It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Atheists and Dawkins Believe in God

page: 9
12
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Yes, and how i say things is also related to my language difficulties. But you wouldn't know that, since you never argued in another langauge than your own.

Like this example:

"By claiming what you say is the absolutte truth, i see as immature"

This was a poor choice of word, but couldn't think of any better combination of english words, which could explain my point better. I never said that you claimed everything you said was the absolutte truth, but your explanations and arguments come of as if you think it's the absolutte truth. This is both an example of you taking it out of context with the rest of my post, because later in my post i say "If you could admit, that your explanation/argument isn't meant to reflect the truth but your opinion, i wouldn't see it as immature", with that said after the absolutte truth thing, i thought it would be pretty clear that i didn't mean that you ever said it, but that your argument come of as if that was what you meant, and it's an example of me not choosing the right combination of words, or just the right words, so i can get my explanation of my thoughts.

There are many example's of misunderstanding from your side all through our discussion. Sorry, if your insulted by that!!

"Your education is piss poor"

I would consider an example like that an indirect insult, and there are many more example's of this.

Or how about "More and utter garbage" "It's complete BS". Well, these are your opinions. So is the negative emotion thing.

I tend to believe people that live by their advise, not some dude who makes a theory based on a probably biased study, just because he is a scientist. I would rather listen to those people in my life who come of as extremly more succesfull and happy and also seems to know everything about you and others, than some scientist, who made a theory, based on a study, but who come of as unhealthy, unhappy, etc. Sorry, that's just me!!! I've seen scientist explaning thing's according to neuroscience and scientific studies. But when it comes to your mind, and emotions, it's all theory, no actual evidence other than the placebo effect that is more an evidence that positive thinking is good for your body because positive thinking creates positive emotions. I don't think negative emotions do any good for your body, they are either a symptom of negative thinking(focussing on bad instead of the good) or a symptom of something else that's not really healthy for you. I have ALOT of people in my life, and what i see as different between them, is that the healthy and happy ones tends to practice positive thinking and really don't like to argu, the one's that like to argu gets almost sick when the see someone being extremly happy.

They use the same excuses you use, like it's all new age #, negative emotions are good for you, etc. Still, they never really get anywere, keeps arguing with their boyfriends/Girlfriends, the guys gets angry because they really don't understand a girls mentallity, the grils keeps creating drama to satisfy themself mentally and emotionally because the unknowing guys don't have a clue as how to do that. They are stuck on a unfulfilling and unambitious job and seems to the rest of us as pretty unhappy inside. So excuse me for listening to my more succesfull friends, which make more and more money every year, seem to be incredible happy and healthy where my more negatice friends keeps complainig about illness, body pain, obesity, headaches, stomach problems, etc.

Also, is everything which you consider "New age" wrong and BS? If so, who is generalizing now and making false accusations.

BTW, my quote's were taking from memory, not from actual quote's, because i really don't have the desire to do all that quote/answer thing. I'm not that interested in this discuss

[edit on 27-6-2010 by JokerzReality]




posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by JokerzReality
 



Yes, and how i say things is also related to my language difficulties. But you wouldn't know that, since you never argued in another langauge than your own.


That depends as your offering no other explanation or translation for words such as hostile and immature and you are still using them in argument against me.


This was a poor choice of word, but couldn't think of any better combination of english words, which could explain my point better. I never said that you claimed everything you said was the absolutte truth, but your explanations and arguments come of as if you think it's the absolutte truth.


So your simply assuming that I think certain things are absolute truths?


This is both an example of you taking it out of context with the rest of my post, because later in my post i say "If you could admit, that your explanation isn't meant to be the truth but your opinion, i wouldn't see it as immature", with that said after the absolutte truth thing, i thought it would be pretty clear that i didn't mean that you ever said it, but that your argument come of as if that was what you meant, and it's an example of me not choosing the right combination of words, or just the right words, so i can get my explanation of my thoughts.


I have not taken a single thing you've said out of context. I have simply counter-argued your points in the context in which you've provided. If you feel a misunderstanding has taken place, then proper resolution is to CLARIFY, not to continue using the same god damn context in which you claim is a misunderstanding/mistranslation/language barrier excuse.


There are many example's of misunderstanding from your side all through our discussion. Sorry, if your insulted by that!!


Yet you proffer no alternative explanation, instead you keep right on track with the same arguments and insults.


"Your education is piss poor"

I would consider an example like that an indirect insult, and there are many more example's of this.


How is that an insult? You admitted that your opinions are based upon your experiences, research and education. If your education is causing to propagate erroneous false claims of another groups beliefs, then that education is extremely piss poor. Hi, I'm an Atheist. Or have you forgotten? Instead of telling me how I conduct myself or should, how about you make note of what I as an Atheist have to say instead of you determining that for me in such an inaccurate insulting way?


BTW, my quote's were taking from memory, not from actual quote's, because i really don't have the desire to do all that quote/answer thing. I'm not that interested in this discussion.


Your point is?



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 




How is that an insult? You admitted that your opinions are based upon your experiences, research and education. If your education is causing to propagate erroneous false claims of another groups beliefs, then that education is extremely piss poor. Hi, I'm an Atheist. Or have you forgotten? Instead of telling me how I conduct myself or should, how about you make note of what I as an Atheist have to say instead of you determining that for me in such an inaccurate insulting way?


Maybe i missed something, where do i propagate erroneous false claims of another groups beliefs? If you're refering to the fact that atheist seem more hostile towards believers and that by me claiming that, it's uneducated, i don't see your point. I mean how is that uneducated. IT'S an OPINION!!! I state it as i see it. It's not a false accusation, when i see atheist does that and when i see you are doing it to me. Maybe you're not hostile, maybe you're blind to see it from my point of view. But you come of as hostile and making insults, talking down to me and claiming you don't while i do!!

They are NOT more hostile than the religious fundamentalist who take everything in the bible literally and thinks the earth is only 6000 years old, you're right. But when it come's to an believer who just like to point out why he belief God exist and why he thinks an atheist argument is wrong, it seems like some atheist take it personal and talk down to their God and indirectly suggest that the believer is unintelligent, he/she could just rather believe in unicorns or fairies. I understand that argument against an ignorant fundamentalist, but why to a believer who just seem to try and defend their believe in God and not claiming the earth is 6000 earth ol,d not claiming evolution is wrong, not claiming that all atheist are idiots, not claiming the bible is a 100 % accurate description of history, why talk down to them, indirctly insult them and their belief. The believers i refer to are probably more close to new age than religion.

They don't seem to insult the atheist so much as the atheist insults them. They maybe makes statement that atheism is a faith, but that's the closest thing they come to an insult. And when an atheist take THAT as an personal insult, i think it's immature. I didn't wan't to mention any names, that's why i stated it as are more general thing in my original post. But you could look through this thread one more time, and if you can't see what i'm refering to, i DO believe youre blind because of your bias.

Then i offered my personal opinion on the whole subject. You took it at something you needed to defend for some reason, where i just wanted to offer my personal opinions and probably discuss how hard atheist and believers have to look at it from each others point of view. You gave me two options which by your opinion was the only two reasons behind my original post.

Also, i don't think God is mythological, i believe in God but not the Gods i see as mythological, which include the God of the bible. I see God as an theory of the ultimate creator, we are here are we not? Somthing did start the big bang!! Life did start!! Also the God in personal experiences i see as evidence, like in NDE's, mystical experiences, etc. And i believe that the God of the bible reflects some true aspects of him/her/it, but not that he/she/it is him/her/that.

Your video with the atheist who had an NDE could be an atheist just lying because he wanted to prove that an person can still be atheist even after an NDE were one supposely feel gods present. If you blindly believe what he is saying whithout questioning his motives, i believe that's called conformation bias. I haven't seen any well documented cases were one wouldn't change his/her mind after, but of course i'm not denying that it happens, it probably does.

[edit on 27-6-2010 by JokerzReality]



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 07:20 PM
link   
Oh and one last thing. I think you should look through my last post you responded to. You missed the point i edited in.

