A Questiion 4 All. {Moved to AvT}
Offline Hey there everyone.
How is Earth today?
First off, I'd like to give credit to Atheists, because they are trying their best to put all of this information together, to produce a theory, no, therom (spelling?) that God doesn't exist.
And that's all fine and dandy. But I see a few problems with this.
The information to go off, weather it be science or personal belief, is constantly changing. For instance, isn't it true that scientists have discovered that atoms/particles have some sort of intellegence behind it? I want to find the report where they test wave energy and partials... Apparently their only explanation was that the particles would do one thing when they were watching it, and something different when they were not.
Now, this could be the evidence which brings a whole new view to what God is... And then again it could be just pure bunk. But the main point is, that the Ancient Mayans, Hoppis and other cultures knew something about the consciousness within everything.
Even today, we are stumped on what happened in the past, and the way we are going now, we will never find out. But there is a lot of 'hope' if I can use that term.
The whole God thing has come too far. By all means, the mainstream churches are slightly corrupt, along with nearly everything mainstream.
That's why I suggest (when you have the time and $) and visit a place called 'SAMOA'.
It is amazing. There's 4-5 churches in every town for the main religions which exist there. (+ the Bah'ai which has just 1 temple.) AND GUESS WHAT?!?!?!!?!?
NOT 1 PREACHER anywhere. Everyone there seems to get along just fine. (That's probably due to the fact that if you do cause harm to anyone, you get deported to New Zealand.)
But either way, nobody there was trying to manipulate ones belief. Why? because its a complete waste of ones time.
><
- Login to post comments
While the formula Hy=Ey determines that everything has a wave function (which has been experimentally confirmed...) it's not that the particles are 'intelligence' per say, but the exchange of information would collapse the wavefunction. I don't think the particles 'think', it's more like they 'process.'
Actually, it's not that there's an intelligence behind the particles, but that once you're attempting to make measurements of things too small to be directly observed, the only way to measure them is through interacting with them, and by interacting with them, you alter the conditions that produce a given behavior.
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
The observer effect is due to wavefunction collapse, not intelligence.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Yeh, I see your point. But... is it possible that even a wavefunction collapse needs some sort of 'intel' to do so?
Btw, why is it that humans believe that here is only 1 type of inteligence?
><
....GOD ?, it's been figured out already,
you just didn't get it , ( YET )
Now you want details ??? ,
, that's what atheists are honestly working on .....
Atheism Books.
I wouldn't exactly say we're producing non-existant god theories, we've just become rather adept to testing and rejecting current (and past) claims to such a being's existence. We certainly have collected a lot of information, though.
Could you share with me what exactly they "knew?" Or would this me more akin to subjects in stories they would tell.
Well the way to find out isn't to throw our hands in the air, give up, then say magic did it. What would be the fun in that? (and what would it accomplish?)
Could you define, coherently, which god you're talking about here?
Slightly? We've added a new comedian to our ranks!
By your own admission (paraphrasing a little) a lot of "mainstream" belief systems (you said churches) are corrupt and aren't exactly benefiting us. Wouldn't in places where we find belief systems that are causing or perpetuating suffering it not to be a waste of time to maniuplate their beliefs away from such things?
For sure. In places where you find perpetuating suffering. But I saw none of this in Samoa. It's probably the one place on Earth which has evolved. Even though it's still classified at a developoing 3rd world state.
As for the 'God thing'....
Some believe in 60+ Gods, some belive in the one creator, some believe that God is female, some believe that God is just a ball of DNA in space which changes into anything all the time, both male and female.
I believe we should not argue, on something which is not prooven, but at the same time, don't look for proof becasue there's so many 'theories' about God that its virtually impossibe to check every single one. It's a stalemate situation.
Wouldn't we all love to be right? Don't we all hate to be wrong? And how much worse is it, when you find out you're wrong and suddenly realise that you have been fighting a brick wall in your own mind?
I dunno. I wish everyone out there the best of luck in researching religious topics, but seriosly it's a maze of frustration.
><
It is not a matter of wanting to be right or wanting you to be wrong. It is a matter of evidence.
"god/GOD/super natural" are illogical broken concepts. To postulate anything beyond nature is to speak jibberish.
"My purple snarfwidget is super natural". Did that make sense to you? Of course not. So just becuase someone claims something is beyond nature, doesnt make it real. It would be up to me to prove to you that my purple snarfwidget is real. Since I have no evidence of my purple snarfwidget, you SHOULD rightfully reject that claim and chalk it up to something I merely want to believe.
Vampires, voodoo dolls, ouiji boards communicating with the dead are all claims of the super natural. If one litterally truely believed that there was a man named Clark Kent who could morph into Superman, that too would be a claim of something beyond nature......humans do not fly naturally like that. Thor making lighting is also a super natural claim, and people at one point litterally believed him to be a real god.
