Yoohoo...

originally posted by: lostgirl
a reply to: Annee

What a stunningly perspicacious observation!

My goodness, why would anyone think that a work of "literature" had been the topic under discussion?

Seemed to be the root of argument.

Feel free to enlighten me otherwise.

originally posted by: 19Bones79

I'll have you know that even though Fauci is vastly more qualified than me, medically speaking, I still maintain that even a chimp like me operating yes/no buttons would've done a better job of handling the covid response.


I don't subscribe to argument from authority.

This for instance. So you thought when I said, "So maybe a mirror or some humility might be in order. There have been intellects much greater than you or I on both sides of this issue, eh?" I was making an appeal to authority or there was some insult in it?

I think it's clear that wasn't an appeal to authority but rather an appeal to be willing--both of us--to challenge our own perceptions.

I figured since you acknowledge there's something freaky-deaky in some way about biblical prophecy that you had already pursued the possibility that Christianity in particular might be nothing more than the penultimate of social-self-psychology to include the larger concept of self-fulfilling prophecy with some Carl Jung thrown in for good. That's an interesting argument worth exploring. I've wrestled with it and finally rejected it but I thought you might have some challenges in that regard that I hadn't thought of.

"Ancient Aliens?" Hellz yeah. I do think they come into play and ain't that part of the discussion? The Jews? And I mean as master chess-piece movers---okay. I mean how connected would such a group be to political Zionism? Because I think they would have to be pretty much connected wouldn't they?

So far, maybe other than certain definitions, we seem to kind of be seeing some of the same things.

I might do a drive-by here and there on issues of faith but I don't really do what I'm enjoying doing here. I respect your intellect enough to be willing to be both vulnerable and intellectually challenging. I kind of thought we both were.

Lots to respond to.

I just finished my nightshift again, be back in a couple of hours.

originally posted by: The GUT
a reply to: 19Bones79

Woah. I thought you started being rude and side-stepping your proffer of a real discussion. But if it's me I'll own it. I'll be back to elaborate & elucidate on that---got stuffs in my way right now.

I bet we'll have a great and wide-ranging conversation yet.

How was I being rude? You boasted of being able to offer a better argument for my position and I invited you to do just that.


I can show all places you not only interjected on her behalf but got smarmy as well doing it.

We should be able to have a good conversation, and we did, up until the point where you began to run defense for someone else.

a reply to: lostgirl

from the context of our previous posts, that my use of the term "Faith" (capital 'F') was 'shorthand' for "the concept of God"!!!

Faith (in the concept of God) does not equal the concept of God.

These two things are separate. One is a concept and the other is a statement on your disposition towards that concept.


When you decided to be a Christian you've already made up your mind that he exists, he is the reason you became a follower of Christianity.

Do you have a relationship with something you (believe) might be real?

Then I propose that you believe you might have a relationship with a concept you believe might be real.

- eventually came to the point of realizing that (logically) he could no longer deny the existence of God."

That remains to be seen.

C.S. Lewis started out as an avowed atheist - he wanted no part of Faith - it was in no way his "preferred choice" and if you had bothered to think about the above info the first time I wrote it, you'd have realized how ridiculous your comment below sounds in response!

Not at all. My observation was directed towards all the believers in the world in general, regardless of how you choose to manipulate it towards one example among billions.

So, you googled the German word, "sehnsucht", and then accepted the very first result ("yearning" is not a fully accurate translation) for use in your big 'take down' of C.S. Lewis - wow, way to exercise the old intellect!!

As a matter of fact, I found a free pdf download link at Orcutt Christian Church website and started reading the book.

But I do enjoy your feistyness and see the humor in it as well.

Do you read Latin, Greek, Old English, Old German, and Old Norse? Have you written entire books on ancient authors and their works? Have you ever received scholarly accolades for your intellectual achievements?

More blah.

As if any of that is relevant to the subject of discussion.


You want to put a label of intellectual exclusivity through prior academic achievement as a prerequisite through which the validity of my opinion can be disqualified.

Does that qualify you by any chance?

Does the amount of exclamation marks you use solidify your argument in any way?