Now i would say we are finished here. We are WAY off topic now. And i think we should get back to topic. The only flaw i see is that i didn't reconize that the OP made an silly attack on the atheist, but what you pointed out as constradiction wasn't flaws, but you misunderstanding my point, which i don't blame you for, cause it was quite hard to understand, you almost needed to guess my point. That's what language barriers do unfortuantly.

Now either way i'm done with this thread. I promise this is my last post in this thread. Unless of course i see you making an extremly ignorant counter-argument, but i don't think so. You are none the less a pretty smart guy, just seems a little TO proud of your atheism which also can cause you to misunderstand a believers point i think and be a little blind in the atheistic point of view. Now notice that i always say "seems" , not that you "are", which mean that you seem to in my mind, don't forget that, thank you!!! I never said i know you, just that you seem like that with your responses, and on a side note, i have always been pretty at reading people online, they almost always like i thought they would be when i meet them irl, but only almost. I DON'T know you.

Oh LAST THING. I never admitted to being a hypocrite, i said "maybe" i was. But your pointing out what you thought were contradction and proof of me being a hypocrite, is in my mind a misunderstanding from your side. I pointed out my flaw in telling the religious person who rang on my door bell, what was wrong with his belief in order to show, that i can see my immature flaw and so should other atheist and believers alike. We can all change our immature behavior and negative thinking and i think we should.

Also, you shouldn't put to much trust in your education. It CAN be very flawed to, and what you think and feel is logic, may just some sort of brainwashed logic from your education. Like when children are practically brainwashed to believe in their parents religion. Our understanding of the universe is extremly limited.

"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education." - Albert Einstein

I tend to agree with above quote!!

This is not a matter of believing or not believing, it is purely a matter of understanding.

[edit on 27-6-2010 by JokerzReality]



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by JokerzReality
 



Maybe i missed something, where do i propagate erroneous false claims of another groups beliefs? If you're refering to the fact that atheist seem more hostile towards believers and that by me claiming that, it's uneducated, i don't see your point. I mean how is that uneducated. IT'S an OPINION!!! I state it as i see it. It's not a false accusation, when i see atheist does that and when i see you are doing it to me. Maybe you're not hostile, maybe you're blind to see it from my point of view. But you come of as hostile and making insults, talking down to me and claiming you don't while i do!!


There you go doing it again. "The fact", no, it's not a "fact". Please don't hand me some BS language barrier mistranslation excuse there either. Fact is not a hard word to screw up. Nor have I made any claim to *NOT* be talking down to you. I've made that point adequately clear by ousting you as a hypocrite for doing the very thing you are bitching about. Do they not teach reading comprehension and common sense in Denmark?


They are NOT more hostile than the religious fundamentalist who take everything in the bible literally and thinks the earth is only 6000 years old, you're right. But when it come's to an believer who just like to point out why he belief God exist and why he thinks an atheist argument is wrong, it seems like some atheist take it personal and talk down to their God and indirectly suggest that the believer is unintelligent, he/she could just rather believe in unicorns or fairies. I understand that argument against an ignorant fundamentalist, but why to a believer who just seem to try and defend their believe in God and not claiming the earth is 6000 earth ol,d not claiming evolution is wrong, not claiming that all atheist are idiots, not claiming the bible is a 100 % accurate description of history, why talk down to them, indirctly insult them and their belief. The believers i refer to are probably more close to new age than religion.


Ah yes, because all non-fundamentalists are just peachy and nice guys. You need a good look at reality here. Your sitting there admitting right now to not seeing an actual perceived problem. Your admitting to cherry picking between groups and beliefs and laying claim that a problem exists with one group in particular and then pretending that defense against this BS claim is somehow proving your ill thought out crap spouting.


They don't seem to insult the atheist so much as the atheist insults them. They maybe makes statement that atheism is a faith, but that's the closest thing they come to an insult. And when an atheist take THAT as an personal insult, i think it's immature. I didn't wan't to mention any names, that's why i stated it as are more general thing in my original post. But you could look through this thread one more time, and if you can't see what i'm refering to, i DO believe youre blind because of your bias.


That's the closest thing? Right... Welcome to ATS buddy, it's worse than what your limited imagination thinks it is. I wonder, would it be immature of the biblical mythologists to be upset if we were to point out that technically speaking, the mythology is polytheistic or at most hedonistic? That's a pretty big point on their beliefs and claim of monotheistic belief.


Then i offered my personal opinion on the whole subject. You took it at something you needed to defend for some reason, where i just wanted to offer my personal opinions and probably discuss how hard atheist and believers have to look at it from each others point of view. You gave me two options which by your opinion was the only two reasons behind my original post.


And I clearly pointed out that your opinion is ill thought out and wholly uneducated on the subject.


Also, i don't think God is mythological, i believe in God but not the Gods i see as mythological, which include the God of the bible. I see God as an theory of the ultimate creator, we are here are we not? Somthing did start the big bang!! Life did start!! Also the God in personal experiences i see as evidence, like in NDE's, mystical experiences, etc. And i believe that the God of the bible reflects some true aspects of him/her/it, but not that he/she/it is him/her/that.


Maybe they don't teach proper science in Denmark or critical thought and common sense, I don't know, I'm not from there so your going to have to explain it to me.

It's an illogical fallacy to assume that the universe requires an intelligent creator simply because mankind is intelligent enough to create technologically or to ponder his existence.

Furthermore, there is no observed evidence for a big bang event, and as such it is only a theoretical musing based upon a few certain assumptions as being true and accurate without further experimentation or observation in those assumptions as being true at all. No such event called the 'big bang' is known in a factual sense to have occurred at any point in the universes lifetime. In so much that the assumption of a big bang has led to a calculation of 13b years of age based on observations correlating with this model based on assumption. Observations however show a structure to the universe that could only have formed if the universe were well over 150b years of age, leading one to either have to concede that no big bang occurred or physics is completely wrong and needs a complete rewrite. Knowing that physics can not be completely wrong as various aspects are well known, well tested, and well verified we can only rightfully conclude that the big bang model of the universe is wholly wrong and never factually occurred.


Your video with the atheist who had an NDE could be an atheist just lying because he wanted to prove that an person can still be atheist even after an NDE were one supposely feel gods present. If you blindly believe what he is saying whithout questioning his motives, i believe that's called conformation bias. I haven't seen any well documented cases were one wouldn't change his/her mind after, but of course i'm not denying that it happens, it probably does.


So now Atheists lie? Your telling me that all those religious people aren't lying about their NDE's, but if an Atheist remains an Atheist after an NDE then he MUST be lying about it or have ulterior motives for lying? No... that's not insulting at all.


Oh and one last thing. I think you should look through my last post you responded to. You missed the point i edited in.


Thanks, I did miss it.


The only flaw i see is that i didn't reconize that the OP made an silly attack on the atheist, but what you pointed out as constradiction wasn't flaws, but you misunderstanding my point


Garbage, really. You keep claiming I don't understand your point whilst making the same arguments continuously without offering up any further clarification as to what your point actually is. Enough of this language barrier excuse. Your English is just fine.


Unless of course i see you making an extremly ignorant counter-argument


So now any defense is going to be considered an extremely ignorant counter-argument? No, your not insulting at all.



just seems a little TO proud of your atheism


Now it's wrong of Atheists to be proud of their beliefs, or rather lack of beliefs?!


I DON'T know you.


Your damn right you don't know me.


We can all change our immature behavior and negative thinking and i think we should.


Yet you show no signs of doing so yourself, knowing full well are doing it and admitting to doing it, but you think everyone else should stop it.


may just some sort of brainwashed logic from your education.


Now your trying to say my government is teaching me brainwashed logic that doesn't compare to the status of Denmark's high education ranking?


Our understanding of the universe is extremly limited.


Apparently not limited for you! You believe that some higher entity called God initiated it all. If you knew the history of religion, you possibly wouldn't have that opinion.


"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education." - Albert Einstein

I tend to agree with above quote!!


That's interesting considering your learning seems to be impacted severely and yet, your education system is so much better than mine. I think that's called irony.


