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.

 

Agnostics and Atheists - A Psychological Examination....

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster
Creativity is always based on precedence - nothing has ever been truly original, not even the wheel, since a rolling log would be an obvious inspiration


Everything is "truly original". No two things are EVER the same....ever.


Schizophrenia is never innovative in any sense of truly original delusional thinking - this assertion is backed up by decades of research and treatment of patients


Tell that to Van Gogh.


No other corporeal animal imagines invisible beings - even the most intelligent primates may mourn their dead, but they don't worship unseen beings or acknowledge such beings in any known manner or behavioral practice


My cats chase invisible mice. At least I think that's what they see. Could be insects, but they're definately not there.


The nature of learning, for primitive people and for people in general, is empirical observation first, and then consideration and extrapolation of what was observed, followed by association of what was considered and/or extrapolated with what exists within a basis of established knowledge.


Are you saying it isn't possible to learn without sight?

Wow...how come there are so many intelligent blind people around then?


Noises in the dark were not new to anyone who lived long enough to have any thoughts that could've been seen as original - and certainly persuasive to any degree - and those sounds were well known by all to be associated with very real predators that, while hidden by the dark, were in no way unseen as a fundamental aspect of their existential nature


What exactly does this have to do with Agnostics and Atheists?


I honestly have no idea,


On that, I completely agree. A hypothetical S&F for being right about something.

I know you are trying to make sense, but the way you have put your points forward leads me to believe you have been using a very limited perspective(s).

That's the thing about psychology, and in particular, psychologists...everything has to be labelled and put on a shelf for reference, this only suits those who wish to use those definitions to explain their apparent knowledge to others or for those seeking a definition for peace of mind (ha, ha). I also believe those definitions serve mainly to reassure those who feel the need to make them.

Problem is...we are 7+ billion individuals and the definitions needed to define us are infinate. If the title of your thread was "Agnosticism and Atheism - A Psycological Examination", then it would be fair to say what you do whether anyone thinks you're right or wrong as you would be talking about the mentality of a belief, but you address the individuals instead.

I still feel much of what you say is confused and misguided and should bear more resemblance to general populous instead of personal opinion and "the way it is".

Too much "matter-of-fact" and not enough consideration for individuality or imagination. 5/10

All psycologists are nuts.




posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by DogsDogsDogs
 


You totally misunderstood my little 'joke'. I was taking exception with the OP's assumption that atheists believe humanity invented the concept of God, spirit, the soul, and an afterlife. Yes, atheists don't hold a belief in God, but there isn't one atheistic stance on spirit, souls or the afterlife.

Making that assumption is the same as making the assumption that Christians don't like the gays or Muslims. SOME Christians don't, but being anti-gay and/or anti-Muslim is NOT a common belief of all Christians.

Hope that clears it up for you.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 03:24 PM
link   
it is a problem of reconciling the idea of spontaneous emergence inside of an inherently deterministic system (human mind).

this can be expressed in two (and only two) distinct ways because there are two (and only two) ways of interpreting reality: SELF and NOT SELF.

option #1: if people are unwilling to acknowledge the personal spontaneous nature of the SELF, they must ascribe the spontaneity to some higher particle. religion.

option #2: if people are unwilling to acknowledge the impersonal spontaneous nature of the NOT SELF, they must ascribe the spontaneity to some lower particle. science.

it is a race to either the top or the bottom. and at each position, you will find some type of "god".

option #3 (the non-option): the only other option is to leave the deterministic system in an undetermined state. agnostic.


the seemingly spontaneous nature of reality is the paradox which powers (in the kinetic sense) the entire system at every level of the system.


once again, noreaster, an excellent question.





posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


I can't believe how much I have laughed in this thread, thanks to you throwing in that ingenious quip about Christians!

I absolutely loved this one...

let's assume that primitive man had been primarily homosexual

I know, it's probably pretty rude to repeat it, but I haven't laughed so much in a while!