Are you ascending to the level of CAPS LOCK next?

....though, I admit, the imaginary worlds they created are very enjoyable.

Enjoyed their fiction since I was a child.

Because, surely (?) nothing like the above could possibly be achieved by anyone so "mentally lazy" (to quote you), as a person of who believes in God and has an appreciation for imagination?

Imagination begets imagination?

As above, so below?

Sorry - clearly I've been wasting my time here...I thought I was conversing with someone who understood the value of attaining new knowledge in pursuit of intellectual growth.

In a sense, yes.

Your reluctance to explain the book in question makes me wonder if you are able to.


As I've stated earlier, I am in the process of reading the book so this discussion is put on hold for now, if you wish to know my take on the book.


I'm dealing with a bit of work related stress in the real world so I can't promise a speedy conclusion although if Lewis is as entertaining as any of his other works it might be sooner than I think.

You don't know anything at all about actual 'Faith'...it doesn't in the least "feel good", the truest kind of 'Faith' is a rough journey up a steep road, but I go where the evidence (and the thinking of superior minds) leads...

I'm sorry to hear that, Lostgirl.


We can talk again as soon as I finish 'Surprised by joy'.


Go well.

a reply to: The GUT

"So maybe a mirror or some humility might be in order. There have been intellects much greater than you or I on both sides of this issue, eh?"

No insult there.

Is there anything specific that these great intellects have come up with in relation to the discussion that you would like to share?


Here's my issue with both you and Lostgirl wrt the approach you're taking to talk to me.


I speak from the heart and based upon my own experiences in the world. I apply my own thought to your words and don't regurgitate another atheist's catchphrases which is what a lot of other atheists do. They become walking advertisements for someone else, never bothering to apply their own understanding to whatever it is they are parroting.


If the two of you have reached a place in the discussion where it becomes necessary to outsource your viewpoints to someone more capable of expanding upon your feelings and thoughts then it becomes an assignment.

Especially if not even the slightest of summaries can be shared about the work in question.


Then it becomes mentally lazy to the point where you make this discussion some dead guy's problem to deal with.


I'm here for a discussion.

Not a "look at this guy he thinks he's smarter than CS Lewis but he can't speak 5 languages so let's use that as a counterargument" bs.


I want to hear your thought processes when you speak to me, as I have given this very courtesy to you.

And initially, this is how the discussion began before you got distracted.

I did not compliment you for no reason at the beginning, I could see someone not afraid to pursue his own line of thought no matter where it takes him he'll stay true to the integrity of the enquiry.


And yet, here we are in a place where I'm being admonished to humble myself.

For what?

I just want to say it took me 72 years to completely step out of the "God Circle".

I don't think I missed anything along the way in education or life experience to bring me to the conclusion.

I did try to accept what I was taught (indoctrinated) from an early age, but eventually realized I never believed.

You would have to rely on Faith, because in reality there are no facts to support "mythical" Christ or a God -- unless god is a title for an off-planet being (or programmer) monitoring humans on earth (possibly a simulated world).

Experiencing many "psychic" (for lack of better word) happenings throughout my life -- there is more going on than what we know. Just not a God (in the religious sense).

a reply to: The GUT

I figured since you acknowledge there's something freaky-deaky in some way about biblical prophecy that you had already pursued the possibility that Christianity in particular might be nothing more than the penultimate of social-self-psychology to include the larger concept of self-fulfilling prophecy with some Carl Jung thrown in for good. That's an interesting argument worth exploring. I've wrestled with it and finally rejected it but I thought you might have some challenges in that regard that I hadn't thought of.

Now this is what I came here for!


I would love to know what lead you to reject the idea of self fulfilling prophecies.


Because we are in agreement that the Bible is a blueprint.

Where we differ is its inspiration.

"Ancient Aliens?" Hellz yeah. I do think they come into play and ain't that part of the discussion?

Within the context of the Bible or in some broader outline?

The Jews? And I mean as master chess-piece movers---

As the people who bestowed the Abrahamic traditions on most people of the world, they are absolutely masters of constructs.

