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.

 

Question for materialists

page: 9
4
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 03:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Jesus
 


I am slowly making a list of posters who continually choose not to understand. It is obvious that certain people on this site do not want to know the truth. They are here to challenge us, tempt us into conflict. They do not seek the truth, they seek opposition. When in opposition the feel they exist, without opposition they feel they are nothing. It is no more than attention seeking.




posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


Well I know intellectually he is already capable of comprehending the science but the implications disturb him.

I think on some level the continuous arguing over something so simple is his way of dealing with his preconceived notions.

He thinks science has turned its back on him because it is merging with spirituality.

It actuality he should be happy that even consciousness is not beyond science, he can understand everything if he keeps up.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


Well I know intellectually he is already capable of comprehending the science but the implications disturb him.

I think on some level the continuous arguing over something so simple is his way of dealing with his preconceived notions.

He thinks science has turned its back on him because it is merging with spirituality.

It actuality he should be happy that even consciousness is not beyond science, he can understand everything if he keeps up.


I'm more disturbed with the implications of poor reading comprehension and lack of research skills than I am with the perceived implications of misrepresented science. The scientific stance on spiritualism is that it doesn't exist due to the historical origins of this practice which is well understood and known and due to many many many experiments into claims of supernatural phenomena being shown as false or hoaxed.

But you wouldn't understand that because you clearly don't research properly nor understand what exactly you are reading, especially when you decide to get hung up on one tiny misrepresented quote that has nothing at all to do with the actual scientific experiment.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
I'm more disturbed with the implications of poor reading comprehension and lack of research skills than I am with the perceived implications of misrepresented science. The scientific stance on spiritualism is that it doesn't exist


Again, this is your own belief, and is not actually justified by science.

This is similar to your claim that consciousness is all in the human brain, which is also not supported by science.

I am convinced that you either do not understand the scientific method, or you intentionally manipulate it to keep in line with the beliefs you already have and refuse to reconsider.



But you wouldn't understand that because you clearly don't research properly


You yourself obviously do not do research "properly." For example, research involves sources. When I ask you for sources, you throw temper tantrums, use all kinds of profane and disgusting language and then finally blatantly lie. You have been through this cycle enough times that I'm able to describe it in this way with some authority. This thread is a perfect example of it, if anyone actually goes back and reads through your posts.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 



Again, this is your own belief, and is not actually justified by science.


Wow, you just feel such a desire/need to troll don't you? Thank you captain obvious for pointing out that I have a personal opinion about someone inability to comprehend what they're reading. Now, I do agree with you that there have been no scientific studies in regards to his reading comprehension skill, I won't argue with you there, but thanks for pointing that out captain obvious.


You yourself obviously do not do research "properly." For example, research involves sources. When I ask you for sources, you throw temper tantrums, use all kinds of profane and disgusting language and then finally blatantly lie. You have been through this cycle enough times that I'm able to describe it in this way with some authority. This thread is a perfect example of it, if anyone actually goes back and reads through your posts.


Gee, I hope they don't see the links I posted... you know, the one's you claim don't exist whilst waltzing around trolling the thread mind numbingly bitching about hands and arms... or was that your other trolling patrol? I'm loosing track now. Can't keep up with the internet trolls these days.


edit on 29-4-2011 by sirnex because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex

Again, this is your own belief, and is not actually justified by science.


Wow, you just feel such a desire/need to troll don't you? Thank you captain obvious for pointing out that I have a personal opinion about someone inability to comprehend what they're reading.


Ironic. Your own reading comprehension must be poor, because the lack of evidence I was referring to was regarding your claim, "The scientific stance on spiritualism is that it doesn't exist," not your personal opinions of this other individual's reading comprehension.

Of course you ignore your own claim that science has proven something, which is obviously has not.



Gee, I hop the don't see the links I posted... you know, the one's you claim don't exist whilst waltzing around trolling the thread mind numbingly bitching about hands and arms... or was that your other trolling patrol? I'm loosing track now. Can't keep up with the internet trolls these days.