Thanks for sharing your wit, and getting the ball rolling in such an unexpected way, I can't wait to see what you do for an encore!




posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by nerbot
All psycologists are nuts.


...nah, just the ones that went into psychology to figure out why they're nutz, then got distracted by all the money they can make off other nutz...



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster
The origins of belief in unseen intelligent beings predates the origin of the determination that human beings possess such a physical nature as well.


...nonsense...


Originally posted by NorEaster
I am looking for the psychological impetus that would have allowed the first human being to both invent and believe in the invention of that first unseen being.


...you're looking for something that'll never be found, just guessed at - and - you've crippled your search for the elusive with your own words, indicating a myopic mindset...

...you think "it" started with just one human... you presumed the creator of the alleged initial fantasy actually believed their own fairy tale... all of which makes as much sense as you directing this thread to agnostics and atheists when the subject matter has nothing to do with either...

...in response to your question... imagination is my best guess - such as a mother creating a story to soothe a child afraid of thunder - or - a hunter looking for an explanation for why he was able to get out of a deadly situation without a scratch - or - why a starving wandering family suddenly found food and shelter...



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 07:48 PM
link   
Alot of ideas have been put forward already. Some very good points made and ideas to ponder.

I think that being human beings we like to relate everything that we can to ourselves. Especially back when the species was first emerging on this planet. Of course we attempt to understand and explain the world around us. I'm not sure how or why things developed the way that they did but I can assume because it seemed to be the only thing we could relate it to. Ourselves. We are creators - And in an attempt to explain this world around us we assume that something had to create it - Yet the only thing that we can relate that to is a being like ourselves - so that is what we imagine. We personify. A God. A being like ourselves. Just harnessing a lot more knowledge because we obviously cannot do the things that we expect it to have done. I think that is why we see the - "Created in our image" - and not just in the bible. When we perceive a God we first tend to think of something with qualities like our own - That would use the same thought processes that we do and so on and so forth.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


I take issue with being paired with atheists..... I do not take an absolute stance on what I classify as a possibly unanswerable question. This means I do not deny the possibility of the existance of what we ants might call a "god". But, I have not seen directly any compelling 100% undoubtable, cast iron proof to believe there is such.

Would you prefer I just declare belief despite not truly having it? You won't get it if you do. I will not pay lip service simply because it's expected of me.
edit on 26-1-2011 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 10:52 PM
link   
Human beings didn't create one god, they created several, a couple thousand or more perhaps. The god of sun, water, fear, pain, love, joy, humor, boredom, fire, tree, color, sky, moon, night, etc...

Every 2000 years or so, since perhaps around the end of the last Ice age (10-12,000 years ago) when many humans become of a sedentary sort thanks to plant and animal domestication, thoughtful and sensible deliberation working concomitantly with experimentation and logical inference, and with the aid of more and more leisure time, has bred lesser and lesser gods as we approach new ages of scientific thought.

In our largely monotheistic belief system, everybody is an atheist relative to our ancient ancestors, atheist today however, have decided to stay ahead of the game and take it one god further.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by uva3021
 


Oh boy recycled bad rhetoric.


Definition of ATHEISM
1archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity
Origin of ATHEISM
Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
First Known Use: 1546

source



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

As people learned about what these bodies really were, it was necessary to shift their beliefs to 'something' out there that can't be seen, but is the force behind these natural elements. So, the invisible man in the sky was born and man made God in his image.

Attribution is the psychological impetus. Why is this happening? Because the Sun god wishes it so...


Attribution can be blamed on declaring a volcano to be a god. Or declaring the sun to be a god. Or the moon. That kind of attribution makes sense. The corporeal state is a very insulated being state, and even if you are sophisticated enough to contemplate it, you can only contemplate it in reference to what it is if all you know is the corporeal being state.