I can't post the protocols of the elders of Zion here on ATS unfortunately as it is against the t's and c's (I think]) but there are copies floating around on the internet and as a blueprint for what has transpired since it has been declared a fake about a century ago nothing else has come close to outlining the path the world has taken in the years since that document got exposed.

Whoever wrote it knew with certainty the engineered path of humanity going forward.

So far, maybe other than certain definitions, we seem to kind of be seeing some of the same things.

The details may vary slightly , but I think we both realize that there are some very powerful illusions at play that most people never scrutinize past any mild offering from MSM sources.

20 years ago most people would think you were a bit of a loon if you brought up the existence of UFOs and the media trained them in their reflex responses.

It wasn't 'reasonable' to be such an avid believer in UFOs.

Things sure have changed and it's not because of people like us, it's because the MSM and TPTB started to change the narrative.

a reply to: Annee

It has been wrongly observed in this discussion that I have never come from a position of faith and that I simply don't understand what it is I am talking about.


Let me just add to your voice and say I have come to my conclusion initially through faith and ultimately through logic and intuition.

originally posted by: 19Bones79
a reply to: Annee

It has been wrongly observed in this discussion that I have never come from a position of faith and that I simply don't understand what it is I am talking about.


Let me just add to your voice and say I have come to my conclusion initially through faith and ultimately through logic and intuition.

Well there's "faith" and "Faith".

I have faith in my journey of personal discovery which continues to evolve.

Nothing I was taught fit. It just didn't feel right. I followed my intuition, weighing it against logic.

So, now I believe basically that everything is energy and/or an energy creation.

a reply to: 19Bones79
You seem to have mischaracterized me in your own mind, which is why you felt the need to go into 'self-defence' mode and systematically refute individual statements rather than taking time to reflect on what you've read within the context in which it was written.

This has caused us to end up in this cycle where you make your systematic refutations, and then I have to clarify my position in response to your miscomprehension...

When you decided to be a Christian you've already made up your mind that he exists, he is the reason you became a follower of Christianity.

I never "decided to be a Christian" - I'm not even sure I count as one, because I'm a bit on the fence as to whether Jesus was the 'literal Son of God'.

You want to put a label of intellectual exclusivity through prior academic achievement as a prerequisite through which the validity of my opinion can be disqualified.

The above is absolutely untrue.
You are the one who has been attempting to invalidate my perspective by casting aspersions on highly educated authors whose academic achievements make their opinions worthy of 'hearing out'...

...all I have ever done is recommend scholarly reading materials, which are well worth the time of any person who 'claims' to be interested in learning.

Your reluctance to explain the book in question makes me wonder if you are able to.

How is this:
"an amazing biography that outlines the process by which an intelligent, highly educated, atheist college professor (using techniques for logical thinking instilled in him by the atheist educator who tutored him as a youth) -

- eventually came to the point of realizing that (logically) he could no longer deny the existence of God.

(Don't be fooled by the 'sappy' sounding title - it is not at all a 'religious' book)
It is an incredibly intellectual work - I was astonished by the sheer amount of learning required for a boy to have any hope of entering university in early 1900's England! People in this day and age have no idea what was once meant by the phrase, 'Classical Education'.

It's quite an enjoyable read, giving one a glimpse into pre-World War Britain."
'not' an explanation of the book?

As I've stated earlier, I am in the process of reading the book so this discussion is put on hold for now, if you wish to know my take on the book.

Perhaps, if you had mentioned the above sooner rather than dismissively accusing me of 'giving you a reading assignment', and then badgering me for explanations, which had in fact already been given, it might have saved us both some time.

You know, I just honestly thought you might have the kind of intellectual curiosity which would enjoy learning how it could be that a man as extremely intelligent and highly educated as C.S. Lewis went from being a staunch, life-long atheist to becoming a confirmed Christian...

It's really quite a fascinating story, not the least, due to the fact that C.S. Lewis was famous back in his day for being supremely "logical".

Whatever...enjoy the book, or don't. I don't care.

a reply to: Annee

I have faith in my journey of personal discovery which continues to evolve.

Nothing I was taught fit. It just didn't feel right. I followed my intuition, weighing it against logic.