This is not a matter of believing or not believing, it is purely a matter of understanding.


Understand this. There is no reasonable requirement to assume the universe had any beginning whatsoever be it by natural process or by intelligent naked sky daddies in human form that cares deeply for the human race as if they were the only species in need of care in the entire universe.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by JokerzReality
 



I tend to believe people that live by their advise, not some dude who makes a theory based on a probably biased study, just because he is a scientist.


So now your claiming that scientists don't live that way, that they just arbitrarily make up biased theories?


I would rather listen to those people in my life who come of as extremly more succesfull and happy and also seems to know everything about you and others, than some scientist, who made a theory, based on a study, but who come of as unhealthy, unhappy, etc. Sorry, that's just me!!!


Really now? Care to point fingers as to which scientists your specifically referring to? I'd really like to see this mythological unhealthy and unhappy scientist.


I've seen scientist explaning thing's according to neuroscience and scientific studies. But when it comes to your mind, and emotions, it's all theory, no actual evidence


Right ... Even when they can strap you in a chair and induce and NDE experience, it's still not evidence that NDE's at the very least are caused by some physical interaction occurring in the brain. You do realize that and NDE is a NEAR death experience, right? That means you have not actually died, that means your body is still alive and functioning to some extent.


other than the placebo effect that is more an evidence that positive thinking is good for your body because positive thinking creates positive emotions.


No, that is not even accurate at all. How about you learn something about it before arguing it, would that really hurt?


The placebo effect points to the importance of perception and the brain's role in physical health. Placebo


I thought you said you did thing's like research? It seems like your lying now and you haven't bothered to research anything about it.


I don't think negative emotions do any good for your body, they are either a symptom of negative thinking(focussing on bad instead of the good) or a symptom of something else that's not really healthy for you.


Focusing on bad instead of good? You mean optimism vs pessimism? Explain where in biology and neuroscience that pessimism impacts the body in a harmful way.


I have ALOT of people in my life, and what i see as different between them, is that the healthy and happy ones tends to practice positive thinking and really don't like to argu, the one's that like to argu gets almost sick when the see someone being extremly happy.


I don't know them personally, nor their particular lifestyles or personalities so I can't comment specifically on them, thus the point is moot. You keep making mention that I am being negative and that negativity is not good. I'm hardly ever sick, I don't even remember the last damn time I've been sick. I'm betting that it's a crock of garbage and that there is some lifestyle differences between your friends that your either dismissing or not perceiving readily based upon your biased assumption that pessimism impacts the body in a harmful way.


They use the same excuses you use, like it's all new age #


It is! Negative emotions isn't even in the damned dictionary! This is some new made up fad term that is not defined at all as an actual term! Christ, do they not have dictionaries in your country?


negative emotions are good for you, etc.


There is no such thing as a negative emotion, you have emotions for a reason.


Still, they never really get anywere, keeps arguing with their boyfriends/Girlfriends, the guys gets angry because they really don't understand a girls mentallity, the grils keeps creating drama to satisfy themself mentally and emotionally because the unknowing guys don't have a clue as how to do that. They are stuck on a unfulfilling and unambitious job and seems to the rest of us as pretty unhappy inside.


That's called life. People argue, get depressed or throw tantrums. It's NORMAL.


So excuse me for listening to my more succesfull friends, which make more and more money every year, seem to be incredible happy and healthy where my more negatice friends keeps complainig about illness, body pain, obesity, headaches, stomach problems, etc.


Sweet Jesus! Negative emotions cause all that! Can you please point out any verified research that show those claims to be true?


Also, is everything which you consider "New age" wrong and BS? If so, who is generalizing now and making false accusations.


I consider the new age movement to be new age and any newly defined terminology that is not commonly accepted or existent in a dictionary as being BS, yes. Is that generalization, no, it's showing disdain for made up garbage in which no scientific evidence exists to verify the veracity of that made up garbage. Like your lovely little word "negative emotion".



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 

First I must admit something. I don’t understand half of the word you are using. When I look at a English online dictionary, they use words which i don’t understand to explain the words. This I should probably have explained from the start and it’s the source as to why I accuse you of misunderstand my point. It’s hard to give an counter-argument to words you don’t understand.



There you go doing it again. "The fact", no, it's not a "fact". Please don't hand me some BS language barrier mistranslation excuse there either. Fact is not a hard word to screw up. Nor have I made any claim to *NOT* be talking down to you. I've made that point adequately clear by ousting you as a hypocrite for doing the very thing you are bitching about. Do they not teach reading comprehension and common sense in Denmark?


This I why I had to answer. “Please don't hand me some BS language barrier mistranslation excuse there either” This statement is so incredible ignorant, you don’t even know it. I admit, fact was a poor choice of words, nothing more. Don’t put so much into it, it’s just a word.

“Do they not teach reading comprehension and common sense in Denmark?” This question looks like an indirect insult. I’m not sure what you mean with reading comprehension, but I’m pretty sure, that reading something and understanding the meaning of what you’re reading is different from country to country and language to language. I mean, a English word which translates to a Danish word, could give the appearance of having the same meaning, but while the English or Danish word have multiply meanings the word that it translates to does not. Also the combination of words can be confusing. For example the sentence, I have to take a leak, if you would translate that directly from Danish to English it would go like this “I have leak”

You treat my comment like it was an personal attack on you or something. I’m still not sure what adequately or ousting mean. I have an idea when I put it into the context of you comment though.

You still haven’t answered my question. Where do i propagate erroneous false claims of another groups beliefs? I do propagate claims that you seem hostile towards believers, how is the against your groups beliefs?



Ah yes, because all non-fundamentalists are just peachy and nice guys. You need a good look at reality here. Your sitting there admitting right now to not seeing an actual perceived problem. Your admitting to cherry picking between groups and beliefs and laying claim that a problem exists with one group in particular and then pretending that defense against this BS claim is somehow proving your ill thought out crap spouting
.

Did i say that? Hmm… Nope, didn’t think so. Thank you for pointing out your misunderstanding my point and taking from it want you want. I am kind of cherry picking between groups and beliefs, yes. But that’s because of my own incredible experience and my own research. It’s not really cherry picking, it’s more like reconising what’s true and what’s not according to evidence and of course my own extreme experience, which I didn’t really want to mention cause I didn’t see it as a important issue-

What I said was that some(NOT ALL) of the non-fundamentalists gets unrightfully attacked by immature atheists. But I would like to take back the immature thing, cause I don’t know them, that was just me making sense out of why atheists would do that, when they seem to promote how mature and intelligent they are!!

Not sure what this combination of word mean “ill thought out crap spouting”



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


[Quote]That's the closest thing? Right... Welcome to ATS buddy, it's worse than what your limited imagination thinks it is. I wonder, would it be immature of the biblical mythologists to be upset if we were to point out that technically speaking, the mythology is polytheistic or at most hedonistic? That's a pretty big point on their beliefs and claim of monotheistic belief. [/Quote]

Oh I can imagine how worse it is, in a biased mind. But one that shouldn’t care if God exist or not? Is it really because you don’t WANT to have faith, that you think of it as an insult.

Oh and yes, it is immature. But try and correct a religious person. They don’t care about maturity, they care about what’s right in their Gods eye.

My view of the statement that there is only one God, is that it’s a mistranslation of sort, and really means we are all one.

Did you look through the thread and saw what I was referring to? So you could see, that my assumption that some atheists were way more hostile than some believers, wasn’t uneducated.



And I clearly pointed out that your opinion is ill thought out and wholly uneducated on the subject.[


A Insult, a biased and immature assumption that your opinion is better than mine, that maybe you are better than me. And you never once looked at my point, which was we need to be better at looking at it from the other point of view. I even stated in my original post that I looked at it from the Atheist point of view, and came to the conclusion, that the way believers looks at atheist is the same way atheist looks at believers. With minor differences of course.

[Quote]Maybe they don't teach proper science in Denmark or critical thought and common sense, I don't know, I'm not from there so your going to have to explain it to me.

It's an illogical fallacy to assume that the universe requires an intelligent creator simply because mankind is intelligent enough to create technologically or to ponder his existence.

