The Great Jesus Swindle, Greatest lie ever told.

Originally posted by Time2Think
reply to post by Condemned0625

 

Your comments seems sort of meaningless when the very definition of the word "holography" comes from the Greek way before cameras or lasers were ever even thought about...

]

Aren't most English words derived from Greek and Latin words? Oops, looks like you've made a mistake there. I wonder if 'projection' is derived from a Greek term. Let's find out!

dictionary.reference.com...

Looks like it comes from both Latin and Greek (or just exists in those languages). What about 'holography'? Let's find out.

Holography - Origin: 1795 - 1805. What? I thought it originated from the Greeks just like you said! I guess it didn't.

dictionary.reference.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

There's the proof. The word is derived from Greek like most other words, but it does not mean the word itself existed at that time. Holography is a technology and ancients did not know about it. Do your research properly before attempting to "prove" me wrong.

Overview and history

Holography was invented in 1947 by the Hungarian-British[4] physicist Dennis Gabor (Hungarian name: Gábor Dénes),[5] work for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1971. Pioneering work in the field of physics by other scientists including Mieczysław Wolfke resolved technical issues that previously had prevented advancement. The discovery was an unexpected result of research into improving electron microscopes at the British Thomson-Houston Company in Rugby, England, and the company filed a patent in December 1947 (patent GB685286). The technique as originally invented is still used in electron microscopy, where it is known as electron holography, but holography as a light-optical technique did not really advance until the development of the laser in 1960.

Who's rolling their eyes now?

Originally posted by Condemned0625
reply to post by tinfoilman

 

Do you have any idea what a hologram is? A hologram is not a real object. It is a digital projection of an object, but it has no solidity like the real object. The keyboard you are using is a solid object. If you cannot simply comprehend the fact that your environment is real and not a projection, I don't know what else to tell you and the others.

Yes, as a computer scientist, I am somewhat familiar with what a hologram is and the storage of information and information theory. Of course a hologram not a real object. Like I said, a hologram is a way to store information or you could say that when information is stored holographically, if you like, that you then have a hologram.

Most people think this has something to do with light or lasers, but when talking about the holographic universe, that's not exactly the case. When talking about a holographic universe we're talking more about how the information that makes up the universe is stored and information theory. Not the little illusions you may find on your favorite pokemon foil card.

A keyboard is not a solid object either. It is 99 percent empty space. What you're touching is not actually the keyboard or the atoms that make up the keyboard as they aren't solid. The atoms that make up the keyboard produce a field much like a force field. The atoms in your body produce another field and those two fields oppose each other and so you think you're touching it, but you actually aren't. Without the field your body makes, you'd go right through the keyboard, and the wall. Regardless of if the keyboard's field was still intact or not.

Nothing is solid, that's just how we perceive it. Things that don't produce their own field pass right through solid objects, just like dark matter that is not effected by said field. The configuration of atoms is just the data that makes up where your field goes.

But you never did answer the question. Who cares if the keyboard is solid, or you just THINK it's solid? As long as it types. Nobody cares. After all, the keyboard isn't solid either way. Regardless of if you believe in a holographic universe or not.

Originally posted by notimportant
It was Lucifer who created and yhwh who got jealous and started to act as a dictator and eventually kicked Lucifer of the throne. In the 10 commandments (who are forced upon mankind by "control freak" yhwh) is written that you shall not worship other gods, and only him, so that makes him extremely jealous.

I once was intrested in becoming a Christian because I strongly belive there is more, but those christian days are over. Also those days were filled full of fear because I was afraid that I might be going to hell and that I was not good enough, but then I started realising that hell does not excist. It's all based on fear. What I was experiencing those days was comparable to a psychosis, and it was terrible when I think back to it.

Now I turned over to Luciferianism I feel better, I can think for myself in a rational way and my life is back on track, I literally get everything I want, and this is NO JOKE !!!, but it goes not fast but it doesnt really matter. It's not like that you will ask for it and 10 second later it arrives. It's comparable to a growing process.

Mark my words, yhwh is bad, lucifer is good.

Getting what you want, and getting what you need is two different things. As for the first commandment, well looking at the Phoenicians all the way to the Aztecs luciferian religions.... Yeah following the first commandment is a good idea.

