You believe in "an invisible man living in a magic sky kingdom"

originally posted by: xDeadcowx
With religion, there are over 2000 different gods that have been imagined up and passed for real gods over the course of humanity. Each of these gods was individually, or as a group, the "One true God" right up until the point that they weren't.

Your logic appears to have one serious flaw.

Counterfeits only exist when there is a genuine.

The genuine will ALWAYS attract counterfeits.

Only reality gets counterfeited.

Why have we never seen a counterfeit $23 bill?

Because there ARE no real $23 bills...

Furthermore, if you were to be given a counterfeit $20, it has to look an awful lot like a real $20, or no one is going accept it.

This is the reason why religion is so powerful when used as a mind control tool.

The below citation also illustrates the vast differences between the genuine and the counterfeits as well:

"Perhaps the most compelling of evidences demonstrating that the Bible is the word of God is its unswerving ability to accurately predict future events, often in minute details. Specific prophesies are conspicuously absent from the 26 other religious books that claim to be scripture, including the Muslim's Koran, the Book of Mormon, the Hindu Vedas, and Buddhist writings. This in itself should be a major eye-opener to the honest skeptic. " Accuracy Of Prophecy

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: Kangaruex4Ewe
I think most people that use terms like that are purposefully baiting/antagonizing anyone who does believe In a higher power and I stay away from those threads all together.

Even if a real discussion was what they wanted, coming out with that sentence all but guarantees that nothing you say will be met with anything other than ridicule. It's instantly demeaning one's intelligence before the conversation can even be had.

I like your OP and how you look at it.

I wish more could look at it that way instead of instantly just shutting anything and everything down once the topic comes up.

Hopefully you brought waders and water.

In your first paragraph you say that you stay away from those threads all together. I must be imagining that you posted a response?

Nope. You aren't imagining. Had it been a thread along the lines like those I was speaking of.... You could not have paid me to post in it.

You will VERY RARELY see me post at all in the religious forums because of these types of things. There are very few things that I won't budge on. My region (spirituality) is one of those. I don't waste my time, and I don't waste theirs. If there is a thread where a member is genuinely interested/curious about something... I am more than happy to have a conversation. Other than that, I don't like to play games when it comes to something so important to me so I leave it alone.

But no... You didn't imagine it. I'm here... *waves* at rickymouse!

a reply to: Murgatroid

Excellent!

Yup, it is a very good OP. It attempts to explains the way it is.

a reply to: Murgatroid

If what you say is true, and you can not counterfeit something that does not exist in reality, then i guess all artists, cartoonists, and film maker never have to worry about copyrights or plagiarism.

Sad fact is that they do, and will always have to be watchful for others that would counterfeit their imagined characters.

If someone makes a cheap knock off Scooby Doo movie, they are counterfeiting it. This does not make Scooby Doo any more real. He is still an imagined talking cartoon dog.

As far as the bit about accurate prophesy in the bible... When you are allowed to ignore the words and make up your own interpretation, this takes away all claims of accuracy. Show me where the bible has predicted any future event in "minute detail" without some interpretation and we can discuss the matter.

a reply to: Yeahkeepwatchingme

Thanks for the well worded and rational reply!

I agree with every word you have posted. Gaining control, exploitation, profit, etc are the root of all the evil done in the world, not just religion. In a perfect world it would not matter is something is real or imagined, but sadly we do not live in a perfect world.

a reply to: tovenar

I love this thread!

I suppose that you saw George Carlin's stand-up comedy about religion,aren't you ? www.youtube.com...
I watch it at least a week and I can't stop laughing

a reply to: PaulTheDuke

Sure. I enjoyed Carlin because he was actually a philosopher who employed comedy to explicate philosophical arguments.

His characterization of religion is 'reductio ad absurdum'. It is fantastic polemic, claiming to reveal while actually obscuring its target. As a comedy routine, it's emotionally satisfying, but as a critique it is thin as cardboard.

I went through my Nietzschean phase in college. But then I moved on.

originally posted by: tovenar
a reply to: PaulTheDuke

Sure. I enjoyed Carlin because he was actually a philosopher who employed comedy to explicate philosophical arguments.

His characterization of religion is 'reductio ad absurdum'. It is fantastic polemic, claiming to reveal while actually obscuring its target. As a comedy routine, it's emotionally satisfying, but as a critique it is thin as cardboard.

I went through my Nietzschean phase in college. But then I moved on.

What a hypocrite your are....

You make the above statement and answer me with this drivel....talk about "reductio ad absurdum"

Are we conscious? We believe we are, by the definitions and boundaries of what we feel is physical existence yet our minds can bring us to interesting places. So is consciousness real? Shared? How exactly do we know we share it? Maybe what we perceive as the world, conversations is like a program or something. We believe others are sharing it because we can discuss it, share feelings, reactions to stimuli but how do we truly know?