You make quite an assumption when you assume that the natural extension - after blaming stuff on the sun god - is to invent a non-corporeal being to blame things on, and I suspect that it is an assumption that you can't really defend. The logic required to defend that assunmption doesn't exist. There is no intellectual linkage that exists between worshipping something that is omnipresent within the daily life of a primitive person, and the invention of something that litrally doesn't exist within that primitive person's life and transferring that worship to that nonexistent whatever-it-is. The logical progression that allows the human intellect to go from point A to point B in that situation just plain doesn't exist.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by NorEaster
 


I take issue with being paired with atheists..... I do not take an absolute stance on what I classify as a possibly unanswerable question. This means I do not deny the possibility of the existance of what we ants might call a "god". But, I have not seen directly any compelling 100% undoubtable, cast iron proof to believe there is such.

Would you prefer I just declare belief despite not truly having it? You won't get it if you do. I will not pay lip service simply because it's expected of me.
edit on 26-1-2011 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows because: (no reason given)


So, you can't accept the very clearly defined terms of the question? Then don't involve yourself in the examination.

I don't care what anyone believes or doesn't believe. I honestly don't care. What I'm interested in is the psychological impetus that allowed for the invention of a non-corporeal intelligent lifeform, if none exists or has ever existed. That's what I'm interested in, and that's all I'm interested in. I have no further agenda attached to this question.
edit on 1/27/2011 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster
The logical progression that allows the human intellect to go from point A to point B in that situation just plain doesn't exist.


By that logic Thor and Zeus exist and so does everything else.

Humans are perfectly capable of inventing and imagining things that don't and couldn't exist. It only takes one person to have a single idea that becomes a meme which spreads like a virus through everyone else. If you're trying to say with 100% certainty that humans can't imagine a person that doesn't exist you're treading a difficult path.

Besides ... an omnipotent being that doesn't exist ... All you would have to do is imagine being everywhere at once. Easy to do after imagining you could be the person next to you. Add a dash of imagining that people couldn't see you and shazam you have a God.

All the omnipotent beings imagined by humans are surprisingly human in nature.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by tgidkp
it is a problem of reconciling the idea of spontaneous emergence inside of an inherently deterministic system (human mind).

this can be expressed in two (and only two) distinct ways because there are two (and only two) ways of interpreting reality: SELF and NOT SELF.

option #1: if people are unwilling to acknowledge the personal spontaneous nature of the SELF, they must ascribe the spontaneity to some higher particle. religion.

option #2: if people are unwilling to acknowledge the impersonal spontaneous nature of the NOT SELF, they must ascribe the spontaneity to some lower particle. science.

it is a race to either the top or the bottom. and at each position, you will find some type of "god".

option #3 (the non-option): the only other option is to leave the deterministic system in an undetermined state. agnostic.

the seemingly spontaneous nature of reality is the paradox which powers (in the kinetic sense) the entire system at every level of the system.

once again, noreaster, an excellent question.




Thanks. Now, your description of the SELF and NOT SELF is fine, and accurate, within the confines of a discussion concerning the educated mind - one that can understand that there are other ways of experiencing existence that are different than the specific way that you experience it. However, the meme that has become traditionally associated with the development of a belief in the spirit/supernatural realm is that a primitive, unsophisticated mind conjured this realm up out of whole cloth. I am having a bitch of a time figuring out how such a mind - a mind that would not be aware of other ways of experiencing awareness, since that's one hell of a sophisticated notion - would be capable of creating - let alone handing the house keys to - something that it has no capacity to perceive.

I hope that this additional statement helps you understand the true issue here. You have to be able to digress your capacity for complex thought to the point where you can experience the world as a truly primitive thinker, and then look around for what the heck would cause you to (literally) imagine the unimaginable. That initial leap in congnitive thought is what I'm trying to nail down.
edit on 1/27/2011 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by nerbot

Originally posted by NorEaster
Creativity is always based on precedence - nothing has ever been truly original, not even the wheel, since a rolling log would be an obvious inspiration


Everything is "truly original". No two things are EVER the same....ever.


I won't bother explaining "original" to you. I know that in some people's world everyone is a star and everything is original. That's your opinion, but the truth is that everything can be tied to something that either inspired or is directly linked to its design or application. Check out the inventions and art of the human race. Nothing shows up unannounced.