Any fool can claim their being rational, but it is the self absorbed fool who really takes the cake. The only reason you fear Hell, is because that is where your going. I don't say that lightly or even with a grimace, but with sadness. Personally I would prefer it if our kind never went there, but it is an individual choice.

P.S
Some favors come at too high of a cost.

Originally posted by Condemned0625
reply to post by AceWombat04

 

Are you kidding me? Of course I can prove that the couch behind me exists. It's behind me, I just looked at it and I have sat on it many times.

I understand that opinion and I respect it. Nevertheless, in my opinion you cannot prove the couch is there. You can't prove a negative, which means you can't prove with absolute, 100% certainty that your perceptions aren't somehow deceiving you. You can prove that information exists and that you are experiencing that information in such a way that you perceive the couch. That doesn't necessarily mean the couch exists in the literal context, though. It is at least conceivable that your perception is not representative of reality, that your subjective experience of reality is being manipulated somehow, or as Nietszche argued, that there may not even be a "you" doing the perceiving and thinking in the first place; or indeed, that perception or thought are even occuring.

It is conceivable - and possible if you really want to split philosophical hairs - that your subjective experience of person, of perception, and of ego are emergent behaviors resulting in the illusion that they exist as we perceive them. In a nut shell, we could be wrong. Now, I would never argue that that is the case. I can only say that it's possible. And if it's possible, then that means we haven't ruled it out, which means we haven't proved its negative.

I will never support the holographic universe theory unless it is proven.

As I said, the holographic principle is just a theory. It's a theory formulated by powerful minds responsible for some of the most difficult and complex fields of cosmological study, and is very seriously considered by legitimate cosmologists in the upper echelons of theory, but it isn't a fact. It's only just that; a theory. You are right (in my opinion) not to support anything without proof. I don't either.

If everything is just a hologram, then my life doesn't matter because I'm just a damn hologram. If I'm not real, what's the point? This theory is beyond ridiculous. What the hell is the point in someone even living if they think that a holographic universe is a possibility?

That is the crux of the matter. The human ego (in the psychological sense I mean, not the popularized notion that ego means to be conceited) abhors the notion that we might not matter. But consider the possibility. What if there is no point? What if it doesn't matter? If that is the way it is, then regardless of whether we want to accept it or can accept it, then it would still be the case. I'm not arguing that it is that way, mind you. But it is one possibility. To deny or dismiss it just because we abhor the notion doesn't render it any less possible.

In the alternative, what if there is a point and meaning to a potentially holographic universe that we simply can't comprehend or conceive of? Just because we can't understand the point doesn't necessarily mean there isn't one. Just because we don't like the way the prospect makes us feel, doesn't eliminate the possibility that it might - might - be true. Hell, generative psychology and newer studies of the physiology of the regions of the brain responsible for the subjective experience of volition speculate (and provides some evidence - not proof) that we may not even have free will. I am loathe to ponder that possibility; but it remains possible nevertheless, whether I like it or not (and even if I'm terrified by it.)

If you think that you can't even prove something in front of you exists, you're a solipsist. Try punching yourself in the face or banging your knee on a table and then try to tell me that you and the table may not exist.

This is an excellent example of why I believe I can't prove that. If I punch myself in the face, I will experience the sensation we identify as pain (or at least all experience to date suggests I will.) That experience doesn't exist in my face, though. It exists in my brain. (The subjective experience of the pain mind you; not the damage causing the pain that we believe exists.) I don't experience it until my brain does. That being the case, I can only prove that information exists that causes my mind to perceive that what I think is happening is happening in my opinion.

I am not satisfied that I can prove - by my standards - that there is even a me or a "front of me" for the couch to be in, let alone a couch. Your response to that may be, "but if there was no you, you wouldn't be thinking about this?" My response to that, again in somewhat the vein of Nietszche, is that it's possible a system of information exists whereby somewhere within that system this subjective experience might be generated. That doesn't prove that that information system comprises "me" or that that subjective experience is truly representative of reality.

I would argue it doesn't make me a solipsist - especially since I do not believe I can even be certain my own mid exists - but rather that it makes me existentially skeptical. But you are more than welcome to your opinion which, as I said, I respect and understand.

I find solipsism to be very funny. It's about as retarded as religion, although I still say that religion is the most retarded system ever created.