Any credibility you might have had just evaporated as far as I'm concerned.

a reply to: olaru12

And all credibility you had just evaporated when you called the other poster a hypocrite. It goes both ways. The world won't change unless people learn to tolerate the beliefs and ideas of others.

People are entitled to their opinions. Civility matters, even on anonymous ATS.

All the best.

originally posted by: Yeahkeepwatchingme
a reply to: olaru12

And all credibility you had just evaporated when you called the other poster a hypocrite. It goes both ways. The world won't change unless people learn to tolerate the beliefs and ideas of others.

People are entitled to their opinions. Civility matters, even on anonymous ATS.

All the best.

So I should just let obvious BS slide? Of course people are entitled to their opinions and sometimes they are just plain wrong and fostering a transparent agenda like this OP. That's my opinion.

But you criticize and insult me for my opinions and then answer with "All the Best"....

btw....I appreciate and admire your idealism but the world isn't going to change!

I'm not about to apologize for my cynicism, sarcasm, or speaking the truth as I see it....If this disturbs you, go tattle to the mods.

a reply to: olaru12

Nobody insulted you. You're just trying to rile people up and it doesn't work. All the best.

originally posted by: Yeahkeepwatchingme
a reply to: olaru12

Nobody insulted you. You're just trying to rile people up and it doesn't work. All the best.

Exactly....

Obviously it riled you up enough to respond. That was my intention.

People need to be riled up occasionally to get them to think outside the box instead of just blindly accepting
the BS some people try and palm off as truth and knowledge.
And don't expect it to be anyother way on ATS. Deny Ignorance is our code. Please read my Signature!

All the Best

The search for drivel continues....

originally posted by: olaru12

Consciousness can be proven scientifically.

Now this statement is just fascinating. The scientific method is, of course, the gathering of evidence followed by the formulation of a hypothesis, after which the hypothesis is tested.

Nowhere has anyone said that the existence of consciousness was somehow in doubt, or otherwise unproven. The implication is that this poster intends to 'prove' consciousness, and to do so scientifically.

Well, perhaps s/he means 'logically.' let's see.

Religion and spiritually deals in faith, hope and wishful thinking!

Well, Buddhism doesn't rely on or appeal to faith at all, in the sense meant by Abrahamic religions. And with nearly 488 million followers, Buddhism is definitely a world religion. Buddhism also stresses the importance of accepting reality as it is, rather than 'hoping' for something contrary to fact ("all pain is caused by desire"). That sort of puts the damper on faith, hope, and wishful thinking for 488 million adherents to one of the world's major religions; but Olaru12 can explain ALL religion with a one-sentence description. Fantastic! so let's continue...

I can prove I'm conscious because I'm responding to your thread. Can a supreme being do the same?

A supreme being could, by definition. Does your response really prove you're conscious, though? Because a netbot could also respond to this thread; would it then be conscious?

Do you mean to distinguish between consciousness and dreaming? Because you could be merely dreaming that you have replied on this thread.

How do you know you aren't dreaming this right now?

After all, you've probably had dreams wherein you didn't realize at the time that it was all just a dream. If you think about it, there's nothing within the content of your awareness right now that conclusively proves anything, since awareness is, by definition, subjective. In fact, if you were a philosophical zombie, you probably wouldn't be able to disprove it with the application of a logical argument.

Which brings us back to the "drivel" of my original point: science relies on repeat-ability and testing of hypotheses. There are few opportunities to apply either tool in the field of consciousness studies.

Religion, while dealing in "faith, hope and wishful thinking", actually has a great deal more to say about the nature of consciousness, and the purposeful alteration of it by the individual, than science does.

All the baste.

originally posted by: tovenar
Science is based on reproducible results. If you cannot reproduce results, it ain't science.

... ...

Yes, people who believe in mystery, who want to learn about mystery, who believe that mystery has life-giving power, and makes life and love worth sharing, those people are deluded idiots who believe in fairy tales.

Science is beautiful. It is an incredible tool. So is a pipe wrench. But not every problem in life can be solved with a pipe wrench. You cannot build a house using only a pipe wrench. No, but you should live your life using only science. Because if it isn't science its dangerous and scary and you should try to get rid of it.

I normally won't even read threads like your's, OP. You know why? They're anthropocentric in nature, rebuking progressive existential thought, and convey ignorant rhetoric in a nonsensical way.

Exhibit A.) You're emotionally driven by fear.