"god" from an efficiancy standpoint fails misserably knowing how much energy is wasted in life. For every one of the 6 billion humans on this planet, there were millions of sperm for EACH of the 6 billion that did not fertilize an egg, and died. For every tree that makes it to root and grows, there are hundreds of acorns and million of pollen spors that DONT produce a tree. The vast majority of attempts at life passing on it's genes FAIL!
Also, species end up with useless parts like men have nipples Eagles have better eyesight than humans. Owels have better hearing.
If "god" was efficiant and perfect one would expect to see a one to one ratio with every pregnancy in every species come to term and be successfull. We also would not have useless parts such as men with nipples or tailbones. And that is just biological life.
If god were perfect, the universe is hardly an example of that. It is violent, with exploding suns, black holes and comets and meteors that can, in a blink of an eye wipe out a planet.
So if one is to attempt to postulate a god, it could not be called perfect. If it is not perfect, then why call it god?
Then we get in to the "omni" or "all" atributes, such as "all powerfull" "all loving" "all seing", which lead us to some logical absurdities and moral inconsistancies.
"all powerfull", I adressed this earlyer.
Can god make a boulder so big that even he cant lift it? Can god make a square circle. Can god kill himself?
"all loving|". I would not call such a being "all loving" that is also "all seeing" who would sit by, KNOWING THAT IT COULD STOP IT BEFORE HAND, and allow a 4 or 5 year old child to be raped and murdered, "Sorry kid, I am going to allow you to die in this horrific manner and watch it happen".
"All seeing" also has mundain absurdities. Does god watch you pee and poo? Does he watch you having sex? I like my privacy and would find it sick that someone would insist on watching me in my most private moments.
These are just the illogical absurdities that demonstrate the concept of a |"god", give it any name you want, is a broken and meaningless concept, just like claiming a purple snarfwidget.
Weither we are talking about a generic deist claim to a specific sect of a given religion. "god" is a meaningless playdough word that people incert into the gaps of lack of knowlege when they dont know the answer to something. It is an utterance from the position of ignorance.
"I dont know and neither do you so therefore" has been a tactic used by Muslims, Jews, Christians and even a Sihk.
"Allah exists because you cant prove he doesnt"
"Yahwey exists because you cant prove he doesnt"
"God exists because you cant prove he doesnt"
"Vishnu exists because you cant prove he doesnt"
These are dodges to proving the claim the person makes. Much like the following.
"There is a giant teapot orbiting Jupiter. Since you have never directly seen it, you cant prove that giant teapot isnt there".
It would be absurd and delusional if we baught every claim someone made if we used that kind of logic. We would litterally have to believe every deity claim ever made in human history "just because we cant prove it doesnt exist".
For the same reason you reject Osirus and Thor, I reject Vishnu and God and Allah as well as the generic god of Jefferson. There is simply no credible evidence for any of these claims.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
You're on the right track here. We can agree it'd be a waste of time to check into every quack concept of a deity. However, we could start with the ones that make testable and falsifiable claims about their being. "My god does X." "Ok, show me X." "Well he does X when you're not looking." This turns into intellectual tail chasing.
Why would someone hate to be wrong? Some mild embarassment? I find that when I find out I'm wrong about something, that I'm learning something useful about it. It's when we're wrong that new information is the most helpful!
It's a weird planet.
We all have choices. There are many other 'wrong' things on this Earth. I don't think it matters if people believe in a God or not. There will still be evil people out there.
The inventor of the Dobson telescope said that he was a harsh atheist, but over time he realized that that was not correct. He doesn't believe that God is some guy in a white cloak, that watches you 24/7. The government does that LOL! (has anyone herd about Nokia saying that they can record your voice through your phone even when it's off?)
My honest belief, is that there is something out there... But the whole time we are on Earth, we are suppost to be building a better place for generations to come. Some say it's way too late, and we're all dead. I think that's a defestest view. Everything can be fixed.
If someone is quite happy to believe in Jesus and God... Let them be, because if you try to convert them or 'speak the real truth, there's just all sorts of problems with that.
It's a learning experience. Life begins at 40
(I have 17 more years before my life begins hahaha)
----
One last thing.... check this out... could be very very fake, but doesn't this look like a 'chariot'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qEZ_McQE3Y
'They came from the heavens (sky) in their fiery chariots'
lol just a thought.
><
I agree with this at a certain point, as long as the person doesn't bring up the subject of religion. Then I will try to show him that his happiness can't be that stable since it's built on, what I think, is a ground of fairytales.