That's unfortunate. I deeply respect your opinion. I hope you can find it within yourself to do the same. If you can't though, there's nothing I can do about that. It is what it is.

Peace.

reply to post by tinfoilman


If that's the case, then the word 'solid' shouldn't even exist, right? I guess everyone should just replace anything that is said to be solid with "non-solid that has field that simulates solidity". Which one is easier for you? "I eat foods that aren't actually solids because the atoms produce fields that make it seem like they're solids when they're really not, otherwise it would pass completely through me." or "I eat solid foods." There's a reason why the word exists.

Solid

1. having three dimensions (length, breadth, and thickness), as a geometrical body or figure.
2. of or pertaining to bodies or figures of three dimensions.
3. having the interior completely filled up, free from cavities, or not hollow: a solid piece of chocolate.
4. without openings or breaks: a solid wall.
5. firm, hard, or compact in substance: solid ground.

And there are a few more similar definitions. What about the atoms themselves? Are those solids or are they made of even smaller particles with their own fields that make them seem like solids? Don't expect me to sit here and read nonsense all night. I have better things to do.

reply to post by Condemned0625



I don't, I just expect you to answer the question. Don't accuse me of wasting your time. I asked you a question in my first rep to you, and you've posted how many times and never answered it? Believe what you want.

My only question is simple. Why does it matter? I've asked you three times now. What does it matter if it's really solid or not? What does it matter if the information that makes up the universe is stored as a hologram or is stored some other way? Do you care how your computer stores the information on its hard drive? As long as the information is still there.

Yes solid is a word used to describe some of our experiences that may be more abstract than we think. It still doesn't answer my question as to why it matters if it's really solid or not?

EDIT: Also you redefined the word solid and moved the goal post. Something that you could pass right through could still have three dimensions, length width and height, and therefore be solid. You can't change the definition. The one you were using earlier clearly meant, something that you can not pass through.

If that's the definition you are now using, then a hologram is solid. It has a height, width, and length.

reply to post by AceWombat04

I understand that opinion and I respect it. Nevertheless, in my opinion you cannot prove the couch is there. You can't prove a negative, which means you can't prove with absolute, 100% certainty that your perceptions aren't somehow deceiving you.

No, it's not an opinion. It's a fact. You want to bet that there's no couch behind me? I can prove it with photos and live video footage from my webcam, but even that may not be enough proof for you. All over a couch. Really?

I would argue it doesn't make me a solipsist - especially since I do not believe I can even be certain my own mid exists - but rather that it makes me existentially skeptical. But you are more than welcome to your opinion which, as I said, I respect and understand.

It's borderline solipsism. You should learn to read my statements correctly. 'Borderline' does not imply it is exactly that. Sure, you're not even certain that your own mind exists, but you're also uncertain if other minds exist. If that is the case, why are you even alive? If you're not even sure that your own mind exists, then give me everything you own so I can sell it. It wouldn't matter anyways because you might not even exist, right?

It's a theory formulated by powerful minds responsible for some of the most difficult and complex fields of cosmological study, and is very seriously considered by legitimate cosmologists in the upper echelons of theory, but it isn't a fact.

Are you sure those powerful minds exist? You said you weren't even certain that your own mind exists. I think you see the point (hopefully).

Originally posted by Condemned0625
reply to post by tinfoilman

 

Do you have any idea what a hologram is?

Also, I don't know if you remember this, but you asked me what a hologram is remember? So, I told you and then when I respond you say you don't have time to read nonsense?

Do yourself a favor. If you don't want questions answered, don't ask them. Just keep your mouth shut and you can save yourself a lot of time not having to read the answers to the questions you just asked.

Originally posted by Condemned0625
reply to post by AceWombat04

 

No, it's not an opinion. It's a fact.

It is an opinion, with respect. I respect it, but it does not meet my standards for fact.

You want to bet that there's no couch behind me? I can prove it with photos and live video footage from my webcam, but even that may not be enough proof for you. All over a couch. Really?

Seeing a thing does not prove it is real in my opinion.

It's borderline solipsism. You should learn to read my statements correctly. 'Borderline' does not imply it is exactly that.

I quoted your exact statement. You said, "If you think that you can't even prove something in front of you exists, you're a solipsist." (And no, I can't prove that happened either. I'm speaking in the context of the reality you believe exists.)