Exhibit B.) You'll need a deep mind to comprehend this one: You think the absolutely puny amount of science mankind has become aware of and to a much much lesser extent fully understands, is somehow relevant to what we do not know of or understand.

Exhibit C.) You base your entire argument on the logic that human logic in and of itself with regards to scientific practices and understanding are, up until this point in time, infallible in nature.

Exhibit D.) You're under the impression that mankind has the mental and/or physical ability to understand the deeper workings of the universe, both the physical and nonphysical.

I mean, I could go on and on without even reading your entire OP because I've read the same type of rhetoric before. I'm not pleading any specific argument against your points (whatever they may be), but rather pointing out flaws that exist in your obvious misunderstanding of what reality is and the confining characteristics of that reality that are defined by nature to be understood by man, and those that are not.

originally posted by: xDeadcowx
With religion, there are over 2000 different gods that have been imagined up and passed for real gods over the course of humanity. Each of these gods was individually, or as a group, the "One true God" right up until the point that they weren't.

Furthermore, the 2,000 god's imagined up and thought to be the One True God, you're mistaken. You have no Earthly idea of what sort of timeline you're speaking of when you're referencing the spiritual teachings of our global past. First of all, many of the gods that have been 'imagined up' were witnessed globally by multiple cultures and since they weren't all communicating with one another at the time of witness, they recorded the events form their perspectives, in their own languages, and made their own associations with them. That said, many of the 2,000 gods you think have been created by mankind, actually have roots in physical entities who may have come and went, or came and stayed for a period of time them left or got quiet. I don't know all the particulars, but you should really study Anthropology and focus on Ancient timelines more if you're to converse with adults on the subject.

a reply to: tovenar

Science is conceptual, it's premise is working with atomic structure to understand form. Spirituality is contextual, it's premise is understanding what gave rise to the energy/atomic forms that science conceptualizes.

Belief in a higher power does not automatically mean someone believes in an "almighty man in the sky", that's just foolishness. Belief in a higher power is the belief that what science sees as the ultimate reality is merely a conceptual framework that arose from something greater than what we are capable of understanding.

Science works with logic, physicality, left hemisphere'd thought. Spirituality works with feeling, non-material, right hemisphere'd thought. They serve their own means and it should be realized by the individual that to compare them to one another is as foolish as comparing emotions (incorporeal manifestations) to a stone (corporeal manifestations).

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: tovenar


Religion, spirituality, et al is non-scientific BECAUSE it deals in states of consciousness.

Consciousness can be proven scientifically. Religion and spiritually deals in faith, hope and wishful thinking!

I can prove I'm conscious because I'm responding to your thread. Can a supreme being do the same?

btw....I don't have much faith in science either.

Well, sure, you can basically prove your conscious...

But STATES of consciousness, which is largely what spirituality deals with, are non-material, outside of the realm of empiricism, therefore outside the realm of common science...

Yet consciousness and its variations are the most fundamental things about being human...

why the dude in the headset (aura) is not called by extraterrestrial space civilisation planted clone operating bowels of the earth and the people in their selfish interests take gold blood water instead of shoving in the throat poison disguised as food and medicine vaccine GMO revolution war hunger if not their present blueblood clone in the management and the elite in all countries earth could be a paradise to many billions of goyims

originally posted by: mangust69
why the dude in the headset (aura) is not called by extraterrestrial space civilisation planted clone operating bowels of the earth and the people in their selfish interests take gold blood water instead of shoving in the throat poison disguised as food and medicine vaccine GMO revolution war hunger if not their present blueblood clone in the management and the elite in all countries earth could be a paradise to many billions of goyims

...wut

a reply to: xDeadcowx

Yes people throughout our history have claimed miraculous things in order to manipulate others,unfortunately throughout the times there has been no shortage of liars and cheats who would say anything to get what they wanted.I also know history is full of virtuous people who honestly feel they witnessed something miraculous.To place boundaries on beliefs saying everything must be tangible or it can`t exist is very narrow minded.There are several spectrums of light we can`t see in, with each spectrum containing amazing objects in space and elsewhere that we are blind to without special equipment. To our naked eye these brown dwarfs,black holes and interstellar dust clouds aren't tangible but they're there. Religion is based on faith because whatever created us is not in this realm physically,they is far above us. I believe in intelligent design because everything is too perfectly coordinated and intertwined in a complex symphony of events taking place all at once here on earth that provide the perfect environment to sustain life. If you want something tangible that shows Gods existence look around, all of this was not started from random molecules colliding on earth 5 billion years ago.

Is trying to prove the existence of God through scientific or rational means like trying to watch YouTube on a radio? By definition, God would be outside the realm of the universe, so its "science" would not necessarily apply to him.