What I really mean is that I will not - as many theists would - ''convert'' people to my way of thinking', unless provoked. And then again, I would do it in defense, actually, not with the goal of converting the person.
How long were you there for and how extensively did you search this out? Most places I go, if I stay on the main tourist strip I find no suffering too.
Could it be that you finally said something smart?
I guess not. Are you saying that the Wright brothers shouldn't have bothered to master flight due to all the theories on what was required at the time? You're saying Franklin shouldn't have bothered with the telephone? Are you saying Curie shouldn't have bothered her research which lead to the discovery of radioactivity due to how many theories there were at the time? It sure sounds to me like you are.
If none of these people put in the time and effort, and if the tens (if not hundreds) of others who failed in their endeavours didn't put in all their time and effort, none of these things would have been done. It's the perfect reason to put in the research, and that is ultimately what science in itself is leading towards through understanding the universe.
To my understanding, you're telling me aids, MS and cancer research should be halted too?
Until something IS proven and an accurate scientific theory created about it, we should not believe it.
More often than not it's brick walls in other peoples minds, actually. Non-theists and science are more open to change as they learn more.
Organised religion is the ultimate form of blasphemy.
Censored and blacked out for internet access in ANZ!
AU: http://nocleanfeed.com/ | NZ: http://nzblackout.org/
Well, actually I was about to re-correct myself...
I was only in Samoa for 2 weeks, and I should have said that obviosuly somewhere on that island there was suffering.
LOL @ your other coments... I mean, you're right in the sence that the theroies should be reserched, but I was refering to God. God is somewhat different than a rule of flight, or a light globe. Those things are achievable, because they can be built/tested/used.
Who knows, oneday we might find the answers to everything. And I really 'hope' that time is 2012. But even that subject opens a can of worms.
Don't believe anything which is unprooven? Well... Where do we draw the line with that? Just God?
By that, I could just say you're all liars, and you DO believe in God, becasue there's no proof that you don't. (Part from a few words, which thesedays means nothing.)
Let's just say, that in the 'future' all may be revealed. Until then, we all could do with some peace and quiet.
><
Out of curiousity (since I might have missed something in the thread), why 2012?
I disagree. While obviously one should hold off on forcing any particular belief down anyone's throat, there is absolutely nothing wrong with opening a position to the brutal honesty of reasoned discourse. It does not particularly matter if someone is "happy believing something" or not, that is not to say that any belief should be forced upon anyone, but on the other hand, one certainly cannot close any proposition or set of propositions to brutal honesty or to reasoned argument solely by virtue of that there are people who are "happy believing them". If we exercised this sort of reasoning in any other discipline of human endeavor...nothing would ever be accomplished.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
What is special about the year 2012? Furthermore to that, the idea that we will have the answer to every question possible with four years of research from now...is surely the pedestal of idiotic nonsense of suggestions.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Yeh maybe.
2012 is well known as the end of the Mayan calender (by our calenders its actually Jan 3rd 2013) and it represents the 'New Age' in the zodiac, which is based on the solar system. People reckon that this will be the time that everyone on Earth will learn the full history of everything in real time. Ok, sounds very crazy indeed. Part from the fact that they could just be referring to the internet when they say 'real time'. Although, they also reckon that the 13 crystal skulls also hold some answers. Somehow.
But it works both ways for Athiests and Creationists. Maybe its the year in which we learn that all of the religious stuff was just an overgrown story for $ making. Like a huge overgrown comic, which people took seriously. I can't wait to find out.
><
This isn't a "knowledge" of conciousness in everything you speak of. It's a religious belief, a completely unproven faith.
Exactly. It's getting more and more insane in the modern world. We should be living in the age of reason, just like Richard Dawkins said.
Never heard of a place like that, but your description here reminds me of my home country, Finland. Yes, there are religious people but no one talks about it, and I have yet to see a finnish preacher.
Although my grandma has been trying to manipulate my beliefs without success.
Trust and believe in no god, but trust and believe in yourself.
Such a year has come and gone many times over. What generation hasn't seen a group of followers who thought themselves so self-important that the world would end on their watch?
Why wait until 2012 (itself rather arbitrary, given the inherent inacuracies in any calendar) to find out it's nonsense. Use common sense and you can find out now.
There are no theists on operating tables.
Oh, it's the Long Count. Actually, the end of the current Age for the Long Count, according to the GMT (Goodman, Martinez, Thompson) correllation (the most widely used) is Dec. 21, 2012. Which, incidentally, is a friend of mine's 43rd birthday. Given that's the day he will no longer be 42 (The Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, The Universe, and Everything), I've told him that if the world ends, it's all his fault. That's as likely and rational as believing everyone will suddenly 'learn the history of everything in real time'.