Sure, you're not even certain that your own mind exists, but you're also uncertain if other minds exist. If that is the case, why are you even alive? If you're not even sure that your own mind exists, then give me everything you own so I can sell it. It wouldn't matter anyways because you might not even exist, right?

Being uncertain of a thing does not preclude the possibility of a thing. For better or worse, we are trapped in the experience of this perceived reality, whether we can prove its ultimate truth or not.

Are you sure those powerful minds exist? You said you weren't even certain that your own mind exists.

No, I'm not certain they exist. I'm not certain this conversation we're having even exists. I perceive it to be happening (or something does, and this area of whatever reality ultimately is is currently experiencing it evidently; whichever the case may be.) But if people exist as you believe they do - which is absolutely possible - then they are minds that are respectable and with merit in the context of the reality you believe exists.

I think you see the point (hopefully).

I understand your argument, if that's what you mean. I disagree with your conclusions. But as I said, I respect your opinion and your right to it. I am not trying to change your mind or asserting anything for a fact. I am only presenting what I believe are possibilities alternative to what you believe are facts. That's all. Just possibilities.

Peace.

reply to post by tinfoilman


I didn't change the definition. I'm not one of those dishonest pricks who edits copied information. You want to talk about me accusing you of something, yet here you are accusing me of altering information that is word-for-word, straight from the dictionary. I can't even count how many times I've seen dishonest assertions now in this thread, yours being one of them. Here's the link to the definitions that I never changed: dictionary.reference.com...

To answer your question, it matters to me whether something is solid or not because there's people like you who are trying to claim that it isn't or may not be solid when it is. I care whether something is true or not. I don't go around spewing all kinds of nonsensical theories and beliefs about simple subjects such as a phase of matter (solid, liquid, gas, plasma). It's either true or it's not true and I actually care enough to find out whether it is or isn't. If there's no evidence to support it after much analysis, I don't cling to it in hopes of eventually proving it. I just accept the fact that I simply don't know. Is that a good enough answer for you?

Originally posted by Flighty
If people don't believe in Jesus, fine, but why the constant obsession with the man by those who don't believe?
Telling christians that Jesus is baloney is like telling those who believe in ETs that we are alone in the Universe and they are idiots for believing we aren't.
People believe what they want to believe, so why not just leave them alone with their beliefs if it brings them happiness?
People aren't going to give up their christian beliefs so I don't know why non believers even bother.

edit on 3-4-2011 by Flighty because: (no reason given)

Because we have seen that it only brings momentary happiness, that all of these religions are procured and used to keep an eternal unbalance so that noone finds truth... but is always thinking they are on the right track.

If they do NOT give up the beliefs they have they will be destroyed, plain and simple, the time is come for the end of all this nonsense, all the fears they have of being annihilated for their "beliefs" are going to come true, a form of manifestation if you like.

To believe in these things , without ever searching for the truth outside of the walls and mind-patterning of all these controlling groups, is incredibly insulting and childish, and shows just how far many will have to go to achieve true freedom.

When will a Christian show me any of this power, trust, and spirituality that they are ALWAYS preaching about ?? I will tell you when... when they stop worshipping Jesus and actually work with him, that is their only chance.

reply to post by AceWombat04


No. I don't "believe" that my couch or keyboard exists. I know they exist because I am looking at them and using them right now. Your position is borderline solipsism and I forgot to add 'borderline' before 'solipsist' in the sentence you quoted, which is my mistake. Are you still willing to give up everything you own to me if you ever find out (somehow) that you don't exist? It would certainly help my existence a bit since gas is approaching $4.00 per gallon. You may as well. I don't see any point in it mattering to you if you aren't real.

reply to post by Condemned0625


Yes you did change the definition. You put it right up top as your number 1 definition for solid remember?

1. having three dimensions (length, breadth, and thickness), as a geometrical body or figure.

Originally posted by Condemned0625
reply to post by AceWombat04

 

No. I don't "believe" that my couch or keyboard exists. I know they exist because I am looking at them and using them right now.

You are persuaded that their existence meets your standards for what constitutes a fact. That's fine, and as I said, I understand and respect that. I just don't feel the same way personally. Surely that's tolerable?