Furthermore, there is no observed evidence for a big bang event, and as such it is only a theoretical musing based upon a few certain assumptions as being true and accurate without further experimentation or observation in those assumptions as being true at all. No such event called the 'big bang' is known in a factual sense to have occurred at any point in the universes lifetime. In so much that the assumption of a big bang has led to a calculation of 13b years of age based on observations correlating with this model based on assumption. Observations however show a structure to the universe that could only have formed if the universe were well over 150b years of age, leading one to either have to concede that no big bang occurred or physics is completely wrong and needs a complete rewrite. Knowing that physics can not be completely wrong as various aspects are well known, well tested, and well verified we can only rightfully conclude that the big bang model of the universe is wholly wrong and never factually occurred.[/Quote]

Maybe they don’t teach proper science in America, ever thought of that? And please don’t take this out of context and claim this is a reflection of my beliefs.

I’m not sure what “illogical fallacy” means. But I do however see signs of intelligence all over the universe and in nature. The system it has, it just seems so perfect. And when you really become one with nature, and not reading a book, sitting on your computer, etc, but really get down and dirty. You can just feel that something is diffidently there. Well, I have only had this feeling after my experience though.

Actually I agree with the whole last part, no argument there.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 12:28 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 



So now Atheists lie? Your telling me that all those religious people aren't lying about their NDE's, but if an Atheist remains an Atheist after an NDE then he MUST be lying about it or have ulterior motives for lying? No... that's not insulting at all


Nope, never said that. Thank you for pointing out another misunderstanding and another example of you taking out want you want according to your own biased unconsciousness.

Are you telling me that ALL atheists are honest? He could have ulterior motives for lying? Don’t you even consider that possibility? So does religious people!! However when most religious people tell about their NDE’s, it tend to defy their religion. If you cared to read my link, you would know that!



Garbage, really. You keep claiming I don't understand your point whilst making the same arguments continuously without offering up any further clarification as to what your point actually is. Enough of this language barrier excuse. Your English is just fine.[


Enough of you ignorantly not knowing what you talk about!! Of course my English looks fine. You don’t see the words and combination of words I didn’t write because I couldn’t get it to make sense when translating it directly from Danish. That’s why I tend to talk around the argument.



So now any defense is going to be considered an extremely ignorant counter-argument? No, your not insulting at all.


Yes, of course




Now it's wrong of Atheists to be proud of their beliefs, or rather lack of beliefs?![


I must say yes to this also!!! I’m kidding, I just don’t see pride as a good thing!! And no, not because the bible talks against it or something like that. Pride can keep you from evolving I think.



Your damn right you don't know me.[


Yeah, I just said. What wrong with you?



Yet you show no signs of doing so yourself, knowing full well are doing it and admitting to doing it, but you think everyone else should stop it.[


I thought I did show sign of it. But probably not here, thank you for pointing that out!!



Now your trying to say my government is teaching me brainwashed logic that doesn't compare to the status of Denmark's high education ranking?


HAHA!! OMFG!! Am I trying to say that? Not by a long shot. Denmark’s education system could be just as biased and brainwashed in their logic. I’m saying that our notion of logic could very well be extremely flawed, without us even realizing, cause we are brainwashed from an early age about what logic is and what it dictates. Or our limited minds, just doesn’t understand something, because our notion of logic is really limited to our mediocre intelligence



Apparently not limited for you! You believe that some higher entity called God initiated it all. If you knew the history of religion, you possibly wouldn't have that opinion


I have very good reasons for believing in a higher entity. I call it God for a lack of a better word. I know the history of religion, which is why I don’t belong to one. I have actually studied the history of religion a lot. However, the one’s writing history books could be lying, the lost scriptures and gospels they have found could have been extremely good fakes which we have yet created the right tools for busting. And our carbon dating method could be flawed in ways we don’t understand yet according to our limited logic. Not saying it’s the case, just thinks it’s a possibility. Oh, and not believing it's the case either.



That's interesting considering your learning seems to be impacted severely and yet, your education system is so much better than mine. I think that's called irony
.

Yeah, you’re subjective standpoint here is becoming a cliché



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by JokerzReality
 



Understand this. There is no reasonable requirement to assume the universe had any beginning whatsoever be it by natural process or by intelligent naked sky daddies in human form that cares deeply for the human race as if they were the only species in need of care in the entire universe


I agree with you statement about it not having an beginning. However you generalize the meaning of God. You cherry pick the God from the Bible when it fits the argument, but other times compare him to other Gods, which wouldn’t fit the argument if you cherry picked them. I don’t think God has ever cared about only us. God is the name I choose to call the consciousness that seems to dictates our universe. I don’t know what to call it so you could possibly understand. I understand it because of my experience, but before that I couldn’t wrap my head around it to.

Therefore I understand your sceptical viewpoint, and I don’t think I ever argued against that(Correct me if I’m wrong), but I also have this inner knowledge now which you do not. And no, it’s not some loving feelings I use to comfort myself with. I don’t think you would understand if you never had an spiritual experience yourself. I have taken lsd and mushrooms when I were younger. It is NOTHING like that. Compare it to the knowledge that you know your reading my post right now, you almost now it’s real right, but if you’re alone and had no video camera, how could you prove it to others that it was real if I delete my post. The only thing differently about that experience of reading my post, is that my experience felt more like waking from a long dream, it felt extremely more real than this do, and the experience of writing this post feels like an illusion now, like if you begin to lucid dreaming after you just awoke from your dream and fell asleep again.

Can you imagine having 360 degree vision, feeling one with everything, being several places at once, experiencing no time, where everything happens at once while at the same time it takes an eternity, not communicating through words, but through understanding of each other, like telepathy without words involved. This is the best way I can explain it. I’ve tried like a million different acid drugs when I were younger, and the experience can’t be compared to a drug induces trip or a dream.

I answer the last post you wrote later or tomorrow, I have now put way to much energy into this. So hope you’re happy.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 04:07 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 



So now your claiming that scientists don't live that way, that they just arbitrarily make up biased theories?
.

I don’t know what “arbitrarily” means

And no they’re not just making up some biased theories. They are making their theories based on biased studies. When it comes to the health department, scientists tends to go in that direction that screams “I’m getting funded by the pharmaceutical industry”. There have been a lot of scientists and doctors, busted for that lately in the Danish media. I don’t know if it has been in the media of other countries, but WHO have been proved to be extremely biased in their studies, in some Danish articles.

Well, maybe if scientists did live that way, they would be pumped full of drugs. And probably not be that healthy, It’s funny how in America, every mental challenge, like depression, gets treated with drugs. THANK GOD, we don’t do that in Denmark. We don’t have serial killers, we can leave our kids on the street while shopping, because we generally don’t have crazy people walking around. Actually I don’t think I have ever seen one so called “Crazy person” other than in American movies and news or in the news from other countries of course. We of course have had our bad apples, but our mental asylums or what it’s called are practically empty. The only crazy persons we have are the gang members shooting each other for no good reason than power. Paedophiles is also a rare phenomenon. I have a feeling it’s because, when people have a mental problem in Denmark, we aren’t so much influenced by the big American pharmaceutical companies, so our doctor’s can form are more valid treatment, like cognitive therapy and focussing on the positive in life. I can’t remember what the therapy is called, but it’s basically the theory that i stated earlier, where once emotion is linked to once thoughts and in order to get happy and healthy again you have to focus on the positive, this kind of therapy is also commonly suggested.



Really now? Care to point fingers as to which scientists your specifically referring to? I'd really like to see this mythological unhealthy and unhappy scientist.


Don’t know the name of the specific scientists. But when you see biographies in viasat history and the Danish science channel, they tend to have all sorts of illnesses and die from an bad one. And in their biography they tend be portrait as negative thinkers, while the once being portrait as positive thinkers, looks like they never get sick and looks extremely happy. Of course there are no certainty in life. Both sides has it’s bad apples as you call it. And I can’t know with certainty that my believes are true. But I just follow the pattern.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 04:12 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 




Right ... Even when they can strap you in a chair and induce and NDE experience, it's still not evidence that NDE's at the very least are caused by some physical interaction occurring in the brain. You do realize that and NDE is a NEAR death experience, right? That means you have not actually died, that means your body is still alive and functioning to some extent.