I would love to see where you've posted sources I've asked for.

See, this is part of you continuing to blatantly lie about posting sources, which you have never posted.


Earlier I was posting giant lists of quotes from all throughout this thread, of claims you have made, and have been unable to support.

But for now let's keep it simple, why not? You still will not be able to post a single source, let alone 20 for 20 different claims.

So where is your scientific evidence that the experience of consciousness is generated entirely within the human brain?


I expect nothing but more insults and profane language to follow... Let's see if you prove me wrong by actually posting a source for once.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 



Ironic. Your own reading comprehension must be poor, because the lack of evidence I was referring to was regarding your claim, "The scientific stance on spiritualism is that it doesn't exist," not your personal opinions of this other individual's reading comprehension.

Of course you ignore your own claim that science has proven something, which is obviously has not.


Sorry, my bad. Should make some effort to reply to specific points, really isn't that hard. Anywho... I've yet to see one scientific verified experiment in regards to spiritualist beliefs showing them to be true. Unless of course you would like to post sources you mind numbingly bitch so much about.



I would love to see where you've posted sources I've asked for.


Go look. No need to post them fifteen different times to feed a lazy fat troll.


So where is your scientific evidence that the experience of consciousness is generated entirely within the human brain?


Whoa, I just agree with the dictionary definition of consciousness. Easy cowboy.


I expect nothing but more insults and profane language to follow... Let's see if you prove me wrong by actually posting a source for once.


Well, I guess I'm a moth to a light. You flame bait and I fall for it. I see you spending more time writing nothing instead of backing up your own criticisms. I suppose that's the life of a lazy a$$ troll. Pick on others without adding anything of substantial value.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by NewlyAwakened
 


Hello, Original Poster! Before I answer this I think there are a few important things to note. First, cells are consciousness. They live, they mate, they eat, and they have their own intentions and although they are selfishly living, they form together as a whole to make up you. You have more than a trillion cells with their own consciousness and you are the cells and yet, you can not tune in to each and everyone of these consciousnesses that are you. In the same way, consciousness isn't located in the brain, but thoughts are. One neuron sending electric energy to another forms a thought and this is how the thought process works but your consciousness is not subjected to your mind. I'm tempted to say that the energy itself IS consciousness. So energy is pure consciousness and matter is compressed energy which is solidified to an extent as a system of consciousness. Like the cells of your body which works together to keep you whole. I hope that makes sense to you.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Just feel the need to further explain my compliance with how consciousness is defined.

I'm not the one arguing that the act of being self aware is what makes us, us, give us our personal identity or is our mind or soul or any other concept.

I'm just curious with how you fringtards are regarding the act of either being aware or unaware is somehow seperate from reality or makes thing's real, or makes you, you or every other claim your and your ilk are making in regards to consciousness.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by arpgme
 


You got it backwards. Energy is matter acting upon other matter. There is no such thing as energy existing by itself.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
Sorry, my bad. Should make some effort to reply to specific points, really isn't that hard.


So you accuse others of having poor reading comprehension, but when the shoes on the other foot, it's my fault for not being clear enough. Of course. Why would I expect any different from you?



Anywho... I've yet to see one scientific verified experiment in regards to spiritualist beliefs showing them to be true. Unless of course you would like to post sources you mind numbingly bitch so much about.


You claimed "The scientific stance on spiritualism is that it doesn't exist."

That's your claim, not mine.

If you now admit you have no source for this claim, that's fine. I accept your retraction.




I would love to see where you've posted sources I've asked for.


Go look. No need to post them fifteen different times to feed a lazy fat troll.


You're only proving what I just posted right, that when asked for sources you just lie and claim you already posted them. You've been doing this for how many pages now? It really gets old. Yeah, sorry. Not everyone is as slow as you.

It would be a miracle if you posted a source once, let alone 15 times.