Schizophrenia is never innovative in any sense of truly original delusional thinking - this assertion is backed up by decades of research and treatment of patients


Tell that to Van Gogh.


Van Gogh painted impressionistic paintings. Impressionistic paintings are extremely derivative, and the word "impressionism" suggests that they are an impression - a translation or interpretation - of what exists in corporeal existence. Hell, Picasso was more original than Van Gogh. Van Gogh is known for passion, not originality.



No other corporeal animal imagines invisible beings - even the most intelligent primates may mourn their dead, but they don't worship unseen beings or acknowledge such beings in any known manner or behavioral practice


My cats chase invisible mice. At least I think that's what they see. Could be insects, but they're definately not there.


...and you know that your cat is acknowledging unseen beings as it races around the floor, how? Seriously. A cat appearing to chase hallucinations...this somehow equates to the development in a belief if non-corporeal intelligent life within the human mind? For one thing, you have no idea why your cat races around as it does. You place a target in front of it as it does what it does, but is that target something that you invent because you can't imagine doing the same thing as your cat without a clearly defined target? That may be something to consider. It's called putting a smile on a dog, and people do it all the time.



The nature of learning, for primitive people and for people in general, is empirical observation first, and then consideration and extrapolation of what was observed, followed by association of what was considered and/or extrapolated with what exists within a basis of established knowledge.


Are you saying it isn't possible to learn without sight?

Wow...how come there are so many intelligent blind people around then?


Are you trying to prove how dense you are? Observation can be done via scent, sight, tactile sensation, auditory stimulation - a whole range of data input options. But, you knew that...right?

I mean, you didn't really think that empirical observation could only be done with eyes? I mean, we do empirical observation with computers and high tech machinery now days. No one really sits with their eye pressed against a huge telescope anymore to look at the universe. A computer snaps digital files of what crosses the lens, and that file is examined in a wide range of methods that you don't even need eyes to understand - not with today's technology.




]Noises in the dark were not new to anyone who lived long enough to have any thoughts that could've been seen as original - and certainly persuasive to any degree - and those sounds were well known by all to be associated with very real predators that, while hidden by the dark, were in no way unseen as a fundamental aspect of their existential nature


What exactly does this have to do with Agnostics and Atheists?


Do you know how to read? Do you know how to connect the last sentence you read with the sentence that preceeded that sentence? Do you even understand what this thread is about?

Why did you even bother to spend the time posting to any of this? You obviously have no idea what question I'm asking, and certainly don't have an answer to that question.



I honestly have no idea,


On that, I completely agree. A hypothetical S&F for being right about something.


Okay, now you're just being a troll.


I know you are trying to make sense, but the way you have put your points forward leads me to believe you have been using a very limited perspective(s).

That's the thing about psychology, and in particular, psychologists...everything has to be labelled and put on a shelf for reference, this only suits those who wish to use those definitions to explain their apparent knowledge to others or for those seeking a definition for peace of mind (ha, ha). I also believe those definitions serve mainly to reassure those who feel the need to make them.

Problem is...we are 7+ billion individuals and the definitions needed to define us are infinate. If the title of your thread was "Agnosticism and Atheism - A Psycological Examination", then it would be fair to say what you do whether anyone thinks you're right or wrong as you would be talking about the mentality of a belief, but you address the individuals instead.

I still feel much of what you say is confused and misguided and should bear more resemblance to general populous instead of personal opinion and "the way it is".

Too much "matter-of-fact" and not enough consideration for individuality or imagination. 5/10

All psycologists are nuts.


I was trying to understand the psychological state that would allow the FIRST PERSON WHO INVENTED THE CONCEPT OF NON-CORPOREAL EXISTENCE to be capable of that incredible feat of creativity. You completely walked into a wall here, and the only reason i even bothered with your inane post is that it will make it clear that I'm not trying to understand the AStheistic or Agnostic mindset. I really don't give a sh*t about that mindset or the theistic mindset, because, like you said, there are 7 billion idiots on this planet and God knows I wouldn't miss 5/6th of them if they suddenly fell off into space.