Not of evidence of the causation, there could be unknown factors which can’t be seen. You force me to say it. I’ve had an NDE, and every time I see somebody who doesn’t seem to have had one, trying to explain it away, I find it extremely ignorant. The studies I’ve look at never seemed to reproduce an NDE, the studies I’ve looked at seem to have it as a biased explanation. Their strongest argument is that the reproduced what felt like an OBE, but wasn’t an actual one. I’ve yet to see them try it on a NDE’r, where the subject stated “That was exactly like that”. If you have seen a study like, I would like to see it to.

It’s obvious that when you’re brain shut down, that you’re NDE occur, if you trigger the same points in your brain, that tells the rest of your body that your about to die, it’s no wonder you get and NDE, but I wouldn’t go as far as calling it a direct causation of physical interaction occurring in the brain. But maybe I just down know properly what the word means.

“You do realize that and NDE is a NEAR death experience, right? That means you have not actually died, that means your body is still alive and functioning to some extent”

Actually, some of the biggest researchers in the field would disagree with you one that. Maybe the sceptics would agree. But the ones that actually have field experience wouldn’t. At least not to my knowledge, (it’s been quite some time since I last studied the subject, maybe they changed their minds since then). Don’t care to find any sources right now. Go to Near-death.com or Iands.org and read some articles or search “sam parnia” “Pim van lommel” “kenneth ring” or “Raymond moody” and look at their results. Of course you could also look at about the only sceptical researcher in the field “Susan Blackmore”. But wouldn’t put to much faith in her, she claims her drug induced OBE was an NDE as a way to make her point valid, only problem is. I had a drug induced OBE, IT’S NOTHING like and NDE, not by a long shot.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 04:22 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 




No, that is not even accurate at all. How about you learn something about it before arguing it, would that really hurt?

I thought you said you did thing's like research? It seems like your lying now and you haven't bothered to research anything about it.


Oh, so now, wikipedia is the most credible source?

Wouldn’t you agree, that this perception is a positive belief in the outcome. I agree, that the placebo effect is unreliable, but it does not change the fact, that the placebo effect have been documented to take away symptoms, enhance the immune system and sometimes cure deceases, all because the subject has an positive expectation on the outcome. I think It is accurate, how do your quote proof otherwise?

Do you know about the nocebo effect, the opposite of placebo.

“It was a subject-oriented adjective that was used to label the harmful, unpleasant, or undesirable reactions (or responses) that a subject manifested (thus, "nocebo reactions" or "nocebo responses") as a result of administering an inert dummy drug or placebo, where these responses had not been chemically generated, and were entirely due to the subject's pessimistic belief and expectation that the inert drug would produce harmful, injurious, unpleasant, or undesirable consequences”.

Wiki source

Is this considered evidence that pessimistic beliefs and negative expectation/thinking, is no good for you? Or don’t you, as I, take wikipedia as the most credibly source?



Focusing on bad instead of good? You mean optimism vs pessimism? Explain where in biology and neuroscience that pessimism impacts the body in a harmful way
.

Well, I’m not really talking about pessimism, but instead talking about constantly negative thinking. If you only think negative occasionally, it probably doesn’t have such great effect in the moment, but on the long run I believe it’s unhealthy, because it becomes a habit, and habit’s can become hard to break, when you do get sick.



I don't know them personally, nor their particular lifestyles or personalities so I can't comment specifically on them, thus the point is moot. You keep making mention that I am being negative and that negativity is not good. I'm hardly ever sick, I don't even remember the last damn time I've been sick. I'm betting that it's a crock of garbage and that there is some lifestyle differences between your friends that your either dismissing or not perceiving readily based upon your biased assumption that pessimism impacts the body in a harmful way.


Maybe you’re are not so negative in real life, I don’t know, you just seem to be here though. Look at my above comment for my viewpoints regarding that.

You’re betting wrong my friend. One of my friends actually started on living totally healthy, but kept his negative mindset. He is not fat anymore, but he have constant headaches and I few month ago he even collapsed his lungs. Not claiming negative thinking is the source to that, though it didn’t exactly help either.

I think I just established that pessimism do impacts the body in a harmful way, unless we are to consider wikipedia as an source with not much credibility.



It is! Negative emotions isn't even in the damned dictionary! This is some new made up fad term that is not defined at all as an actual term! Christ, do they not have dictionaries in your country?


Oh, so now the dictionary is the source to all truth? That’s a bit narrow minded don’t you think? And who to say that it isn’t in the Danish dictionary, and the Americans have yet to catch up.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 04:43 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 




There is no such thing as a negative emotion, you have emotions for a reason.


Negative emotions are anger, fear, hate, jealousy, depression, etc. Positive emotions or feelings are, joy, love, happiness, etc. Even my doctor can agree to that, why can’t you. Yeah, the word negative emotion is new, but the meaning should be obvious.



That's called life. People argue, get depressed or throw tantrums. It's NORMAL.


Well, I guess it’s normal for people who don’t know any better!! I know MOST people, don’t know how to control themselves or their emotions. This is what I’m trying to learn, an getting better at I might ad. And this is what my more successful friends have mastered to a ridiculously degree. But of course when you don’t how to master yourself and your emotions and have never seen anyone doing it, that kind of behaviour seems normal. Well, I think it’s normal to, but when a girl pulls the drama game on me, I know exactly what to do in order to make her happier and stop her from throwing tantrums.



Sweet Jesus! Negative emotions cause all that! Can you please point out any verified research that show those claims to be true?[


I never said negative emotions caused all that, but that it was a pattern a saw, so of course I can’t point to any verified research that show this to be true(or maybe I can, but won’t look for it right know) cause this is a pattern I see in my own life, with my friends and family.



I consider the new age movement to be new age and any newly defined terminology that is not commonly accepted or existent in a dictionary as being BS, yes. Is that generalization, no, it's showing disdain for made up garbage in which no scientific evidence exists to verify the veracity of that made up garbage. Like your lovely little word "negative emotion".[


Again with the dictionary being the source of truth!!! I do think it’s a generalization. There actually do exist some good evidence for some claims which are considered to be “New Age”. It’s mostly circumstantial, but it is in the definition “evidence”. What about the finding by Prof, Bruce what’s his name and Rupert Sheldrake? Does science has monopoly of the truth, no didn’t think so. Besides, the old scientific regime has to be knocked over, before an new idea can get any authority. String theory was once deemed new age, now it’s a scientific theory, or is it’s still new age?

But that's your opinion. You through everything considered New age into a bag, burn it or throw it away. Only to be shocked in the future of which things were once considered new age, and could help you to grow maybe even get healthier, because you saw everything considered new age as being just unproven wishfull thinking like Tarot reading and astrology. Thinks it's all the same without even taken a look at the evidence for some of it. I think it's narrow minded generalization. But hey, that's just me and my opinion, which according to your biased opinion is ill thought out, uneducated BS, cause you're so high and mighty right? Not arrogant, immature, close minded, or hostile at all (I'm being hostile now according to my own definition, which is talking down to someone) I don't have the oh so powerful english dictionary, so sorry if hostile is a poor choice of word, but don't know any better that reflects your behavior properly!!!



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 06:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
reply to post by sirnex
 


Ok sparky. I'm an agnostic. I need PROOF that god exists. I also need proof that he DOESN'T exist. Can you prove that to me without any culinary references that he doesn't exist? THAT'S the bottom line you all are missing.



we all get our way of thinking and reasoning by entering in a relation to what we think about. We collect facts and evidence to say that something is truth. But, truth is a pendant thing since even with evidence, there can be a factor in that prove of evidence that has been overseen and changes the truth in a later moment of existence by discovering that factor.