So where is your scientific evidence that the experience of consciousness is generated entirely within the human brain?


Whoa, I just agree with the dictionary definition of consciousness. Easy cowboy.


Here's a full dictionary definition:


Definition of CONSCIOUSNESS
1
a : the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself b : the state or fact of being conscious of an external object, state, or fact c : awareness; especially : concern for some social or political cause
2
: the state of being characterized by sensation, emotion, volition, and thought : mind
3
: the totality of conscious states of an individual
4
: the normal state of conscious life
5
: the upper level of mental life of which the person is aware as contrasted with unconscious processes


www.merriam-webster.com...

So where is a scientific study that proves all of these things are products of the organ known as the human brain only?




I expect nothing but more insults and profane language to follow... Let's see if you prove me wrong by actually posting a source for once.


Well, I guess I'm a moth to a light. You flame bait and I fall for it. I see you spending more time writing nothing instead of backing up your own criticisms. I suppose that's the life of a lazy a$$ troll. Pick on others without adding anything of substantial value.


I'm just asking you for sources for you own claims. Once again you prove my point by responding with profanity and insults. You're too predictable.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
I'm not the one arguing that the act of being self aware is what makes us, us, give us our personal identity or is our mind or soul or any other concept.


I'm not either, so is this one more thing you are hopelessly confused about?


I'm just curious with how you fringtards are regarding the act of either being aware or unaware is somehow seperate from reality or makes thing's real, or makes you, you or every other claim your and your ilk are making in regards to consciousness.


I never said being aware is "seperate (sic) from reality". You still have no clue of the ideas of the people you have spent the last however many thread pages arguing with.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 



So you accuse others of having poor reading comprehension, but when the shoes on the other foot, it's my fault for not being clear enough. Of course. Why would I expect any different from you?


Well, when you're only referencing one part whilst quoting other thing's that have nothing to do with what your replying to, I surely can't be held entirely responsible for your inability to be more specific and to the point. Besides, it's entirely different what just occurred there.


You claimed "The scientific stance on spiritualism is that it doesn't exist."

That's your claim, not mine.

If you now admit you have no source for this claim, that's fine. I accept your retraction.


I'm sure your well aware you can't prove a negative, right? Where would I even start? Which aspect of spirituality would you prefer me to begin? Again, you appear to be arguing that it does deserve merit without providing any sources, so hopefully you'll excuse me if I follow your lazy example.


You're only proving what I just posted right, that when asked for sources you just lie and claim you already posted them. You've been doing this for how many pages now? It really gets old. Yeah, sorry. Not everyone is as slow as you.


The only thing proven is that your effin lazy. Yea, it's pretty old having to deal with people who want their hands held like little babies bitching for their binkies.


You're too predictable.


As are you my troll friend.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by arpgme
 


You got it backwards. Energy is matter acting upon other matter. There is no such thing as energy existing by itself.


When I say "energy" I'm referring to that which everything is made out of . I'm talking about Einstein's Quantum Foam, I'm talking about The Quantum Physic's String Theory, that thing which all things are made from.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by arpgme
 


You got it backwards. Energy is matter acting upon other matter. There is no such thing as energy existing by itself.


When I say "energy" I'm referring to that which everything is made out of . I'm talking about Einstein's Quantum Foam, I'm talking about The Quantum Physic's String Theory, that thing which all things are made from.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex

So you accuse others of having poor reading comprehension, but when the shoes on the other foot, it's my fault for not being clear enough. Of course. Why would I expect any different from you?


Well, when you're only referencing one part whilst quoting other thing's that have nothing to do with what your replying to, I surely can't be held entirely responsible for your inability to be more specific and to the point. Besides, it's entirely different what just occurred there.


I can't be held responsible for your inability to discriminate a "scientific" claim from a personal opinion, from your own freaking post.



You claimed "The scientific stance on spiritualism is that it doesn't exist."

That's your claim, not mine.