The premise was properly presented. It's not my fault that you completely misunderstood that premise.
edit on 1/27/2011 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster
You make quite an assumption when you assume that the natural extension - after blaming stuff on the sun god - is to invent a non-corporeal being to blame things on, and I suspect that it is an assumption that you can't really defend.


It is an assumption yes. I was giving my opinion.


But I can see how lightening and thunder might be attributed to an invisible god. A weapon or chastisement sent down from the heavens to punish or warn the people. Rains, floods, hurricanes and tornadoes, all could be attributed to an invisible god.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by ganjoa
Great subject. I have a small disconnect on your second and third assertions.
#3 - I think we have far too little knowledge or how the minds of other animals to call a fact in this area. Our understanding is insufficient to validate this assertion unless it is narrowly confined to "as far as we know today".


Okay, as far as we've ever been able to discern....blah, blah, blah... I can acknowledge that, but the indications certainly are that no other animal on this planet shapes its daily life around the existence of non-corporeal beings as a pervasive definition of itself as a species. There are plenty of zoologists and scientists who study most of the developed species on this planet, and a finding like that would be pretty had to overlook. Especially for someone whose entire career depends on finding such things.


#2 - No problem with your characterization of Schizo. not being productive. However consider the number of known psychoactive substances available in the environment which may induce "apparently" schizo. behavior for a time.


As someone whose life included many years of such psychoactive substances ('___', Mescaline, PCP, and stuff that was probably rat poison for all anyone knew) the suggestion that anything truly free of intellectual linkage emerges from such a state is not accurate. Yes, I've walked on terrain that rose up to meet me as if I were walking on a large cylinder (try cross the street when dealing with that level of reality distortion), and witnessed my face collapse into my head, but it wasn't as if I'd invented anything that was truly original in the process. Even if I'd invented the 356th dimension and zit people, dimensions and zits weren't anything original, and sticking a few disparate items together like that is what creativity is all about. Regardless of how ingenius the arrangement, it's still derivative.

The initial invention of non-corporeal intelligent life was something that can not be directly linked to anything that a person can experience. The leap required is enormous, and has never been accomplished since.


Even the most primitive man, exposed to the elements could not help but notice there is order to the perceptible universe - it could appear that there is an intelligence at work, thus the creation of an entire mythology. The need for answers to observed phenomena is strong in an inquisitive mind. Add to this the awakening of other senses we have shunned today as part of our civilization process. Man explores all that is around him, it would be inconceiveable that man's interaction with various substances did not affect the development of what we might term today, man's spiritual side. That's my assessment.

ganjoa


I agree that even primitive humans would have felt a need to logically explain the existence of their world and even themselves. There are those theologies that declare that the sun has a human mind and human perceptions. Others that declare this of the moon or a volcano, or a big freakin' lizard, or even a legendary whale that rules a patch of ocean. The linkage in these cases is pretty obvious. The sun exists and dominates the visual realm for most of the day, and the moon rules the night sky. Simple assignment of personification and ultimate responsibility to these two omnipresent, seemingly omnipotent entities.

A volcano - especially one that killed people in a distant, storied past - takes on that same levekl of omnipotence and omnipresence. Same with a legendary sea monster or a white whale, if you're dealing with a culture that lives off the sea. All this is obvious and the intellectual linkage is clear.

The real mystery is that it can't be denied that at some point - long ago - one person invented the non-corporeal being. And when he (or she) did, that invention was seen by that person as reality, not as an invention. What I don't understand, is that if this person did invent this - meaning that the non-corporeal world doesn't actually exist, and there is no afterlife possible - then what could have possibly been the means by which that one person invented what could not have been perceived or built upon as a fundamental notion?