Now, humans create certain forms of truth themselves from nothing, and nothing is the best one could find.
God is such a nothing. We will never deny that something, a divine being has created all what we see around us and in the universe.
This is supposed to be and be true. But, here there is no prove, nor is there evidence. So, better then staying and accepting that something exists that we are not able to explain, we create a false truth based on evidence of existence and the non evidence of what, where and why.

It exists, thus it has been created. We could now say it has been created by god, Mickey Mouse, Bugs or what ever we call the being. So, our "guilty" unknown person to investigate about is and will never be found and thus give him the name of "unknown",mmmh, no, sounds unreal, so let's call it god. That's it.

Now, there is a problem. Anyone can say, but .... . No problem, let's make it a dogma and buy a shot gun to defend it and let's write a book to communicate it to the world and there we go.

The Bible is a different scenario, the book was written first and treats an occult subject one had to keep hidden in that days of human existence and some very smart people found that by creating a dogma of the mighty god it talks about and could make them earn big money. The same crappy disk plays and plays again from the day of birth till death, until it is so deep in memory of anyone that one will lose any sense of reality for that faith, getting arrogant, agressive and ready to kill everyone for defending anything concerning it and just never to agree it to be wrong.

So, as you said, on what evidence the existence of god is based. Is the existence of the universe and all in it enough to prove it or not. On the other side, there is no evidence for God not to exist as well and the universe and all in it does.

It is as contra-verse and perverted as a hole. The more you add to a hole, the smaller it gets, and the more you remove, the bigger it gets. Isn't that strange, but there, at least we have evidence. And, god in brain is like a hole in a pocket, try to get the sh.t out of it.

There are teachings who give excellent view of what god could be, how the whole system works and interacts, how matter manifests , but, here again we are among those that Muftis call to exterminate by the sword and the Vatican counts among there worst enemies and fights in any manner they can.

Will this dogma fall some day, I doubt, when human has all destroyed and nothing is left but one single man (if there will be) only then the dogma will fall. For how long, I don't know and am not sure cause i doubt that the last survivor will accept that what happened was not gods will and human stupidity only.




[edit on 28-6-2010 by eurocrates]



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 08:15 AM
link   
I have a question:

what would be proof for the non existance of god? I mean purely hypotheticaly what would constitute such proof?

I can think of many things that could be considered proof for the existance of god ... for example if he were to say appear. Or one day suddenly everything changed colour to its negative and the clouds spelled out "this is a message from god, no joke, check out the funky colours who else could do that ... now stop arguing"

but what would be proof of the opposite? If we didnt all spontaneously change colour and the message didnt appear? Or if some other almighty being appeared and said "there is no god" ... would that count as proof?

Its impossible to proove a negative because the negative if it doesnt exist wont leave proof behind. You can only proove what is actually there.

I can prove that ducks exist because we : see them, hear them ... they leave feathers behind if i shoot one. I cant prove that unicorns dont exist ... i cant point at the ground and go "look! there is a gap in the universe where unicorn poop should be" and call it proof.

Atheism is also not a beleif... hard as it may be to grasp. We dont actively disbelieve in god ... we just dont believe in him... same as we dont actively and conciously not pray to god. as someone said earlier "its like calling not collecting stamps a hobby"

~TR~



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by JokerzReality
 



First I must admit something. I don’t understand half of the word you are using. When I look at a English online dictionary, they use words which i don’t understand to explain the words. This I should probably have explained from the start and it’s the source as to why I accuse you of misunderstand my point. It’s hard to give an counter-argument to words you don’t understand.


So your own faults are being placed on me because you can't understand a word? If I am misunderstanding something you are saying because you can't properly communicate in a language, then you can't 'accuse' me of misunderstanding your point. You are not making a clear and concise point due to your own failings in learning the language properly. I do not appreciate people placing their faults upon me as if it's my fault.


This I why I had to answer. “Please don't hand me some BS language barrier mistranslation excuse there either” This statement is so incredible ignorant, you don’t even know it. I admit, fact was a poor choice of words, nothing more. Don’t put so much into it, it’s just a word.


Just a word? they are words with very specific meanings and when you use those very specific meanings regardless of intent, they still retain those specific meanings. I have no clue what your trying to say if your claiming language barrier excuses whilst still using those specific words without offering any further clarification. For all intents and purposes, it appears you are using those words in their intended meanings.


“Do they not teach reading comprehension and common sense in Denmark?” This question looks like an indirect insult. I’m not sure what you mean with reading comprehension, but I’m pretty sure, that reading something and understanding the meaning of what you’re reading is different from country to country and language to language. I mean, a English word which translates to a Danish word, could give the appearance of having the same meaning, but while the English or Danish word have multiply meanings the word that it translates to does not. Also the combination of words can be confusing. For example the sentence, I have to take a leak, if you would translate that directly from Danish to English it would go like this “I have leak”


That's one thing I've never understood about other languages. I don't get how they can have one word mean many different things. Does that not limit the amount of information one can convey to another in a clear manner?


You treat my comment like it was an personal attack on you or something. I’m still not sure what adequately or ousting mean. I have an idea when I put it into the context of you comment though.


Look it up in a dictionary.


You still haven’t answered my question. Where do i propagate erroneous false claims of another groups beliefs? I do propagate claims that you seem hostile towards believers, how is the against your groups beliefs?


That is one of your false accusations. You claim we're being hostile, which we are not. I have never gotten angry and aggressive towards any religious person on this forum or anywhere else for that matter, nor have I seen any other Atheist either.


I am kind of cherry picking between groups and beliefs, yes.


WHAT A JOKE! Your going to sit there and claim I misunderstand you yet again and then ADMIT to what I was saying in my so called "misunderstanding"? Your a complete joke!


But that’s because of my own incredible experience and my own research. It’s not really cherry picking, it’s more like reconising what’s true and what’s not according to evidence and of course my own extreme experience, which I didn’t really want to mention cause I didn’t see it as a important issue-


Not important??!! Your claiming that it's a big part of your ridiculous claim against Atheism. That's pretty damn important!


What I said was that some(NOT ALL) of the non-fundamentalists gets unrightfully attacked by immature atheists. But I would like to take back the immature thing, cause I don’t know them, that was just me making sense out of why atheists would do that, when they seem to promote how mature and intelligent they are!!


Really? Give an example.


Oh I can imagine how worse it is, in a biased mind. But one that shouldn’t care if God exist or not? Is it really because you don’t WANT to have faith, that you think of it as an insult.


Shouldn't care? Who said Atheists shouldn't care? It's the whole damn basis of origins of the universe! Christ, how the hell did you people in Denmark get a high ranking in education?

Just because Atheists don't believe deities to exist does not mean we don't care at all upon the existence of deities. The origins of the universe is still an unknown topic, we understand that point and we understand that all answers are equally valid until one or another can be proven to be true. Atheists simply see no reason nor evidence to assume a creator of the universe, but we still debate whether there is or not as it's an important issue when discussing origins.


My view of the statement that there is only one God, is that it’s a mistranslation of sort, and really means we are all one.


Do you have any evidence in which to even believe such a thing to be possible or accurate, or do you just blindly believe that because it sounds cool?


Did you look through the thread and saw what I was referring to? So you could see, that my assumption that some atheists were way more hostile than some believers, wasn’t uneducated.


No, I did not see a single Atheist conducting themselves in an aggressively angry manner.


I’m not sure what “illogical fallacy” means.


Sorry, I meant logical fallacy.


But I do however see signs of intelligence all over the universe and in nature. The system it has, it just seems so perfect.


It seems perfect because we evolved in the system. Of course it's perfect!

Try saying that jumping on the surface of the moon or swimming in the vast ocean of Europa.


And when you really become one with nature, and not reading a book, sitting on your computer, etc, but really get down and dirty. You can just feel that something is diffidently there. Well, I have only had this feeling after my experience though.


I hate these kind of arguments, I really really do.

I meditate. I hike almost daily. I garden (mostly tomatoes though). I raise animals. I've witnessed all three of my kids births. I've had a few lucid dreams.

The point is, people make these silly claims that getting in touch with nature, or gaining more understanding through meditation or a lot of other things is all just a crock. It's a state of mind. That something different your feeling is called relaxation. You won't get that same feeling working a 9-5 job with a boss breathing down your neck. Your simply seeing something there that doesn't exist there because you have a skewed sense of reality.


