I'm an atheist, and lover of science.. but I had to wonder, what if there is something beyond our p

I would say that agnosticism ( in its modern sense, that one simply does not know for sure) is the only rational position to hold.To be 100% atheist or 100% theist is irrational. However, on a scale between atheist and theist (- 100%…-50%….0….+ 50%…+100%).one can be –67% or +34%, or any %. And anything not 100% ( in this context) is agnosticism.

OK, I was never good at math.* My scale sucks (–50% = + 50%) , but I believe everyone got my point.

* Ironically, I did the books for many important firms before I found my en.wikipedia.org... In other words, I now make philosophical decisions. However, I never made a mistake in my previous profession.

reply to post by miniatus


I'm going to give you an "A" and an SnF for pondering. Now explain how this works from an atheist point of view.
Not if it does work because that's a given.

The “subconscious” is theologically neutral. A theist can believe in the subconscious or not. An Atheist can believe in the subconscious or not. Your question is like asking, “ what does a car mechanic believe about evolution.” A car mechanic can believe in evolution or not. It has nothing to do with being a car mechanic.
New age stuff = old age stuff (ego). Use your God knowledge to make more $!!!!
www.youtube.com...
The just given video is good. However, for the context of this debate start at 5 minutes. 6;12 is especially relevant!

the answer is 'Yes'

that's how it works.

energy being connects to mind link and manipulates the body..

just like.. human being sits on couch.. connects to gamepad and manipulates the character on screen.

it is literally no different. at this point i am going to have to claim myself as the world's foremost expert on metaphysics. why would i make such a claim? because ive been there. i figured it out. and i perform it via will. also i have seen my self in the etheric mirror.

the soul looks just like you.. without scars or other imperfections. babylike beauty and smile. the only difference is.. it's made out of light.. pure light.. that has been molded into the shape of .. YOU.

i could even demonstrate how entities from the metaphysical realm can penetrate into reality.. and do so all the time.

no i did not go to college and get a degree in metaphysics. instead.. passion and my guardian angel via intuition were my teachers. i started as a scientist. testing with constants and troubleshooting. it was my life mission from 8 yrs old to figure this all out and i devoted my entire life single handedly to it. i got no help from any other human being.

but what is the point of telling u all of this.. you still wont believe me right?

show of hands all who think i would take my precious time to come on a public forum to claim a lie like this. i must be delusional. yet.. i am a stable functioning member of society. in fact.. noone who knows me personally really knows that i know what i know and that i do what i do. it is THAT private.

much time spent in solitude.. and of course.. silence and darkness.

from the darkness comes light. a different type of light. i call it etheric light.. because it is fundamentally different from sunlight/physical light. sunlight born of fire destroys and is part of the design of this reality that all things decay or degrade over time.

etheric light is quite the opposite. it heals, and its fire does not burn the skin or destroy. it does not make you squint from the brightness.. it is still so bright .. much brighter white light than the sun. pure white light.. yet seeing it only encourages the eyes to open wider. raising awareness.. becoming truly 'awake'

0mage, nothing personal. But if you want to be en.wikipedia.org... you first have to know the rules ( logic etc) before you can violate them.

reply to post by wittgenstein


not quite.. i agree but yes and no

following the rules will train you to be a follower of rules. yes it will teach u the ins and outs and u might learn them faster than reinventing the wheel. but the more u follow and the longer you follow, the harder it becomes to lead yourself and break away from being a follower. you must actually learn to break the rules. master it and then look at the so-called rules.

the products of my recommended method are significantly more profound than simply following instruction to get up to speed.

funny ud reference pablo picasso.. who's speciality is more in the realms of chaos than anything else.

do you play guitar or any instrument? if not.. then just go pick one up and start playing it. using man's natural talent (destruction).. you will naturally probably break every rule associated with music creation by having ZERO knowledge of what the objective of music is. but u will know when u hit something that sounds pleasing. u can then maybe write entire songs.. without knowing any rules.. u enjoy them.. screw the rules. they make u like everyone else. if u want to be jimi hendrix however and bring out something new and unique in everyway.. u wont get that from following instruction. instruction builds u a box.. if u never make ur way out of the box u are a prisoner to the rules. and how many know that the object IS to break the rules.. in a skilled manner!

reply to post by wittgenstein


Boy, you and I think alike on this subject. Nobody can prove for sure that there is or isn't a god.