Are you still willing to give up everything you own to me if you ever find out (somehow) that you don't exist? It would certainly help my existence a bit since gas is approaching $4.00 per gallon. You may as well. I don't see any point in it mattering to you if you aren't real.

I have never asserted that I or everything around me aren't real. I have asserted the possibility. It is a valid philosophical possibility and argument that I and everything around me may, potentially not exist or "be real" as perceived. Again, doubt with respect to a thing does not eliminate the possibility of a thing. My possessions and their importance may exist as perceived. They may not. I may. I may not. Regardless, I (or whatever perception leads to the experience of what we would call "me") am experiencing this - real or illusion - as are we all (as far as we can tell.)

We are going to have to respectfully agree to disagree.

Peace.

reply to post by tinfoilman

Yes you did change the definition. You put it right up top as your number 1 definition for solid remember?

Yeah, I remember (obviously). Has it ever occurred to you that the reason why that particular definition was number one is because that's the order in which they were given on the damn website? I didn't change it. What now? Are you going to make some kind of conspiracy theory out of it, claiming that I plotted to "change" the definition and post it before each other definition, as if I'm deliberately trying to deceive you for personal gain? Is that it?

There's mounds and mounds of research and evidence that proves that all "solid" objects are 99 percent empty space. And like I said. Atoms aren't solid either. It's just the fields around atoms and the particles they're made of that attract and repel and create the illusion of a "solid" if you will.

What about the remaining 1%? If atoms aren't solid either, then that leaves 0% left. Are you saying that solids don't exist? At all? You've got to be #ing kidding me.

reply to post by Condemned0625


Like I said I'm not here to convince you. Believe what you want.

reply to post by AceWombat04


If you merely think it is a possibility that you and everything else doesn't exist, then there shouldn't even be any argument over it. If that's the way you think about things, then all facts are possibly false. That also means all falsities are possibly facts. That's called a contradiction. It also means that my so-called "belief" in the existence of the couch behind me possibly isn't even real, therefore you can't even say with certainty that I "believe" in the existence of my couch because according to you, I may not even exist, which renders my so-called belief possibly nonexistent. You understand? I don't let loopholes and contradictions go unnoticed. I find them and expose them.

reply to post by tinfoilman


Believe what you want as well. Right back at you.

Originally posted by Condemned0625
reply to post by AceWombat04

 

If you merely think it is a possibility that you and everything else doesn't exist, then there shouldn't even be any argument over it. If that's the way you think about things, then all facts are possibly false.

Agreed.

That also means all falsities are possibly facts.

Agreed.

That's called a contradiction.

Possibly. Or a false logical dichotomy in the first place. It could be that what seems like a contradiction or a paradox is in fact simply the nature of reality.

It also means that my so-called "belief" in the existence of the couch behind me possibly isn't even real, therefore you can't even say with certainty that I "believe" in the existence of my couch because according to you, I may not even exist, which renders my so-called belief possibly nonexistent.

I can say nothing of certainty about you or your belief. It is possible that whatever process or system constitutes the experience that we call "me" is "running" independently, and you, your argument, and this entire experience is self-contained. Regardless, the subjective experience of it - whether real or illusory - is what it is, and the system or experience we call "me" reacts only as it can. It is what it is (whatever that may be; because I don't know.)

I don't let loopholes and contradictions go unnoticed. I find them and expose them.

I don't see it as an inherent contradiction. Again, we are going to have to agree to disagree. I respect and understand your point of view, including your view that what you believe are facts are facts. They may be. I am not disputing you.

Peace.

reply to post by AceWombat04


I'm a human. Is that a fact? If you think it may not be a fact, then we're done. Don't tell me that I'm presenting beliefs. I'm not a fan of belief systems. I either know something or I don't and that's the end of it. And don't tell me that I might not even be correct when I honestly say that I don't endorse beliefs. I know how I feel about certain things and I know how much knowledge I have. Why? Well, because I'm me. I can honestly say (in my possibly "nonexistent" opinion from my possibly "nonexistent" mind) that this argument was the most ridiculous one I've ever participated in, largely because most of your logic doesn't even make sense. That shouldn't matter to you though. I might not have even said that because I possibly "don't exist". This entire argument probably shouldn't matter to you because it possibly didn't happen, right? Why bother replying to me?