


Exactly. The sad truth is we could destroy our planet, and it wouldn't even be a whisper.


----------



## crazyhazey (Jun 23, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> Exactly. The sad truth is we could destroy our planet, and it wouldn't even be a whisper.


yeah its dumb we still fight over like .00000000001% of the universe while there planets out there that could probably sustain life, if we all came together(and maybe if religion didnt restrict certain studies that could save some very important lives *cough cough* stem cell research *cough cough*) to make advances in space travel we could get there in the next couple centuries, or maybe discover possible life on mars. too bad the leaders of a country decide to use its resources to conflict with one another, its as if many people fight for one persons argument, why cant they just smoke a bowl and settle shit like men? bloodshed never solves anything, imo MJ is the medicine that treats hostility between people. hate to sound like pothead but everyone just needs to calm down, smoke some fuckin weed and stop arguing.


----------



## Doer (Jun 23, 2012)

afrawfraw said:


> This quote should have added, "To those who don't know how it works."
> 
> I'v often wondered the result if we went back in time and tried to expose earlier man to current technology. We'd probably be burned for being warlocks and witches,lol!


We see no need to blashpheme the 3rd Law of Clarke, and repent ye even said that.

Seriously, I think you are missing my point. We may be already exposed to sufficiently advance tech and it seems like magic or bunk.

We are not advance in many ways. But, if we were being advanced, who would know? Many could would cry, "have faith" and others would dismiss it a fantasy, magic tricks. You can't prove advanced tech to us. It seems magical. That's Clarke's point as I see it.


----------



## PsychOut (Jun 23, 2012)

Isn't Christian Mythology fun? I enjoy Greek and Roman Mythology as well.


----------



## heathen (Jun 23, 2012)

PsychOut said:


> Isn't Christian Mythology fun? I enjoy Greek and Roman Mythology as well.


Greek and Roman gods didnt get nailed to a cross by humans.

Think Zeus woulda let it go down like that? Dead diety on a stick somehow saved our souls.

Maybe it would make sense if it was meant to send a message to God. 

Like saying, "Look what we did to your boy God, and we will do it to your ass too if we don't get into heaven."

No one has heard from them since then have they?


----------



## PsychOut (Jun 23, 2012)

Heaten I like the way you think buddy.


----------



## Doer (Jun 23, 2012)

heathen said:


> Greek and Roman gods didnt get nailed to a cross by humans.
> 
> Think Zeus woulda let it go down like that? Dead diety on a stick somehow saved our souls.


As soon as you let that cock-up Peter, proclaim God on Earth, and King of the Jews, etc, there will be some that says,
"We will soon see about that."

The way I see the story of Judas, is he was supposed to kiss Jesus, so they would take everyone, especially Peter, but not Jesus.

A jew screwed in a Roman deal. Happened all the time.


----------