I don't believe that the mask that man puts on god is real but I believe something is structuring the universe. I perceive god as some kind of communication with all things. So yes, I guess I believe this communication is possible and so I say I believe in god. I'm not too hot on organized religion though.

God is energy and energy likes to stay busy.

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by wittgenstein

 

I perceive god as some kind of communication with all things. So yes, I guess I believe this communication is possible and so I say I believe in god. I'm not too hot on organized religion though.

I happen to agree with this but I say I don't believe in god because the popular descriptions of god are not this.

“I don't believe that the mask that man puts on god is real”
rickymouse
I once wrote a poem. It went like this,
GOD
God is reality’s face.
Words are sticky notes.
Who can resist?

reply to post by daskakik


The popular descriptions of god are not what I believe . I think what I perceive may be what they perceive though, they have just created an entity out of their belief. The ten commandments are not bad and neither are the humanity laws created by Christians or other religions. Most are to promote control of people so they get along with others of their kind. Trouble is there are many different groups of kinds in the world and most people don't seem capable of self control without rules. So I can't say I am really a Christian anymore even though I believe Jesus probably existed and he seems to have been a good guy and probably even a Messiah.

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by daskakik

 

The popular descriptions of god are not what I believe.

Me neither but, since this is usually the context of a religious discussion I feel that it is correct, within that context, to say that I don't believe in god or that I am an atheist.

I think what I perceive may be what they perceive though, they have just created an entity out of their belief.

I again have to agree. The difference is the interpretation and how some of then feel that only their interpretation is correct. Then there is the fact that for many followers the interpretation isn't even theirs.

Originally posted by 0mage
at this point i am going to have to claim myself as the world's foremost expert on metaphysics. why would i make such a claim? because ive been there. i figured it out. and i perform it via will. also i have seen my self in the etheric mirror.

James Randi has a challenge for people like yourself, the gifted ones. James Randi foundation challenge. The prize money hasn't been awarded since it was conceived 40 years ago. It's at $1million. If you are indeed the world's foremost expert, you should prove your claims. If you don't, or refuse to prove it, in the mind of someone with common sense, you are either lying or crazy.

Will you do it?

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
James Randi has a challenge for people like yourself, the gifted ones. James Randi foundation challenge. The prize money hasn't been awarded since it was conceived 40 years ago.

The Randi challenge is bogus. Randi set the rules so that he would never have to pay out the money while generating a whole lot of publicity.

reply to post by daskakik


There is no patent on god. Just because I don't see god the same way as others doesn't mean it is a different god. Not believing in religions interpretations of god doesn't make you an Atheist either, it makes you agnostic. I could never say god doesn't exist because there is no proof that god does not exist. I see many people believe in god and that is proof that a lot of people for some reason sense there is more than can be explained without a god or some sort of structure.

As far as I am concerned none of this actually has to be real. It could be some sort of futuristic training program to train the young or just a remote control computer controlled off world venture by some advanced race of beings.. If that is the case then the program is technically god. It could just be a super advanced computer program running a scenario where nothing is really real. The one chosen to run the program by the program could then be given control of this reality. Noone can say I don't have an open mind.

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by daskakik

 

There is no patent on god. Just because I don't see god the same way as others doesn't mean it is a different god.

Correct but it isn't the fact that everyone is seeing the same entity that I am in disagreement with, it is their description of it.

Not believing in religions interpretations of god doesn't make you an Atheist either, it makes you agnostic.

Yes, but adding my own personal experiences to not believing religious interpretations of god makes me an atheist.

I could never say god doesn't exist because there is no proof that god does not exist.

But it doesn't mean that people can't believe this.

I see many people believe in god and that is proof that a lot of people for some reason sense there is more than can be explained without a god or some sort of structure.

A god and some sort of structure are not the same thing. What's the problem with acknowledging that difference?

It is really no different than what you stated: "I don't believe that the mask that man puts on god is real but I believe something is structuring the universe."

As far as I am concerned none of this actually has to be real. It could be some sort of futuristic training program to train the young or just a remote control computer controlled off world venture by some advanced race of beings.. If that is the case then the program is technically god. It could just be a super advanced computer program running a scenario where nothing is really real. The one chosen to run the program by the program could then be given control of this reality. Noone can say I don't have an open mind.

Yes but "technically god" isn't allowed in the "popular" interpretations of god. Again what is the problem with acknowledging, within that context, that someone does not believe "that mask that man puts on god"?