So, now I believe basically that everything is energy and/or an energy creation.

Well that's very interesting, I could say much the same about my own journey.

You know, according to many quantum physics theorists, it's true that at the root of all existence, "everything is energy".

What if there was a positive energy that existed before the universe, and then used part of it's energy to create the entire universe, and then thru observing the evolution of consciousness in human beings, began to evolve it's own consciousness to the point that it decided to interact with humans?

Gee, wouldn't that qualify as God?

a reply to: lostgirl

You'd think that I would've learned by now that these discussions never end up in a good place.


I wish you well, Lostgirl.


I mean that.

originally posted by: lostgirl
a reply to: Annee

I have faith in my journey of personal discovery which continues to evolve.

Nothing I was taught fit. It just didn't feel right. I followed my intuition, weighing it against logic.

So, now I believe basically that everything is energy and/or an energy creation.

Well that's very interesting, I could say much the same about my own journey.

You know, according to many quantum physics theorists, it's true that at the root of all existence, "everything is energy".

What if there was a positive energy that existed before the universe, and then used part of it's energy to create the entire universe, and then thru observing the evolution of consciousness in human beings, began to evolve it's own consciousness to the point that it decided to interact with humans?

Gee, wouldn't that qualify as God?

There is creation.

Are there simultaneous creations?

Perhaps layered creations.

Is energy the creator or is creation a manipulator of energy?

The concept of a singular religious God is a manmade construct.

An explanation of the unexplainable.

People will say they feel God in church. You get that same euphoric feeling at a football game. Its accumulated energy.

a reply to: lostgirl

Gee, wouldn't that qualify as God?

Maybe, but keep in mind the reformation tried to narrow it down, but the old Roman Gods are still around along with other entities that are convinced they are Gods as well. The cosmos is much more complicated than the mind of man can comprehend but with the right impetus you can look at the data, and get a slight glimpse; but can you decipher it.

The doors of Perception are unlocked but don't dare cross the threshold without shield of knowledge and the sword of FAITH.

Buy the ticket, Take the Ride....

a reply to: 19Bones79

I'll have you know that even though Fauci is vastly more qualified than me, medically speaking, I still maintain that even a chimp like me operating yes/no buttons would've done a better job of handling the covid response.

Depends what you mean by "handling" it.

If you mean actually addressing the public honestly, and giving wise, honest, and prudent medical advice in the face of the not so deadly pandemic, then I agree he did a horrible job. Of course, I don't think that he was put in that position to do the job I just described in this paragraph.

His real job appears to have been to hype the crap out of a bad cold and flu year, sell lots and lots of PCR tests despite their questionable reliability, get billions of people to send in DNA samples(PCR test), and sell lots and lots of experimental injections, despite their questionable safety, which he appears to have performed remarkably well...

originally posted by: 19Bones79
a reply to: XXXN3O

Great observations.

If we believe that nothing under the sun is new, and our natural progression is steering us towards a Simulation, then who's to say this is the first time this is happening? And why won't the next simulation evolve to a scenario where they create a simulation inside that simulation?

TEOT beat me to it, but this line of reasoning reminds me of Plato's cave. In a sense we ARE all in a simulation, because we are all in our own version of Plato's cave watching shadows dancing on the wall and deciding to ourselves what it all means. The big picture is something else entirely than what most see I'd imagine. Few, if any, actually see the whole picture, the big picture.

Say I have enough epiphanies one of these days and delude myself into thinking that I've got it all figured out. What makes my version of it any more valid than the guy down the road who thinks he's got it all figured out? Nothing but our own biased perceptions? It all gets pretty subjective pretty quickly.

a reply to: 19Bones79

It's the sovereignty above all else that makes me stand back and question it all.

I can list numerous examples from the Bible where I find that sovereignty repulsive and certainly not a moral high ground from which any foundation can be laid that I can associate my soul with.

And if I stand morally opposed, I cannot in good conscience deny intuitive reasoning that something that is described as perfect is in fact not.

I would rather be faithless than disingenuous to my own understanding of right and wrong.

If one turns a blind eye to certain behaviors because of sovereignty, then all other concepts of spirituality lose their value, in my opinion.