Actually I agree with the whole last part, no argument there.


Agree with what whole last part?


Are you telling me that ALL atheists are honest? He could have ulterior motives for lying? Don’t you even consider that possibility? So does religious people!! However when most religious people tell about their NDE’s, it tend to defy their religion. If you cared to read my link, you would know that!


You specifically asked for an Atheist who had an NDE and remained an Atheist. I gave you one and IMMEDIATELY you determined him to be lying, without question. No, not ALL PEOPLE (please do NOT generalize Atheism as a separate group from the human race) are honest. This however is not sufficient reason for you to determine him to be a liar.


I must say yes to this also!!! I’m kidding, I just don’t see pride as a good thing!! And no, not because the bible talks against it or something like that. Pride can keep you from evolving I think.


UGH! Nonsense! You are telling me you feel no pride at all for anything? You have no pride for your country? You have no pride for yourself? Do you have low self esteem?

Pride is a GOOD emotion. It's a feeling of self respect, self worth, or a show of being happy for something else.

As an emotion, it has no bearing on evolution. Doesn't Denmark teach basic biology, DNA, evolution? Seriously, I'm starting to wonder if maybe someone screwed up the numbers making Denmark at the top.


HAHA!! OMFG!! Am I trying to say that? Not by a long shot. Denmark’s education system could be just as biased and brainwashed in their logic. I’m saying that our notion of logic could very well be extremely flawed, without us even realizing, cause we are brainwashed from an early age about what logic is and what it dictates. Or our limited minds, just doesn’t understand something, because our notion of logic is really limited to our mediocre intelligence


A system of education has no bearing on the inner workings of one's mind or ability to learn or re-learn an old topic taught previously. Your "education" doesn't necessarily end when you leave school. If you are of sound mind, character, and intelligence, then you are more than capable to take a fresh look at anything previously taught.


I have very good reasons for believing in a higher entity.


What very good reasons would those be? A very good reason would be direct evidence, not attributed events.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by JokerzReality
 



I call it God for a lack of a better word. I know the history of religion, which is why I don’t belong to one. I have actually studied the history of religion a lot. However, the one’s writing history books could be lying, the lost scriptures and gospels they have found could have been extremely good fakes which we have yet created the right tools for busting. And our carbon dating method could be flawed in ways we don’t understand yet according to our limited logic. Not saying it’s the case, just thinks it’s a possibility. Oh, and not believing it's the case either.


Yes, there COULD BE a conspiracy in written history and dating of events. Yet in order for this to be true, EVERYONE involved would HAVE TO BE involved. The likelihood of everyone currently involved in history and every to be involved in history in the future is highly improbable. Believing that history could be written wrong or dated wrong calls for everyone now and learning to go into the field later to be in on the continuation of this "wrong history".


I agree with you statement about it not having an beginning.


No you don't, you already told me you think your version of God started it.

No beginning means no beginning. It does not mean no big bang, but a universe created by some intelligent entity.


However you generalize the meaning of God. You cherry pick the God from the Bible when it fits the argument, but other times compare him to other Gods, which wouldn’t fit the argument if you cherry picked them. I don’t think God has ever cared about only us. God is the name I choose to call the consciousness that seems to dictates our universe. I don’t know what to call it so you could possibly understand. I understand it because of my experience, but before that I couldn’t wrap my head around it to.


OK, now that you've explained it a bit further, I still don't see any reason to assume it's existence. I don't see any evidence of anything controlling of our universe.


but I also have this inner knowledge now which you do not.


What the hell is 'inner knowledge'?


I don’t think you would understand if you never had an spiritual experience yourself.


Define a 'spiritual experience'.


I have taken lsd and mushrooms when I were younger. It is NOTHING like that.


Drugs are drugs, nothing else. I tend to stay away from drugs as I do not need them screwing up the delicate balance of hormones and neurotransmitters in my brain and body.


Compare it to the knowledge that you know your reading my post right now, you almost now it’s real right, but if you’re alone and had no video camera, how could you prove it to others that it was real if I delete my post. The only thing differently about that experience of reading my post, is that my experience felt more like waking from a long dream, it felt extremely more real than this do, and the experience of writing this post feels like an illusion now, like if you begin to lucid dreaming after you just awoke from your dream and fell asleep again.


I've had a few lucid dreams myself, and I fail to see your comparison.


Can you imagine having 360 degree vision, feeling one with everything, being several places at once, experiencing no time, where everything happens at once while at the same time it takes an eternity, not communicating through words, but through understanding of each other, like telepathy without words involved. This is the best way I can explain it. I’ve tried like a million different acid drugs when I were younger, and the experience can’t be compared to a drug induces trip or a dream.


You mean being more aware of your surroundings? Yea, I've felt that.


And no they’re not just making up some biased theories. They are making their theories based on biased studies. When it comes to the health department, scientists tends to go in that direction that screams “I’m getting funded by the pharmaceutical industry”. There have been a lot of scientists and doctors, busted for that lately in the Danish media. I don’t know if it has been in the media of other countries, but WHO have been proved to be extremely biased in their studies, in some Danish articles.


Does this mean *every* scientist is like that?


Well, maybe if scientists did live that way, they would be pumped full of drugs. And probably not be that healthy, It’s funny how in America, every mental challenge, like depression, gets treated with drugs. THANK GOD, we don’t do that in Denmark.


Aye, it is a shame many people decide to use medications rather than making lifestyle and dietary changes.


Don’t know the name of the specific scientists. But when you see biographies in viasat history and the Danish science channel, they tend to have all sorts of illnesses and die from an bad one. And in their biography they tend be portrait as negative thinkers, while the once being portrait as positive thinkers, looks like they never get sick and looks extremely happy. Of course there are no certainty in life. Both sides has it’s bad apples as you call it. And I can’t know with certainty that my believes are true. But I just follow the pattern.


I have no way of verifying your claim without you naming some scientists that fit this so called pattern.


If you have seen a study like, I would like to see it to.


Ketamine can be used to induce NDE experiences. A previous person stated that he also had an OOBE and someone he knows, mother I think, had an NDE. The man in the video you called a lair had an NDE.

Even the site you linked me too talks about NDE's being induced by various means.


n the laboratory, NDEs can be induced using right temporal lobe brain stimulation, the application of hallucinogenic drugs, or extreme gravitational forces. These laboratory experiments prove the NDE to be valid. Whether it is a valid afterlife experience is another matter altogether.


The only distinction being that they only pick out similarities in experience and lump those similarities as having some higher meaning despite the more numerous differences across beliefs, religions and cultures.


It’s obvious that when you’re brain shut down, that you’re NDE occur, if you trigger the same points in your brain, that tells the rest of your body that your about to die, it’s no wonder you get and NDE, but I wouldn’t go as far as calling it a direct causation of physical interaction occurring in the brain. But maybe I just down know properly what the word means.


So you dismiss the validity of the bodies role to protect itself prior to the moment of clinical death?


Oh, so now, wikipedia is the most credible source?


Would you prefer a dictionary?


Wouldn’t you agree, that this perception is a positive belief in the outcome. I agree, that the placebo effect is unreliable, but it does not change the fact, that the placebo effect have been documented to take away symptoms, enhance the immune system and sometimes cure deceases, all because the subject has an positive expectation on the outcome. I think It is accurate, how do your quote proof otherwise?


Cure diseases? First I've heard of that one.


Do you know about the nocebo effect, the opposite of placebo.

“It was a subject-oriented adjective that was used to label the harmful, unpleasant, or undesirable reactions (or responses) that a subject manifested (thus, "nocebo reactions" or "nocebo responses") as a result of administering an inert dummy drug or placebo, where these responses had not been chemically generated, and were entirely due to the subject's pessimistic belief and expectation that the inert drug would produce harmful, injurious, unpleasant, or undesirable consequences”.


Yes, I know about the nocebo effect as well.