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
James Randi has a challenge for people like yourself, the gifted ones. James Randi foundation challenge. The prize money hasn't been awarded since it was conceived 40 years ago.

The Randi challenge is bogus. Randi set the rules so that he would never have to pay out the money while generating a whole lot of publicity.

Seems simple enough, even with $1,000,000 on the line:

1. This is the primary and most important of these rules: The Applicant must state clearly, in advance, and the Applicant and the JREF must agree upon, what powers or abilities will be demonstrated, the limits of the proposed demonstration so far as time, location and other variables are concerned, and what will constitute both a positive and a negative result.

2. Only an actual performance of the stated nature and scope, within the agreed-upon limits, will be accepted. Anecdotal accounts or records of previous events are not acceptable.

3. The Applicant agrees that all materials and peripheral properties (photographic, recorded, written, etc.) gathered as a result of the test procedure, the protocol, and the actual testing, may be used freely by the JREF.

4.In all cases, the Applicant will be required to perform a Preliminary Test in a location where a properly authorized representative of the JREF can attend. This Preliminary Test is intended to determine if the Applicant is likely to perform as promised during the Formal Test, using the agreed-upon protocol. To date, no applicant has passed the Preliminary Test, and therefore no Formal Test has yet been conducted.

5. At any time prior to the Formal Test, the JREF reserves the right to re-negotiate the protocol if issues are discovered that would prevent a fair and unbiased test. After an agreement is reached on the protocol, no part of the testing procedure may be changed in any way without an amended agreement, signed by all parties concerned.

6.All of the Applicant's expenses such as transportation, accommodation, materials, assistants, and all other costs for any persons or procedures incurred in pursuit of the Challenge, are the sole responsibility of the Applicant. Neither the JREF nor any representative of the JREF will bear any of the costs.

7.All applications and other correspondence must be typewritten or printed by computer and in English. Any English translations must be accompanied by certification of qualifications of the translator.

8.Following an unsuccessful test or the rejection of their application, the Applicant must wait 12 months before applying again. The Applicant may not apply more than twice.

9.By accepting this Challenge, the Applicant waives any and all claims against James Randi, the JREF, the JREF's employees, officers, directors, and any other person. This waiver includes, but is not limited to, injury, accident, and damage of any kind, including damage and/or loss of a physical, emotional, financial, and/or professional nature. Notwithstanding anything else in this paragraph, should the Claimant pass the Formal Test, the Claimant does not waive any claims against the JREF that might be necessary to enforce payment of the Prize.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
Seems simple enough, even with $1,000,000 on the line:

The rules seem simple but the follow though by Randi and his crew are full of cherry picking who is allowed to participate, backing out of testing or wiggling out of paying.

I remember seeing one instance where Randi used the excuse that the event could have been faked to not pay. He didn't prove that it had been faked. He never found out how it was being done but just weaseled out.

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
Seems simple enough, even with $1,000,000 on the line:

The rules seem simple but the follow though by Randi and his crew are full of cherry picking who is allowed to participate, backing out of testing or wiggling out of paying.

I remember seeing one instance where Randi used the excuse that the event could have been faked to not pay. He didn't prove that it had been faked. He never found out how it was being done but just weaseled out.

edit on 16-8-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

It doesn't matter to me. The statement was made in jest.

What worries me is why you'd take an issue with that, but not with the fellow claiming to be the world's foremost expert on metaphysics.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
It doesn't matter to me. The statement was made in jest.

What worries me is why you'd take an issue with that, but not with the fellow claiming to be the world's foremost expert on metaphysics.

One is obviously to be taken with a pinch of salt but the other is often touted as proof positive, when it should also be taken with a pinch of salt.

reply to post by humphreysjim


the fallacy in this argument is that you are assuming that science is the only source of knowledge that is acceptable, but how do we know know what is morally right. Science can not prove what is morally right and wrong. If all we accepted was science than i might as well be running around naked in the street shooting people.
Science is not the only scource of knowledge and you are taking a scientific path to answering a philisophical question.

I personal believe in an afterlife but I am not here to push my beliefs on anyone.

I just want to help yall realize science is flawed and incomplete, Just because we cant mesure something now does not mean we will not find away to do it it later.

Expand your minds study philosophy along with science. Even if you dont use it you will at least have knowledge on a different field. Knowledge is power