That first flash of creative genius had to have occurred somehow and somewhere and at some point in human history, and when it did, there was literally nothing whatsoever that contributed to it in a way that could have defined it as being what it ended up being determined to be. That instant of intellectual emergence changed the entire world - before it happened, there was no non-corporeal realm, but after it happened, the entire definition of what it means to be human on Planet Earth began to develop as we know it to be.

What on earth could have allowed that to occur if the non-corporeal realm does not actually exist?

The reason I chose to ask this question of Atheists and Agnostics, is because Theists will just tell me that the non-corporeal realm does exist - case closed. That'd be worthless in this examination, so why would I invite that kind of response? I figure that Atheists and Agnostics have at least taken a glance at this question at one moment or another. I thought some may even have a good idea about it.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by NorEaster
You make quite an assumption when you assume that the natural extension - after blaming stuff on the sun god - is to invent a non-corporeal being to blame things on, and I suspect that it is an assumption that you can't really defend.


It is an assumption yes. I was giving my opinion.


But I can see how lightening and thunder might be attributed to an invisible god. A weapon or chastisement sent down from the heavens to punish or warn the people. Rains, floods, hurricanes and tornadoes, all could be attributed to an invisible god.


A god that was out-of-sight - as in living in the clouds or on a mountain top far away - but that's not the same as the invention of non-corporeal existence. Think about that for a moment, and you'll see the difference. It may seem subtle in textual definition, but in real-life application, the distinction is enormous in implication and ramification.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster
A god that was out-of-sight - as in living in the clouds or on a mountain top far away - but that's not the same as the invention of non-corporeal existence.


I'm not sure that modern day Christians (or other religious people) think that their God is non-corporeal. I mean, sure, they don't see him now, but one day, they plan on seeing him in his heaven. Just as they believe heaven is a real place (out of time, out of phase), I think they believe that God is a tangible being on some level. That is an assumption on my part. I guess we'd need some religious folk in here to answer that question... But I think many of them do think that God is living somewhere tucked away in his heaven. Corporeal. Maybe not to the extent that we are, but visible and audible, nonetheless.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by NorEaster
A god that was out-of-sight - as in living in the clouds or on a mountain top far away - but that's not the same as the invention of non-corporeal existence.


I'm not sure that modern day Christians (or other religious people) think that their God is non-corporeal. I mean, sure, they don't see him now, but one day, they plan on seeing him in his heaven. Just as they believe heaven is a real place (out of time, out of phase), I think they believe that God is a tangible being on some level. That is an assumption on my part. I guess we'd need some religious folk in here to answer that question... But I think many of them do think that God is living somewhere tucked away in his heaven. Corporeal. Maybe not to the extent that we are, but visible and audible, nonetheless.


Corporeal - as it refers to the human being in physical form - means flesh and bones and blood and stuff that falls out onto the ground if you get your stomach snagged on a sharp edge. The Christian belief can run the gamut from believing in the literal raising of the human corpse to the ethereal ascension of the spirit/soul, and everything in-between. The physical nature of God - in their general view - involves a timelessness that can't be achieved in a corporeal state. It means a non-spiritual form of physical existence. Still, like you said, some Christians do believe in the physical body that isn't spiritual and it isn't really like the corporeal body that we each have. The Jehovah's Witnesses (definitely not a Christian sect) also believe in this form of eternal life after death. My older brother is one of those, and the specifics can get pretty confusing.

Still, there are many people who completely dismiss the idea that there is or can be any form of intelligent existence that does not conform to our version of corporeal reality. In this examination, I'm conceding that, declaring it to be true (for this examination only, of course) and challenging myself and anyone else who feels like taking it on, to come up with an airtight logical explanation of how the 1st human being that declared intelligent existence to be present and ongoing with a realm that could not be seen or heard or sensed in any way, was capable of making that leap of imagination, when everything else that's ever emerged from the imagination of human beings has been clearly linked to previous imaginings, or even realities that exist as observable in this realm.

So far, not so successful, but I'm hopeful.
edit on 1/27/2011 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join