It might also be the year in which the vast majority of people following the Long Count's countdown find out that in fact, there are Long Count predictions running out to at least 4700 AD, and get over this latest 'the world is ending' frippery.
I mean, hell, if you're going to get into end of the world imagery, use something like the prophecies of St. Malachi. At least that actually does claim the world is about to end.
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
Well, there's a term which goes something like 'Your world will crash down.' As in thier belief, not nessasarly the planet.
Why wait? Good point.
><
Well, most diseases have a cure, it's just the fact that there's a lot of money to be made in suffering as we all know.
I could ramble on for years about the medical industry, and thier withholding of life saving information... But, I'll link yaz all just two docos which I have learnt from for now
Vaccination - Hidden Truth
http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=-7100656274768168938
(the full length one was on google vid, like a month ago. Now it's gone ffs!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIhkjS6Ln5w
This device apparently can eliminate the cause of all sorts of nasty stuff, with no side effects... And its pretty much instant. None of these drugs/waiting periods.
--- other topic ---
And here's a bit of Mr Dobson:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2LQxZ6e9Cw
><
So what percentage of medical researchers are evil?
This video is obvious scare-mongering. What do you know about immunizations? Why does this video seem like important information to you?
Hmm. I have never come across this particular claim before, so I did some quick reading.
The claim is that radio frequencies can kill bacteria. The frequency range reported to be of use by this man is in the range of 10 kHz to 100 MHz.
One problem: I am willing to bet that, if you live anywhere near an airport or metropolitan area, you are being hit by frequencies in this range right now. So: do people who can receive AM radio, television stations or live near an airport ever get the diseases this man claimed to be able to cure?
Please exercise more critical thinking in the future. Just because someone says they're being "suppressed" doesn't mean they shouldn't be: frauds and quacks need to be suppressed to be kept from doing harm.
--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.
Congratulations! You're stupid as fuck.
Götter sind für Arten, die sich selbst verraten -- in den Glauben flüchten um sich hinzurichten. Menschen brauchen Götter um sich zu verletzen, um sich zu vernichten -- das sind wir.
Fuck isnt that stupid, it got you here didn't it?
Haha, such a rational response.
They are using the Rife technology in the USA right now. I don't know how it works, and it's silly for people to expect me to feed them information.
Sorry, but I think the people in this site have potential to find out anything they want. And I find it sad, that just becasue I mention it, suddnenly you can't believe it.
Aha, but if I was an Athiest, you would probably listen.
Absolutley redicullious.
><
><
ok, then how about actually explaining the information you're saying is important, but apparently got left out?
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
Kingdom9, thanks for praying for us atheists .... luv you too , wouldn't want to end up in Hell,
amen .... saving humanity from god of abe,
THANKS so much, and that jesus on a bloody cross , COOL ....
Atheism Books.
The information about Vaccinations, can be found if YOU look. There's testamonies, official reports, doctors themselfs warning people... And if you want me to get this information for you, well... No.
Actually, I don't want to explain anything anymore... The people here don't care anyway. They are too wraped in their own belief/world.
A bit of a generalization, because there are good pple in this forum, but its very tainted.
--- what's this? I am leaving? OH PRAISE THE ATHIEST LORD!
><
Well, here's the thing: If I look, then I'll likely find a massive amount of information. But the odds that I'll find the specific information you're saying I should be looking for aren't necessarily all that great. So I'm asking for your help in pointing us in the right direction.
I'm trying to remain open-minded, and I'm asking for your help... and yet, you're both refusing that help, while simultaneously claiming we don't care.
So, you're refusing the help I'm asking you to give, accusing me of being the one being difficult, and I'm not supposed to find this behavior damaging to the goal of trusting you?
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
Yeah...the "truth". Here's the thing:
I've spent some time working with people that deal with immunizations and the spread of disease. I am not a biologist nor MD; everything I've learned I've learned on the job from people who ARE biologists or MDs.
Fully 0% of the MDs I have ever spoken to about the safety of vaccines have voiced any concerns other than "people with condition X should not be given vaccine Y" (i.e. a clinical reason to deny the vaccine). Fully 100% of the objections I have heard raised about the safety of vaccines, or that vaccines cause other diseases such as autism are wrong. No equivocation, no possibilities: wrong.
Sometimes, children die or have autism; the DPT/DTaP vaccines are not to blame. Bereaved parents want to know why it happened to them; they are in pain and want to blame someone or something for harm to a loved one. Unfortunately, they are usually making a post hoc ergo propter hoc error ('after the thing therefore because of the thing' ). They assume that because their child died or was diagnosed with a disease (usually autism) after receiving an immunization, that means the immunization caused the disease or death. While lightning both precedes and causes thunder, I'm sure you can think of cases where a second event is not caused by the first.
--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.