I'd tend to agree. The flood myth. Rather mysterious preliminary description in there... The Tower of Babel tale. Hey these guys are doing alright. If they keep it up they'll be able to do anything! Let's just go and poop all over that!

The frickin' serpent symbol on a staff thing that he made the Isrealites carry out while they wandered in the wilderness. "And if you don't do it, I'm going to drop poisonous serpents on you from the sky!" WTF? Seems like this fella is kind of a jerk sometimes. Not exactly the best example of pinnacles of morality to which one should aspire, at times, it would seem.

a reply to: 19Bones79

a reply to: The GUT

The above examples also tend to support your musings here. They all also smack of some technologically advanced ancient group of beings, rather than the sort of disembodied all-permeating intelligence that God is typically presented as, on critical analysis.

Those are only a few examples, but history and mythology is full of these sorts of juxtaposed chronicled events that strongly suggest some physical intervention from actual physical beings that were thought to be gods because of their amazing capabilities that couldn't be understood by the average person at the time.

Sitchin's work does a great job of chronicling this. Whatever you think about his 12th planet and Annunaki theories, he did a great job of pointing out the enigmas of archaeology and mythology.

"Forbidden Archaeology" by Michael Cremo (which I've never read, though I have heard him interviewed a few times) also goes into quite a bit of detail on enigmatic archaeology, which is often suppressed or censored because it doesn't fit the dominant origin theories.

I always say: read the facts of John Chapman.

Then read the myth of Johnny Appleseed.

This is real time -- real person -- documented -- showing fact vs myth.

Most myths are built on an actual event. But they are not reality.

a reply to: 19Bones79

Even a non-believer such as myself can recognize an intelligence and a plan laid out thousands of years in the making, and the skill of interweaving said plan into folklore, legend and mythology, religion and culture in such a complex and skilled manner as to almost defy any sense of logic as it unfolds exactly as intended.

As if this is not the first time they've been doing it.

I'm leaning towards an intelligence that is not human, ancient, secretive and connected to only a handful of elites that know the true nature of our reality and acts as loyal servants to this intelligence.


It's obvious to me we are a slave species, in every sense of the word.

This. I mean, maybe. There does seem to be something to this whole death cult business. It does appear to be actually happening, and does appear to be more than a "weekend fun for evil sociopaths" type of phenomenon. On the other hand, perhaps it's just another religion that those people practice.

You can certainly see the world as a sort of matrix, a well crafted control system designed to keep people in line, if you look at it with a cynical enough eye. I think there's even a historical context for it, at surface level. Late nineteenth, early twentieth century. The logical conclusions reached from Hegelian dialectic philosophy culminating with early structuring of pubic education systems. "We want workers, not thinkers!" was the prevailing attitude of the architects, IIRC. Here we are, 150 years later...Thanks, Rockefeller...

I tend to speculate that it's actually deeper and more entrenched than that, though I don't know that I could ever prove it. Think of the archetypes in our best stories, and how they shape humanity's perceptions...

The easiest one to expound on is romantic love. Romeo and Juliet... What might a romantic do for love, or in the name of love? That's a nice pretty box that one can shove themselves into, isn't it? Is that really what it has to be, though? THOSE ideas, the ones you have to reside in the box to believe in? Not really, yet like lemmings over a cliff, most shove themselves into that mold of ideal based on what we've been taught it's supposed to be, and in doing so unknowingly agree to follow a set of unwritten but largely followed rules.

It's a cheap trick, a magician's sleight of hand, that we almost all fall for without realizing it. I'm not saying love is all a cheap trick, but I am saying that the archetypes that we are all taught to idealize are often stumblingblocks, cheap tricks that are used to control us.

It's a safe bet that there is forbidden knowledge that some are privy to, and that is kept from the masses. Enlightened humanity probably scares the crap out of TPTB, whether that is for mundane reasons or arcane ones. Harder to control and exploit.

Also, looks like many of them have been some bad boys and girls. That right there is probably enough for them to want to keep a lid on whatever they can, regardless of how mundane or fantastic those hidden truths may be.