If you now admit you have no source for this claim, that's fine. I accept your retraction.


I'm sure your well aware you can't prove a negative, right?


Then why did you say "The scientific stance on spiritualism is that it doesn't exist"?


I guess "scientific stances" now have nothing to do with scientific evidence or proof... according to Sirnex. What's new?




You're only proving what I just posted right, that when asked for sources you just lie and claim you already posted them. You've been doing this for how many pages now? It really gets old. Yeah, sorry. Not everyone is as slow as you.


The only thing proven is that your effin lazy.


Speak for yourself. If you actually posted a source, it would take a whole 20 seconds to find the link and copy and paste it again. You want to talk about lazy? Refusing to do that would be lazy. In reality you are lying, because you never posted a source in the first place and you know it. Why do you feel the need to have lengthy conversations just to repeatedly lie to people online?



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 



Then why did you say "The scientific stance on spiritualism is that it doesn't exist"?


Gee, I suppose as previously mentioned from every single thing I've read in regards as being showing false or hoaxed. Again, where would you prefer I start?


Speak for yourself. If you actually posted a source


OK, I'm gonna stop you right there and politely ask you to get off your lazy whiny mind numbingly bitchy a$$ and look back through this thread and the others we've been discussing this topic in. Alright buddy bear? You're not five years old, your not a little baby, I'm not going to hold your hand and re-post everything simply because you demand it in the most queerest annoying bitchy manner.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex

Then why did you say "The scientific stance on spiritualism is that it doesn't exist"?


Gee, I suppose as previously mentioned from every single thing I've read in regards as being showing false or hoaxed. Again, where would you prefer I start?


Your choice. You're apparently the expert on "spiritualism" not existing, so enlighten us.

Although you did also immediately respond with the contradictory claim that "you can't prove a negative," so we'll see what hilarity ensues from you already contradicting yourself.





Speak for yourself. If you actually posted a source


OK, I'm gonna stop you right there and politely ask you to get off your lazy whiny mind numbingly bitchy a$$ and look back through this thread and the others we've been discussing this topic in. Alright buddy bear? You're not five years old, your not a little baby, I'm not going to hold your hand and re-post everything simply because you demand it in the most queerest annoying bitchy manner.


I've been reading and posting in this thread the whole time. I have been asking for sources the entire time. You must know that you are repeatedly lying.


Through the whole thread, it's nothing but this:


You: "blah blah blah, doesn't exist, all in your head, science proves it."

Me: "Source?"

You: "blah blah blah fingers in your ass, blah blah blah, more profanity.... etc."

Me: "Ummm.. source for that claim?"

You: "Already posted it."

Me: "No, you didn't."

You: "Yes I did, stupid, fingers in your ass, hands and arms, blah blah blah."

Me: "Then can you post the source again, please?"

You: "No, you're lazy, fingers and hands, blah blah blah."


I'm trying to communicate with you on your own level here, using your own favorite words and phrases.... Are you getting the picture yet?
edit on 29-4-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by AstyanaxOn the contrary, as neuroscience goes from strength to strength, the Ghost in the Machine grows fainter and more transparent. Soon it will be gone for ever, fading away into the archetypal night.


Was that when Hans Berger invented the EEG to try to explain why he knew the instant his brother died, despite being far away, or when Kekule saw the structure of a benzene ring as a snake swallowing it's tail in a dream, or when Tesla had a vision which included all the details of the (uninvented) AC motor, or would you like to enlighten us by posting your definition of "life" as in what differentiates a living thing from a non-living thing?
Or how about hydrancephaly, where there's only a smidgen of brain matter in otherwise normal human beings? Ghost in the machine indeed.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Yea, I'm getting the picture all right. You have memory issues along with your laziness issues. I mean, wow.. way to put the hands and arms argument upon me as if it was what I was arguing. That's just awesome dude. The length some people will go to troll just amazes me. Thankfully people can read back and see who the real lying scum fringtard is.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join