Is this considered evidence that pessimistic beliefs and negative expectation/thinking, is no good for you? Or don’t you, as I, take wikipedia as the most credibly source?


No, I don't view it as evidence that the emotional responses are the underlying causation of any physical health related issues.


Well, I’m not really talking about pessimism, but instead talking about constantly negative thinking. If you only think negative occasionally, it probably doesn’t have such great effect in the moment, but on the long run I believe it’s unhealthy, because it becomes a habit, and habit’s can become hard to break, when you do get sick.


I disagree. You've made mention that I am a negative person. I do not fit your description health wise of this ill perceived pattern of yours. I've been the way I am right now for as long as I can possibly remember and I've hardly ever gotten sick in my life. From my personal experience, it comes down to lifestyle and dietary reasons that people experience various emotions and these emotions are a necessary response that most people do not simply listen to. If you just experience the emotion without figuring out why you are having that emotion, then the true underlying causation of that emotion will continue unchecked. It simply is not the emotion itself that causes the problems. Learn something about emotional health for clarification.


Maybe you’re are not so negative in real life, I don’t know, you just seem to be here though. Look at my above comment for my viewpoints regarding that.


I'm just like this offline as well. Look at my above comment for my viewpoints regarding that.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by JokerzReality
 



You’re betting wrong my friend. One of my friends actually started on living totally healthy, but kept his negative mindset. He is not fat anymore, but he have constant headaches and I few month ago he even collapsed his lungs. Not claiming negative thinking is the source to that, though it didn’t exactly help either.


Ah, so a dietary and lifestyle change fixed one of those so called negative emotion problems? I'm willing to bet that those other problems would be fixed when he learns the root causation of those problems and remedies that problem.


I think I just established that pessimism do impacts the body in a harmful way, unless we are to consider wikipedia as an source with not much credibility.


No, you haven't. You've shown that despite his continued "negativity" he has lost weight which is counter to your argument that pessimism causes harmful reactions in the body, as previously described as obesity in an earlier post. Your simply attributing the remaining problems as being those of pessimistic thinking without any valid scientific or medical reasoning for assuming so. You've actually disproved your point, you just dismiss the results.


Oh, so now the dictionary is the source to all truth? That’s a bit narrow minded don’t you think? And who to say that it isn’t in the Danish dictionary, and the Americans have yet to catch up.


OK, then link me to a danish dictionary website that includes the word negative emotion as a defined term of it's own accord.


Negative emotions are anger, fear, hate, jealousy, depression, etc. Positive emotions or feelings are, joy, love, happiness, etc. Even my doctor can agree to that, why can’t you. Yeah, the word negative emotion is new, but the meaning should be obvious.


I disagree on the assertion that something called a negative emotion exists. Sensationalize a natural response by calling it negative does not make that natural response a bad thing. We have emotions for a reason, they are all there because we NEED them. This is how we have evolved.


Well, I guess it’s normal for people who don’t know any better!! I know MOST people, don’t know how to control themselves or their emotions. This is what I’m trying to learn, an getting better at I might ad. And this is what my more successful friends have mastered to a ridiculously degree. But of course when you don’t how to master yourself and your emotions and have never seen anyone doing it, that kind of behaviour seems normal. Well, I think it’s normal to, but when a girl pulls the drama game on me, I know exactly what to do in order to make her happier and stop her from throwing tantrums.


Mastering your emotions? You mean being a less emotional person. Emotions convey meaning and information, they inform others of how we feel and what we may think in some cases. Making a girl happy when they pull drama and tantrums is called giving in to their drama and tantrums.


I never said negative emotions caused all that, but that it was a pattern a saw, so of course I can’t point to any verified research that show this to be true(or maybe I can, but won’t look for it right know) cause this is a pattern I see in my own life, with my friends and family.


So you assume a pattern you see must be medically linked to emotional cues rather than the root causes of lifestyle and dietary reason for those emotional cues cropping up? You over think things too much and place meanings on perceived patterns where those meanings don't naturally exist.


String theory was once deemed new age, now it’s a scientific theory, or is it’s still new age?


String theory has never been considered New Age. It has been used by the New Age movement alongside with Quantum Mechanics in erroneous ways in an attempt to make financial gains through the selling of books, videos, seminars etc. by making it sound as if science is saying the same thing the New Age movement has been saying all along. They do that rather than publish any peer reviewed research verifying the veracity of their claims.


But that's your opinion. You through everything considered New age into a bag, burn it or throw it away. Only to be shocked in the future of which things were once considered new age, and could help you to grow maybe even get healthier, because you saw everything considered new age as being just unproven wishfull thinking like Tarot reading and astrology.


WTF? I used to play with tarot cards, read my horoscope (still do for fun), I've even cast a magic spell when I was younger to test it out. Interesting thing was, my buddy and I tried that voodoo stuff, we cast a 'death spell' or whatever the hell they called it on this kid in our neighborhood that we didn't like. Within an hour we saw the kid for the first time that day and he looked sick as hell. Turned out he was sick for the past two days and it wasn't because of our spell.

You assume I have no experience in any of this stuff simply because I am an Atheist. Shame on you.


Thinks it's all the same without even taken a look at the evidence for some of it. I think it's narrow minded generalization. But hey, that's just me and my opinion, which according to your biased opinion is ill thought out, uneducated BS, cause you're so high and mighty right? Not arrogant, immature, close minded, or hostile at all (I'm being hostile now according to my own definition, which is talking down to someone) I don't have the oh so powerful english dictionary, so sorry if hostile is a poor choice of word, but don't know any better that reflects your behavior properly!!!


Oh wow ... Your actually getting upset over something someone said? I thought you didn't care what other people think. Ooops. I suppose your not that great at mastering your emotions after all huh?



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 




So your own faults are being placed on me because you can't understand a word? If I am misunderstanding something you are saying because you can't properly communicate in a language, then you can't 'accuse' me of misunderstanding your point. You are not making a clear and concise point due to your own failings in learning the language properly. I do not appreciate people placing their faults upon me as if it's my fault.


Well, I must admit. You attacked my post without even knowing my point. That’s probably why I accused you of misunderstanding. Then I suddenly realised that I haven’t made that point clear, about me not understanding every word you use. So sorry about that!!!



Just a word? they are words with very specific meanings and when you use those very specific meanings regardless of intent, they still retain those specific meanings. I have no clue what your trying to say if your claiming language barrier excuses whilst still using those specific words without offering any further clarification. For all intents and purposes, it appears you are using those words in their intended meanings.


How can I offer any further clarification, when I don’t know how exactly in your language?



That's one thing I've never understood about other languages. I don't get how they can have one word mean many different things. Does that not limit the amount of information one can convey to another in a clear manner?


It’s not that hard really. It’s all about the context you put the word in. The only time it gets hard, is when you have to translate to another language.



Look it up in a dictionary.


I think you missed my first point, about me not understanding the words they use in the English online dictionary to explain the specific word. Duh….



That is one of your false accusations. You claim we're being hostile, which we are not. I have never gotten angry and aggressive towards any religious person on this forum or anywhere else for that matter, nor have I seen any other Atheist either.


No, don’t think you have been angry or aggressive, if that’s the only things, that hostile is used to describe, then I must admit, my choice in using that word was wrong. I saw hostile, in like a calm but hateful behavior towards believers. Like talking down to someone!!



WHAT A JOKE! Your going to sit there and claim I misunderstand you yet again and then ADMIT to what I was saying in my so called "misunderstanding"? Your a complete joke![


I guess you should have read further before posting such an ignorant response. You’re a complete joke, could be considered, in my mind as a calm but hateful remark towards me. Which I see as a extremly immature arrogant remark.



Not important??!! Your claiming that it's a big part of your ridiculous claim against Atheism. That's pretty damn important!


What is my ridiculous claim against atheism then? That they are hostile? Then how is my experience a big part of that claim?



Really? Give an example
.

Of what exactly? Where atheists promote how mature and intelligent they are or the non-fundamentalists gets unrightfully attacked. Well, then I will have to go outside this board, because as I mentioned, I wouldn’t mention any names.




top topics



 
12
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join